CONTEMPORARY EDUCATION”

          Education is filled with a boundless array of facts, concepts, trends, issues, and

beliefs. Due to this complexity, the effective contemporary educator must search for

overarching themes and formulate generalizations from the literature. Without this

foundational step, and because of the amount of information that the educator is exposed

to in our media-rich environments, bandwagon efforts will continue to have waiting lines

one month and be deserted along the trail the next month. The result of searching for

patterns can provide aim for planning effective programs.

          In varying ways, much of the literature concerns the important concept of

integration. Ironically, this is one reason that education can be such a disconcerting,

trend-sensitive, and issue-laden profession. Educators are desperately trying to integrate

so many aspects into a holistic program. Each area demands almost full attention, and

therefore, can result in differences of opinion as to which area should receive the most

resources of time, energy, finances, and research. Let’s consider the following five areas

of integration: children, adults, evaluation strategies, curriculum, and technology. The

purposes of this paper are to provide a discussion of how each of these areas is integrated

into contemporary education and to provide a suggested reading list for each topic.

          One of the hottest topics in education today centers upon the concept of

integration of children. Recent laws have focused on the idea of inclusion, the

integration of special needs children into the regular education classroom, with all the

necessary supports. Its focus is locating special education services in the regular

education setting as much as possible instead of  the traditional pull-out programs.

Through this paradigm, regular educators are integrating many of the strategies that

special educators have traditionally used. In addition, many programs require that special

educators are integrated into the regular classroom teaching situations, requiring

team-teaching and planning.

To fulfill the needs of a nation ever-increasing in cultural differences,

the cultural differences that exist in our own classrooms. Rather than having special days

and months set aside for the sometimes token study of a particular culture, genuine

multicultural education is integrated into daily lessons and activities. In the past, the

metaphor for the highly multicultural United States of America has been the “melting

pot.” More recently, this integration of cultures is portrayed as a “salad bowl” or a

“mosaic”, so that each culture is an important part of the whole, while continuing to

maintain its distinctiveness from the other cultures.

An integration strategy that places emphasis on the importance of each member

strengths of group members, cooperative learning is a small group effort where each

person in the group has a role to play and where the group’s success is just that -

successful mastery of the concepts and skills by every group member. At present, more

research has been conducted on cooperative learning, as it relates to achievement, than

on any other topic in education.

 Peer tutoring is one strategy of integrating additional help for children who are

tutor. The central tenet of peer tutoring is the reciprocity of benefits. The tutor

strengthens his or her knowledge of the skills and concepts under consideration. (This is

the same idea as teachers who say that they learn more than their students do in the

instructional process.) The tutee gains understanding from the tutor. (This tutor may be

able to explain things better than the teacher can, because he or she has recently passed

over that hurdle and can sometimes lend a hand quicker and easier than the troop leader

who is already far ahead.) A larger implementation of this concept of tutoring, of

integrating children at varying levels of their education into teaching settings, is the

multigrade classroom.  Stated simply, a group of children from two or three adjacent

grade levels learns together.  One of the major reasons for constructing a multigrade unit

is to capitalize on the aforementioned benefits of peer tutoring. Overall, the research

suggests that, although achievement levels are not always significantly affected by these

efforts to integrate children, affective factors such as attitude toward school, peers, and

teachers are positively affected by inclusion, multiculturalism, cooperative learning, peer

tutoring, and multigrade classrooms.

 In order to support student learning, integration of adults is necessary. Parent

their children’s learning. In present society, the shift is toward a lessening of parent

involvement due to the demands that parents have upon their time (i.e., single-parent

homes, dual-parent incomes).  In response, contemporary educators, must provide

structured parent involvement activities that account for the added demands of parent

time. Parent programs that truly integrate parents as decision-makers and co-developers

in school matters will generally be more successful than those parent programs that are

intended to be documented as simply parent outreach efforts.

 On a larger level of integrating adults into educational scenes, businesses have

apprenticeships, and mentorships into their efforts to provide a capable, future

workforce. Business leaders have complained that the graduates they receive are not

always capable to perform basic skills, think for themselves, or to cooperate with

co-workers.  Educators have complained that they lack the resources and support they

need. Therefore, business partnerships provide local role models, financial support, and,

importantly, motivation and ambition for many students to learn and do well in school.

 Through the formation of team teaching situations, teachers have acknowledged

Some team teaching situations are structured so that teachers share the same classroom

and plan together for the same group of students. Some multigrade teachers integrate

their efforts in a team teaching situation. For example, a first-grade and a second-grade

teacher may decide to combine their students into one classroom and team-teach them.

As stated earlier, efforts to include special needs children into the regular education

setting, have required teachers to collaborate in ways that they have never done before.

Ironically, many teachers are structuring cooperative learning situations into their lesson

plans for their students, and yet, they are struggling with their own cooperative efforts to

team teach and plan.

 Teachers and teacher educators have formed professional development schools

with appropriate, sustained mentoring. These schools integrate new research into their

long-range plans and strive to provide relationships between teachers and interns that

offer many of the reciprocal benefits that are mentioned in this paper from tutoring

relationships. Interns provide new ideas from their current studies to practicing teachers,

and, practicing teachers provide insight and real-world knowledge into the relationships

with their interns. Parents, businesses, teachers, and teacher educators who are

attempting to improve the educational climate for youngsters realize that an integration

of their efforts provides the greatest effect.

 Educators are being encouraged to integrate multiple forms of evaluation, rather

evaluation strategies causes the focus of many inservice opportunities to be upon

portfolio assessment, authentic assessment, and performance-based assessment. Portfolio

assessment encourages a wide array of evaluation strategies to be integrated as a means

of assessing students. The concept of the portfolio is taken from the art world.  Students

and teachers place samples of student work in folders, for example. An important tenet of

the portfolio is that being a showcase of student work, it should provide examples of

various types of  projects and assignments. Authentic assessment is an attempt to

integrate testing and teaching situations into real-life scenarios. When teachers evaluate

and teach authentically, students are less likely to ask questions such as, “How am I

going to use this when I grow up?” Performance-based assessment requires the

integration of the actual performance of the desired behavior instead of (or in addition to)

traditional tests. An example of authentic assessment is a driver’s license test that

requires actually driving the car, rather than taking a multiple choice test. Someone could

pass a multiple choice test on maneuvering an automobile, yet be unable to actually

drive. The reason this is authentic, is because it is the authentic (or real-life) test of

ability. In addition, this is also an example of performance-based ability. Rather than

telling that you know how to drive a car, you perform it, you drive it. All of these

evaluation strategies attempt to provide a more complete picture of student strengths and

weaknesses, and should be integrated into a meaningful whole.

The integration of the curriculum currently requires teachers to examine the

thematic unit approach and plan activities that center upon themes that integrate as many

areas of the curriculum as possible. For example, a unit on travel can have mathematics

activities on time zones, social studies activities on geographic locations, science

activities on air travel, and language arts and creative arts activities on creating travel

brochures. Many secondary schools are blocking off larger portions of their days into

integrated units of study. Students may concentrate on fewer subjects during a semester.

In addition, with blocking attempts, educators are looking at ways to alleviate overlaps in

the curriculum. Both thematic units and blocking offer students a more holistic view of

the curriculum and espouse the view that “less done better is more.”

 One of the most recent integration attempts is integration of technology.

technology is no longer the future; it is the present. To prepare students for their lives in

the world of work, computer knowledge is a necessary element. Although the computer

is not the only technological device used in the schools, the computer is the major one. A

mistake in the past, has been to teach computers as a subject. For example, many people

have taken programming courses that they will never use. The current focus, however, is

upon integrating the use of the computer into the curriculum. This views the computer as

a tool for coursework, rather than a course in itself. Computers are being utilized in

schools as multimedia devices for presenting information, as remedial and

drill-and-practice tools, as communication devices, and as sources of information, and

tools for classroom publication.

 In conclusion, effective education requires untold levels of support among all,

technology. For this reason, education is a web of many elements that are linked to other

elements in various ways. How educators decide to integrate these elements, to what

extent, and what elements to alleviate or add, makes each classroom distinctly unique. Is

it any wonder that education is so overwhelmingly exciting and potentially explosive

with topics for further study?

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Inclusion

Beirne-Smith, M. (1991). Peer tutoring in arithmetic for children with learning

disabilities. Exceptional Children, 57, 330-337.

Blenk, K., & Fine, D. (1995). Making school inclusion work. Cambridge, Mass.:

Brookline Books.

Ferguson, D.L. (1995). The real challenge of inclusion. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(4),

281-287.

Fuchs, D., and Fuchs, L.S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the

radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60,

294-309.

Gearheart, B., and Weishahn, M. (1984). The exceptional student in the regular

classroom (3rd ed.), St. Louis: Mosby.

Gerber, M.M. (1987). Application of cognitive-behavioral training methods to

teaching basic skills to mildly handicapped elementary school students.

In  M.C. Wang, M.C. Reynolds, and H.J. Walberg (eds.), Handbook

of  special education: Research and practice , (2), 167-186. Oxford:

Pergamon.

Gersten, R. (1985). Direct instruction with special education students: A review

of  evaluation research. Journal of Special Education, 19, 41-58.

Graden, J.L., and Bauer, A.M. (1992). Using a collaborative approach to support

students and teachers in inclusive classrooms. In S. Stainback, and W.

Stainback (eds.), Curriculum considerations in inclusive classrooms 85-100,

Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Hitzing, W. (1992). Support and positive teaching strategies. In S. Stainback, and

W. Stainback (eds.), Curriculum considerations in inclusive classrooms,

143-158, Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Hollingsworth, P.M., and Reutzel, D.R. (1988). Whole language with LD

children. Academic Therapy, 23, 477-488.

Madden, N.A., Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L.J., and Wasik, B.A. (1993).

Success for All: Longitudinal effects of a restructuring program for

inner-city elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal,

30(1), 123-148.

Putnam, J.W. (ed.) (1993). Cooperative learning and strategies for inclusion:

Celebrating diversity in the classroom. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.Brookes

Publishing Company.

Rogers, J. (ed.). (1994). Inclusion: Moving beyond our fears. Center for

evaluation, development, research, Phi Delta Kappa.

Slavin, R.E. (1994). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Needham

Heights, Mass.: 480.

Stainback, W., Stainback, S., and Moravec, J. (1992). Using curriculum to build

inclusive classrooms. In S. Stainback and W. Stainback

(eds.),Curriculum considerations in inclusive classrooms , 65-82.

Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Steinber, A., and Wheelock, A. (1991). After tracking - What? Middle schools

find new answers. The Harvard Education Letter, 8(5).

U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Implementation of the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act: Sixteenth annual report to Congress.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vacc, N.N., and Cannon, S.J. (1991). Cross-age tutoring in mathematics: Sixth

graders helping students who are moderately handicapped. Education

and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 89-97.

York, J., Vandercook, T., MacDonald, C., Heise-Neff, C., and Caughey, E.

(1992). Feedback about integrating middle-school students with severe

disabilities in general education classes. Exceptional Children, 58,

244-258.

Multicultural Education

Banks, J.A. (1988). Multiethnic education: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn

and Bacon.

Banks, J.A. (1993). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J.A.

Banks and C.A.M. Banks (eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and

perspectives (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Baruth, L.G., and Manning, M.L. (1992). Multicultural education of children and

adolescents. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Boutte, G.S., and McCormick, C.B. (1992). Authentic multicultural activities:

Avoiding pseudomulticulturalism. Childhood Education, 68(3), 140-144.

DiMartin, E.C. (1989). Understanding children from other cultures. Childhood

Education, 66(1), 30-32.

Garcia, J. (1993). The changing image of ethnic groups in textbooks, Phi Delta

Kappan, 75(1), 29-35.

Hernandez, H. (1990). Multicultural education: A teacher’s guide to content and

practice. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Hilliard, A.G. (1991/92). Why we must pluralize the curriculum. Educational

Leadership, 49(4), 12-16.

Nole, J.W. (1991). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial educational

issues (5th ed.), Guilford, CT: Dushkin, 44-63.

Ogbu, J.U. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational

Researcher, 21(8), 5-14.

Slavin, R.E. (1994). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Needham

Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, 141-147, 497.

Sleeter, C.E., and Grant, C.A. (1988). Making choices for multicultural education:

Five approaches to race, class, and gender.  Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Viadero, D. (1990). Battle over multicultural education rises in intensity.

Education Week, 10(3), 1, 11, 13.

Williams, L.R. (1989). Diverse gifts: Multicultural education in the kindergarten.

Childhood Education, 66(1), 2-3.

Cooperative Learning

Bohlmeyer, E., and Burke, J. (1987). Selecting cooperative learning techniques: A

consultative strategy guide. School Psychology Review, 16, 36-49.

Cohen, E.G. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous

classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dansereau, D.F. (1985). Learning strategy research. In J. Segal, S. Chipman, and

R. Glaser (eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Relating instruction to basic

research, Vol. 1, Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Fantuzzo, J.W., Polite, K., and Grayson, N. (1990). An evaluation of reciprocal

peer tutoring across elementary school settings. Journal of School

Psychology, 28, 309-323.

Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R.T., (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory

and research. Edina, Minn.: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, R., and Johnson, D.W. (1983). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and

individualistic experiences on social development. Exceptional Children,

19, 323-329.

Jongsma, K.S. (1990). Collaborative learning. The Reading Teacher, 43, 346-347.

Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learning resources for teachers. San Juan

Capistrano, Calif.: Resources for Teachers.

Maheady, L., Harper, G.F., and Mallette, B. (1991). Peer-mediated instruction:

Review of potential applications for special education. Reading, Writing,

and Learning Disabilities, 7, 75-102.

Sharan, Y., and Sharan, S. (1992). Group investigation: Expanding cooperative

learning. New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Slavin, R.E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Multigrade Classrooms

Adair, J.H. (1978). An attitude and achievement comparison between

kindergarten and first grade children in multi and single grade classes.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 659A-660A.

Cohen, P., Kulik, J., and Kulik, C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A

meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19,

237-248.

Devin-Sheehan, L., Feldman, R., and Allen, V. (1976). Research on children

tutoring children: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 46,

355-385.

Elkind, D. (1989). Developmentally appropriate education for 4-year-olds. Theory

into Practice, 28(1), 47-52.

Fogarty, J., and Wang, M. (1982). An investigation of the cross-age peer tutoring

process: Some implications for instructional design and motivation.

Elementary School Journal, 82, 451-469.

Miller, B.A. (1990). A review of the quantitative research on multigrade

instruction. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 7(1), 1-8.

Miller, B.A. (1991). A review of the qualitative research on multigrade

instruction. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 7(2), 3-12.

Oberlander, T.M. (1989). A nongraded, multi-aged program that works. Principal,

68(5), 29-30.

Paolitto, D. (1976). The effect of cross-age tutoring on adolescence: An inquiry

into theoretical assumptions. Review of Educational Research, 46,

215-238.

Sharpley, A.M., Irving, J.W., and Sharpley, C.F. (1983). An examination of the

effectiveness of a cross-age tutoring program in mathematics for

elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 20,

103-111.

Woefel, K.D. (1992). The dual-age classrooms: Questions and answers. Principal,

71(3), 32-33.

Parent Involvement

Baker, G. (1983). Planning and organizing for multicultural instruction. Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley.

Baumrind, D. (1973). The development of instrumental competence through

socialization. In A. Pick (ed.), Minnesota symposium on child

psychology, (7), 3-46. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Baumrind, D. (1980). New directions in socialization research. American

Pscyhologist, 35, 639-652.

Epstein, J. (1992). School and family partnerships. In M. Alkin (ed.),

Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 11, 39-1151. New York:

Macmillan.

Epstein, J.L., and Dauber, S.L. (1989). Effects of the Teachers Involve Parents in

Schoolwork (TIPS) social studies and art program on student attitudes

and knowledge.  Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for

Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.

Epstein, J.L., and Dauber, S.L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of

parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools.

Elementary School Journal, 91, 289-303.

Goldstein, S., and Campbell, F.A. (1991). Parents: A ready resource. Arithmetic

Teacher, 38(6), 24-27.

Kreinberg, N., and Thompson, V. (1986). Family math: Report of activities.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

McBride, B.A. (1989). Interaction, accessibility, and responsibility: A view of

father involvement and how to encourage it. Young Children, 44(5),

13-19.

Nettles, S.M. (1991). Community involvement and disadvantaged students: A

review. Review of Educational Research, 61, 379-406.

Scott-Jones, D. (1984). Family influences on cognitive development and school

achievement. In E. Gordon (ed.), Review of research in education,

(Vol.11,  259-304. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research

Association.)

Swick, K.J. (1988). Parental efficacy and involvement: Influences on children.

Childhood Education, 65(1), 37-38, 40, 42.

Partnerships

Epstein, J. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 76,

701-712.

Toch, T. (1993). The perfect school. U.S. News and World Report, 114(1),

56-57.

Winans, D. (ed.) (1998). Partnerships that pay interest. NEA Today, 16(7),

Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 9.

Yaffe, E. (1994). Not just cupcakes anymore: A study of community involvement.

Phi Delta Kappan, 75(9), 697-705.

Team Teaching

Schwab, J.J. (1970). The practical: A language for curriculum. Washington, D.C.:

National Education Association.

Professional Development Schools

Bradford, D. (1986). The metropolitan teaching effectiveness cadre. Educational

Leadership, 43, 53-55.

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, (1986). A nation prepared:

Teachers for the 21st century. New York: Author.

Clandinin, D.J. (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in action. London:

Falmer.

Connelly, F.M., and Clandinin, D.J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Professional Development Schools: Schools for

Developing a Profession. New York: Teachers College Press.

De Bevoise, W. (1986). Collaboration: Some principles of bridgework.

Educational Leadership, 43, 9-12.

Duffy, G.G. (1994). Professional development schools and the disempowerment

of teachers and professors. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(8), 596-600.

Glickman, C.D. (1993). Renewing America’s Schools: A Guide for School-Based

Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Goodlad, J.I. (1988). School-university partnerships for educational renewal:

Rationale and concepts. In K.A. Sirotnik and J.I Goodlad (eds.)

School-university partnerships in action: Concepts, cases, and concerns.

New York: Teachers College Press, 3-31.

Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for the design of

professional development schools. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Huling-Austin, L. (1986). What can and cannot reasonably be expected from

teacher induction programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 2-5.

Lieberman, A. (1986). Collaborative research: Working with, not working on...

Educational Leadership, 43, 28-33.

Oberg, A. (1987). Using construct theory as a basis for research into teacher

professional development. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(1),  55-65.

Schmuck, P. (1986). Networking: A new word, a different game. Educational

Leadership, 43, 60-61.

Sirotnik, K.A., and Goodlad, J.I. (1988). School-university partnerships in action:

Concepts, cases, and concerns. New York: Teachers College Press.

Smith, S.D. (1992). Professional partnerships and educational change: Effective

collaboration over time. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4),  243-255.

Williams, R.O. (1993). A professional development school initiative: Indiana

State University’s Story. Contemporary Education, 64(4). 210-214.

Zumwalt, K. (1985). The master teacher concept: Implications for teacher

education. Elementary School Journal, 86, 45-54.

Portfolio Assessment

Arter, J.A. (1990). Using portfolios in instruction and assessment. Portland, OR:

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

DeFina, A.A. (1992). Portfolio assessment: Getting started. New York:

Scholastic, Inc.

Flood, J., Lapp, D., and Monken, S. (1992). Portfolio assessment: Teacher beliefs

and practices. In C.K. Kinzer and D.J. Leu (eds.), Literacy research,

theory, and practice: Views from many perspectives, 119-127. Chicago,

IL: The National Reading Conference.

Glazer, S.M., and Brown, C.S. (1993). Portfolios and beyond: Collaborative

assessment in reading and writing. Norwood, MA:  Christopher-Gordon

Publishers.

Meisels, S., and Steele, D. (1991). The early childhood collection process. Center

for Human Growth and Development. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of

Michigan.

Paulson, F.L., Paulson, P.R., and Meyer, C.A. (1991). What makes a portfolio a

portfolio? Educational Leadership, 48(5), 60-63.

Slavin, R.E. (1994). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Needham

Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, 554-556.

Tierney, R.J., Carter, M.A., and Desai, L.E. (1991). Portfolio assessment in the

reading-writing classroom. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon

Publishers.

Valencia, S. (1990). A portfolio approach to classroom reading assessment: The

whys, whats, and hows. The Reading Teacher, 43, 338-340.

Wolf, D.P. (1989). Portfolio assessment: Sampling student work. Educational

Leadership, 46(7), 365-40.

Wolf, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, J., and Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well:

New forms of student assessment. Review of Research in Education, 17,

31-74.

Authentic Assessment

Cizek, G.J. (1993). Alternative assessment: Yes, but why. Educational Horizons,

72(1), 36-40.

Herman, J.L., Aschbacher, P.R., and Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide to

alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R.J., and Costa, A.L. (1988). Question: Do standardized tests measure

general cognitive skills? Answer: No. Educational Leadership 45(8),

66-73.

Roeber, E., and Dutcher, P. (1989). Michigan’s innovative assessment of reading.

Educational Leadership, 46(7), 64-69.

Sugarman, J., Allen, J., and Keller-Cogan, M. (1993). Make authentic assessment

work for you. Instructor, 103(1), 66-67.

Valencia, S.W., Pearson, P.D., Peters, C.W., and Wixson, K.K. (1989). Theory

and practice in statewide reading assessment: Closing the gap.

Educational  Leadership, 46(7), 57-63.

Wiggins, G. (1989). Teaching to the (authentic) test. Educational Leadership,

46(7), 41-47.

Performance-Based Assessment

Aschbacher, P.R. (1991). Alternative assessment: State activity, interests, and

concerns. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Research on Evaluation,

Standards, and Student Teaching.

Cizek, G., and Wigging, G. (1993). Innovation or enervation: Performance

assessment in perspective. In A. Woolfolk (ed.), Readings and cases in

educational psychology, 238-248. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Haertel, E. (1992). Performance measurement. In M.C. Alkins (ed.),

Encyclopedia of educational research, 6th ed., 984-989. New York:

Macmillan.

Herman, J.L., Aschbacher, P.R., and Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide to

alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Krampen, G. (1987). Differential effects of teacher comments. Journal of

Educational Pscyhology, 79, 137-146.

Maeroff, G.I. (1991). Assessing alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4),

272-281.

Popham, J., and Bracey, G. (1991). Is measurement driven instruction desirable?

In J.W. Noll (ed.), Taking Sides: Clashing views on controversial

educational issues (5th ed.). Guilford, CT: Duskin.

Shavelson, R.J., Baxter, G.P., and Pine, J. (1992). Performance assessments:

Political rhetoric and measurement reality. Educational Researcher,

21(4), 22-27.

Shepard, L.A. (1989). Why we need better assessments. Educational Leadership,

46(7), 4-9.

Sizer, T. (1984). Horace’s compromise: The dilemma of the American high

school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Slavin, R.E., and Madden, N.A. (1991). Modifying Chapter 1 program

improvement guidelines to reward appropriate practices. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 369-379.

Tittle, C.K. (1991). Changing models of student and teacher assessment.

Educational Psychologist, 26(2), 157-165.

Wiggins, G. (1989). Teaching to the (authentic) test. Educational Leadership,

46(7), 41-47.

Wolf, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, J., and Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well:

New forms of student assessment.  Review of Research in Education, 17,

31-74.

Thematic Units

Aceland, R. (1967). A move to the integrated curriculum. Exeter, England:

University of Exeter.

Armstrong, D.G. (1989). Developing and documenting the curriculum. Needham

Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Borko, H., and Shavelson, R. (1990). Teacher decision making. In B. Jones and L.

Idol (eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction, 311-346.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Clark, C.M., and Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M.C.

Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd ed.,  255-296.

New York: Macmillan.

Earle, R.S. (1992, February). The use of instructional design skills in the mental

and written planning processes of teachers. Paper presented at the

Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and

Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED347987)

Flickinger, G.G., and Long, E.S. (1990). Reading Improvement, 27(2),149-154.

Hunkins, F.P. (1980). Curriculum development: Program improvement.

Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Johnson, R.T. (1988). Early Childhood Development and Care, 32(4), 53-58.

Moustata, M. (1987). Reading Teacher, 41(3), 61-86.

Rubino, A. (1991). Reading Teacher, 45(3), 248-249.

Wakefield, J.F. (1996). Educational psychology: Learning to be a problem solver.

Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 79-80.

Block Scheduling

Anderson, L.W., and Walberg, H.J. (1993). Timepiece: Extending and enhancing

learning time. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School

Principals.

Canady, R.L., and Rettig, M.D. (1995). Block scheduling: A catalyst for change in

high schools. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education.

Carroll, J.M. (1994). The Copernican Plan evaluation: The evoluation of a

revolution. Topsfield, MA: Copernican Associates.

Cawelti, G. (1994). High school restructuring: A national study. Arlington, VA:

Educational Research Service.

Hargreaves, A. (1990). Teachers’ work and the politics of time and space.

Qualitative Studies in Education, 3(4), 303-320.

Prisoners of Time. Report of the National Education Commission on Time and

Learning. (1994). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Purnell, S., and Hill, P. (1992). Time for Reform. Santa Monica, CA: Rand

Corporation.

Steven, H.W., and Stigler, J. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are

failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education.

New York: Simon and Schuster.

Williamson, R. (1993). Scheduling the middle level school. Reston, VA: National

Association of Secondary School Principals.

Technology

Ambrose, D.W. (1991). The effects of hypermedia on learning: A literature

review. Educational Technology, 31(12), 51-54.

Barron, A.E., and Orwig, G.W. (1997). New technologies for education: A

beginner’s guide (3rd ed.), Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Cummings, L.E. (1995). Educational technolgy - A faculty resistance view.

Educational Technology Review, 4 (Autumn), 13-18.

Davies, K.J. (1995). From dreams to reality - Implementing a computer plan.

Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(2), 54-55.

Dickinson, D. (1994). Multiple technologies for multiple intelligences. In A.

Ward (ed.), Multimedia and learning: A school leader’s guide,

Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association, 42-48.

Dyrli, O.E., and Kinnaman, D.E. (1994). Preparing for the integration of

emerging  technologies. Technology and Learning, 14(8), 92-100.

Eichleay, K., and Kilroy, C. (1994). Hot tips for inclusion with technology.

Computing Teacher, 21(4), 38-40.

Kanning, R.G. (1994). What multimedia can do in our classrooms. Educational

Leadership, 51(7), 40-44.

Kinnaman, D.E. (1995). Schools need good teachers and good technology.

Technology and Learning, 15(8), 98.

Kozma, R.B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research,

61(2), 179-211.

O’Neil, J. (1995). Technology and schools: A conversation with Chris Dede.

Educational Leadership, 53(2), 6-11.

Selby, C.C. (1993). Technology: From myths to realities. Phi Delta Kappan,

74(9), 684-689.

Schlechter, T. (1990). The relative instructional eficiency of small group

computer-based training. Journal of Educational Computing Research,

6(3), 329-341.

Technology planning process: Tips for making it work. (1995). Technology and

Learning, 15(8), IBM3-IBM5.