Most teacher evaluation schemes follow a similar, research-based logic. These writers argue that this approach alienates teachers and limits the possibility of change.
FayB.“How People Change Themselves: The Relationship Between Critical Theory and Its Audience.” in Political Theory and Praxis: New Perspectives, edited by BallT.Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, 1977.
3.
FreireP.Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972.
4.
FreireP.The Politics of Education: Culture, Power and Liberation. South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin & Garvey, 1985.
5.
GadamerH.Truth and Method. Translated by BardenG.Cummings.J.New York: Seaburg Press, 1975.
6.
GitlinA.GoldsteinS.“A Dialogical Approach to Understanding: Horizontal Evaluation.”Educational Theory1(1987): 17–27.
7.
GoldhammerR.Clinical Supervision: Special Methods for the Supervision of Teachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969.
8.
GreeneM.“Teacher as Project: Choice, Perspective, and the Public Space.” Paper presented at the Summer Institute of Teaching, Teachers College, Columbia University, July 1985.
9.
HabermasJ.Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 1976.
10.
HunterM.“What's Wrong with Madeline Hunter?”Educational Leadership5(1985): 57–60.
11.
SmythJ.“Developing a Critical Practice of Clinical Supervision.”Journal of Curriculum Studies1(1985): 1–15.
12.
Smyth, ed. Learning About Teaching Through Clinical Supervision. London: Croom Helm, 1986.
13.
Smyth, ed. “A ‘Critical’ Perspective for Clinical Supervision.”Journal of Curriculum and Supervision2(1988): 136–56.
