REFERENCES
Chapter 3. Approaches to measuring teaching practice
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011). InTASC
model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/InTASC_Model_Core_Teaching_Standards_
2011.pdf
​
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013). InTASC
model core teaching standards and learning progressions for teachers 1.0: A resource for ongoing teacher development. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/2013_INTASC_Learning_Progressions_for_
Teachers.pdf
​
The Danielson Group. (2013). The 2013 framework for
teaching evaluation instrument. Princeton, NJ: Author. Retrieved from https://www.danielsongroup.org/framework/
​
Marshall, K. (2014). Teacher evaluation rubrics. Retrieved
​
Marzano, R.J. (2017). The new art and science of teaching.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD and Solution Tree.
​
Chapter 4. Local approaches to measuring impact on
P-12 students
​
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1999). The teacher
research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15-25. doi:10.3102/0013189X028007015
​
D'Souza, L.A. (2012). Assessing student learning through
guided inquiry: A case study of a beginning teacher. Journal of Education, 192(2/3), 79-87. doi:10.1177/0022057412192002-310
​
Grudens-Schuck, N., Allen, B.L., & Larson, K. (2004).
Methodology brief: Focus group fundamentals. Ames, IA: Iowa State University / Extension Community and Economic Development Publications. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/extension_communities_pubs/12
Little, J.W., Gearhart, M., Curry, M., & Kafka, J. (2003).
Looking at student work for teacher learning, teacher community, and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(3), 185-192. doi:10.1177/003172170308500305
​
McDonald, J.P. (2002). Teachers studying student work:
Why and how? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(2), 120-127. doi:10.1177/003172170208400207
​
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study
applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
​
Nias, J. (1991). How practitioners are silenced, how
practitioners are empowered. In H.K. Letiche, J.C. Vander Wolf, & F.X. Plooij (Eds.), The practitioner’s power of choice in staff development and in-service training. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
​
Schlechty, P.C. (2002). Working on the work: An action plan
for teachers, principals, and superintendents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
​
Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research: Design and method
(5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
​
Chapter 5. School context factors that support beginning teacher effectiveness
​
Berthiaume, A.D. (2015). Email communication and its
impact on high school principal and teacher relations (doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Retrieved from ProQuest. (ProQuest No. 3739909)
​
Cook, C.M., & Faulkner, S.A. (2010). The use of common
planning time: A case study of two Kentucky schools to watch. Research in Middle Level Education, 34(2), 1-12. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ914054.pdf
​
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher
learning: What matters? Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
​
Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T., & Matttos, M
(2016). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (3rd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.