The impact of an alternative professional development model on teacher practices in formative assessment and student learning

References

• Anderson, J. A. 2005. Accountability in Education. Educational Policy Series No.1. International Academy of Education. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.
   Google Scholar
• Andrade, H., and G. J. Cizek, eds. 2010. Handbook of Formative Assessment. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. 1982. “Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency.” American Psychologist 7 (2): 122–147.
   Google Scholar
• Black, P., C. Harrison, C. Lee, B. Marshall, and D. Wiliam. 2003. “The Nature of Value of Formative Assessment for Learning.” Improving Cchools 6: 7–22.
   Google Scholar
• Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998. “Assessment and Classroom Learning.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 5 (1): 7–73.
   Google Scholar
• Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 2004. “The Formative Purpose: Assessment Must First Promote Learning.” Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education 103 (2): 20–50.
   Google Scholar
• Borko, H. 2004. “Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain.” Educational Researcher 33 (8): 3–15.
   Google Scholar
• Bray, J. H., S. E. Maxwell, and G. S. Howard. 1984. “Methods of Analysis with Response-shift Bias.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 44: 781–804.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coburn, C. E. 2004. “Beyond Decoupling: Rethinking the Relationship Between the Institutional Environment and the Classroom.” Sociology of Education 77 (3): 211–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Consortium for Policy Research in Education. 1996. Policies and Programs for Professional Development of Teachers: Profiles of the States. Philadelphia: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Desimone, L., A. Porter, M. Garet, K. Yoon, and B. Birman. 2002. “Effects of Professional Development on Teachers’ Instruction: Results From a Three-Year Longitudinal Study.” Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24 (2): 81–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erickson, F. 2007. “Chapter 8 Some Thoughts on ‘Proximal’ Formative Assessment of Student Learning.” Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education 106 (1): 186–216.
   Google Scholar
• Garet, M., A. Porter, L. Desimone, B. Birman, and K. Yoon. 2001. “What Makes Professional Development Effective? Analysis of a National Sample of Teachers.” American Educational Research Journal 38: 915–945.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garet, M. S., S. Cronen, M. Eaton, A. Kurki, M. Ludwig, W. Jones, K. Uekawa, et al. 2008. The Impact of Two Professional Development Interventions on Early Reading Instruction and Achievement. NCEE 2008-4030. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
   Google Scholar
• Gersten, R., J. Dimino, M. Jayanthi, J. S. Kim, and L. Santoro. 2010. “Teacher Study Group: The Impact of Reading Instruction and Student Outcomes in First Grade Classrooms.” American Educational Research Journal 47: 694–739.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goedhart, H., and J. Hoogstraten. 1992. “The Retrospective Pretest and the Role of Pretest Information in Evaluative Studies.” Psychological Reports 70 (3): 699–704.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guskey, T. G. 2000. Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. 2007. “Developing Potentials for Learning: Evidence, Assessment, and Progress.” In EARLI Biennial Conference, Budapest, Hungary. Accessed March 11. http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/education/staff/j.hattie/presentations.cfm
   Google Scholar
• Howard, G. S., and P. R. Dailey. 1979. “Response-Shift Bias: A Source of Contamination of Self-Report Measures.” Journal of Applied Psychology 64: 144–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard, G. S., K. M. Ralph, N. A. Gulanick, S. E. Maxwell, D. W. Nance, and S. K. Gerber. 1979. “Internal Invalidity in Pretest-Posttest Self-Report Evaluations and a Reevaluation of Retrospective Pretests.” Applied Psychological Measurement 3: 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Huberman, A. M., and M. B. Miles. 1984. Innovation Up Close: How School Improvement Works. New York: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Lamb, T. A., and R. Tschillard. 2005. “Evaluating Learning in Professional Development Workshops: Using the Retrospective Pretest.” Journal of Research in Professional Learning 1: 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Little, J. W. 1993. “Teachers' Professional Development in a Climate of Educational Reform.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15 (2): 129–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pohl, N. F. 1982. “Using Retrospective Pre-Ratings to Counteract Response-Shift Confounding.” Journal of Experimental Education 50: 211–214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parise, L. M., and J. P. Spillane. 2010. “Teacher Learning and Instructional Change: How Formal and on-the-Job Learning Opportunities Predict Changes in Elementary School Teachers’ Instructional Practice.” Elementary School Journal 110 (3): 323–346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratt, C. C., W. M. McGuigan, and A. R. Katzev. 2000. “Measuring Program Outcomes: Using Retrospective Pretest Methodology.” American Journal of Evaluation 21: 341–349.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeves, D. B. 2007. Ahead of the Curve: The Power of Assessment to Transform Teaching and Learning. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
   Google Scholar
• Rockwell, S. K., and H. Kohn. 1989. “Post-Then-Pre Evaluation.” Journal of Extension 27 (2). Accessed March 11. http://www.joe.org/joe/1989summer/a5.html
   Google Scholar
• Rohs, F. 1999. “Response Shift Bias: A Problem in Evaluating Leadership Development with Self-report Pretest–post-test Measures.” Journal of Agricultural Education 40: 28–37.
   Google Scholar
• Rohs, F. R., and C. A. Langone. 1997. “Increased Accuracy in Measuring Leadership Impacts.” Journal of Leadership Studies 4 (1): 150–159.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, M. C., and B. Randel. 2010. “Research on Characteristics of Effective Professional Development Programs for Enhancing Educators’ Skills in Formative Assessment.” In Handbook of Formative Assessment, edited by H. L. Andrade and G. J. Cizek, 251–276. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P. 2000. “Constructing Ambitious Pedagogy in the Fifth Grade: The Mathematics and Literacy Divide.” The Elementary School Journal 100 (4): 307–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprangers, M., and J. Hoogstraten. 1988. “Response-Style Effects, Response-Shift Bias, and a Bogus Pipeline: A Replication.” Psychological Reports 62: 11–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stiggins, R., J. Arter, J. Chappuis, and S. Chappuis. 2006. Classroom Assessment for Student Learning: Doing it Right – Using it Well. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. through Educational Testing Services.
   Google Scholar
• Stipek, D. 2002. Motivation to Learn: Integrating Theory and Practice. 4th ed. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, M., and D. Wiliam. 2007. “Tight but Loose: A Conceptual Framework for Scaling Up School Reforms.” Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Educational Research Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, April 9–13.
   Google Scholar
• Wayne, A. J., K. S. Yoon, P. Zhu, S. Cronen, and M. S. Garet. 2008. “Experimenting with Teacher Professional Development: Motives and Methods.” Educational Researcher 37 (8): 469–479.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei, R. C., L. Darling-Hammond, A. Andree, N. Richardson, and S. Orphans. 2009. Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. Dallas: National Staff Development Council.
   Google Scholar
• Yoon, K. S., T. Duncan, S. W.-Y. Lee, B. Scarloss, and K. Shapley. 2007. Reviewing the Evidence on How Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, B. J. 1990. “Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview.” Educational Psychologist 25 (1): 3–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar