SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Atkin, J. M., & Black, P. (2003). Inside science education reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners; toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L.Darling-Hammond & G.Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 132). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Banilower, E., Heck, D., & Weiss, I. (2007). Can professional development make the vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the National Science Foundation's Local Systemic Change Through Teacher Enhancement Initiative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 375395.
  • Bianchini, J., Whitney, D., Brenton, T., & Hilton-Brown, B. (2000). Toward inclusive science education: University scientists' views of students, instructional practices, and the nature of science. Science Education, 86(1), 4278.
  • Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 315.
  • Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1995). Expanding teacher's knowledge base: A cognitive psychological perspective on professional development. In T.Guskey (Ed.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Boyd, W. (2003). Public education's crisis of performance and legitimacy: Introduction and overview of the yearbook. In W.Boyd & D.Miretzky (Eds.), American educational governance on trial: Changes and challenges (Vol. 1, pp. 119) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2002). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473498.
  • Brickhouse, N. (1990). Teacher beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 471485.
  • Brown, A., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G.Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188228). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 3242.
  • Carlsen, W. (1991). Subject-matter knowledge and science teaching: A pragmatic perspective. Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 115143). New York: JAI Press.
  • Carlsen, W. (1999). Domains of teacher knowledge. In J.Gess-Newsome & N.Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Chinn, C., & Malhotra, B. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 176218.
  • Colburn, A. (2003). The lingo of learning: 88 education terms every science teacher should know. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
  • Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597604.
  • DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 512.
  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287312.
  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268291.
  • Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532550.
  • Flanders, N. (1964). Interaction analysis in the classroom: A manual for observers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
  • Ford, M., & Wargo, B. (2007). Routines, roles, and responsibilities for aligning scientific and classroom practices. Science Education, 91(1), 133157.
  • Friedrichsen, P., & Dana, T. (2005). Substantive-level theory of highly regarded secondary biology teachers' science teaching orientations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 218244.
  • Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Gilbert, S. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 7380.
  • Grimmet, P., & Mackinnon, A. (1992). Craft knowledge and the education of teachers. Review of Research in Education, 18, 385456.
  • Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.
  • Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L.Darling-Hammond & G.Sykes, (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 125150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group.
  • Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow's schools: Principles for the design of professional development schools. East Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group.
  • Honig, M., & Hatch, T. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 1630.
  • Horizon Research. (2000). Local systemic change through teacher enhancement professional development observation protocol. Retrieved January 30, 2004, from http://www.horizon-research.com/instruments/lsc/pdop.php
  • Janesick, V. J. (2004). “Stretching” exercises for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teacher's classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 668690.
  • Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Kellogg Commission. (2000). Returning to our roots: Executive summaries of the reports of the Kellogg Commission. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.
  • Kelly, G., Chen, C., & Crawford, T. (1998). Methodological considerations for studying science-in-the-making in education settings. Research in Science Education, 28(1), 2349.
  • Kozoll, R., & Osborne, M. (2004). Finding meaning in science: Lifeworld, identity, and self. Science Education, 88(2), 157181.
  • Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lederman, N. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331359.
  • Little, J. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129151.
  • Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J.Gess-Newsome & N.Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • National Research Council. (1996a). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • National Research Council. (1996b). The role of scientists in the professional development of science teachers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 415.
  • Randi, J., & Zeichner, K. (2004). New visions of teacher professional development. In M.Smylie & D.Miretzky (Eds.), Developing the teacher workforce: 103rd Yearbook for the National Society for the Study of Education (Vol. 1, pp. 180227) Chicago: The University Chicago Press.
  • Rossman, G., & Rallis, S. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Scientists in the classroom : The cold war reconstruction of American science education. New York: Palgrave.
  • Sandoval, W. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634656.
  • Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (1st ed.). New York: Basic Books.
  • Schön, D. (1991). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
  • Schuster, D., & Carlsen, W. (2005, April 11–15). Professional development by scientists and teachers' understanding of the nature of science. Paper presented at the Annual National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
  • Schuster, D., & Carlsen, W. (2006, April 3–6). Science teaching as a learning profession. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
  • Schwab, J. (1964). Structure of the disciplines: Meanings and significances. In G.Ford & L.Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum (pp. 630). Chicago: Rand McNally.
  • Schwab, J., & Brandwein, P. (1962). The teaching of science: The teaching of science as enquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 414.
  • Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 122.
  • Smylie, M., & Weaver-Hart, A. (1999). School leadership for teacher learning and change: A human and social capital development perspective. In J.Murphy & K.Seashore-Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration: A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 421441). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1990). Models of staff development. In W.Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education New York: Macmillan.
  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Supovitz, J., Mayer, D., & Kahle, J. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14(3), 331356.
  • Thompson, S., Collins, A., Metzgar, V., Joeston, M., & Shepherd, V. (2002). Exploring graduate-level scientists' participation in a sustained K-12 teacher collaboration. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 254264.
  • Tillema, H., & Imants, J. (1995). Training for the professional development of teachers. In T.Guskey (Ed.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 135150). New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Volkmann, M., Abell, S., & Zgagacz, M. (2005). The challenges of teaching physics to preservice elementary teachers: Orientations of the professor, teaching assistant, and students. Science Education, 89(5), 847869.
  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.