Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 223–237 | Cite as

New paradigms in teacher evaluation: The SBESD model

  • Jim Sweeney


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bandura, A. (1971)Social learning theory. New York: General Learning.Google Scholar
  2. — (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency.American psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.Google Scholar
  3. — (1986).Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Blumberg, A. (1984). The principal as practical inquirer: Looking for workable answers.NASSP Bulletin, 68(476), 4–48.Google Scholar
  5. Brandt, R. (1987). On teacher evaluation: A conversation with Tom McGreal.Educational Leadership, 44(7), 20–24.Google Scholar
  6. Bridges, E.M. (1985). It's time to get tough with the turkeys.Principal, 64(3), 19–21.Google Scholar
  7. Cogan, M.L. (1973).Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  8. Corey, S.M. (1953).Action research to improve school practices. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  9. Duke, D.L. & Stiggins, R. (1985).Teacher evaluation: Five keys to growth. Washington, D.C.: NEA Professional Library.Google Scholar
  10. Dulany, D.E. (1968). Awareness, rules, and propositional control: A confrontation with S-R Behavior theory. In T.R. Dixon & D.L. Horton (eds.),Verbal behavior and general behavioral theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Eaker, R.E. (1972). An analysis of the clinical supervision process as perceived by selected teachers and administrators. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee.Google Scholar
  12. Fullan, M.G. & Hargreaves, A. (1991).What's worth fighting for? Working together for your school. Toronto: Ontario Public Teachers' Federation.Google Scholar
  13. Fullan, M.G. & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991).The new meaning of educational change with S. Steigelbauer: New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  14. Garman, N.B. (1971). A study of clinical supervision as a resource of college teachers of English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  15. Garmston, R.J. (1987). How administrators support peer coaching.Educational Leadership, 44(5), 18–26.Google Scholar
  16. Glatthorn, A.A. (1984).Differentiated supervision Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  17. Glickman, C.D. (1981).Developmental supervision: Alternative practices for helping teachers improve instruction. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  18. Goldhammer, R. (1969).Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  19. Goodlad, J. (1984).A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  20. — (1991). Why we need a complete redesign of teacher education.Educational Leadership, 49(3) 4–6, 8–10.Google Scholar
  21. Hammond, L., Wise, A.E., & Pease, S.R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A review of the literature.Review of Educational Research, 53(3), 285–328.Google Scholar
  22. Hargreaves, A., & Dawe, R. (1990). Paths of professional: Contrived collegiality, collaborative culture, and the case of peer coaching.Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(3), 227–241.Google Scholar
  23. Hodgkinson, H.L. (1957). Action research: A critique.Journal of Educational Sociology, 31(4), 137–153.Google Scholar
  24. Huberman, M.A. (1983). Improvement strategies that work: Some scenarios.Educational Leadership, 4(3), 23–27.Google Scholar
  25. Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D., & Taylor, M.S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, (64), 349–371.Google Scholar
  26. Jackson, D. (1980). The uncertainties of teaching. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, A.W. (1991). A case study of a midwestern high school using Joyce's model to implement a complex school school improvement innovation: Authentic assessment Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  28. Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1987). Low cost arrangements for peer coaching.Journal of Staff Development, 8(1), 22–24.Google Scholar
  29. Joyce, B. School renewal as culture change.Educational Leadership. 47(3), 70–77.Google Scholar
  30. Kauchak, D. (1985). An interview study of teacher's attitudes toward evaluation practices.Journal of Research and Development in Education, 19(1), 32–38.Google Scholar
  31. Kerr, B.J. (1976). An investigation of the process of using feedback data within the clinical supervision cycle to facilitate teachers individualization of instruction. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  32. Krajewski, R.J. (1976). Clinical supervision to facilitate self-improvement.Journal of Research and Development in Education, (9), 58–66.Google Scholar
  33. Little, J.W. (1981). The power of organizational setting (paper adapted from final report, School success and staff development) Washington D.C.: National Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  34. Lortie, D.C. (1975)Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Loucks-Horsley, S., Harding, C.K., Arbuckle, M.A., Murray, L.B., Dubea, C., & Williams, M.K. (1987).Continuing to Learn: A guidebook for teacher development. Andover, Mass: Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands.Google Scholar
  36. Manatt, R.P. (1989). Principal evaluation is largely wrong-headed and ineffective.Executive Educator, 11(11), 22–23.Google Scholar
  37. Mosher, R.L. (1974). Knowledge from practice: Clinical research and development in education.Counseling Psychologist, 4(4), 73–81.Google Scholar
  38. Reavis, C.A. (1977). A test of the clinical supervision model.Journal of Educational Research, 70(6), 311–315.Google Scholar
  39. Rosenholtz, S.J. (1990). Workplace conditions and the rise and fall of teachers' commitment.Sociology of Education, 63(4), 241–257.Google Scholar
  40. Schon, D. (1985).Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  41. Shinn, J.L. (1976). Teacher perceptions of ideal and actual supervisory training programs sponsored by the association of California School Administrators. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  42. Shulman, L.S. (1988). A union of insufficiencies: Strategies for teacher assessment in a period of educational reform.Educational Leadership, 46(3), 36–41.Google Scholar
  43. Shuma, K.Y. (1973). Changes effectuated by a clinical supervisory relationship which emphasize a helping relationship and a conference format made congruent with the establishment and maintenance of this helping relationship. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  44. Smulyan, L. (1983). Action research on change in schools: A collaborative project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  45. Sweeney, J. & Manatt, R.P. (1984). A team approach to supervising the marginal teacher.Educational Leadership, 41(7), 25–27.Google Scholar
  46. Tikunoff, W.J., Ward, B.A. & Griffin, G.A. (1979).Interactive research and development on teaching study: Final report. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.Google Scholar
  47. Valentine, W. (1992).Principals and practices for effective teacher evaluation. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  48. Weick, K.E. (1982).The social psychology of organizing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jim Sweeney
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational AdministrationIowa State UniversityAmes

Personalised recommendations