The Impact of a Professional Development School on Preservice Teacher Preparation, Inservice Teachers' Professionalism, and Children's Achievement: Perceptions of Inservice Teachers

Action in Teacher Education

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 64-76

  Cobb, Jeanne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039826149     PISSN: 01626620     EISSN: 21586098     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01626620.2000.10463021     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Abdal, H., Professional development schools: What do we know? What do we need to know? How do we find out? Who do we tell?. Paper presented at the National Professional Development School Conference. Baltimore, MD. October.
2. Book, C., 1996. “ Professional development schools ”. In Handbook on research in teacher education., 2nd ed., Edited by: Sikula, J., 194–210. New York: Macmillan.
3. Cambone, J., Zambone, A., and Suarez, S., Are they learning as we expected them to learn? An evaluation of the preparation of special education teachers using a professional development school model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York. April.
4. Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. 1986. A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century, New York: Author.
5. Castenell, L., PDS stages and changes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Holmes Partnership. St. Louis. January.
6. Castleman, J., 1996. Improving field experiences for rural preservice teachers through the establishment of a professional development school, FL: Nova Southeastern University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 401 067)
7. Dixon, P., and Ishler, R., 1992. Professional development schools: Stages in collaboration. Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (1): 28–34.
8. Fullan, M., PDS stages and changes: System change. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Holmes Partnership. St. Louis. January.
9. Goodlad, J., 1988. “ School-university partnerships for educational renewal: Rationale and concepts ”. In School-university partnerships in action: Concepts, cases, and concerns, Edited by: Sirotnik, K. A., and Goodlad, J. I., 3–31. New York: Teachers College Press.
10. Goodlad, J., 1990. Teachers for our nation's schools, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
11. Hecht, J., Bland, S., Schoon, P., and Boschert, K., 1996. Professional development school 1995–96. A research report, Normal, IL: College of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 404 306)
12. Holmes Group. 1986. Tomorrow's teachers: A report of the Holmes Group, East Lansing, MI: Author.
13. Holmes Group. 1990. Tomorrow's schools: Principles for the design of professional development schools, East Lansing, MI: Author.
14. Holmes Partnership. 1997. The Holmes Partnership strategic action plan, 1998–2003, Washington, DC: Author.
15. Koerner, M., 1992. The cooperating teacher: An ambivalent participant in student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (1): 46–56.
16. Kostin, M., Multiple perspectives and their influence on the development of an assessment process for an emerging professional development school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. New Orleans, LA. February.
17. Long, J., and Morrow, J., Research analysis of professional development school graduates and traditional phase I and phase II graduates. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators. Detroit, MI. February.
18. Macy Research Associates. 1996. Centers for professional development and technology (CPDT) state-wide evaluation study, Austin, TX: Texas State Board for Educator Certification. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 409 287)
19. Million, S., and Vare, J., The collaborative school: Creating a hybrid culture in a professional development school. Paper presented at the Biennial International Convocation of Kappa Delta Pi. Birmingham, AL. November.
20. Moore, K., and Hopkins, S., 1993. Professional development schools: Partnerships in teacher preparation. Contemporary Education, 64 (4): 219–222.
21. Nihlen, A., Schools as centers for reflection and inquiry: Research for teacher empowerment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA. April.
22. Poetter, T., McKamey, C., Ritter, C., and Tisdel, P., 1999. Emerging profiles of teacher-mentors as researchers: Benefits of shared inquiry. Action in Teacher Educations, 21 (3): 102–126.
23. Rafferty, C., 1993. Animal, vegetable, or mineral: What is a professional development school?. Contemporary Education, 64 (4): 223–225.
24. Silva, D., Cultivating an inquiry oriented professional development school: The mentor teachers' experience at Mountainside Elementary School. Paper presented at the Association of Teacher Educators. Chicago, IL. February.
25. Smith, C., A collaborative agenda: Linking school and teacher education renewal with research through professional development schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators. Atlanta, GA. February.
26. Teitel, L., 1998. Separations, divorces, and open marriages in professional developmentschool partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 49 (2): 85–96.
27. Tusin, L., The satellite program: A collaboration for clinicalexperiences in teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association. Chicago. October.
28. Wimsatt, J., 1996. Perceptions of the impact of a PDS on practices within a mentoring school. Texas Teacher Education Forum, 21: 43–51.
29. Wiseman, D., Are we really making a difference?: What we know about the impact of partnerships. Paper presented at the Networking the PDS Research AgendaConference. Greensboro. October.
30. Woloszyk, C., and Hill, R., Restructuring teacher preparation: Seminar and related activities within a secondary professional development school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators. Atlanta. February.