Alternatively Assessing an In-service Program

School Science and Mathematics

Volumn 98, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 26-34

  Luft, Julie A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002291677     PISSN: 00366803     EISSN: 19498594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17289.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Acheson, K. A., & Gall, M. D. (1992). Techniques in the clinical supervision of teachers. (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY : Longman Press.
2. Anderson, R. D., & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. L. Gable (Ed.). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York : Macmillan Publishing Company.
3. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education. Needham Heights, MA : Allyn and Bacon.
4. Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA : Association for the Supervision and Curriculum Development.
5. Ellis, J. D., Enochs, L. G., & Mattheis, F. E. (1994, March). Needed! Quality evaluation of teacher enhancement projects. In P. J. Kuerbis (Presider), Teacher education symposium. Symposium conducted at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching meeting, Anaheim, CA.
6. Good, R. G. (1983). Comments on explained variance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 93–94.
7. Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1991). What to consider when evaluating staff development. Education Leadership, 49(3), 73–76.
8. Hart, D. (1994). Authentic assessment: A handbook for educators. Menlo Park, CA : Addison-Wesley.
9. Harty, H., & Enochs, L. G. (1985). Toward reshaping the in-service education of science teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 85(2), 125–135.
10. Herman, J. L., Aschbacher, P. R., & Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
11. Hodson, D. (1992). Assessment of practical work. Science and Education, 1(2), 115–144.
12. Hodder, I., (1994). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA : Sage Publications.
13. Jensen, K. (1996). Effective rubric design: Making the most of this powerful assessment tool. Science Teacher, 64(5), 34–37.
14. Kyle, W. C., & Sedotti, M. A. (1987). The evaluation of staff development: A process, not an event. In B. S. Spector (Ed.), 1986 AETS Yearbook, A guide to in-service science teacher education: Research into practice. Columbus, OH : SMEA Information Reference Center.
15. Liu, K. (1995). Rubrics revisited: Allowing students to assume responsibility for the quality of their work. The Science Teacher, 62(7), 49–51.
16. Luft, J. A. (1997). Rubrics: Design and use in science teacher education. Manuscript submitted for publication.
17. Luft, J. A., & Pizzini, E. L. (in press). The demonstration classroom in-service: Changes in the classroom. Science Education.
18. Lundberg, R. (1997). Student-generated assessment. The Science Teacher, 64(1), 50–53.
19. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA : Sage Publications.
20. Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13–17.
21. Munby, H. (1983). Thirty studies involving the “Scientific Attitude Inventory”: What confidence can we have in this instrument Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 141–162.
22. Nott, L., Reeve, C., & Reeve, R. (1992). Scoring rubrics: An assessment option. Science Scope, 15(6), 44–45.
23. Pizzini, E. L., Shepardson, D. P., & Abell, S. K. (1989). A rationale for the development of a problem solving model of instruction in science education. Science Education, 73(5), 523–534.
24. Radford, D. L., Ramsey, L. L., & Deese, W. C. (1995). Demonstration assessment: Measuring conceptual understanding and critical thinking with rubrics. The Science Teacher, 62(7), 52–75.
25. Shaka, F. L., & Bitner, B. L. (1996, January). Construction and validation of a rubric for scoring concept maps. Paper presented at the Association for the Educators of Teachers of Science, Seattle, WA.
26. Van de Ven, A., & Delbecq, A. L. (1971). Nominal versus interacting group processes for committee decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 14(2), 203–212.
27. Wanat, C. (1993). Nominal group process. Unpublished manuscript, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
28. Wiggins, G. (1989). Teaching to the (authentic) test. Educational Leadership, 46(7), 41–47.
29. Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessment authenticity, context, and validity. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 200–214.
30. Wilson, J. L. (1994). The effects of a demonstration classroom on elementary teachers involved in a problem solving in-service program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
31. Wilson, J. L., & Pizzini, E. L. (1994). A new perspective for science in-service: Problem solving demonstration classrooms. Iowa Science Teachers Journal, 30(3), 3–11.
32. Wilson, J. L., & Pizzini, E. L. (1996). A paradigm for developing a demonstration classroom program. In J. Rhoton and P. Bowers (Eds.) Issues in Science Education. Arlington, VA : National Science Teachers Association.
33. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications.