Two forms of col laborative planning for inservice edu cation have been identified: egalitar ian and dialectical. The local setting may render one form more appro priate than the other. A project di rector who is knowledgeable of both forms is better equipped to guide staff development. efforts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berman, P., and McLaughlin, M.W.Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, Volume VIII: Implementing and Sustaining Innovations. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, 1978. ED 159289.
2.
Bush, R.N., and Enemark, P. "Control and Responsibility in Teacher Education." In Teacher Education, The Seventy-Fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, edited by K. Ryan.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.
3.
Edelfelt, R.A. "The School of Education and Inservice Education." Journal of Teacher Education. March-April 1977, pp. 10-14.
4.
Goodlad, J.I.The Dynamics of Educational Change. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.
5.
Johnston, C.S., and Yeakey, C.C. "Administrators' and Teachers' Preferences for Staff Development." Planning and Change. Winter 1977, pp. 130-238.
6.
Lieberman, A., and Miller, L. "The Social Realities of Teaching." In Staff Development: New Demands, New Realities, New Perspectives, edited by A. Lieberman and L. Miller.New York: Teachers College Press , 1978.
7.
Mann, D. "The Politics of Training Teachers in Schools." Teachers College Record, February 1976, pp. 323-38.
8.
McLaughlin, M.W., and Marsh, D.D. "Staff Development and School Change." Teachers College Record, September 1978, pp. 69-94.
9.
Moch, M., and Morse, E. "Size, Centralization, and Organizational Adoption of Innovations." American Sociological Review, October 1977, pp. 716-25.
