:‫ביבליוגרפיה‬
:‫ביבליוגרפיה לשיטות מחקר‬
.‫ דביר‬:‫ לוד‬.‫ מסורות וזרמים במחקר האיכותי‬.)2001( .)‫ נ' (עורכת‬,‫יהושע‬-‫צבר בן‬
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Guttmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed
method research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.),
Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 209240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Giardina, M. D. (Eds.). (2006). Qualitative inquiry and the conservative
challenge. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Erzberger, C., & Kelle, U. (2003). Making inferences in mixed methods: The rules of
integration. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed
methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 457-490). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (Eds.). (1997a). Advances in mixed-method evaluation:
The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed method research: A research paradigm
whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed
methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C.
Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral
research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
‫ הערכת חוללות עצמית בהכוונת פעילויות ההתאמה של כתיבה לנמען‬.)2001( '‫ ש‬,‫כ"ץ‬
-‫ אוניברסיטת תל‬,‫ עבודת דוקטור‬.‫בעקבות אימון דיפרנציאלי ברפלקסיה‬
.‫אביב‬-‫ תל‬,‫אביב‬
‫ חוללות עצמית – המרכיב המוטיבציוני המנבא הטוב ביותר של ביצוע‬.)2002( '‫ ש‬,‫כ"ץ‬
.182-163 ,‫ ח‬,‫ שאנן‬.‫אקדמי‬
Coosky, L. J., Gill, P., & Kelly, P. A. (2001). The program logic model as an
integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation. Evaluation
and program Planning, 24, 119-128.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Equity issues in performance-based assessment. In M.
T. Nettles & A. L. Nettles (Eds.), Equity and excellence in
educational testing and assessment (pp. 89-114). Boston: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning.
Educational Leadership, 55(5), 6-11.
On Purpose Associates (2002). Constructivism. Funderstanding. Retrieved February
20, 2007, from http://www.funderstanding.com/constructivism.cfm
Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue
in mixed-method evaluation. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli
(Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges
and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 5-17). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greene, J. C., Benjamin, L., & Goodyear, L. (2001). The merits of mixing methods
in evaluation. Evaluation, 7(1), 25-44.
Katz, S., Fiegenbaum, A., Pasternak., & Vinker, Sh. (2005). Enhancing Self-efficacy
beliefs of family practitioners to treat obesity as a result of an
interactive course. BioMed, 5, 4.
Little, D. (2005). The Common European Framework and the European Language
Portfolio: involving learners and their judgements in the
assessment process. Language Testing, 22(3), 321-336.
Affective dimensions of learning (2002). NCREL. Retrieved February 20, 2007,
from
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at7lk7.htm
Patton, M, Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pawson, R., & Tilly, N. (1998). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.
Perkins, D. (1993). Creating a culture of thinking. Educational Leadership,
51(3),12-25.
Rallis, S. F., & Rossman, G. B. (2003). Mixed methods in evaluation contexts: A
pragmatic framework In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.),
Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp.
491-512). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Shavelson, R. J., Gao, X., & Baxter, G. P. (1996). On the content validity of
performance assessment: Centrality of domain specification. In M.
Birenbaum & F.J.R.C. Dochy (Eds.), Alternatives in assessment of
achievement, learning processes and prior knowledge (pp. 131141). Boston, Kluwer
Steiner, J. (2002). Why have a standards-based curriculum and what implications
for the teachinglearning-assessment process? Retrieved February 20, 2007, from
http://www.etni.org.il/red/etninews/issue4/whystandard.html
Thomas, V. G., & Stevens, F. I. (Eds.). (2004). Co-constructing a contextually
responsive evaluation framework: The Talent Development
Model of School Reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.