forskning om effektiva skolor65dary schools and their effects on children. London: Paul Chapman.Sammons, P. (2007). School effectiveness and equity: Making connections: A review of school effectivenessand improvement research – its implications for practitioners and policy makers.Berkshire: CfBT Education Trust.Sammons, P., Day, C., Kington, A., Gu, Q., Stobart, G. & Smees, R. (2007). Exploring variationsin teachers’ work, lives and their effects on pupils: Key findings and implicationsfrom a longitudinal mixed-method study. British Educational Research Journal, 33,681–701.Sammons, P., DeLaMatre, J., & Mujtaba, T. (2002). A summary review of research onteacher effectiveness. Hämtad den 26 februari 2008 från internet: www.highreliabilityschools.co.uk/Shared/TeacherEffectiveness.aspxSammons, P., Hillman, J. & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key characteristics of effective schools: Areview of school effectiveness research. London: Institute of Education, University ofLondon, & Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED).Sammons, P., Hillman, J. & Mortimore, P. (1997a). Key characteristics of effective schools:A review of school effectiveness research. I J. White & M. Barber (Eds.), Perspectives onschool effectiveness and school improvement (s. 77–124). London: Institute of Education,University of London.Sammons, P., Mortimore, P. & Hillman, J. (1997b). Key characteristics of effective schools:A response to ”Peddling feel-good fictions”. I J. White & M. Barber (Eds.), Perspectiveson school effectiveness and school improvement (s. 131–136). London: Institute of Education,University of London.Scheerens, J. & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: ElsevierScience.Scheerens, J. & Creemers, B. P. M. (1996). School effectiveness in the Netherlands: The modestinfluence of a research programme. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7,181–195.Scott, D. (1997). The missing hermeneutical dimension in mathematical modelling ofschool effectiveness. I J. White & M. Barber (Eds.), Perspectives on school effectivenessand school improvement (s. 161–174). London: Institute of Education, University ofLondon.Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analyticreview of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453.Stoll, L. & Mortimore, P. (1997). School effectiveness and school improvement. I J. White& M. Barber (Eds.), Perspectives on school effectiveness and school improvement (s. 9–24).London: Institute of Education, University of London.Stoll, L. & Sammons, P. (2007). Growing together: School effectiveness and school improvement in the UK. I T. Townsend (Ed.), International Handbook of School Effectivenessand Improvement (Part 1, s. 207–222). Dordrecht: Springer.
66 med <strong>ansiktet</strong> vänt <strong>mot</strong> europaTeddlie, C. & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research.London: RoutlegdeFalmer.Thomas, S., Sammons, P., Mortimore, P., & Smees, R. (1997). Differential secondary schooleffectiveness: Comparing the performance of different pupil groups. British EducationalResearch Journal, 23, 451–469.Thrupp, M. (2001a). Recent school effectiveness counter-critiques: Problems and possibilities.British Educational Research Journal, 27, 443–457.Thrupp, M. (2001b). Sociological and political concerns about school effectiveness research:Time for a new research agenda. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12,7–40.Van der Werf, G. (1997). Differences in school and instruction characteristics betweenhigh-, average- and low-effective schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,1997, 430–448.Watts, R. & Youens, B. (2007). Harnessing the potential of pupils to influence school development.Improving Schools, 10, 18–28.Wikeley, F., Stoll, L., Murillo, J. & De Jong, R. (2005). Evaluating effective school improvement:Case studies of programmes in eight European countries and their contributionto the effective school improvement model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,16, 387–405.
Change language