1 |
강영삼(1998). 학교조직 특성에 따른 장학문화의 차이에 관한 연구. 교육행정학연구, 16(1), 136-179.
|
2 |
강현석, 정정희, 박창언, 박은영, 황윤세, 장사형, 이신동, 이경화, 최미숙, 이순주, 이효녕, 문병상(2007). 최신영재교육과정론. 서울: 시그마프레스.
|
3 |
권낙원, 추광재, 박승렬(2006). 교육과정 실행 수준 결정 요인 탐색. 교육과정연구, 24(3), 87-106.
|
4 |
권정국(2006). 제7차 체육교육과정에 대한 교사의 관심도 및 실행 수준 연구. 박사학위논문. 공주대학교.
|
5 |
김경자(1993). 교육과정 혁신: 관심에 기초한 교육과정 실행 모형(CBAM). 서울: 교육과학사.
|
6 |
김대현(2011). 교육과정의 이해. 서울: 학지사.
|
7 |
김도기(2005). 컨설팅 장학에 관한 질적 실행 연구. 박사학위논문. 서울대학교.
|
8 |
김민환(2009). 2007년 개정 교육과정에 관한 초등학교 교사의 관심수준 분석. 학습자중심교과교육연구, 9(3), 87-107.
|
9 |
김이천(2005). 초등학교 재량활동에 대한 교사의 관심도와 실행 분석. 박사학위논문. 경남대학교.
|
10 |
김찬민, 서순식(2003). 정보통신활용교육에 대한 초등교사의 관심유형과 실행수준 조사연구. 교육연구, 20, 275-299.
|
11 |
문대영(2010). 초등 예비교사의 발명교육에 대한 관심도. 한국실과교육학회지, 23(3), 245-262.
|
12 |
이경순(2007). 한국과학영재학교의 u-러닝에 대한 관심도 분석. 교육과학연구, 38(2), 169-196.
|
13 |
이용운(2004). 교사의 교육과정 관심수준에 기초한 지원처방 효과 연구: 창의적 재량활동 개발사례를 중심으로. 박사학위논문. 고려대학교.
|
14 |
이지은, 신재한(2012). CBAM에 기초한 2007년 개정 교육과정에 대한 교원의 관심도 및 실행도 분석. 교사교육연구, 51(1), 137-151.
|
15 |
진동섭(2003). 학교 컨설팅: 교육개혁의 새로운 접근 방법. 서울: 학지사.
|
16 |
진동섭, 홍창남, 김도기(2008). 학교경영컨설팅과 수업 컨설팅. 경기: 교육과학사.
|
17 |
차정호, 백상수, 오정숙(2010). E-러닝에 대한 예비유아특수교사의 관심도 분석: 관심중심수용모형(CBAM)을 중심으로. 유아특수교육연구, 10(4), 191-215.
|
18 |
한국교육개발원(2013). 국가 수준의 영재교육기관평가 방안 연구. 서울: 한국교육개발원
|
19 |
추광재(2007). 교육과정에 관한 교사의 관심.인식.실행 결정요인 분석. 박사학위논문. 한국교원대학교.
|
20 |
한국교육개발원(2012). 제 3차 영재교육진흥종합계획 수립 연구. 서울: 한국과학창의재단.
|
21 |
한국교육개발원(2004). 영재교육기관 평가 편람. 서울: 한국교육개발원.
|
22 |
홍후조(2002). 교육과정의 이해와 개발. 서울: 문음사.
|
23 |
Callahna, C. M.(2001). Program evaluation. In M. S. Landrum, C. M. Callahan & B. D. Shaklee(Eds.), Aiming for excellence: annotations to the NAGC pre-k-grade 12 gifted program standards(pp. 53-66). Washington DC: Prufrock press.
|
24 |
Callahan, C. M., & Caldwell, M. S. (1995). A practitioner's guide to evaluating programs for the gifted. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
|
25 |
Cooke, L., & Friend, M. (1991). Principles of practices of consultation in schools. Preventing School Failure, 35(4), 6-9.
DOI
|
26 |
Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted & National Association for Gifted Children (2012). 2010-2011 State of the stated in gifted education. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
|
27 |
Curtis, M. J., & Meyers, J. (1985). Best practices in school-based consultation. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology. Washington, DC: National Association for School Psychologists.
|
28 |
Donovan, A. (1990). Team consultation. A presentation to York Country Public Schools.
|
29 |
Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented(6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
|
30 |
Donovan, L., Hartley, K., & Strudler, N. (2007). Teacher concerns during initial implementation of a one-to-one laptop initiative at the middle school level. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 263-286.
DOI
|
31 |
Davis, N. W., & Roblyer, M. D.(2005). Preparing teachers for the "school that technology Built": Evaluation of program to train teachers for virtual schooling. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 619-641.
|
32 |
Feng, A. X. (2004). A metaevaluation of survey result of stakeholder perceptions of gifted program. In J. VanTassel-Baska & A. X. Feng (Eds.), Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement(pp. 67-86). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.
|
33 |
Feng, A. X., & Brown, E. (2004). Using focus groups in gifted program evaluation. In J. VanTassel-Baska & A. X. Feng(Eds.), Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement(pp. 109-132). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.
|
34 |
Feng, A. X., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2004). Collecting students impact data in gifted programs:Problems and processes. In J. VanTassel-Baska & A. X. Feng(Eds.), Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement(pp. 133-154). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.
|
35 |
Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207-226.
DOI
|
36 |
Gagne, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 60-74). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
|
37 |
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (2nd Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
|
38 |
George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2006). Measuring implementation in schools: The stages of concern questionnaire. Austin: SEDL.
|
39 |
George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Uchiyama, K. (2000). Extent of implementation of a standards-based approach to teaching mathematics and students outcomes. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 35(1), 8-25.
|
40 |
Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1979). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for the use of the SoC questionnaire. Univ. of Texas at Austin. (ERIC Document ED 147-342)
|
41 |
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2011). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and Potholes(3rd Ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.
|
42 |
Hall, G. E., & Loucks, S. F. (1977). A developmental model for determining whether the treatment is actually implemented. American Education Research Journal, 14(3), 263-276.
DOI
|
43 |
Hall, G. E., & Rutherford, W. L. (1976). Concerns of teachers about implementing teach ing. Educational Leadership, 34(3), 227-233.
|
44 |
Haney, J. J., & McArthur, J. (2002). Four case studies pf prospective science teachers' beliefs constructivist teaching practices. Science Eduction, 86(6). 737-863.
DOI
|
45 |
Kubr, M. (1996). Management consulting: A guide to the profession. Geneva: International Labour Office.
|
46 |
Olenchak, F. R., & Castle, C. (1995). Reliable and valid attitude assessment in gifted education. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Tampa, FL.
|
47 |
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Giftedness according to the theory of successful intelligence. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 88-99). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
|
48 |
Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Conception of giftedness and its relationship to the development of social capital. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 75-99). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
|
49 |
Sahin, I., & Thompson, A. (2007) Analysis of Predictive Factors That Influence Faculty Members Technology Adoption Level. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 167-190
|
50 |
Schwartz, J., & Taylor, E. L.(1995). Accountability in gifted education: Indicators of success. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Tampa FL.
|
51 |
Traxler, M. A. (1987). Gifted education program evaluation: A national review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 107-113.
DOI
|
52 |
Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers'practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158.
DOI
|
53 |
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2004a). The processes in gifted program evaluation. In J. VanTassel-Baska & A. X. Feng(Eds.), Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement(pp. 23-40). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.
|
54 |
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2004b). Assessing classroom practice: The use of a structured observation form. In J. VanTassel-Baska & A. X. Feng(Eds.), Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement(pp. 87-108). Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press.
|
55 |
Ward, J. R., West, L. S., & Issak, T. J.(2002). Mentoring: A strategy for change in teacher technology education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 553-569.
|