Стратегии на образователната и научната политика
Вход / Регистрация

2013/1, стр. 128 - 136

FORMATIVE USE OF ASSESSMENT INFORMATION: IT’S A PROCESS, SO LET’S SAY WHAT WE MEAN

Резюме:

Ключови думи:

ÎÖÅÍßÂÀÍÅÒÎFORMAОценяваневобразованиеучилищнотоEducational AssessmentASSESSMENT INFORMATION:TIVE USE OFIT’SAPROCESS, SO LET’S SAYWHATWE MEANRobert GoodDenver Public Schools

The term formative assessment is often used to describe a type of assessment. The purpose of this paper is to challenge the use of this phrase given that formative assessment as a noun phrase ignores the well-established understanding that it is a process more than an object. A model that combines content, context, and strategies is presented as one way to view the process nature of assessing formatively. The alternate phrase formative use of assessment information is suggested as a more appropriate way to describe how content, context, and strategies can be used together in order to close the gap between where a student is performing currently and the intended learning goal.

Let’s start with an elementary grammar review: adjectives modify nouns; adverbs modify verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs. Applied to recent assessment literature, the term formative assessment would therefore contain the adjective formative modifying the noun assessment, creating a noun phrase representing a thing or object. Indeed, formative assessment as a noun phrase is regularly juxtaposed to summative assessment in both purpose and timing. Formative assessment is commonly understood to occur during instruction with the intent to identify relative strengths and weaknesses and guide instruction, while summative assessment occurs after a unit of instruction with the intent of measuring performance levels of the skills and content related to the unit of instruction (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006).

Distinguishing formative and summative assessments in this manner may have served an important introductory purpose, however using formative as a descriptor of a type of assessment has had ramifications that merit critical consideration. Given that formative assessment has received considerable attention in the literature over the last 20 or so years, this article contends that it is time to move beyond the well-established broad distinctions between formative and summative assessments and consider the subtle – yet important – distinction between the term formative assessment as an object and the intended meaning. The focus here is to suggest that if we want to realize the true potential of formative practices in our classrooms, then we need to start saying what we mean.

ÎÖÅÍßÂÀÍÅÒÎithin the last decade, the commercial assessment market has capitalized on theby creating numerous products that purportto provide periodic measures of achievement that can be used in relative isolationto inform instruction on a formative level. Several authors (e.g., Goertz, Olàh,& Riggan, 2009; Perie, Marion, & Gong, 2009; Shepard, 2005) have questionedclaims of such value given the disconnect between the assessment and the actualcurriculum taught, as well as the time lapse between instruction, assessment, andBackground ExamplesWuse of the termformative assessment

the instructional response. Whether or not commercially-available products can have any formative value in a broader system is open for debate, however there is little evidence to show these products have substantial formative value when used in isolation, regardless of the label applied.

Even within the classroom, labeling an assessment item or activity as summative or formative without considering the timing and use can be misleading regardless of the quality of the item or the connection to instruction. Take for example a common type of item designed to assess student understanding of order of operations in mathematics: 32 + 2 X 4. There is one clear answer (17) and the item (along with others) could measure student achievement with respect to the unit of study, and therefore the item may have summative value if used at the end of the unit. Used during the instructional unit, individual student work and explanations could demonstrate conceptions and misconceptions; for example, answering 44 may indicate that the student is calculating from left to right ignoring the hierarchy of multiplication over addition. Used this way, the item can have formative value in that the teacher can make instructional decisions to address this misconception. Labeling the item itself as inherently formative or summative ignores important and necessary considerations related to the item such as timing, alignment to instruction, and what the student and teacher do with the information obtained. As Wiliam (2000) noted:

It has become conventional to describe these two kinds of assessment as formative and summative assessment respectively, but it is important to note in this context that the terms ‘formative’ and ‘summative’ do not describe assessments – the same assessment might be used both formatively and summatively – but rather are descriptions of the use to which information arising from the assessment is put (p. 1, italics in original).

While most educators and researchers acknowledge these considerations, continuing to use formative assessment in an objective sense (grammatically speaking) takes us down the dangerous path of saying, „You know what I mean“ with respect to the notion that it’s the timing and use combined with the quality of the assessment that represents the litmus test that determines the formative value of an assessment.

ÎÖÅÍßÂÀÍÅÒÎdeused by teachers to adjust their ongoing instructional procedures or by students toadjust their current learning tactics (p. 6).Defining theTermIn order to explore the nature of the term, consider two recent and prominentfinitions. Popham (2008) defined formative assessment asa planned process in which assessment-elicited evidence of student’s status is

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) defined it as a process used by teachers and students during instruction that provides feedback to adjust ongoing teaching and learning to improve students’ achievement of intended instructional outcomes (CCSSO, 2006 cited in McManus, 2008, p. 3).

Note that in both of these definitions, the focus is on the process or set of actions and not on the assessment objects themselves. Implicit in these definitions is the assertion that in order to have formative value, an assessment must be done – and the results used – within a process that occurs during an instructional unit, provides accurate and relevant information about student performance, and is coupled with various strategies to generate information as to where the student is now and where to go next with instruction. We need to be explicit that in a system with formative value, what goes on around the time the student takes the assessment is as important as what goes on during the assessment. Such a system could be described in a number of ways, however for the purpose here, content, context, and strategies are highlighted as necessary components as a means to suggest a better way of phrasing formative processes.

Content

There is little argument against the notion that assessments should contain quality items in terms of basic measurement properties such as appropriate diffi culty, sufficient score reliability, lack of bias, etc. Additionally, the items also need to measure aspects of the content at the appropriate level of specificity in order to reflect and inform instruction. There should be a range of items that evaluate the extent to which students are demonstrating discrete skills as well as the bigger, global ideas that represent broader content knowledge (National Research Council [NRC], 2000, p. 141).

Related to this, items with formative value will be able to elicit responses that differentiate relative levels of understanding. A critical component of formative processes is understanding the gap that exists between a student’s current achievement and the intended learning outcome (Heritage, 2007). Further, both teachers and students should be able to use results to determine how deep the student’s understanding is and how much the student can do independently and with assistance (see Vygotsky’s [1978] zone of proximal development). Finally, students should be able to transfer skills and knowledge

ÎÖÅÍßÂÀÍÅÒÎto new situations in order to have a deep understanding; assessment contentwith formative value should be able to detect this transfer (Shepard, 2000). Put, these characteristics of assessment content depict items that providemuch more than simple right/wrong evaluations; they describe items that canaccurately portray varying degrees of understanding and inform instructionaltogetherdecisions as to what is needed next.

Context

Understanding the context in which particular assessment items sit is a critical component within a formative system. Assessment items that have formative value need to be tightly aligned to the identifi ed learning goals broadly and to current instructional targets specifi cally. Presenting tasks or items that are disassociated from either of these can cause teachers to respond in a manner that addresses strengths and weaknesses as they appear in a given assessment but not necessarily as they appear to the student during instruction. This is what Shepard (2005) referred to as the „1000 mini-lessons“ problem. Teachers who create lessons that respond to what appear to be weaknesses identified on assessments (external or otherwise) without putting those weaknesses in the context of current instruction risk presenting lessons that are targeted on specific, isolated skills but are not combined into logical and meaningful units of study.

In addition to curricular and instructional alignment, assessments should provide information as to where students are along an identified learning progression so that teachers can plan appropriate next instructional steps (Heritage, 2008). Understanding how the underlying skills and knowledge of a given instructional unit connect is critical to a teacher’s ability to evaluate individual student responses. A misconception presented early in the learning process may be addressed quite differently than if it were to appear later in the instructional unit.

An inherent need within sound learning progressions is a thorough understanding of the shortand long-term intended learning objectives. That the teacher should understand these objectives is fundamental to a sound curriculum (Tyler, 1949), however in the context of formative processes the understanding of the learning objectives must extend to the students. While cognitive theories describe the importance of metacognition in the process of learning, students need to know the intended outcome and how their work will be judged as they consider their own mental strategies (i.e. thinking about their thinking) in solving a given problem. For example, Arter (2000) described two equal purposes for scoring rubrics: a) as a tool for teachers to evaluate and track student progress; and b) as a tool for students to improve performance against a known criterion. Teachers should attend to both of these purposes as they use a given rubric. The necessary involvement of students in the understanding of learning objectives and evaluation criteria requires a “shift” from teachers being primarily responsible for student learning to a classroom

ÎÖÅÍßÂÀÍÅÒÎcontext in which students „assume meaningful responsibility for their own learningand the learning of their classmates“ (Popham, 2008, pp. 94–95).the learning process is also an important facet of context. The well-intentionedtriangle we have often seen depicting the interconnectedness of curriculum,assessment, and instruction may better describe a summative process that treatsthese elements as related, yet separate.assessment within a learning process. This shift in the „learning culture“ is whatThe notion that assessment information should sit within, rather than apart from,Aformative system should view ongoing

Shepard (2000) presented as needed „…so that students and teachers look to assessment as a source of insight and help instead of an occasion for meting out rewards and punishments“ (p. 10).

Strategies

There are scores of examples in the literature that describe strategies that support formative assessment processes, however several notable examples highlight a common group of strategies that are posited here as necessary components in a formative system. Specifically, Black and Wiliam’s comprehensive meta-analysis (1998a) and subsequent summary (1998b), Shepard’s (2000) conceptualization of classroom assessment within the context of cognitive, learning, and curricular theories, and NRC’s How People Learn (2000) and Knowing What Students Know (2001) collectively noted the importance of:

– providing quality, descriptive feedback;

– using effective questioning techniques;

– assessing prior knowledge and misconceptions; and

– implementing student goal setting, self-regulation, and self-evaluation.

While not necessarily exhaustive, these strategies are presented as essential in a system that purports to have formative value. While notable on their own, the strategies are often connected with one another in describing formative processes. For example, in summarizing the ways in which teachers and students communicate (i.e., use) assessment information, the NRC (2001) connected most of the strategies above by concluding that:

In brief, the development of good formative assessment requires radical changes in the ways teachers give feedback to students so they can develop the ability to manage and guide their own learning (p. 227).

Simply administering an assessment is not a sufficient condition for having formative value, regardless of the quality of the items. Interacting with students about their responses (correct or not), posing questions that cause additional thinking, having both the teacher and student understand where the student is in relation to the learning goal, and making instructional decisions that close any gap that exists are all valuable strategies that are used in conjunction with assessment results in a formative process.

ÎÖÅÍßÂÀÍÅÒÎc elements within context, content, and strategies constituteBringing the Elements TogetherTogether, the specifia system that has formative value and is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Components of a formative process

Far from focusing solely on assessment objects (i.e., items) themselves, it is the combination of the content, context, and strategies that represents the critical attribute of a formative system. Said as a bit of a circular tautology, formative assessments are formative only to the extent that they are used formatively. There must be explicit understanding that in order to have formative value these elements must be integrated within a process. However, as long as we are satisfi ed with the characterization of formative assessment as an object that may be isolated from use, we cannot get to the point where we realize the process notion inherent in the definitions presented above.

Validity Connections

Conceptualizing the formative use of information as a process more than an object is parallel to modern ideas related to assessment validity. Whereas original views of validity made judgments about the assessment itself, current perspectives emphasize the inferences drawn from the results and their subsequent use (American Educational Research Association, 1999; Messick, 1989). To the extent that inferences lead to decisions or other actions, this conceptualization of validity evidence is well aligned to the notion that the interpretation and use of assessment information should lead to related instructional decisions. The process of inference

ÎÖÅÍßÂÀÍÅÒÎand use, rather than the assessment itself, becomes the focal point. Wused this parallel with validity to highlight the nature and importance of bothformative and summative information. That there is value in both formative andsummative contexts is well documented; the challenge ahead of us is to put intopractice the presumption that the label applied to an assessment is far less importantthan what is done with the information gathered.iliam (2000)

Alternate Phrasing

One way we can better support the notion that formative information is a process rather than an isolated product is to simply begin using the phrase the formative use of assessment information. Stated this way, the process notion becomes more evident as a verb phrase (formative now modifi es use) rather than as a noun phrase. Adding information to the phrase makes explicit that what students and teachers learn about a student’s understanding goes beyond the response to a particular item. What a student says before, during, and after the assessment provides valuable information that can be used by teachers to modify instruction as needed to either address gaps and misconceptions or extend students’ depth of understanding.

However as teachers receive more and more assessment results there is growing concern that the information is not being used instructionally. Heritage, Kim, Vendlinski, & Herman (2008) found that 6th grade math teachers were better at determining levels of understanding in students than they were at deciding on what to do next instructionally. Relying solely on results obtained from assessments (even if they are labeled formative) often provides little new information and ignores the critical interrelationship between the content, context, and strategies that undergird the formative use of assessment information. This makes it difficult for teachers to look beyond the scores alone and answer the question, „Based on all I have seen related to this student’s performance, what activities or instructional changes can I employ to help this student close the gap between where she is now and where we want her to be?“ Changing our phrasing to make the use of information explicit will encourage educators to move beyond scores and focus their attention on the next instructional steps.

Conclusion

In this article, I have put forth the notion that the term the formative use of assessment information is more appropriate than formative assessment even though the latter is more prevalent. Conversations with knowledgeable educators and researchers often presume the understanding that we’re talking about a process more than a product and, as mentioned above, some respond with, „You know what I mean“ when challenged with the distinction. However this distinction is not trivial. While a complete shift from formative assessment to the formative use of assessment information may not be plausible given the momentum the former term

REFERENCES

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Arter, J. (2000, April). Rubrics, scoring guides, and performance criteria: Classroom tools for assessing and improving student learning. Paper presented at an annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA..

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice. 5(1), 7–74.

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan. 80(2), 139–144.

Goertz, M. Olàh, & Riggan, M. (2009, Dec.). From testing to teaching: The use of interim assessments in classroom instruction. Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) Research Report #RR-65. Retrieved on May 15, 2010, from http://CPRE.org

Heritage, M. (2008). Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. Council of Chief State School Offi cers: Washington, DC. Retrieved on August 20, 2010, fromhttp://www.ccsso. org/Resources/Publications/Learning_Progressions_Supporting_Instruction_ and_Formati ve_Assessment.html

Heritage, M., Kim, J., Vendlinski, T.P., & Herman, J.L. (2008). From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment? (CRESST Report 741). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

McManus, S. (2008). Attributes of effective formative assessment. Council of Chief State School Offi cers: Washington, DC. Retrieved on July 19, 2010, from http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/Attributes_of_ Effective_Formative_Assessment.html

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan Publishing Co.

National Research Council (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (2001). Knowing what students know. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Perie, M., Marion, S., & Gong, B. (2009). Moving toward a comprehensive assessment system: A framework for considering interim assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 5–13.

Popham, W.J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.

Shepard, L. (2005, Oct.). Formative assessment: Caveat emptor. Paper presented to an Educational Testing Service Invitational Conference, New York.

Stiggins, R., Arter, J., Chappuis, J. and Chappuis, S. (2006). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right – Using it well. Portland, OR: Educational Testing Service.

Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wiliam, D. (2000, Nov.). Integrating summative and formative functions of assessment. Keynote address to the European Association for Educational Assessment, Prague, Czech Republic. Retrieved on Jan. 17, 2011 from http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/1151/1/Wiliam2000IntergratingAEA-E_2000_ keynoteaddress.pdf

Vygotsky, L. S., (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

CITATION

Good, Robert. (2011). Formative Use of Assessment Information: It’s a Process, So Let’s Say What We Mean. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 16(3). Available online: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=16&n=3.

2025 година
Книжка 6
UNLOCKING THE POTENTIAL OF ESG AND AI IN HIGHER EDUCATION FINANCE: INSIGHTS FROM A STUDY ACROSS FIVE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Tina Vukasović, Rok Strašek, Liliya Terzieva;, Elenita Velikova, Justyna Tomala, Maria Urbaniec, Jarosław Pawlik, Michael Murg, Anita Maček

THE ROLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION FOR THE PROFESSIONAL REALIZATION OF STUDENTS – PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

Anny Atanasova, Viktoriya Kalaydzhieva, Radostina Yuleva-Chuchulayna, Kalina Durova-Angelova

Книжка 5
Книжка 4
ТРАНСФОРМАЦИИ НА ПАЗАРА НА ТРУДА И НУЖДАТА ОТ ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛНИ РЕФОРМИ

Ваня Иванова, Андрей Василев, Калоян Ганев, Ралица Симеонова-Ганева

Книжка 3
FORMING ENTREPRENEURIAL CULTURE THROUGH EDUCATION

Milena Filipova, Adriana Atanasova

Книжка 2s
THE STATE OF INCLUSION IN ADAPTED BASKETBALL

Stefka Djobova, Ivelina Kirilova

Книжка 2
MODEL OF PROFESSIONALLY DIRECTED TRAINING OF FUTURE ENGINEER-TEACHERS

Ivan Beloev, Valentina Vasileva, Іnna Savytska, Oksana Bulgakova, Lesia Zbaravska, Olha Chaikovska

DETERMINANTS AFFECTING ACADEMIC STAFF SATISFACTION WITH ONLINE LEARNING IN HIGHER MEDICAL EDUCATION

Miglena Tarnovska, ;, Rumyana Stoyanova, ;, Angelina Kirkova-Bogdanova;, Rositsa Dimova

Книжка 1s
AN INNOVATIVE MODEL FOR DEVELOPING DIGITAL COMPETENCES OF SOCIAL WORKERS

Lyudmila Vekova, Tanya Vazova, Penyo Georgiev, Ekaterina Uzhikanova-Kovacheva

Книжка 1
2024 година
Книжка 6s
DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES RISK MANAGEMENT

Miglena Molhova-Vladova, Ivaylo B. Ivanov

Книжка 6
AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH TO ORGANIZING THE FORMATION OF STUDENTS’ COGNITIVE INDEPENDENCE IN CONDITIONS OF INTENSIFICATION OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES

Albina Volkotrubova, Aidai Kasymova, Zoriana Hbur, Antonina Kichuk, Svitlana Koshova, Svitlana Khodakivska

ИНОВАТИВЕН МОДЕЛ НА ПРОЕКТНО БАЗИРАНО ОБУЧЕНИЕ НА ГИМНАЗИАЛНИ УЧИТЕЛИ: ДОБРА ПРАКТИКА ОТ УниБИТ

Жоржета Назърска, Александър Каракачанов, Магдалена Гарванова, Нина Дебрюне

Книжка 5s
КОНЦЕПТУАЛНА РАМКА ЗА ИЗПОЛЗВАНЕ НА ИЗКУСТВЕНИЯ ИНТЕЛЕКТ ВЪВ ВИСШЕТО ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ

Акад. Христо Белоев, Валентина Войноховска, Ангел Смрикаров

ИЗСЛЕДВАНЕ ПРИЛОЖИМОСТТА НА БЛОКОВИ ВЕРИГИ ОТ ПЪРВО НИВО (L1) В СИСТЕМА ЗА ЕЛЕКТРОННО ОБУЧЕНИЕ

Андриан Минчев, Ваня Стойкова, Галя Шивачева, Доц Анелия Иванова

ПРЕДИЗВИКАТЕЛСТВА ПРИ ПРОМЯНА НА ПЛАТФОРМИ ЗА ДИСТАНЦИОННО ОБУЧЕНИЕ

Антон Недялков, Милена Кирова, Мирослава Бонева

APPLICATION OF ZSPACE TECHNOLOGY IN THE DISCIPLINES OF THE STEM CYCLE

Boyana Ivanova, Kamelia Shoilekova, Desislava Atanasova, Rumen Rusev

TEACHERS' ADAPTATION TO CHANGES IN AN INCREASINGLY COMPLEX WORLD THROUGH THE USE OF AI

Zhanat Nurbekova, Kanagat Baigusheva, Kalima Tuenbaeva, Bakyt Nurbekov, Tsvetomir Vassilev

АТОСЕКУНДНОТО ОБУЧЕНИЕ – МЕТАФОРА НА ДНЕШНОТО ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ

Юлия Дончева, Денис Асенов, Ангел Смрикаров, Цветомир Василев

Книжка 5
Книжка 4s
Книжка 4
MANAGERIAL ASPECTS OF COOPERATION AMONG HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR STAKEHOLDERS

Olha Prokopenko, Svitlana Perova, Tokhir Rakhimov, Mykola Kunytskyi, Iryna Leshchenko

Книжка 3s
Книжка 3
Книжка 2
FORMATION OF PROFESSIONAL SKILLS OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERS DURING LABORATORY PRACTICE WHEN STUDYING FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE

Ivan Beloev, Oksana Bulgakova, Oksana Zakhutska, Maria Bondar, Lesia Zbaravska

ИМИДЖ НА УНИВЕРСИТЕТА

Галя Христозова

Книжка 1s
COMPETITIVENESS AS A RESULT OF CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION

Nikolay Krushkov, Ralitza Zayakova-Krushkova

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND SECURITY IN THE INTEGRATED CIRCUITS INDUSTRY

Ivan Nachev, Yuliana Tomova, Iskren Konstantinov, Marina Spasova

Книжка 1
PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES FOR SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Milena Filipova, Olha Prokopenko, Igor Matyushenko, Olena Khanova, Olga Shirobokova, Ardian Durmishi

2023 година
Книжка 6s
DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMON INFORMATION SYSTEM TO CREATE A DIGITAL CAREER CENTER TOGETHER WITH PARTNER HIGHER SCHOOLS

Yordanka Angelova, Rossen Radonov, Vasil Kuzmov, Stela Zhorzh Derelieva-Konstantinova

DRAFTING A DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION STRATEGY FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT SECTOR – EMPIRICAL STUDY ON UAE

Mounir el Khatib, Shikha al Ali, Ibrahim Alharam, Ali Alhajeri, Gabriela Peneva, Jordanka Angelova, Mahmoud Shanaa

VOYAGE OF LEARNING: CRUISE SHIPS WEATHER ROUTING AND MARITIME EDUCATION

Svetlana Dimitrakieva, Dobrin Milev, Christiana Atanasova

СТРУКТУРНИ ПРОМЕНИ В ОБУЧЕНИЕТО НА МЕНИДЖЪРИ ЗА ИНДУСТРИЯ 5.0

Недко Минчев, Венета Христова, Иван Стоянов

RESEARCH OF THE INNOVATION CAPACITY OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS

Siya Veleva, ; Margarita Mondeshka, Anka Tsvetanova

Книжка 6
Книжка 5s
ВИДОВЕ ТРАВМИ В ПАРАШУТИЗМА И ПРЕВЕНЦИЯТА ИМ

Капитан III ранг Георги Калинов

Книжка 5
Книжка 4s
DETERMINING THE DEGREE OF DIGITALIZATION OF A HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION

Acad. Hristo Beloev, Angel Smrikarov, Valentina Voinohovska, Galina Ivanova

ОТ STEM КЪМ BEST: ДВА СТАНДАРТА, ЕДНА ЦЕЛ

Андрей Захариев, Стефан Симеонов, Таня Тодорова

Книжка 4
EFFECT OF RESILIENCE ON BURNOUT IN ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Radina Stoyanova, Sonya Karabeliova, Petya Pandurova, Nadezhda Zheckova, Kaloyan Mitev

Книжка 3s
INTELLIGENT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: FARMER ATTITUDES AND A ROADMAP FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Dimitrios Petropoulos, Koutroubis Fotios, Petya Biolcheva, Evgeni Valchev

Книжка 3
STUDY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE USE OF COMMUNICATIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS OF ENGINEERS TRAINING

Ivan Beloev, Valentina Vasileva, Sergii Bilan, Maria Bondar, Oksana Bulgakova, Lyubov Shymko

Книжка 2
РАЗПОЛОЖЕНИЕ НА ВИСШИТЕ УЧИЛИЩА В БЪЛГАРИЯ В КОНТЕКСТА НА ФОРМИРАНЕ НА ПАЗАРА НА ТРУДА

Цветелина Берберова-Вълчева, Камен Петров, Николай Цонков

Книжка 1
MODERNIZATION OF THE CONTENT OF THE LECTURE COURSE IN PHYSICS FOR TRAINING FUTURE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERS

Ivan Beloev, Valentina Vasileva, Vasyl Shynkaruk, Oksana Bulgakova, Maria Bondar, Lesia Zbaravska, Sergii Slobodian

2022 година
Книжка 6
ORGANIZATION OF AN INCLUSIVE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT FOR THE STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Halyna Bilavych, Nataliia Bakhmat, Tetyana Pantiuk, Mykola Pantiuk, Borys Savchuk

ДИГИТАЛИЗАЦИЯ НА ОБРАЗОВАНИЕТО В БЪЛГАРИЯ: СЪСТОЯНИЕ И ОБЩИ ТЕНДЕНЦИИ

Теодора Върбанова, Албена Вуцова, Николай Нетов

Книжка 5
ПРАВОТО НА ИЗБОР В ЖИВОТА НА ДЕЦАТА В РЕПУБЛИКА БЪЛГАРИЯ

Сийка Чавдарова-Костова, Даниела Рачева, Екатерина Томова, Росица Симеонова

Книжка 4
DIAGNOSIS AS A TOOL FOR MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ADDICTION PREVENTION IN ADOLESCENTS

O.A. Selivanova, N.V. Bystrova, I.I. Derecha, T.S. Mamontova, O.V. Panfilova

Книжка 3
ПУБЛИЧНОТО РАЗБИРАНЕ НА НАУКАТА В МРЕЖОВИЯ СВЯТ

Светломир Здравков, Мартин Й. Иванов, Петя Климентова

Книжка 2
Книжка 1
ДИГИТАЛНАТА ИНТЕРАКЦИЯ ПРЕПОДАВАТЕЛ – СТУДЕНТ В ОНЛАЙН ОБУЧЕНИЕТО В МЕДИЦИНСКИТЕ УНИВЕРСИТЕТИ

Миглена Търновска, Румяна Стоянова, Боряна Парашкевова, Юлияна Маринова

2021 година
Книжка 6
Книжка 5
Книжка 4s
SIGNAL FOR HELP

Ina Vladova, Milena Kuleva

Книжка 4
PREMISES FOR A MULTICULTURAL APPROACH TO EDUCATION

Anzhelina Koriakina, Lyudmila Amanbaeva

Книжка 3
Книжка 2
ПЪРВА СЕДМИЦА ДИСТАНЦИОННО ОБУЧЕНИЕ В СУ „ИВАН ВАЗОВ“ В СТАРА ЗАГОРА

Тони Чехларова, Динко Цвятков, Неда Чехларова

Книжка 1
METHODOLOGY OF SAFETY AND QUALITY OF LIFE ON THE BASIS OF NOOSPHERIC EDUCATION SYSTEM FORMATION

Nataliia Bakhmat, Nataliia Ridei, Nataliia Tytova, Vladyslava Liubarets, Oksana Katsero

2020 година
Книжка 6
HIGHER EDUCATION AS A PUBLIC GOOD

Yulia Nedelcheva, Miroslav Nedelchev

Книжка 5
НАСЪРЧАВАНЕ НА СЪТРУДНИЧЕСТВОТО МЕЖДУ ВИСШИТЕ УЧИЛИЩА И БИЗНЕСА

Добринка Стоянова, Блага Маджурова, Гергана Димитрова, Стефан Райчев

Книжка 4
THE STRATEGY OF HUMAN RIGHTS STUDY IN EDUCATION

Anush Balian, Nataliya Seysebayeva, Natalia Efremova, Liliia Danylchenko

Книжка 3
Книжка 2
МИГРАЦИЯ И МИГРАЦИОННИ ПРОЦЕСИ

Веселина Р. Иванова

SOCIAL STATUS OF DISABLED PEOPLE IN RUSSIA

Elena G. Pankova, Tatiana V. Soloveva, Dinara A. Bistyaykina, Olga M. Lizina

Книжка 1
ETHNIC UPBRINGING AS A PART OF THE ETHNIC CULTURE

Sholpankulova Gulnar Kenesbekovna

2019 година
Книжка 6
EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE OF THE SOCIAL TEACHER

Kadisha K. Shalgynbayeva, Ulbosin Zh.Tuyakova

Книжка 5
Книжка 4
Книжка 3
УЧИЛИЩЕТО НА БЪДЕЩЕТО

Наталия Витанова

Книжка 2
Книжка 1
POST-GRADUATE QUALIFICATION OF TEACHERS IN INTERCULTURAL EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

Irina Koleva, Veselin Tepavicharov, Violeta Kotseva, Kremena Yordanova

ДЕЦАТА В КОНСТИТУЦИОННИТЕ НОРМИ НА БЪЛГАРИЯ

Румен Василев, Весела Марева

СЪСТОЯНИЕ НА БЪЛГАРСКОТО ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ

Анелия Любенова, Любомир Любенов

ЕДИН НОВ УЧЕБНИК

Ирина Колева

2018 година
Книжка 6
Книжка 5
A NEW AWARD FOR PROFESSOR MAIRA KABAKOVA

Irina Koleva, Editor-in-

Книжка 4
Книжка 3
BLENDED EDUCATION IN HIGHER SCHOOLS: NEW NETWORKS AND MEDIATORS

Nikolay Tsankov, Veska Gyuviyska, Milena Levunlieva

ВЗАИМОВРЪЗКАТА МЕЖДУ СПОРТА И ПРАВОТО

Ивайло Прокопов, Елица Стоянова

ХИМЕРНИТЕ ГРУПИ В УЧИЛИЩЕ

Яна Рашева-Мерджанова

Книжка 2
Книжка 1
2017 година
Книжка 6
ЗНАЧИМОСТТА НА УЧЕНЕТО: АНАЛИЗ НА ВРЪЗКИТЕ МЕЖДУ ГЛЕДНИТЕ ТОЧКИ НА УЧЕНИЦИ, РОДИТЕЛИ И УЧИТЕЛИ

Илиана Мирчева, Елена Джамбазова, Снежана Радева, Деян Велковски

Книжка 5
ОРГАНИЗАЦИОННА КУЛТУРА В УЧИЛИЩЕ

Ивайло Старибратов, Лилия Бабакова

Книжка 4
КОУЧИНГ. ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЕН КОУЧИНГ

Наталия Витанова, Нели Митева

Книжка 3
Книжка 2
Книжка 1
ЕМПАТИЯ И РЕФЛЕКСИЯ

Нели Кънева, Кристиана Булдеева

2016 година
Книжка 6
Книжка 5
Книжка 4
Книжка 3
Книжка 2
Книжка 1
2015 година
Книжка 6
Книжка 5
Книжка 4
ПРАГМАТИЧНАТА ДИДАКТИКА

Николай Колишев

Книжка 3
Книжка 2
Книжка 1
2014 година
Книжка 6
Книжка 5
КОХЕРЕНТНОСТ НА ПОЛИТИКИ

Албена Вуцова, Лиляна Павлова

Книжка 4
USING THE RESULTS OF A NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT

Thomas Kellaghan, Vincent Greaney, T. Scott Murray

Книжка 3
USING THE RESULTS OF A NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT

Thomas Kellaghan, Vincent Greaney, T. Scott Murray

Книжка 2
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF UNIVERSITY FACULTY: А SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

Gulnar Toltaevna Balakayeva, Alken Shugaybekovich Tokmagambetov, Sapar Imangalievich Ospanov

USING THE RESULTS OF A NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT

Thomas Kellaghan, Vincent Greaney, T. Scott Murray

Книжка 1
РЕФЛЕКСИЯТА В ИНТЕГРАТИВНОТО ПОЛЕ НА МЕТОДИКАТА НА ОБУЧЕНИЕТО ПО БИОЛОГИЯ

Иса Хаджиали, Наташа Цанова, Надежда Райчева, Снежана Томова

USING THE RESULTS OF A NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT

Thomas Kellaghan, Vincent Greaney, T. Scott Murray

2013 година
Книжка 6
Книжка 5
Книжка 4
QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT

ÎÖÅÍßÂÀÍÅÒÎ

Книжка 3
MASS MEDIA CULTURE IN KAZAKHSTAN

Aktolkyn Kulsariyeva Yerkin Massanov Indira Alibayeva

РЪКОВОДСТВО ЗА СЪСТАВЯНЕ НА ТЕСТОВЕ*

Фернандо Картрайт, Джери Мусио

РОССИЙСКАЯ СИСТЕМА ОЦЕНКИ КАЧЕСТВА ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ: ГЛАВНЫЕ УРОКИ

В. Болотов / И. Вальдман / Г. Ковалёва / М. Пинская

Книжка 2
ОЦЕНЯВАНЕ НА ГРАЖДАНСКИТЕ КОМПЕТЕНТНОСТИ НА УЧЕНИЦИТЕ: ПРЕДИЗВИКАТЕЛСТВА И ВЪЗМОЖНОСТИ

Светла Петрова Център за контрол и оценка на качеството на училищното образование

РЪКОВОДСТВО ЗА СЪСТАВЯНЕ НА ТЕСТОВЕ*

Фернандо Картрайт, Джери Мусио

Книжка 1
Уважаеми читатели,

вет, както и от международния борд за предоставените статии и студии, за да могат да бъдат идентифицирани в полето на образованието пред широката аудитория от педа- гогически специалисти във всички степени на образователната ни система. Благодаря за техния всеотдаен и безвъзмезден труд да създават и популяризират мрежа от научни съобщества по профила на списанието и да насърчават научните изследвания. Благодаря на рецензентите от национално представените висши училища, на- учни институции и

РЪКОВОДСТВО ЗА СЪСТАВЯНЕ НА ТЕСТОВЕ

Фернандо Картрайт, Джери Мусио

2012 година
Книжка 6
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE IN KAZAKHSTAN IN THE PERIOD OF INDEPENDENCE

Aigerim Mynbayeva Maira Kabakova Aliya Massalimova

Книжка 5
Книжка 4
Книжка 3
СИСТЕМАТА ЗА РАЗВИТИЕ НА АКАДЕМИЧНИЯ СЪСТАВ НА РУСЕНСКИЯ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ „АНГЕЛ КЪНЧЕВ“

Христо Белоев, Ангел Смрикаров, Орлин Петров, Анелия Иванова, Галина Иванова

Книжка 2
ПРОУЧВАНЕ НА РОДИТЕЛСКОТО УЧАСТИЕ В УЧИЛИЩНИЯ ЖИВОТ В БЪЛГАРИЯ

* Този материал е изготвен въз основа на резултатите от изследването „Parental Involvement in Life of School Matters“, проведено в България в рамките на проек- та „Advancing Educational Inclusion and Quality in South East Europe“, изпълняван

ВТОРИ ФОРУМ ЗА СТРАТЕГИИ В НАУКАТА

Тошка Борисова В края на 2011 г. в София се проведе второто издание на Форум за страте- гии в науката. Основната тема бе повишаване на международната видимост и разпознаваемост на българската наука. Форумът се организира от „Elsevier“ – водеща компания за разработване и предоставяне на научни, технически и медицински информационни продукти и услуги , с подкрепата на Министер- ството на образованието, младежта и науката. След успеха на първото издание на Форума за стратегии в науката през

Книжка 1
РЕЙТИНГИ, ИНДЕКСИ, ПАРИ

Боян Захариев

©2005 Национално Издателство Аз-Буки ООД. Всички права запазени.