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.