De eenvoud en complexiteit van Opbrengstgericht Werken (PDF ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

maatregelen om OGW te stimuleren omvatten enerzijds maatregelen die erop gericht zijn om scholen te motiveren om OGW serieus te nemen, en zelf te investeren in de ontwikkeling van OGW (deze stimulans kan vooral via het toezicht op de scholen gegeven worden). Anderzijds worden maatregelen aanbevolen die tot doel hebben om schoolteams te voorzien van de voor OGW benodigde kennis, vaardigheden en hulpmiddelen. Een dergelijke 'pressure and support' strategie lijkt kansrijk om een belangrijke bijdrage te leveren aan het langs de weg van opbrengstgericht werken maximaliseren van leeropbrengsten in het Nederlandse basisonderwijs. Referenties Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Barber, M. (1998). National strategies for educational reform: lessons from the British experience since 1988. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (eds.), International Handbook of Educational Change (vol. 5, pp.743- 767). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Black, P., & Harrison, C. (2001). Feedback in questioning and marking: The science teacher’s role in formative assessment. School Science Review, 82(301), 55–61. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74. Blok, H., Otter, M., & Roeleveld, J. (2002). Leerlingvolgsystemen: Praktische lessen uit onderzoek. Amsterdam: SCO Kohnstamm Instituut van de Faculteit der Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Blok, H., Sleegers, P., & S. Karsten (2008). Looking for a balance between internal and external evaluation of school quality: Evaluation of the SVI model, Journal of Education Policy, 23(4), 379-395. Borko, H., Mayfield, V., Marion, S., Flexer, R., & Cumbo, K. (1997). Teachers’ developing ideas and practices about mathematics performance assessment: Successes, stumbling blocks, and implications for professional development. CSE Technical Report 423. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Boudette, K.P., City, E., & R. Murnane (2005). Data Wise: A step-bys step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Boston: Harvard Educational Publishing Group. Bulder, J.C. (2008). Interpretatie en gebruik van feedback uit het CITO-LOVS leerlingvolgsysteem. Enschede: Onderwijskunde. Calhoun, E., & Joyce, B. (1998). “Inside-Out” and “Outside-In”: learning from past and present school improvement paradigms. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (eds.), International Handbook of Educational Change (vol. 5, pp.1286-1298). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Campbell, P. (2004). Optimizing Mathematics Achievement for all Students. Mayland Institute for Minority Achievement and Urban Education: aahttp://www.education.umd.edu/institutesandcenters/MIMAUE/news/research SymposiumFlier.html. Cizek, G.J. (2003). Rejoinder. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22 (1), 40-44. Clarke, S., & McCallum, B. (z.j.-a). Gillingham Partnership Formative Assessment Project 2000–2001: Interim Report on the second term of the project. Oral 34
feedback and marking against learning intentions. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Clarke, S., & McCallum, B. (z.j.-b). Gillingham Partnership Formative Assessment Project 2000–2001: Final report on the third term of the project and final conclusions. Third term focus: Target setting. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Copland, M. (2002). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement in the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Teaching, Stanford University. Cullen, J.B., & Reback, R. (2006). Tinkering toward accolades: school gaming under a performance accountability system. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. Working paper 12286. http://www.nber.org/papers/w12286. Diamond, J., & Cooper, K. (2007). The uses of testing data in urban elementary schools: Some lessons from Chicago. In P. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making. 106th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 241–263). Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 147-160. Ehren, M.C.M. (in voorbereiding). Responses of schools to accountability systems using multiple measures; School improvement and strategic behavior of elementary schools in New York. Figlio, D.N. and Getzler, L.S. (2002). Accountability, ability and disability: gaming the system. NBER working paper 9307. http://www.nber.org/papers/w9307. Fink, D., & Stoll, L. (1998). Educational Change: Easier Said Than Done. In Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., & Hopkins, D. (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Change, Vol. 5 [pp. 297-321]. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A metaanalysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199-208. Fuhrman, S.H. (2003). Redesigning Accountability Systems for Education. CPRE Policy Briefs RB-38. Geijsel, P., Sleegers, P.J.C., Stoel, R.D. and Kruger, M.L. (2009). The Effect of Teacher Psychological and School Organizational and Leadership Factors on Teachers’ Professional Learning in Dutch Schools. The Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 1-22. Goertz, M.E. and Duffy, M.C. (2001). Assessment and Accountability Across the 50 States. Policy brief RB-33. http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/rb33.pdf Goertz, M., Oláh, L., & Riggan, M. (2009, December). Can interim assessments by used for instructional change? CPRE Policy Briefs RB-51. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Hall, B., & Hewitt-Gervais, C.M. (2000). The application of student portfolios in primary/intermediate and self-contained/multi-age team classroom environments: Implications for instruction, learning, and assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(2), 209-228. Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Pritchett, R., & Thomas, C. (2005). The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in schools. WCER Working Paper No. 2005-10. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research (WCER). 35
Page 1 and 2: De eenvoud en complexiteit van Opbr
Page 3 and 4: gericht zijn geweest is het aanneme
Page 5 and 6: c. Het op basis van de kennis van d
Page 7 and 8: In de organisatiekunde kent het ‘
Page 9 and 10: systemen vooral worden geadopteerd
Page 11 and 12: 2.3 De schoolleider als gangmaker e
Page 13 and 14: - prestatieniveaus (zowel op school
Page 15 and 16: DOEN DOEN PROCES MONITOREN Figuur 3
Page 17 and 18: Positieve, negatieve of ambigue rea
Page 19 and 20: afzonderlijke vakken, en voor versc
Page 21 and 22: voor reflectie op en verbetering va
Page 23 and 24: eflectie op de vraag hoe voor elk v
Page 25 and 26: 3.4 De accountability context Een a
Page 27 and 28: schoolleiders die hoge opbrengsten
Page 29 and 30: het schoolbreed ontwikkelen van OGW
Page 31 and 32: In een OGW-training waarin scholen
Page 33: Het huidige toezicht kan op een aan
Page 37 and 38: Louis, K.S. (1998). Reconnecting kn
Page 39: Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational Org

De eenvoud en complexiteit van Opbrengstgericht Werken (PDF ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?