연구동향 분석
박사

국어교사의 학생글 평가전문성 연구 : 평가자 협의에 따른 전략 차이를 중심으로

오세영 2015년

논문상세정보
인용/피인용
' 국어교사의 학생글 평가전문성 연구 : 평가자 협의에 따른 전략 차이를 중심으로' 의 주제별 논문영향력
논문영향력 선정 방법
논문영향력 요약
주제
  • 공동규제
  • 국어교육
  • 그룹인지
  • 모니터링
  • 쓰기 평가
  • 쓰기 평가 전문성
  • 쓰기 평가 준거
  • 자기조정
  • 자기통제
  • 작문교육
  • 전략
  • 전문성 발달 전략
  • 정보처리
  • 초인지 전략
  • 초인지적 전문성
  • 평가 예시문
  • 평가자 협의
  • 학생글 평가전문성
동일주제 총논문수 논문피인용 총횟수 주제별 논문영향력의 평균
1,678 0

0.0%

' 국어교사의 학생글 평가전문성 연구 : 평가자 협의에 따른 전략 차이를 중심으로' 의 참고문헌

  • 한국심리학회 『심리학용어사전』,Available: http://www.koreanpsychology.or.kr/psychology/glossary.asp(2015.06.20.)허준(2012). 『위기 변화 그리고 공동체학습』
    파주: 교육과학사 [2014]
  • 한국교육평가학회 한국교육평가센터 『교육평가 용어사전』
    배호순 서울: 학지사 [2004]
  • 한국교육심리학회. 『교육심리학용어사전』
    서울: 학지사 [2000]
  • 한국교육심리학회 교육심리학 용어사전
    박승호 서울: 학지사 [2000]
  • 한국교육과정평가원 「2007년 초등학교 3학년 국가수준 기초학력 진단평가 연구」, 연구보고 CRE 2008-5-1
    한국교육과정평가원 [2008]
  • 학습과 기억[Human learning and memory].(김기중, 박영신, 장미숙, & 정윤재역) 파주: 교육과학사
    Lieberman, D. A. (원전은 2012에 출판) [2013]
  • 학생 필자의 해석 텍스트에 대한 ‘반응 중심’ 작문 평가
    이재기 『작문연구』, 제13호,한국작문학회, 169-190 [2011]
  • 학교교육 평가의 방향과 사회과평가에의 시사점
    박도순 『사회과교육』, 제33호, 한국사회교과교육학회, 5-15 [2000]
  • 포트폴리오평가의 질 관리 방안의 모색
    배호순 『교육평가연구』, 제10(1)호, 교육평가학회, 75-104 [1997]
  • 포트폴리오 평가 문식성 진단을 위한 기준 개발
    김소현(Kim So-hyun) 『교육연구』, 제48호, 성신여대 교육문제연구소, 5-25 [2010]
  • 평가조언표를 활용한 논술 평가와 고쳐 쓰기 지도 방안
    박현동 『국어교육학연구』,제32호, 국어교육학회, 201-242 [2008]
  • 평가자협의가 작문평가의 신뢰도에 미치는 영향
    이승재 한국교원대학교 석사학위논문 [2011]
  • 평가 예시문을 활용한 쓰기 평가 개선 방안
    박영민 『청람어문교육』, 제39호, 청람어문교육학회, 111-133 [2009]
  • 텍스트 조직 능력의 유형에 대한 연구 -초등학생을 중심으로 -
    이성영 『국어교육』, 제115호, 한국어교육학회, 221-247 [2004]
  • 최고 수준 전문가와 보통 수준 전문가의 특성 비교 분석
    배진현 성문주 성은모 오헌석 『아시아교육연구』, 제4호, 서울대학교 교육연구소, 105-135 [2009]
  • 창조적 국어사용과 논증문화
    김재봉 『한국초등국어교육』, 제20(20)호, 한국초등국어교육학회, 109-150 [2002]
  • 질적연구방법으로서의면담[Interviewing as qualitative research].(박혜준& 이승연역)서울: 학지사
    Seidman, I. (원전은 1997에 출판) [2009]
  • 박사
    중학교 쓰기 수업과 평가를 위한 루브릭 사례 연구
    김정덕 한양대학교 박사학위 논문 [2009]
  • 박사
    중등 국어 교사의 학생 글 논평에 대한 인식과 논평 양상 연구
    김경화 고려대학교 박사학위 논문 [2014]
  • 정보전달 텍스트 쓰기에서 필자의 정보 변환 양상
    이정우 『국어교육』, 제136호, 한국어교육학회, 257-295 [2011]
  • 정보글 쓰기 평가에서의 ‘창의성’ 채점 양상 연구
    오세영 『한어문교육』, 제28호, 한국언어문학교육학회, 59-93 [2013]
  • 전문성 연구의 주요 쟁점과 전망
    김정아 오헌석 『기업교육연구』, 제1호, 한국기업교육학회, 143-168 [2007]
  • 작문 평가의 도구와 방법 개선 방향 설정
    조재윤(Cho, Jae-yoon) 『작문연구』, 제13호, 한국작문학회,191-224 [2011]
  • 작문 수행평가에 대한 전문가와 전산언어학적 채점결과의 비교 분석
    엄연희 최인철 『Multimedia Assisted Language Learning』, 제4(1)호, 한국멀티미디어언어교육학회, 165-184 [2001]
  • 작문 교육론
    박영목 서울: 역락 [2008]
  • 자기주도적 학습력 신장을 위한 학습독서 전략 연구
    이경화 『새국어교육』, 제71호,한국국어교육학회, 213-233 [2005]
  • 자기조정학습의 영역과 전략의 재구성
    김영상 『교육과정연구』, 제21(2)호, 한국교육과정학회, 173-192 [2003]
  • 읽기 평가기준의 수준 구분 근거 고찰
    염창권 전원범 천경록 『한국초등국어교육』, 제19호, 한국초등국어교육학회, 149-173 [2001]
  • 인지심리학과그응용[Cognitive psychology and its implications].(이영애 역). 서울:이화여자대학교 출판부
    Anderson, J. R. (원전은 2012에 출판) [2012]
  • 이승복, & 한기선. 언어심리학[(The)Psychology of language].(이승복& 한기선역) 서울: 시그마프레스
    Whitney, P. (원전은 1998에 출판) [2003]
  • 웹 게시판을 이용한 감상문 쓰기에서의 동료 평가 양상 분석
    김라연 『청람어문교육』, 제36호, 청람어문교육학회, 207-233 [2007]
  • 박사
    요인 분석을 통한 쓰기 평가의 준거 설정에 대한 연구
    서수현 고려대학교 박사학위 논문 [2008]
  • 외국어습득원리의이해[(A) philosophy of second language acquisition].(김희숙& 문은주 역). 서울: 한국문화사
    Johnson, M. (원전은 2008에 출판) [2011]
  • 쓰기 평가자의 정보 처리 과정 연구 - 채점 과정의 정보 처리 모델 비교를 중심으로
    오세영 『한어문교육』, 제31호, 한국언어문학교육학회, 109-155 [2014]
  • 박사
    쓰기 평가의 기준 설정에 관한 연구
    서수현 고려대학교 석사학위논문 [2003]
  • 쓰기 평가에서의 표준 평가 예시문 활용 효과 연구
    양주훈 한국교원대학교 석사학위논문 [2012]
  • 쓰기 평가 협의 과정에 나타난 쓰기 평가자의 인식 연구
    서수현 『國語敎育學硏究』, 제44호, 국어교육학회, 335-367 [2012]
  • 쓰기 평가 지식 측정을 위한 검사 도구 개발 연구
    박영민 『청람어문교육』, 제46호,청람어문교육학회, 29-46 [2012]
  • 쓰기 평가 전문성 신장을 위한 온라인 채점자 훈련 프로그램 개발 방향 연구
    박종임 『작문연구』, 제17호, 한국작문학회, 413-440 [2013]
  • 쓰기 평가 연구의 주요 과제
    박영목 『작문연구』, 제6호, 한국작문학회, 9-37 [2008]
  • 쓰기 평가 방법 연구
    김정자 서울대학교 석사학위 논문 [1992]
  • 쓰기 평가 결과의 해석과 활용 방안 연구
    이수진 『작문연구』, 제6호, 한국작문학회, 39-65 [2008]
  • 쓰기 지식 생성을 위한 자기 평가의 교육적 함의
    임천택 『새국어교육』, 제71호, 한국국어교육학회, 285-309 [2005]
  • 쓰기 영역의 수행 평가 방안
    김봉순 『국어교육』, 제100호, 한국어교육학회, 173-199 [1999]
  • 쓰기 영역 평가의 생태학적 접근 -대안적 평가 방법으로서의 포트폴리오를 중심으로-
    원진숙 『한국어학』, 제10호, 한국어학회, 191-232 [1999]
  • 박사
    쓰기 수행평가의 평가준거 설정에 관한 연구
    박영민 박영민 한국교원대학교 석사학위 논문 [2000]
  • 쓰기 성취기준에 따른 학생 예시문 선정에 관한 연구
    권태현 한국교원대학교박사학위논문 [2014]
  • 쓰기 능력 발달 양상에 관한 연구
    이삼형 ( Sam Hyung Lee ) 주영미 ( Young Mi Ju ) 『국어교육』, 제118호, 한국어교육학회, 127-148 [2005]
  • 쓰기 과제 구성에 대한 연구
    김정자 『한말연구』, 제15호, 한말연구학회, 93-119 [2004]
  • 서울대학교 교육연구소 교육학용어사전
    서울: 하우 [2011]
  • 생태학적 관점의 쓰기 평가 도구 개발 방안
    신헌재 『학습자중심교과교육연구』, 제10(1)호, 학습자중심교과교육학회, 219-237 [2010]
  • 반성을 통한 교사전문성 신장을 위한 교사교육: PDS
    유솔아 『한국교원교육연구』,제22(3)호, 한국교원교육학회, 97-121 [2005]
  • 박정 진재관 김옥남 서수현 김신영 김종철 이성영 이충우 천경록 「국어과 교사의 학생 평가 전문성 신장 모형과 기준」, 연구보고 RRE-2004-5-4
    박영목 이범홍 이인제 한국교육과정평가원 [2004]
  • 미국의 작문평가
    신선희(Seon-Hi, Shin) 『작문연구』, 제13호, 한국작문학회, 117-141 [2011]
  • 문화역사적 활동이론의 이론적 발전과 평생교육연구에 주는 시사점
    박상옥 윤창국 『평생교육학연구』, 제18(3)호, 한국평생교육학회, 113-140 [2012]
  • 디지털 시대의 청소년 독자와 비판적 읽기
    이순영 『독서연구』, 제24호, 한국독서학회, 87-109 [2010]
  • 대학생 글쓰기 지도에서 평가 준거의 설정과 활용 문제
    최상민 『작문연구』, 제13호,한국작문학회, 225-252 [2011]
  • 대학 글쓰기 평가방법과 실태 연구
    김병길 『작문연구』, 제8호, 한국작문학회, 141-164 [2009]
  • 대학 글쓰기 교육과 사고력 학습에 관한 연구
    정희모 『현대문학의 연구』, 제25호, 한국문학연구학회, 429-435 [2005]
  • 다문화 가정 아동의 쓰기 태도 발달 연구
    윤준채 『학습자중심교과교육연구』, 제14(3)호, 학습자중심교과교육학회, 233-246 [2014]
  • 논증 이론의 현황과 국어 교육의 과제
    민병곤 『국어교육학연구』, 제12호, 국어교육학회, 237-285 [2001]
  • 논술 첨삭 피드백의 문제점 - 첨삭의 내용을 중심으로
    이은자 『새국어교육』, 제80호,한국국어교육학회, 361-382 [2008]
  • 글짓기 영역의 기능 평가론
    노창수 『국어교육』, 제61호, 한국어교육학회, 37-64 [1987]
  • 글쓰기 평가에서 객관-주관주의 대립과 그 함의
    정희모 『우리어문교육』, 제37호, 우리어문학회, 217-249 [2010]
  • 글쓰기 능력 발달 단계 연구
    이성영 『국어국문학』, 제126호, 국어국문학회, 27-50 [2000]
  • 국어국문학편찬위원회 『國語國文學資料辭典: 資料編』
    서울: 한국사전연구사 [1998]
  • 국어교육의 성격과 국어 교사의 전문성
    노명완 『나랏말쌈』, 제14호, 대구대학교 국어교육과, 240-253 [1999]
  • 국어교육 질적 연구에서의 내러티브 분석 방법 탐구
    박혜영 『국어교육학연구』, 제49(2)호, 국어교육학회, 163-191 [2014]
  • 국어교육 질적 연구 동향에 대한 일고찰
    옥현진 『국어교육』, 제132호, 한국어교육학회, 249-268 [2010]
  • 국어교사의 작문평가 전문성 신장 방안
    박영민(Park, Young-min) 『작문연구』, 제13호, 한국작문학회,89-116 [2011]
  • 국어교사의 쓰기 평가 효능감 분석
    박영민 『청람어문교육』, 제44호, 청람어문교육학회, 121-146 [2011]
  • 국어교사의 쓰기 평가 특성 연구
    박종임 한국교원대학교 박사학위 논문 [2013]
  • 국어과 쓰기 교육과 쓰기 활동의 이해
    김명순 『교육과정연구』, 제21(1)호, 한국교육과정학회, 155-177 [2003]
  • 국어과 교사의 쓰기 영역 평가 전문성 기준과 모형
    이성영 『국어교육』, 제117호, 한국어교육학회, 353-376 [2005]
  • 국어 교육과 사고력
    노명완 『한국초등국어교육』, 제24호, 한국초등국어교육학회, 1-36 [2004]
  • 국립특수교육원, 이효자, 강영심, 김승국, 김정권, 송준만, . . . 국립국어원 『특수교육학 용어사전』
    서울: 하우 [2009]
  • 교육상황에서질적연구수행하기[Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings].(진영은 역). 서울: 학지사
    Hatch, J. A. (원전은 2002에 출판) [2008]
  • 교육과정과 교육평가
    박도순 서울: 문음사 [1999]
  • 교사전문성의 ‘연계(連繫)’적 특성과 교사교육의 방향
    김민성 『교육심리연구』, 제26(1)호, 한국교육심리학회, 39-61 [2012]
  • 교사 첨삭 피드백의 원리와 방법
    이은자 『작문연구』, 제9호, 한국작문학회, 123-152 [2009]
  • 『실험심리학 용어사전』
    곽호완 서울 :시그마프레스 [2008]
  • 『목표지향 검사를 위한 준거설정 방법』
    성태제 서울: 이화여자대학교 사범대학 [1990]
  • 「한국어 쓰기평가 구인과 채점 기준에 관한 연구」
    조남민 『언어와 문화』, 제8(3)호, 한국언어문화교육학회, 251-273 [2012]
  • 「한국어 쓰기능력 평가 방안 - 종합적 채점과 분석적 채점 결과를 중심으로」
    김정숙 『이중언어학』, 제43호, 이중언어학회, 81-99 [2010]
  • 「학생 글에 대한 교사의 반응 분석」
    김경화 『작문연구』, 제17호, 한국작문학회,101-153 [2013]
  • 「평가 문식성 신장을 위한 국어과 교사 교육」
    주세형 『문법교육』제15호, 한국문법교육학회, 31-50 [2011]
  • 「컴퓨터 작문 교육의 연구 동향」
    오세영 『우리말 글』, 제55호, 우리말글학회, 77-111 [2012]
  • 「총체적 쓰기평가와 분석적 쓰기평가의 상관 연구-고등학생의 논설문 평가를 중심으로.」
    김라연 『이중언어학』, 제35호, 이중언어학회, 103-126 [2007]
  • 「총체적 쓰기평가와 분석적 쓰기평가의 결과 비교 연구」
    손다혜 연세대학교 교육대학원석사학위 논문 [2010]
  • 「청소년 필자의 학문적 쓰기 발달에 필요한 바람직한 국어교사의 쓰기 지도 방법연구」
    오세영 『새국어교육』, 제101호, 한국국어교육학회, 277-325 [2014]
  • 「청소년 독자들의 텍스트 의미 구성과 창의적 사고 양상」
    김주환 이순영 『한어문교육』, 제28호, 한국언어문학교육학회, 35-57 [2013]
  • 「짓기 평가기준에 관한 연구 - 고등학교를 중심으로」
    윤상덕 『배달말교육』, 제3호, 배달말교육학회, 209-234 [1985]
  • 「중학생 논설문 평가의 모평균 추정과 평가 예시문 선정」
    박영민 최숙기 『국어교육』,제131호, 한국어교육학회, 437-461 [2010]
  • 「준거지향평가의 기준 설정 방법 비교 - 수행평가의 논술평을 중심으로」
    양길석 고려대학교 박사학위 논문 [2000]
  • 「작문 영역의 교사 전문성 탐색」
    옥현진 『작문연구』, 제18호, 한국작문학회, 297-326 [2013]
  • 「작문 교육 질적 연구 방법의 경향 분석 및 개선 방안 탐색」
    옥현진 『작문연구』, 제15호, 한국작문학회, 9-38 [2012]
  • 「작문 교육 연구에서의 양적 연구 방법」
    서수현 『작문연구』, 제15호, 한국작문학회,39-67 [2012]
  • 「인간, 언어, 교육, 그리고 문식성」
    노명완 노명완 박영목 외 (편), 『문식성 교육 연구』,724-754, 서울: 한국문화사 [2008]
  • 「쓰기평가의 주요 문제와 그 해결 방법」
    조재윤 노명완 박영목 외 (편), 『문식성 교육 연구』, 724-754, 서울: 한국문화사 [2008]
  • 박사
    「쓰기평가 준거 상세화가 쓰기 수행에 미치는 영향」
    이지영 고려대학교 석사학위 논문 [2012]
  • 「쓰기 성취기준에 따른 학생 예시문 선정 방안 연구」
    권태현 『작문연구』, 제18호, 한국작문학회, 209-241 [2013]
  • 「쓰기 기초학력의 재 개념화와 평가 틀의 개선 방향」
    임천택 『학습자중심교과교육연구』, 제9(1)호, 학습자중심교과교육학회, 1-21 [2009]
  • 「설명문 쓰기능력 발달 연구」
    가은아 『청람어문교육』, 제41호, 청람어문교육학회,139-168 [2010]
  • 「반성적 쓰기를 활용한 작문 평가 방안」
    박영민 『새국어교육』, 제73호, 한국국어교육학회, 33-59 [2006]
  • 「문학을 활용한 논술 쓰기 사례 분석 - 이문열의< 우리들의 일그러진 영웅> 을대상으로」
    이영호 『국어교육학연구』, 제36호, 국어교육학회, 465-492 [2009]
  • 「목표 중심의 국어수업과 수행평가」
    김주환 『열린교육연구』, 제7(1)호, 한국열린교육학회, 137-151 [1999]
  • 「디지털 시대 국어교사의 인지활동과 쓰기평가의 상관 연구」
    오세영 『새국어교육』,제92호, 한국국어교육학회, 255-289 [2012]
  • 「대학생 글에 대한 총체적 평가와 분석적 평가의 결과 비교 연구」
    이재성 정희모 『청람어문교육』, 제39호, 청람어문교육학회, 251-273 [2009]
  • 「대학 글쓰기 교육과 과정 중심 방법의 적용」
    정희모 『현대문학의 연구』, 제29호, 한국문학연구학회, 483-513 [2006]
  • 「논술문 평가의 신뢰도 향상에 관한 연구」
    김미영 고려대학교 교육대학원 석사학위 논문 [2004]
  • 「논술 평가와 고쳐 쓰기 지도 방법 연구」
    박현동 영남대학교 박사학위 논문 [2009]
  • 「국어교사의 총체적, 분석적 쓰기 채점과 평가자 협의 과정 연구」
    박준용 배재성 오세영 『국어교육』, 제141호, 한국어교육학회, 183-230 [2013]
  • 「국어과 학습지도와 평가」
    노명완 이용주 『새국어교육』, 제43(1)호, 한국국어교육학회,57-75 [1988]
  • 「국어과 교육에서의 평가」
    노명완 『韓國國語敎育硏究會論文集』, 제40호, 한국어교육학회, 69-107 [1990]
  • 「국어과 교육과정 작문 평가 방법의 분석과 개선방안」
    박영민 『교원교육』, 제21(4)호,한국교원대학교 교육연구원, 1-15 [2005]
  • 「국어과 교수, 학습 개선 방안-쓰기 “맥락” 체험으로서의 프로젝트 접근법」
    황미향 『청람어문교육』, 제39호, 청람어문교육학회, 343-372 [2009]
  • 「국어과 교사의 평가 문식성에 대한 연구 - 읽기 영역 평가를 중심으로」
    김종윤 고려대학교 석사학위 논문 [2006]
  • 「구성주의 패러다임의 측면에서 본 작문 이론의 전개 동향 - 인지구성주의 작문이론과 사회구성주의 작문 이론을 중심으로」
    박태호 『초등교과교육연구』, 한국교원대학교 초등교육연구소, 제2호, 62-95 [1999]
  • 「고등학생 필자의 참고자료 활용 전략 분석」
    최건아 『국어교육』, 제141호, 한국어교육학회, 97-132 [2013]
  • 「作文의 評價基準에 관한 一考察」
    이영관 仁荷大學校석사학위 논문 [1986]
  • 「Rasch 모형을 활용한 국어교사의 쓰기평가 특성 분석 - 중학생 설명문 쓰기평가를 중심으로」
    박영민 최숙기 『國語敎育學硏究』, 제37호, 국어교육학회, 367-391 [2010]
  • 「Pair 전략을 활용한 독자 고려 교육」
    서수현 정혜승 『국어교육학연구』, 제35호, 국어교육학회, 271-299 [2009]
  • 「2011년 도입 고등학교 ‘국어’ 교과서 쓰기전략 분석 - 자기 주도적 쓰기전략을 중심으로」
    오세영 『한어문교육』, 제24호, 한국언어문학교육학회, 245-281 [2011]
  • Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2013). The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes.Teaching In Higher Education, 18(3), 285-297.
  • Yancey, K. B. (1999). Looking back as we look forward: Historicizing writing assessment. College Compositionand Communication, 50(3), 483-503.
  • Wolfe, E. W., Kao, C. W., & Ranney, M. (1998). Cognitive differences in proficient and nonproficient essayscorers. Written Communication, 15(4), 465-492.
  • Wolfe, E. W., & Song, T. (2014). Rater effect comparability in local independence and rater bundle models.Journal of Applied Measurement, 15(2), 152-159.
  • Wolfe, E. W., & Smith, E. V. (2007). Understanding rasch measurement: Instrument development tools andactivities for measure validation using rasch models: Part I-instrument development tools. Journal ofApplied Measurement, 8(1), 97-123.
  • Wolfe, E. W., & Ranney, M. (1996). Expertise in essay scoring. International Conference on the Learning Sciences,2, 545-550.
  • Wolfe, E. W., & Nogle, S. (2002). Development of measurability and importance scales for the NATAathletic training educational competencies. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(4), 431-454.
  • Wolfe, E. W., & Miller, T. R. (1997). Barriers to the implementation of portfolio assessment in secondaryeducation. Applied Measurement in Education, 10(3), 235-252.
  • Wolfe, E. W., & Feltovich, B. (1994). Learning To Rate Essays: A Study of Scorer Cognition. Available:http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED368777
  • Wolfe, E. W. (1997). The relationship between essay reading style and scoring proficiency in a psychometricscoring system. Assessing Writing, 4(1), 83-106.
  • Wolfe, E. W. (1995). A study of expertise in essay scoring. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.
  • Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Available:http://soltreemrls3.s3-website-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/solution-tree.com/media/pdf/study_guides/Study_Guide_EFA.pdf(2015.06.20.)
  • Whitney. A. (2008). Teacher transformation in the national writing project. Research in the Teaching of English,43(2), 144-187.
  • White, E. M. (1985). Desiging Effective Writing Assignments, Teaching and Assessing Writing, Jossey-BassPublishers.
  • White, E. (1994). Teaching and assessing writing: Recent advances in understanding, evaluating, and improving studentperformance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  • Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  • Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Harvard University Press.
  • Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225-246.
  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press.
  • Weir, C. J., & Milanovic, M. (2003). Continuity and innovation: Revising the cambridge proficiency in englishexamination, 1913-2002 Cambridge: University Press Cambridge.
  • Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation. UK: Macmillan.
  • Weigle, S. C., & Lynch. B. (1992). Hypothesis testing in construct validation. Modern Languages in Practice,2, 58-71.
  • Weigle, S. C. (2007). Teaching writing teachers about assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3),194-209.
  • Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Weigle, S. C. (1998). Using FACETS to model rater training effects. Language Testing, 15(2), 263-287.
  • Wall, D., Clapham, C., & Alderson, J. C. (1994). Evaluating a placement test. Language test, 11, 321-344.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. The Collected Works of LS Vygotsky, 1, 39-285.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity.
  • Vaughn, S. R., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. M. (1996). Focus group interviews in education and psychology. SagePublications.
  • Vaughan, C. (1991). Holistic assessment: What goes on in the rater’'s mind? In L Hamp-Lyons (ed). Assessingsecond language writing in academic contexts. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  • Vanbelle, S. S., & Albert, A. A. (2009). Agreement between an isolated rater and a group of raters. StatisticaNeerlandica, 63(1), 82-100.
  • VanDerHeide, J., & Newell, G. E. (2013). Instructional Chains as a Method for Examining the Teaching andLearning of Argumentative Writing in Classrooms. Written Communication, 30(3), 300-329.
  • Vacc, N. N. (1989). Writing evaluation: Examining four teachers' holistic and analytic scoring. The ElementarySchool Journal, 90(1), 87-95.
  • Tyler, R. W., Madaus, G. F., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (1988). Educational evaluation. Norwell, MA: KluwerAcademic.
  • Tyler, R. W., Gagne, R. M., & Scriven, M. (1967). Perspectives of curriculum evaluation. Chicago: RandMcNally.
  • Turvey, A., & Lloyd, J. (2014). Great Expectations and the complexities of teacher development. English inEducation, 48(1), 76-92.
  • Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group &Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427.
  • Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399.
  • Tompkins, G. E. (2004). Teaching writing: Balancing product and process. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
  • Thompson, R. W. (1991). Holistic assessment of a high school writing skills curriculum. Nebraska: s. n.
  • Taylor, H. (1948). The Future of American Education. The American Scholar, 33-40.
  • Tavares, W., & Eva, K. (2012). Exploring the impact of mental workload on rater-based assessments.Advances In Health Sciences Education, 1-13.
  • Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue.
  • Suto, I., & Nadas, R. (2010). Investigating examiners’ thinking: Using Kelly's Repertory Grid technique toexplore cognitive marking strategies. Research in Education, 84(1), 38-53.
  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage Newbury Park, CA.
  • Straub, R. (2001). The student, the text, and the classroom context: A case study of teacher response.Assessing Writing, 7(19), 23-55.
  • Straub, R. (2000). The student, the text, and the classroom context: A case study of teacher response.Assessing Writing, 7(1), 23-55.
  • Stern, L. A., & Solomon, A. (2006). Effective faculty feedback: The road less traveled. Assessing Writing, 11(1),22-41.
  • Stansfield, C. W. (2008). Lecture: where we have been and where we should go. Language Testing, 25(3),311-326.
  • Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
  • Spivey, N. N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing and the making of meaning. San Diego, CA:Academic.
  • Spivey, N. N. (1991). The shaping of meaning: options in writing the comparison. Research in the Teachingof English, 25, 390-418.
  • Sperling, M., National Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, B. A., & National Center for the Studyof Writing and Literacy, P. A. (1995). Revealing the Teacher-as-Reader: A Framework for Discussion andLearning. Occasional Paper No. 40.
  • Spandel, V., & Stiggins, R. J. (1997). Creating writers: Linking writing assessment and instruction. New York:Longman.
  • Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 97-114. Available:http://eslenglishclassroom.com/Art-02.pdf(2015.06.20.)
  • Smolik, M. (2008). Does using discussion as a score-resolution method in a speaking test improve the qualityof operational scores?. Available:http://iaea2008.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/ca/digitalAssets/144207_Microsoft_Word_-_Smolik.pdf/(2015.06.20.)
  • Smolik, M. (2007). Investigating scoring validity. A study of the ‘nowa matura’ speaking exam in English at the basiclevel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Poland: Maria Sklodowska-Curie University.
  • Smith, D.(2000). Rater judgments in the direct assessment of competency-based second language writingability. Studies in immigrant English language assessment, 1, 159-189.
  • Smagorinsky. P., Sanford. A. D., & Konopak. B. (2006). Functional literacy in a constructivist key: Anontraditional student teacher's apprenticeship in a rural elementary school. Teacher EducationQuarterly, 33(4), 93-110.
  • Smagorinsky, P., Pettis, V., & Reed, P. (2004). High school students’ compositions of ranch designsimplications for academic and personal achievement. Written Communication, 21(4), 386-418.
  • Smagorinsky, P. (2006). Research on composition. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Siegel, M. A. (2012). Filling in the Distance between Us: Group Metacognition during Problem Solving ina Secondary Education Course. Journal Of Science Education And Technology, 21(3), 325-341.
  • Shulman, L. S. (2000). Teacher development: Roles of domain expertise and pedagogical knowledge. Journalof Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 129-135.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review.
  • Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. PsychologicalBulletin, 86(2), 420-428.
  • Shohamy, E., Gordon, C. M., & Kraemer, R. (1992). The Effect of Raters' Background and Training on theReliability of Direct Writing Tests. The Modern Language Journal, 76(1), 27?33.
  • Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of IllinoisPress.
  • Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one, Educational researcher, 27(2), 4-13.
  • Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. NY: Basic Books.
  • Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Sato, M., Wei, R. C., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Improving teachers’ assessment practices throughprofessional development: The case of National Board Certification. American Educational ResearchJournal, 45(3), 669-700.
  • Sanderson, P. J. (2001). Language and differentiation in examining at a level (unpublished PhD Thesis). Schoolof psychology, UK: University of Leeds.
  • Ruth, L. & Murphy, S. (1988). Designing writing tasks for the assessment of writing. Ablex PublishingCorporation.
  • Ross, J. A., & Bruce, C. D. (2007). Teacher self-assessment: A mechanism for facilitating professional growth.Teaching & Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 23(2), 146-159.
  • Roch, S. G. (2007). Why convene rater teams: An investigation of the benefits of anticipated discussion,consensus, and rater motivation. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 104(1), 14-29.
  • Roch, S. G. (2006). Discussion and Consensus in Rater Groups: Implications for Behavioral and RatingAccuracy. Human Performance, 19(2), 91-115.
  • Rea-Dickins, P., & Poehner, M. (2011). Addressing issues of access and fairness in education throughDynamic Assessment. Assessment In Education: Principles, Policy And Practice, 18(2), 95-97.
  • Rea-Dickins, P., & Germaine, K. P. (1998). Managing evaluation and innovation in language teaching: Buildingbridges. Allyn & Bacon.
  • Rahim, A., & Bonoma, T. V. (1979). Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis andintervention. Psychological Reports, 44(3c), 1323-1344.
  • Purves, A. C. (1991) The textual contract: Literacy as common knowledge and conventional wisdom. In E.M.Jennings & A. C. Purves (Eds.), Literate systems and individual lives: Literacy and schooling (pp.51-72). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  • Purves, A. C. (1984). The teacher as reader: An anatomy. College English, 46(3), 259-265.
  • Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic Assessment: fairness through the prism of mediation. Assessment In Education:Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(2), 99-112.
  • Penny, J. A., & Johnson, R. L. (2011). The accuracy of performance task scores after resolution of raterdisagreement: A monte carlo study. Assessing Writing, 16(4), 221-236.
  • Penny, J. A.(2003). Reading high stakes writing samples: My life as a reader. Assessing Writing, 8(3),192-215.
  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc.
  • Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A.(2013). The Use of Scoring Rubrics for Formative Assessment Purposes Revisited:A Review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129-144.
  • Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review ofEducational Research, 62(3), 307?332.
  • Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature.Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 139-158.
  • Ottesen, E. (2007). Reflection in teacher education. Reflective practice, 8(1), 31-46.
  • Osborne, J., & Walker, P. (2014). Just ask teachers: Building expertise, trusting subjectivity, and valuingdifference in writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 22, 33-47.
  • Nystrand, M., Himley, M., & Doyle, A. (1986). The structure of written communication. Orlando, Fla.: AcademicPress.
  • Nystrand, M. (2000). WITH GAMORAN, A., KACHUR, R., & PRENDERGAST, C. (1997). Openingdialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. Language andLiteracy Series). New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school.Cambridge University Press.
  • Newell, B. R., & Broder, A. (2008). Cognitive processes, models and metaphors in decision research. Judgmentand Decision Making, 3(3), 195-204.
  • Nadas, R., & Suto, I. (2010). Speed isn't everything: A study of examination marking. Educational Studies,36(1), 115-118.
  • NCES & ETS(2012). The nation's report card: Writing 2011. national assessment of educational progress at grades 8and 12. NCES 2012-470. National Center for Education Statistics.
  • NAGB(2010). Writing Framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress. National AssessmentGoverning Board.
  • NAEP(2000). NAEP facts, NCES, Washington DC.
  • Myford, C. M., & Wolfe, E. W. (2009). Monitoring rater performance over time: A framework for detectingdifferential accuracy and differential scale category use. Journal of Educational Measurement, 46(4),371-389.
  • Myford, C. M., & Wolfe, E. W. (2004). Understanding rasch measurement: Detecting and measuring ratereffects using many-facet rasch measurement: Part II. Journal of Applied Measurement, 5(2), 189-227.
  • Myford, C. M., & Wolfe, E. W. (2003). Understanding rasch measurement: Detecting and measuring ratereffects using many-facet rasch measurement: Part I. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4(4), 386-421.
  • Myford, C. M. (2012). Rater cognition research: Some possible directions for the future. EducationalMeasurement: Issues And Practice, 31(3), 48-49.
  • Moss, P., Schutz, A., & Collins, K. (1997). Developing coherence between assessment and reform: Anintegrative approach to portfolio evaluation for teacher licensure. Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Chicago.
  • Moss, P. A. (1994). Validity in high stakes writing assessment: Problems and possibilities. Assessing Writing,1(1), 109-128.
  • Moss, P. A. (1992). Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications for performanceassessment. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 229?258.
  • Moskal, B. M., & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. PracticalAssessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(10), 71-81.
  • Morgan, G. B., Zhu, M. M., Johnson, R. L., & Hodge, K. J. (2014). Interrater reliability estimatorscommonly used in scoring language assessments: A Monte Carlo investigation of estimator accuracy. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(3), 304-324.
  • Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
  • Misher, E. G. (1986). Research Interview: Context and Narrative. UK: Cambridge.
  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity forprocessing information. Psychological review, 63(2), 81-97.
  • Miller, C. E. (1989). The social psychological effects of group decision rules. In P. Paulus (Ed.), The psychologyof group influence (pp. 327-355). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Milanovic, M., Saville, N., & Shuhong, S. (1996). A study of the decision making behaviour of compositionmarkers. In M Milanovic and N Saville (Eds). Studies in Language Testing 3: Performance testing,cognition and assessment. Selected papers from the 15th Language Testing Research Colloquium.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Meyer, M. A., & Booker, J. M. (1991). Eliciting and analyzing expert judgment: A practical guide. SIAM.
  • Messick, S. (1990). Validity of test interpretation and use. New Jersey: s. n.
  • Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. EducationalResearcher, 8(2), 5-11.
  • Melketo, T. A. (2012). Exploring tensions between english teachers’ beliefs and practices in teaching writing. The International HETL Review, 2. Available:https://www.hetl.org/academic-articles/exploring-tensions-between-english-teachers-beliefs-and-practices-in-teaching-writing(2015.06.20.)
  • McNamara, T. F., & Roever, C. (2006). The social dimension of proficiency: How testable is it. LanguageTesting: The Social Dimension, 43-79.
  • McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E.(2001). Professional communities and thework of high school teaching. Chicago : University of Chicago press.
  • McDiarmid, G. W., & Clevenger-Bright, M. (2008). Rethinking teacher capacity. Handbook of Research onTeacher Education: Enduring Questions in Changing Contexts, 134-156.
  • McColly, W., & Remstad, R. (1965). Composition rating scales for general merit: An experimental evaluation.The Journal of Educational Research, 55-56.
  • Marzano, R. J. (2013). High reliability school. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.
  • Lynne, P. (2004). Coming to terms: A theory of writing assessment. Logan, UT: Utah State UP.
  • Lynch, B. (1996). Language program evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lunsford. R. F. (1997). When less is more: Principles for responding in the disciplines. New Directions forTeaching and Learning, 69, 91-104.
  • Lunsford, A. (1985). Cognitive studies and teaching writing. In: B. W. McClelland & T. R. Donovan (Eds.),Perspectives on research and scholarship in composition (pp. 145?.161). New York: Modern LanguageAssociation.
  • Lumley, T. (2005). Assessing second language writing: The rater’s perspective. Frankfurt: Lang.
  • Lumley, T. (2002). Assessment criteria in a large-scale writing test: What do they really mean to the raters?Language Testing, 19(3), 246?276.
  • Lumley, T. (2000). The process of the assessment of writing performance: the rater’s perspective. Unpublished PhDdissertation. Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics: The University of Melbourne.
  • Longford, N. T. (1994). Reliability of essay rating and score adjustment. Journal of Educational and BehavioralStatistics, 19(3), 171-200.
  • Lindquist. E. F. (1935). Cooperative achievement testing. The Journal of Educational Research, 7, 511-521.
  • Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2013). Modeling writing development: Contribution of transcription andself-regulation to Portuguese students' text generation quality. Journal Of Educational Psychology,105(2), 401-413.
  • Lieberman, M. D., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2004). Conflict and habit: A social cognitive neuroscience approachto the self. On Building, Defending and Regulating the Self: A Psychological Perspective, 77-102.
  • Lewis, K., & Herndon, B. (2011). Transactive memory systems: Current issues and future research directions.Organization Science, 22(5), 1254-1265.
  • Lewin, K. (1936). A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers. The Journal of Nervous and MentalDisease, 84(5), 612-613.
  • Levin, B. B. (1995). Using the case method in teacher education: The role of discussion and experience inteachers' thinking about cases. Teaching and teacher education, 11(1), 63-79.
  • Leont'ev, A. N. (1972). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4-33.
  • Leijten, M., Van Waes, L., Schriver, K., & Hayes, J. R. (2013). Writing in the workplace: Constructingdocuments using multiple digital sources. Journal of Writing Research, 5(3), 285-337.
  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge England: New York.
  • Langer, J. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well.American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 837-880.
  • Laming, D. (2004). Human judgment: The eye of the beholder. London, England: Thomson.
  • Kress, G. (1985). Ideological structures in discourse. Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 4(1), 22-42.
  • Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.
  • Kiuhara. S. A., Graham. S., & Hawken. L. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A nationalsurvey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 136-160.
  • Kershaw, S. (2013). Exploring the Impact of Text Structures on Reading Comprehension. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 74(6).
  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  • Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educationalconsequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130-144.
  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness (No.6). Harvard University Press.
  • Johnson, R.L., Penny, J., & Gordon, B. (2001). Score resolution and the interrater reliability of holistic scoresin rating essays. Written Communication, 18(2), 229-249.
  • Johnson, R. L., Penny, J., Gordon, B., Shumate, S. R., & Fisher, S. P. (2005). Resolving Score Differencesin the Rating of Writing Samples: Does Discussion Improve the Accuracy of Scores?. LanguageAssessment Quarterly, 2(2), 117-146.
  • Johnson, R. L., Penny, J., Fisher, S., & Kuhs, T. (2003). Score resolution: An investigation of the reliabilityand validity of resolved scores. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(4), 299-322.
  • Johnson, R. L., Penny, J., & Gordon, B. (2000). The relation between score resolution methods and interraterreliability: An empirical study of an analytic scoring rubric. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(2),121-138.
  • Johnson, R. L., Penny, J. A., & Gordon, B. (2009). Assessing performance: Designing, scoring, and validatingperformance tasks. Guilford Press.
  • Johnson, M. (2001). The art of nonconversation: A reexamination of the validity of the oral proficiency interview. YaleUniversity Press.
  • Jeffery, J. V. (2011). Subjectivity, intentionality, and manufactured moves: Teachers' perceptions of voice inthe evaluation of secondary students' writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 46(1), 92-127.
  • Israel, S. E., Kinnucan-Welsch, K., Block, C. C., & Bauserman, K. L. (2005). Metacognition in literacy learning:Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Huot, B. A. (2002). (Re)articulating writing assessment for teaching and learning. Logan: Utah State UniversityPress.
  • Huot, B. A. (1993). The influence of holistic scoring procedures on reading and rating student essays. In M.M. Williamson & B. A. Huot (Eds.), Validating holistic scoring for writing assessment (pp. 206-236). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  • Huot, B. A. (1990b). Reliability, validity, and holistic scoring: What we know and what we need to know.College Composition and Communication, 41, 201-213.
  • Huot, B. A. (1990a). The Literature of Direct Writing Assessment: Major Concerns and Prevailing Trends,Review of educational Research, 60(2), 237-263.
  • Hull, G., & Rose, M. (1990). This wooden shack place: The logic of an unconventional reading. CollegeComposition and Communication, 287-298.
  • Hinsz, V. B. (1992). Social influences on the goal choices of group members. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 22, 1297?1317.
  • Hillocks, G. (2011). Teaching argument writing, Grades 6-12: Supporting claims with relevant evidence and clearreasoning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  • Hill, B. C., & Ruptic, C. (1994). Practical Aspects of Authentic Assessment: Putting the Pieces Together.Washington: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
  • Hayes, J. R., Flower, L. S., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision.In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Vol. 2. Reading, writing, and languageprocessing (pp. 176-240). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and Remodeling Writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369-388.
  • Hayes, J. R. (2000). A New Framework for Understanding Cognition and Affect in Writing. In R. Indrisano,J. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on Writing: Research, Theory, and Practice (pp. 6-44). Newark, DE:International Reading Association.
  • Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy andS. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Haswell, R. H. (1998). Rubrics, prototypes, and exemplars: Categorization theory and systems of writingplacement. Assessing Writing, 5(2), 231-268.
  • Hamp-Lyons, L. (2014). Writing assessment in global context. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(3),353-362.
  • Hamp-Lyons, L. (2011). Writing assessment: Shifting issues, new tools, enduring questions. Assessing Writing,16(1), 3-5.
  • Hamp-Lyons, L. (2010). Assessing writing is going quarterly. Assessing Writing, 15(3), 132.
  • Hamp-Lyons, L. (2009). Key developmental issues in classroom-based teacher assessment: Conceptual,theoretical, methodological and policy issues principles for large-scale classroom-based teacherassessment of english learners' language: An initial framework from school-based assessment in hongkong. Tesol Quarterly, 43(3), 524-529.
  • Hamp-Lyons, L. (2008). Writing assessment: Expanding outwards and coming together. Assessing Writing,13(1), 1-3.
  • Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). The scope of writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 8(1), 5-16.
  • Hamp-Lyons, L. (2000b). Social, professional and individual responsibility in language testing. System, 28(4),579-591.
  • Hamp-Lyons, L. (2000a). Fairnesses in language testing. Studies in Language Testing, 9, 30-34.
  • Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Scoring procedures for ESL contexts. Assessing Second Language Writing in AcademicContexts, 241-276.
  • Halonen, J. S., Bosack, T., Clay, S., McCarthy, M., Dunn, D. S., Hill, G. W., . . . Weaver, K. A. (2003).A rubric for learning, teaching, and assessing scientific inquiry in psychology. Teaching of Psychology,30(3), 196-208.
  • Halliday, M. A. (1991). The notion of "context" in language education, In Halliday & Jonathan (Eds),Language and Education, Continuun Intl Pub Group.
  • Hall, J. K. (1995). (Re)creating our worlds with words: A sociohistorical perspective of face-to-face interaction.Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 206-232.
  • Guzzo, R. A. (1986). Group decision making and group effectiveness in organizations. In P. Goodman (Ed.),Designing effective work groups (pp. 34-71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational researcher, 15(5), 5-12.
  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Granado, C. C. (2014). Teachers as readers: A study of the reading habits of future teachers. Cultura YEducacion, 26(1), 44-70.
  • Gosling, G. W. (1966). Marking English compositions. Australian Council for Educational Research.
  • Gorman, T. P., Purves, A. C., & Degenhart, R. E. (Eds.). (1988). The IEA Study of Written Composition: Theinternational writing tasks and scoring scales. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  • Godshalk, F. I., Swineford, F., Coffman, W. E., Educational, T. S., & College Entrance, E. B. (1966). Themeasurement of writing ability. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.Transaction Publishers.
  • Gallagher, C. W. (2010). Assess Locally, Validate Globally: Heuristics for Validating Local WritingAssessments. Journal Of The Council Of Writing Program Administrators, 34(1), 10-32.
  • Gallagher, C. (2011). Being there: (Re)making the assessment scene. College Composition And Communication,62(3), 450-476.
  • Fullan, M., Hargreaves, A., & United States Department of Education Research, Information Center. (1996).What's worth fighting for in your school?. Rockville, Maryland: ERIC.
  • Fulcher, G. (1997). An English language placement test: Issues in reliability and validity. Language Testing,14, 113-138.
  • Freedman, S. W., & Calfee, R. C. (1983). Holistic assessment of writing: Experimental design and cognitivetheory. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles andmethods (pp. 75-98). New York: Longman.
  • Freedman, A., & Pringle, I. (1980). Writing in the college years: Some indices of growth. College Compositionand Communication, 31(3), 311-324.
  • Franke, A., & Dahlgren, L. O. (1996). Conceptions of mentoring: An empirical study of conceptions ofmentoring during the school-based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 627-641.
  • Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. The nature of intelligence, 12, 231-235.
  • Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risksand benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1-17.
  • Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research, Psychology Press.
  • Everard, B., & Morris, G. (1990). Effective School Management, London: Paul Chapman.
  • Ernest, P. (1989). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. Mathematics Teaching: The State ofthe Art, 249-254.
  • Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journalof Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
  • Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R.Miettinen, R. L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge UniversityPress.
  • Elbow, P. (1994). Peter Elbow Responds. College English, 1, 101-105.
  • Elbow, P. (1993). Ranking, Evaluating, and Liking: Sorting out Three Forms of Judgment. College English, 2,187-206.
  • Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice, NewYork, NY: Toronto.
  • Eckes, T. (2012). Operational Rater Types in Writing Assessment: Linking Rater Cognition to RaterBehavior. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(3), 270-292.
  • East, M. (2009). Evaluating the reliability of a detailed analytic scoring rubric for foreign language writing.Assessing Writing, 14, 88-115.
  • Earl, L. M., & LeMahieu, P. G. (1997). Rethinking assessment and accountability. Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Develpoment-Yearbook, 149-168.
  • Duffy, G. G., Miller, S., Parsons, S., & Meloth, M. (2009). Teachers as metacognitive professionals. In D. J.,Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Education (pp. 240-256).Routledge.
  • Dreyfus, S. E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980). A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skillacquisition (No. ORC-80-2). California Univ Berkeley Operations Research Center.
  • Dreyfus, S. E. (2004). The five-stage model of adult skill acquisition. Bulletin of science, technology & society, 24(3), 177-181.
  • Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1991). Towards a Phenomenology of Ethical Expertise. Human Studies, 4,229-250.
  • Diederich, P. B., French, J. W., & Carlton, S. T. (1961). Factors in the judgment of writing quality. Princeton,NJ: Educational Testing Service.
  • Diederich, P. B., & National Council of Teachers of English. (1974). Measuring growth in english. Urbana, Ill:National Council of Teachers of English.
  • DeRemer, M. L. (1998). Writing assessment: Raters' elaboration of the rating task. Assessing Writing, 5(1),7-29.
  • Davis, K. E., & Jones, E. E. (1960). Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of reducing cognitivedissonance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61(3), 402-410.
  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Teaching for Intelligence, 2,91-100.
  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Assessing teacher education: The usefulness of multiple measures for assessingprogram outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 120-138.
  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Teaching as a profession: Lessons in teacher preparation and professionaldevelopment. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(3), 237-240.
  • Daiute, C., & Kruidenier, J. (1985). A self-questioning strategy to increase young writers' revising processes.Applied Psycholinguistics, 6(3), 307-318.
  • Cumming, A., Kantor, R., & Powers, D. E. (2002). Decision making while rating ESL/EFL writing tasks: Adescriptive framework. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 67-96.
  • Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International Journalof English Studies, 1(2), 1-23.
  • Cumming, A. (1990). Expertise in evaluating second language compositions. Language Testing, 7(1), 31-51.
  • Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of educational research,58(4), 438-481.
  • Cronbach, L. J. (1963). Educational psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
  • Crisp, V. (2012). An investigation of rater cognition in the assessment of projects. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice, 31(3), 10-20.
  • Cremin, T., Mottram, M., Collins, F., Powell, S., & Safford, K. (2009). Teachers as Readers: BuildingCommunities of Readers. Literacy, 43(1), 11-19.
  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing groundedtheory. UK: Sage.
  • Cooper, C. R., & Odell, L. (1977). Evaluating Writing: describing, Measuring, Judging, Urbana, IL: NationalCouncil of Teachers of English.
  • Connors, R., & Lunsford, A. (1993). Teachers' rhetorical comments on student papers. College Composition andCommunication, 44, 200-224.
  • Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2011). The common core state standards. Available:http://www.corestandards.org(2015.06.20.)
  • Colombini, C. B., & McBride, M. (2012). "Storming and norming": Exploring the value of groupdevelopment models in addressing conflict in communal writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 17(4),191-207.
  • Coffman, W. E. (1966). On the Validity of Essay Tests of Achievement 1. Journal of Educational Measurement,3(2), 151-156.
  • Cochran-Smith,M.& Lytle,S.L.(1999).Relationshipsofknowledgeand practice: Teacherlearningincommunities.ReviewofResearchinEducation,24,249-305.
  • Clauser, B. E., Clyman, S. G., & Swanson, D. B. (1999). Components of rater error in a complexperformance assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 29-45.
  • Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching andteacher education, 18(8), 947-967.
  • Clark, S. E., Hori, A., Putnam, A., & Martin, T. P. (2000). Group collaboration in recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1578-1588.
  • Chiseri-Strater, E., & Sunstein, B. S. (1997). Fieldworking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2003). The inner voice in writing. Written communication, 20(1), 99-118.
  • Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. The Sage handbook of qualitativeresearch, 4, 359-380.
  • Chalos, P., & Pickard, S. (1985). Information choice and cue use: An experiment in group informationprocessing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(4), 634-641.
  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2002). Control processes and self-organization as complementary principlesunderlying behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(4), 304-315.
  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2001). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press.
  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: Acontrol-process view. Psychological Review, 97(1), 19.
  • Carroll, L. A. (2002). Rehearsing new roles: How college students develop as writers. Carbondale: Southern IllinoisUP.
  • Camp, H. H. (2012). The psychology of writing development: And its implications for assessment. AssessingWriting, 17(2), 92-105.
  • Calfee, R. C., National Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, & National Center for the Study ofWriting and Literacy. (1996). Writing portfolios in the classroom. Rockville, Maryland: ERIC.
  • Butler, D. L., Schnellert, L., & Cartier, S. C. (2013). Layers of self-and co-regulation: Teachers workingcollaboratively to support adolescents' self-regulated learning through reading. Education ResearchInternational, 1-19. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/845694(2015.06.20.)
  • Butler, D. L., & Schnellert, L. (2012). Collaborative inquiry in teacher professional development. Teaching andTeacher Education, 28(8), 1206-1220.
  • Burnham, C. (1986). The Perry scheme and the teaching of writing. Rhetoric Review, 4, 152-158.
  • Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
  • Bruner, J. S. (1983). Education as social invention. Journal of Social Issues, 39(4), 129-141.
  • Brooks, G. W. (2007). Teachers as Readers and Writers and as Teachers of Reading and Writing. Journal OfEducational Research, 100(3), 177-191.
  • Broder, A., & Gaissmaier, W. (2007). Sequential processing of cues in memory-based multiattribute decisions.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 895-900.
  • Broder, A. (2003). Decision making with the "adaptive toolbox": Influence of environmental structure,intelligence, and working memory load. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, andCognition, 29(4), 611-625.
  • Broad, B. (2003). What We Really Value: Beyond Rubrics in Teaching and Assessing Writing. Logan: Utah StateUniversity Press.
  • Broad, B. (1997). Reciprocal authorities in communal writing assessment: Constructing textual value withina "new politics of inquiry". Assessing Writing, 4(2), 133-167.
  • Breed, B., Mentz, E., & van der Westhuizen, G. (2014). A Metacognitive Approach to Pair Programming:Influence on Metacognitive Awareness. Electronic Journal Of Research In Educational Psychology, 12(1),33-60.
  • Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. handbook I: Cognitive domain. New york: David McKay.
  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment,Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31.
  • Bizzell, P. (1986). Composing process: an overview, In Petrosky, A. R., Bartholimae, D. (Eds.), The Teachingof Writing (pp. 47-70). Illinois, CH: University of Chicago Press.
  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written communication. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
  • Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. Cognitive processes in writing, 73-93.
  • Bennis, W., & Shepard, H. (1956). A theory of group development. Human Relations, 9, 415-437.
  • Bejar, I. I. (2012). Rater cognition: Implications for validity. Educational Measurement: Issues And Practice, 31(3),2-9.
  • Behizadeh. N., & Engelhard. G. (2011). Historical view of the influences of measurement and writing theorieson the practice of writing assessment in the united states. Assessing Writing, 16(3), 189-211.
  • Beaufort, A. (2007). College writing and beyond: A new framework for university writing instruction. Logan, UT:Utah State University Press.
  • Beal, C. R., Garrod, A. C., & Bonitatibus, G. J. (1990). Fostering children's revision skills through trainingin comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 275.
  • Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2012). Local literacies. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: New York.
  • Bardine. B. A., Bardine. M. S., & Deegan. E. F. (2000). Beyond the red pen: Clarifying our role in theresponse process. English Journal, 90(1), 94-101.
  • Bandura, A.(1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
  • Bakhtin, M. M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of texas Press.
  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1990). Art answerability: Early philosophical essays by M. M. Bakhtin.(Trans. V. Liapunov).Austin: University of Texas Press.
  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. (Trans. C. Emersion & M.Holquist). (Ed. M. Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press.
  • Bachman, L. F., & Savignon, S. J. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University PressOxford.
  • Applebee. A. N., & Langer. J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and highschools. English Journal, 100(6), 14-107.
  • Applebee. A. N., & Langer. J. A. (2009). What is happening in the teaching of writing? English Journal,98(5), 18-28.
  • Applebee, A. N. (1996). Curriculum as conversation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Applebee, A. (2000). Alternative models of writing development. In: R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.),Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 90?110). Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.
  • Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theoryinto Practice, 48(1), 12-19.
  • Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., &Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomyof educational objectives, abridged edition. White Plains, NY: Longman.
  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council onMeasurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.
  • Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2006). Rubrics: tools for making learning goals and evaluation criteria explicit forboth teachers and learners. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 5(3), 197-203.
  • Allagui, B. (2011). Prototypes of the Teacher-as-Reader: An Integration of Cognitive Categorization Theorywith Research on the Teacher-as-Reader. International Journal Of The Humanities, 9(7), 21-30.
  • Albertson, B. (2007). Organization and Development Features of Grade 8 and Grade 10 Writers: ADescriptive Study of Delaware Student Testing Program (DSTP) Essays. Research In The Teaching OfEnglish 41(4), 435-464.
  • Akkerman, S., Van den Bossche, P., Admiraal, W., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Simons, R. J., & Kirschner,P. (2007). Reconsidering group cognition: From conceptual confusion to a boundary area betweencognitive and socio-cultural perspectives?. Educational Research Review, 2(1), 39-63.
  • AFT, NCME, NEA. (1990). Standards for teacher competence in educational assessment of students.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 9(4). 30-32.
  • 21세기 국어과 교육과정 개정의 방향 탐색 －미국의 ‘공통핵심기준’의 특성과 시사점 분석을 중심으로－
    이순영 『청람어문교육』, 제43호, 청람어문교육학회, 7-35 [2011]