Teacher research experiences, partnerships with scientists, and teacher networks sustaining factors from professional development

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 1-14

  Dresner, Marion ^a   Worley, Elizabeth ^a  

^a PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746810545     PISSN: 1046560X     EISSN: 15731847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10972-005-9000-5     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.
2. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching: Research, policy, and practice for democratic education. Educational Researcher, 25(6), 5-17.
3. Dresner, M. (2002). Monitoring forest biodiversity with teachers in the woods. Journal of Environmental Education, 34(1), 4-8.
4. Dresner, M., & Starvel, E. (2004). Mutual benefits of scientist/teacher partnerships. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8, 252-256.
5. Driscoll, M. E. (2000). The sense of place and the neighborhood school: Implications for building social capital and for community development. In R. Crousen (Ed.), Community development and school reform (pp. 1-19). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
6. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915-945.
7. Hausman, C., & Goldring, E. (2001). Sustaining teacher commitment: The role of professional communities. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 30-52.
8. Kennedy, M. (1998). Form and substance in mathematics and science professional development (Research Monograph No. 13). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
9. Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 591-597.
10. Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 129-151.
11. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
12. Manzanal, R. F., Barreiro, L. M. R., & Jiminez, M. C. (1999). Relationship between ecological fieldwork and student attitudes toward environmental protection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 431-453.
13. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College.
14. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
15. Odom, L. (2001). Inquiry-based field studies. Science Educator: The National Science Education Leadership Association Journal, 10(1), 29-37.
16. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17. Sykes, G. (1991). Fostering teachers professionalism in schools. In Elmore and Assoc. (Eds.), Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform (pp. 59-96). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
18. Van den Berg, E. (2001). Impact of inservice education in elementary science: Participants revisited a year later. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 29-45.
19. Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 137-158.
20. Veal, W., Kubasko, D. S., & Fullager, P. (2002). Web-based course on earth and environmental science for preservice and inservice teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 131-146.