___

• Bahar, M. &, Hansell, M. H. (2000). The Relationship between some psychological factors and their effect on the performance of grid questions and word association tests. Educational Psychology, c. 20 n. 3, s. 346 – 364.
• Bennett, R. E., Rock, D. A., Braun, H. I., Frye, D., and Sophrer, E. (1990). The relationship of expert-system scored constrained free-response items to multiplechoice and open ended items. Applied Psychological Measurement, c. 14, s. 151-162.
• Bolger, N. and Kellaghan, T. (1990). Method of Measurement and gender differences in Scholastic Achievement. Journal of Educational Measurement, c. 27, s. 165- 174.
• Bransky, J., & Qualter, A. (1993). Applying Physics Concepts-Uncovering the Gender Differences in Assessment of Performance Unit Result. Research in Science and Technological Education, c. 11, n. 2, s. 141-156.
• Breland, H., Danos, D., Kahn, H., Kubota, M., & Sudlow, M. (1991). A study of gender and performance on advenced placement history examinations (College Board Rep. No. 91-4; ETS RR No. 91-61). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
• Browne, N. and Ross, C. (1991). Girls’ stuff, Boys’ stuff: Young children talking and playing. In N. Browne (Ed.), Science and technology in the early years. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Burkam, D. T., & Burkam, A. S. (1995). Is Item Format Important? In D. R. Baker, & K. Scantlebury (Eds.), Science “coeducation”: Viewpoints from gender, Race and Ethnic Perpectives. NARTS monograph No. 7, 140-151.
• Burton, N. W. (1996). How have changes in the SAT’s affected women’s math scores. Educational Researcher, c. 15, n. 4, s. 5-9.
• Cataloğlu, E. (1996). Promoting teachers’ awareness of students’ misconceptions in introductory mechanics. Unpublished Master Thesis, METU, Ankara, Turkey.
• DeMars, C. E. (1998). Gender differences in mathematics and science on a high school proficiency exam: the role of responce format,” Applied Measurement in Education, c. 11, n. 3, s. 279-299.
• Dimitrov, M. D. (1999). Gender differences in science achievement: Differential effect of ability, response format, and strands of learning outcomes. Gender Differences in Science Achievement, c. 99, n. 8, s. 445-450.
• Egan, K. (1972). Structrul communication – a new contribution to pedagogy. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, c. 1, s. 63 – 78.
• Harding, J. (1979). Sex differences in examination performance at 16. Physics Education, c. 14, s. 280-84.
• Hestenes, D, Wells, M., & Swachhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. Physics Teacher, 30, 141-153.
• Johnson, S. (1987). Gender differences in science: parallels in interest, experience and performance. International Journal of Science Education, c. 9, n. 4, s. 467-481.
• Johnstone, A. H. (1981). Diagnostic Testing in Science. In Evaluation Roles in Education, Eds. Lewy, A. And Nevo, D. London: Gordon and Breach.
• Johnstone, A. H., Morrison, T. L., and Reid, N. (1981). Chemistry About us. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
• Jovanic, J., Solano-Flores, G. and Shavelson, R. J. (1994). Performans-based assessments: Will gender differences in science achievement be eliminated? Education and Urban Society, c. 26, s. 352-366.
• Kahle, J.B & Meece, J. (1994). Research on gender issue in the classroom. In D. L. Gabel (eds). Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (p. 542- 558). New York, NY, USA: Macmillan.
• Karaçam, Sedat (2005). Farklı bilişsel stillerdeki lise öğrencilerinin hareket ve hareket yasaları konularındaki kavramları anlama düzeyleri ile ölçme teknikleri arasındaki ilişki. (AİBÜ, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Mayıs, 2005).
• Kelly, A. (1988). Sex Stereotypes and School Science, A Three-Year Follow-up,” Educational Studies, c. 14, s. 151-163.
• Mazzoe, J., Schmitt, A., & Bleistein, C. (1992). Sex-related differences on constructedresponces and multiple-choice sections of advenced pacement examinations: Three exploratory studies. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service
• Meece, J. L. & Holt, K. (1993). A Pattern Analysis of Students’ Achievement Goals.
• Journal of Educational Psychology, c. 85, n. 4, s. 582-590.
• Morrell, P. D., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). Students’ Attitudes Towards Shool and Classroom Science: Are They Independent Phenomena? School Science and Mathematics, c. 98, s. 76-82.
• O’Neil, H. F. Jr., & Brown, R. S. 1998. Differential effects of question formats in math assessment on metacognition and affect. Applied in Education, c. 11, n. 4, s. 331- 351.
• Otto, P. B. (1991). One Science, One Sex? School Science And Mathematics, c. 91, n. 8, s. 367-372.
• Scottish Exam Board (1997). Hidher Grade Biology Examination Papers. Glasgow: Gibson.
• Sencar, S., & Eryılmaz, A. (2004). Factors Mediating the Effect of Gender on NinthGrade Turkish Students’ Misconceptions Concerning Electric Circuit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, c. 41, n. 6, s. 603-616.
• Stobart, G., Elwood, J., and Quilan, M. (1992). Gender Bias in Examinations: How Equal are the Opportunities? British Educational Research Journal, c. 18, n. 3, s. 261-276.
• Yıp, D. Y., Chıu, M. M. and Chu Ho, E. S. (2004). Hong Kong student achievement in OECD-PISA study:Gender differences in science content, literacy, skills, and ıtem formats. Ijma:humnfam, c. 1, n. 2, s. 1-15.
• Whitehouse, H. and Sullivan, M. (1992). Girls and year 12 science examinations.
• Adelaide: Science Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
• Zhang, L. & Manon, J. (2000). Gender and achievement—Understanding gender differences and similarities in mathematics assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 24-28, 2000.