___

• Akdeniz, A. and Kadı, A. (2016, December). Investigating individual innovativeness levels and lifelong learning tendencies of students in TMSC. Paper presented at the meeting of ICLEL Conferences Sakarya University Faculty of Education, Sakarya.
• Alismail, H. A. and McGuire, P. (2015). 21st century standards and curriculum: current research and practice. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(6), 150-154.
• Amar, S. and David, N. B. (2016). Realistic intelligence and 21st century skills in adapted learning environment. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(8), 588-596.
• Andresen, L., Jackson, M. and Kirby, E. (1994). Learning by doing. Higher Education Research and Development, 13(2), 111-120.
• Baxter-Magolda, M. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender–related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Bloxham, S. and West, A. (2004). Understanding the rules of the game: Marking peer assessment as a medium for developing students’ conception of assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(6), 721-733.
• Bommer, M. and Jalajas, D. (2002). The innovation work environment of high–tech SMEs in the USA and Canada. R&D Management, 32(5), 379-386.
• Brew, C. and Riley, P. (2011). Measuring student support for participative assessment and related strategies: Development and testing of the beliefs about participative assessment instruments (BAPAI). Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 32-52.
• Brew, C., Riley, P. and Walta, C. (2009). Education students and their teachers: comparing views on participative assessment practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(6), 641-657.
• Brindley, C. and Scoffield, S. (1998). Peer assessment in undergraduate programs. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1), 79-89.
• Brown, G., Bull, J. and Pendlebury, M. (1997). Assessing student learning in higher education. London: Routledge.
• Brown, G. T. L. and Hirschfeld, G. H. F. (2008). Students’ conceptions of assessment: Links to outcomes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(1), 3-17.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (15. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz Ş. and Demirel, F. (2013). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
• Can, A. (2013). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Collins, A. (1990). The role of computer technology in restructuring schools. Restructuring for Learning with Technology. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
• Erdoğan, D. G. and Güneş, D. Z. (2013). The relationship between individual innovatiness and change readiness conditions of students attending faculty of education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 3033-3040. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.349
• Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. London: Routledge Falmer.
• Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K. and Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4, 58-65.
• ISTE. (2016). ISTE Standards for Educators/Students. Retrived from http://www.iste.org
• İlhan, M., Çetin, B. and Bars, M. (2013). Katılımcı Değerlendirmeye Yönelik İnanç Ölçeği’nin (KDYİÖ) Türkçe uyarlaması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Journal of European Education, 3(2), 17-35.
• Kaminski, J. (2011). Diffusion of innovation theory. Canadian Journal of Nursing Informatics, 6(2), 1-7.
• Kaya, A. and Göçen, A. (2014). Öğretmen adaylarının bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri ile öğrenmeye ilişkin tutum düzeyleri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 44(204), 135-154.
• Kaya, S. (2017). Biyoloji öğretmenlerinin bireysel yenilikçilik düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Unpublished master’s thesis, Dicle University Institute of Education.
• Keleşoğlu, S. (2017). Öğretmen eğitiminde yaratıcı düşünme ve inovasyon eğitim programının tasarımı, denenmesi ve değerlendirilmesi. Unpublished doctoral disseration, Gazi University Institute of Education.
• Kert, S. B. and Tekdal, M. (2012). Comparison of individual innovativeness perception of students attending different education faculties. University of Gaziantep Journal of Social Sciences, 11(4), 1150-1161.
• Kılıçer, K. and Odabaşı, H. F. (2010). Bireysel Yenilikçilik Ölçeği (BYÖ): Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38, 150-164.
• Kocasaraç, H. (2018). Fen ve sosyal bilimler lisesi öğretmenlerinin yenilikçilik durumlarının değerlendirilmesi. Unpublished doctoral disseration, Yıldız Teknik University Institute of Social Science.
• Korucu, A. T. and Olpak, Y. Z. (2015). Examination of teacher candidates’ individual innovativeness properties from the different variables. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 5(1), 111-127.
• Köroğlu, A. Y. (2014). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin ve öğretmen adaylarının bilişim teknolojileri özyeterlik algıları, teknolojik araç gereç kullanım tutumları ve bireysel yenilikçilik düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Unpublished master’s thesis, Gazi University Institute of Education.
• Liu, C. C. and Chen, I. J. (2010). Evolution of constructivism. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(4), 63-66.
• Marlowe, B. A. and Page, M. L. (2005). Creating and sustaining the constructivist classroom (Rev. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
• MEB. (2018). Öğretim Programları. Retrived from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Programlar.aspx
• Nessipbayeva, O. (2012, June). The competencies of the modern teacher. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Bulgarian Comparative Education Society, Kyustendil.
• Özgür, H. (2013). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri ile bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri arasındaki ilişkinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 409- 420.
• P21. (2010). Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org Parlar, H. and Cansoy, R. (2017). Examining the relationship between teachers’ individual innovativeness and professionalism. International Education Studies, 10(8), 1-11.
• Patrick, S. and Gentz, S. (2016). Innovation zones: Creating policy flexibility for personalized learning. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED567870.pdf.
• Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Rawabdeh, I. and Strong, B. (2003). Developing technical entrepreneurship in less developed countries (A case study of Jordan). UK: Brigham University Press.
• Redding, S., Twyman, J. S. and Murphy, M. (2013). What is an innovation in learning. In M. Murphy, S. Redding and J. Twyman, (Eds.), Handbook on innovations in learning (pp. 3-14). Philadelphia, PA: Center on Innovations in Learning, Temple University; Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
• Reynolds, M. and Trehan, K. (2000). Assessment: a critical perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 267-278.
• Rodríguez-Gómez, G., Quesada-Serra, V. and Ibarra-Sáiz, M. S. (2016). Learningoriented e-assessment: the effects of a training and guidance programme on lecturers’ perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(1), 35- 52.
• Rogers, E. M. (2002). Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addictive Behaviors, 27(6), 989-993.
• Rusdiana, A. (2014). Konsep inovasi pendidikan. Bandung: CV Pustaka Setia.
• Salmon, G. (2005). Flying not flapping: a strategic framework for eLearning and pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions. ALT-J, 13(3), 201-218.
• Sambell, K., McDowell, L. and Brown, S. (1997). ‘But is it fair?’: An exploratory study of students perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 349-371.
• Segers, M. and Dochy, F. (2001). New assessment forms in problem-based learning: The value-added of the students’ perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 31(5), 327-343.
• Semmel, M. L. (2009, March). Museums, libraries, and 21st century skills. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Institute of Museum and Library Services, Washington, DC.
• Sengupta, A. and Tyagi, H. K. (2016). Teaching excellence and innovative practices: A case study of national awardee teachers of India. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(1), 48-53.
• Shantz, D. (2005). Öğretmen eğitiminde yenilikçi bir yaklaşım mı yoksa geleneksel bir anlayış mı? Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(2), 187-195.
• Sinclair, M. A. (2005). Participative assessment. In J. R. Wilson and N. Corlett, (Eds.), Evaluation of human work (pp: 83-112). USA: Taylor & Francis Group.
• Slater, T. F. (1996). Portfolio assessment strategies for grading first-year university physics students in the USA. Physics Education, 31(5), 329-333.
• Sofanudin, A., Rokhman, F. and Rusdarti, W. (2016). Quality-Oriented management of educational innovation at madrasah ibtidaiyah. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(27), 176-180.
• Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S. and Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16(5), 537- 549.
• Stukalenko, N. M., Zhakhina, B. B., Kukubaeva, A. K., Smagulova, N. K. and Kazhibaeva, G. K. (2016). Studying innovation technologies in modern education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(14), 6612- 6617.
• Süer, S. and Kinay, I. (2019). Investigation of relationship between prospective teachers’ need for cognition level and individual innovativeness state. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 11(3), 1-12.
• Tan, K. H. (2004). Does student self-assessment empower or discipline students? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 651-662.
• Wilson, S. M. and Peterson, P. L. (2006). Theories of learning and teaching: What do they mean for educators? Retrieved from www.nea.org/books.
• YÖK. (2018). Yeni Öğretmen Yetiştirme Lisans Programları. https://www.yok.gov.tr/kurumsal/idari-birimler/egitim-ogretim-dairesi/yeniogretmen-yetistirme-lisans-programlari.
• Yurdabakan, İ. (2011). The view of constructivist theory on assessment: Alternative assessment methods in education. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 44(1), 51-77.