The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 37, Issue 9, 2000, Pages 963-980

  Supovitz, Jonathan A ^a   Turner, Herbert M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0008759956     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<963::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-0     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Allen, E.E., & Lederman, L. (1998). Lessons learned: The teachers academy for mathematics and science. Phi Delta Kappan, October, 158-164.
2. Arons, A.B. (1989). What science should we teach? In The Biological Science Curriculum Study (Ed.), A BSCS Thirtieth Anniversary Symposium: Curriculum Development for the Year 2000 (pp. 13-20). Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
3. Borko, H., & Putnam, R.T. (1995). Expanding a teacher's knowledge base: A cognitive psychological perspective on professional development. In T.R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms & practices (pp. 35-66). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
4. Bryk, A.S., & Raudenbush, S.W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
5. Bryk, A.S., Raudenbush, S.W., & Congdon, R.T. (1996). Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling with HLM/2L and HLM/3L programs. Chicago: Scientific Software Inernational.
6. Burstein, L., McDonnell, L.M., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha, J., & Guitton, G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.
7. Bybee, R.W. (1993). Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal reflections. New York: Teacher's College Press.
8. Cohen, D.K., & Ball, D.L. (1990). Policy and practice: An overview. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 233-239.
9. Cohen, D.K., & Hill, H.C. (1998). State policy and classroom performance: Mathematics reform in California. CPRE Policy Brief. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
10. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (1999). A Close look at effects on classroom practice and student performance: A report of the fifth year of the Merck Institute for Science Education 1997-98. CPRE evaluation report: Author.
11. Corcoran, T., & Goertz, M. (1995). Instructional capacity and high performance. Educational Researcher, 24(9) 27-31.
12. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, April 1995.
13. Flora, D.B., & Panter, A.T. (1999). Technical report: Analysis of the psychometric structure of the LSC surveys. Chapel Hill, NC: L.L. Thurstone Psychometric Lab.
14. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
15. Guskey, T.R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, May, 1986.
16. Hawley, W.D., & Rosenholtz, S. (1984). Good schools: A synthesis of research on how schools influence student achievement. Peabody Journal of Education, 4, 1-178.
17. Hawley, W.D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy. New York: Teachers College.
18. Kahle, J.B., & Rogg, S.R. (1996). A pocket panorama of the landscape study, 1995. Miami University, Oxford, OH.
19. Kennedy, M.M. (1998). The relevance of content in inservice teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. April, 1998. San Diego, CA.
20. Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development. Phi Delta Kappan, April, 1995.
21. Little, J.W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational evaluation and policy analysis. 15(2), 129-151.
22. Marek, E.A., &Methaven, S.B. (1991). Effect of the learning cycle upon student and classroom teacher performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 41-53.
23. Marsh, D.D., & LeFever, K. (1997). Educational leadership in a policy context. What happens when student performance standards are clear? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago.
24. Mayer, D. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 29-45.
25. McDermott, L.C. (1990). A perspective in teacher preparation in physics and other sciences: the need for special science courses for teachers. American Journal of Physics, 58.
26. Mullens, J.E. (1998). Validating teacher responses on instructional practice self-report surveys: Findings from a recent fieldtest. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management. New York: October 31, 1998.
27. National Center for Educational Statistics. (1995). Digest of Education Statistics 1995. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
28. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29. O'Day, J., & Smith, M. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S.H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 250-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
30. Porter, A.C., Kirst, M.W., Osthoff, E.J., Smithson, J.L., & Schneider, S.A. (1993). Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.
31. Resnick, L., & Klopfer, L. (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: An overview. Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research, 1989 yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (pp. 1-10). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
32. Schmidt, W. (1999). Presentation at the annual conference of the National Center for Education and The Economy, January, 8. San Diego, CA.
33. Smylie, M.A. (1989). Teachers' views of the effectiveness of sources of learning to teach. The Elementary School Journal, 89(5), 543-558.
34. Smylie, M.A. (1996). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: The importance of teacher learning in education reform. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 9-11.
35. Smylie, M.A., Bilcer, D.K., Greenberg, R.C., & Harris, R.L. (1998). Urban teacher professional development: A portrait of practice from Chicago. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. April, 1998. San Diego, CA.
36. Spillane, J.P., & Thompson, C.L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185-203.
37. Supovitz, J.A., Mayer, D.P., & Kahle, J.B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14(3), 331-356.
38. Wilson, B.L., & Corbett, H.D. (1990). Statewide testing and local improvement: An oxymoron? In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational reform movement of the 1980s (pp.243-263). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
39. Zigarmi, P., Betz, L., & Jennings, D. (1977). Teachers' preferences in and perceptions of inservice. Educational Leadership, 34, 545-551.