A Professional Development System as a Catalyst for Changing Science Teachers

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 29-42

  Shymansky, James A ^a   Henriques, Laura ^a   Chidsey, Jennifer L ^a   Dunkhase, John ^a   Jorgensen, Margaret ^b   Yore, Larry D ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b Educational Tesung Service   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745381944     PISSN: 1046560X     EISSN: 15731847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1009449302222     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Black, S. (1993). How teachers arc reshaping evaluation procedures. Educational Leadership, 50(6), 38-42.
2. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
3. Cornett, L. M. (1995). Lessons from ten years of teacher improvement reforms. Educational Leadership, 52(5), 26-30.
4. Council of Chief State School Officers. (1992). Model standards for begin ning teach er licensing and developme nt: A resource for state dialogue (Draft). Washington, DC: Author.
5. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher development. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 4-10.
6. Dwyer, C. A. (1994). Development of the knowledge base for the PRAXIS HI: Classroom performance assessments criteria. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
7. Good.R. (1994, April). Many faces of constructivism. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association forResearchin Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
8. Hennesey, G. M. (1994, April). Desired image of conceptual change teaching and learning. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
9. Martin, W. (1988). Dancing on the interface: Leadership and the politics of collaboration. Writing Program Administration, 11(3), 29-40.
10. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, (1991). Toward high and rigorous standards for the teaching profession : Initialpolicies and perspectives of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (3rd ed.). Detroit, MI: Author.
11. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
12. Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning in science: A generative process. Science Education, 67, 489-508.
13. Phillips, D.C, (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(1), 5-12.
14. Rooney, J. (1993). Teacher evaluation: No more "supervision. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 43-44.
15. Roth, W. M.,&Roychoudhury,A. (1992). The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map as conscription device and tool for social thinking in high school science. Science Education, 76, 531-557.
16. Sanders, W., & Horn, S. P. (1994). The Tennessee Value Added Assessment System (TVAAS). Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8(3), 299-311.
17. Searfoss, L. W., & Enz, B. J. (1996). Can teacher evaluation reflect holistic instruction? Educational Leadership, 55(6), 38-41.
18. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 75(2), 4-14.
19. Shulman, L. S. (1990). Paradigms and programs: Research in teaching and learning (Vol. 1). New York: Macmillan.
20. Shymansky, J. A. (1994, April). Interactive-constructive model of teaching and learning. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
21. Yager, R. E, (1991). The constructivist learning model. Science Teacher, 58(6), 52-57.
22. Yore, L. D., & Shymansky, J, A. (1991). Reading in science: Developing an operational conception to guide instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2(2), 29-36.