International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

• Akkuş, R., & Hand, B. (2011). Examining teachers’ struggles as they attempt to implement dialogical interaction as part of promoting mathematical reasoning within their classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(4), 975-998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9266-8
• Akpınar, Y. (2003). Öğretmenlerin yeni bilgi teknolojileri kullanımında yükseköğretimin etkisi: İstanbul okulları örneği [The effect of higher education on the use of new information technologies by teachers: Istanbul schools example]. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(2), 79-96.
• Alger, C. L. (2009). Secondary teachers’ conceptual metaphors of teaching and learning: Changes over the career span. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 743-751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.10.004
• Babadogan, C., & Olkun, S. (2006). Program development models and reform in Turkish primary school mathematics curriculum. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 1-6.
• Bağcı, N., & Şimşek, S. (2000). Milli Eğitim personeline yönelik hizmet içi eğitim faaliyetlerine genel bir bakış [An overview of in-service training activities for National Education personnel]. Millî Eğitim Dergisi, 146, 9-12.
• Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2010). What does it take to make a teacher? Phi Delta Kappan, 92(2), 8-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200203
• Ball, D., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348479
• Baştürk, R. (2012). İlköğretim öğretmenlerinin hizmetiçi eğitime yönelik algı ve beklentilerinin incelenmesi [Examining the perceptions and expectations of primary school teachers towards in-service education]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,42(42), 96-107.
• Boydak Özan, M., & Dikici, A. (2001). Hizmet içi eğitim programlarının etkililiğinin değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the effectiveness of in-service training programs]. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(2), 225-240.
• Bryk, A., Gomez, L., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Publishing.
• Castle, K., & Aichele, D. B. (1994). Professional development and teacher autonomy. In D. Aichele and A. Coxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics: 1994 Yearbook (pp. 1-8). Reston, VA: NCTM.
• Chazan, D., & Ball, D. (1995). Beyond Exhortations Not To Tell: The Teacher’s Role in Discussion-Intensive Mathematics Classes. NCRTL Craft Paper 95-2.
• Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1984). Teachers’ thought processes. Occasional paper no. 72. Michigan: Michigan State University
• Clarke, D. (1994). Ten key principles from research for the professional development of mathematics teachers. In D. Aichele and A. Coxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics: 1994 Yearbook (pp. 37-48). Reston, VA: NCTM
• Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947-967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7
• Coburn, C., & Penuel, W. (2016). Research-practice partnerships: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48-51. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750
• Cohen, D. K., & Barnes, C. A. (1993). Conclusion: A new pedagogy for policy. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin and J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 240-275). San-Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119-142. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737025002119
• Cooney, T. J. (1994). Teacher education as an exercise in adaptation. In D. Aichele and A. Coxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics: 1994 Yearbook (pp. 9-22). Reston, VA: NCTM
• Demirkol, M. (2010). İlköğretim okullarında öğretmenlere yönelik okul-temelli hizmetiçi eğitim etkinliklerinin değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of school-based in-service training activities for teachers in primary schools]. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, (188), 158-173.
• Doğan, N., Çakıroğlu, J., Çavuş, S., Bilican, K., & Arslan, O. (2011). Öğretmenlerin Bilimin Doğası Hakkındaki Görüşlerinin Geliştirilmesi: Hizmetiçi Eğitim Programının Etkisi [Improving Teachers’ Views on the Nature of Science: The Effect of In-Service Training Program]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40, 127-139.
• Eğitim Reformu Girişimi (ERG) (2015). Eğitim İzleme Raporu 2014-2015 [Training Monitoring Report 2014-2015]. İstanbul.
• Eraslan, A. (2009). Finlandiya’nın PISA’daki başarısının nedenleri: Türkiye için alınacak dersler [Reasons for the success of Finland’s PISA: lessons to be learned for Turkey]. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED), 3(2), 238-248.
• Even, R. & Tirosh, D. (2002). Teacher knowledge and understanding of students’ mathematical learning. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education, (pp. 219-240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Franke, M. L., Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. (1997). Teachers creating change: Examining evolving beliefs and classroom practice. In E. Fennema and B. Nelson (Eds.). Mathematics teachers in transmission (pp. 255-282). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Geiger, V., Muir, T., & Lamb, J. (2016). Video-stimulated recall as a catalyst for teacher professional learning. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19, 457-475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-015-9306-y
• Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
• Gökmenoğlu, T., Clark, C. M., & Kiraz, E. (2016). Professional development needs of Turkish teachers in an era of national reforms. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 112-125. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n1.7
• Goldsmith, L., & Schifter, D. (1997). Understanding teachers in transition: Characteristics of a model for developing teachers. In E. Fennema & B. S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 19-54). Mahwah, New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Goos, M., & Geiger, V. (2010). Theoretical perspectives on mathematics teacher change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(6), 499-507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-010-9166-4
• Gültekin, M., Çubukçu, Z., & Dal, S. (2010). İlköğretim öğretmenlerinin eğitim öğretimle ilgili hizmetiçi eğitim gereksinimleri [In-service training requirements of primary education teachers regarding education]. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29, 131-152.
• Günel, M., & Tanrıverdi, K. (2014). In-service teacher training from international and national perspectives: The retention and loss of institutional and academic memories. Education and Science, 39(175), 73-94. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.2949
• Günel, M., Akkuş, R., Özer-Keskin, M., & Keskin-Samanci., N. (2013). Improving Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Science Through Argument Based Science Inquiry Implementations: A Case of Nationwide Professional Development Project. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Immersion Approaches to Argument-based Inquiry (ABI) for Science Classrooms, Busan, Korea. 4-7 February 2013.
• Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015005005
• Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L. A., Gunel, M., & Akkus, R. (2016). Aligning teaching to learning: A 3-year study examining the embedding of language and argumentation into elementary science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 847-863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9622-9
• Harris, K. R., Lane, K. L., Graham, S., Driscoll, S. A., Sandmel, K., Brindle, M., & Schatschneider, C. (2012). Practice-based professional development for selfregulated strategies development in writing: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(2), 103-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111429005
• Jones, D. (1997). A conceptual framework for studying the relevance of context to mathematics teachers’ change. In E. Fennema & B. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transmission (pp. 131-154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Jones, G. A., Lubinski, C. A., Swafford, J. O., & Thornton, C. A. (1994). A framework for the professional development of K-12 mathematics teachers. In D. Aichele & A. Coxford (Eds.). Professional development for teachers of mathematics (pp. 23-36). Reston, VA: NCTM.
• Kıldan, O., & Temel, F. (2008). The effects of in-service training practices for preschool teachers in line with the constructivist approach to determine teachers’ perceptions. Kastamonu Education Journal, 16(1), 25-36.
• Knight, S. L., Lloyd, G. M., Arbaugh, F., Gamson, D., McDonald, S. P., Nolan, J., & Whitney, A. E. (2015). School-Based Teacher Learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(4), 301-303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115596828
• Küçüksüleymanoğlu, R. (2006). In service training of ELT teachers in Turkey between 1998-2005. Uludag University Education Faculty Journal, 19(2), 359-369
• Lesh, R. (2002). Research design in mathematics education: Focusing on design experiments. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 27-49). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Llinares, S., & Krainer, K. (2006). Mathematics (student) teachers and teacher educators as learners. In A. Gutie´rrez and P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 429-459). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087901127_016
• Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9072-7
• Mewborn, D. S. (2003). Teaching, teachers’ knowledge, and their professional development. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin & D. Schifter (Eds). A research companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 45-52). Reston, VA: NCTM.
• Ministry of National Education-MoNE (2012a). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı-MEB (2012a).19.05.2012 tarihli “12 Yıllık Zorunlu Eğitime Yönelik Uygulamalar” konulu, B.08.0.ÖKM. O.OO-00.00/401 sayılı genelge [Instructions for the 12-Year compulsory education, document number B.08.0.ÖKM. O.OO-00.00/401]. Ankara: MoNE.
• Ministry of National Education-MoNE (2012b). Meslekiçi eğitim ihtiyacını belirleme anketi genel değerlendirme sonuçları [The general results of survey for inservice education needs]. Ankara: MoNE.
• National Council of Mathematics (NCTM) (1991). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
• Nelson, B. S. (1997). Learning about teacher change in the context of mathematics education reform: Where have we come from? In E. Fennema & B. S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 3-15). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
• Omar, S. (2004). Inservice teachers’ implementation of science writing heuristic as a tool for professional growth (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Ames: Iowa State University, USA.
• Öztürk-Akar, E. (2007). Inservice training needs of biology teachers and observed local differences. Education and Science, 32(143), 68-79.
• Pennington, M. C. (1995). The teacher change cycle. Tesol Quarterly, 29(4), 705-731. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588171
• Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331-337. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11421826
• Reid, D., & Zack, V. (2010). Observing the process of mathematics teacher change—part 1. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(5), 371-374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-010-9158-4
• Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Falconer, K., Turley, J., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) (ACEPT Technical Report No. IN00-1). Tempe, AZ: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.
• Schifter, D. (1998). Learning mathematics for teaching: From a teachers’ seminar to the classroom. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1, 55-87. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009911200478
• Sherin, M. G., Sherin, B. L., & R. Madanes (2000) Exploring diverse accounts of teacher knowledge. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour 18(2), 357-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(99)00033-4
• Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114-145. https://doi.org/10.2307/749205
• Simon, M. (1997). Developing new models of mathematics teaching. In E. Fennema & B. S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transmission (pp. 55-86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Sowder, J. T., Philipp, R. A., Armstrong, B. E., & Schappelle, B. P. (1998). Middlegrade teachers’ mathematical knowledge and its relationship to instruction: A research monograph. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Steinberg, R., Empson, S., & Carpenter, T. (2004). Inquiry into children’s mathematical thinking as a means to teacher change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(3), 237-267 https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JMTE.0000033083.04005.d3
• Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963-980. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<963::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-0
• Swafford, J. O., Jones, G. A., & Thornton, C. A. (1997). Increased knowledge in geometry and instructional practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 467-483. https://doi.org/10.2307/749683
• Sykes, G., Bird, T., & Kennedy, M. (2010). Teacher education: Its problems and some prospects. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 464-476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110375804
• Tanrıverdi, K., & Gunel, M. (2012). Öğretmen pedagojisinde kritik sorun: Değişime karşı direnç [A critical problem in teacher pedagogy: Resistance to change]. In 10^th National Conference of Science and Mathematics Education, Nigde, Turkey.
• Tanrıverdi, K., Kurt, İ., & Soysal, Y. (2014). Öğretmen mesleki gelişiminin anahtarı: pedagojik değişim [The key to teacher professional development: pedagogical change]. Öğretmen Dünyası, 414, 16-18.
• Toluk-Uçar, Z., & Demirsoy, N. H. (2010). Tension between old and new: Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and practices. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 39, 321-332.
• Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & Torbeys, J. (2006). Numerical thinking. In A. Gutie´rrez and P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future, (pp. 51-82). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087901127_004
• Wallace, M., Cederberg, J., & Allen, R. (1994). Teachers empowering teachers: a professional-enhancement model. In D. Aichele & A. Coxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics: 1994 Yearbook (pp. 234-245). Reston, VA: NCTM.
• Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher’s role in classroom discourse: A review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516-551. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308320292
• Wasserman, N. H., & Rossi, D. (2015). Mathematics and science teachers’ use of and confidence in empirical reasoning: Implications for STEM teacher preparation. School Science and Mathematics, 115(1), 22-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12099
• Watters, J. J., & Diezmann, C. M. (2015). Challenges confronting career-changing beginning teachers: A qualitative study of professional scientists becoming science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(2), 163-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9413-0
• Weissglass, J. (1994). Changing mathematics teaching means changing ourselves: Implications for professional development. In D. Aichele and A. Coxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics (pp. 67-78). Reston, VA: NCTM.
• Wilkie, K. J. (2019). The challenge of changing teaching: investigating the interplay of external and internal influences during professional learning with secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 22, 95-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-017-9376-0
• Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical Norms, Argumentation, and Autonomy in Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458-477. https://doi.org/10.2307/749877
• Yackel, E., Rasmussen, C., & King, K. (2000). Social and sociomathematical norms in an advanced undergraduate mathematics course. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 275-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(00)00051-1
• Yiğit, N., & Altun, T. (2011). Effectiveness of an in-service training course: Teaching methods and techniques. Journal of National Education, 41(189), 118-131.
• Yılmaz, H., & Kocasaraç, H. (2010). A new approach to in-service teacher training: The innovative teachers program and its evaluation. Ahi Evran University Education Faculty Journal,11(3), 51-64.
• Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and method. Beverly Hills, Sage Publications.

APA

Akkuş, R., & Karakaya, M. (2020). The Effects of the Professional Development Program Supported by On-the-job Visits on the Pedagogies of Mathematics Teachers. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 15(3), em0608. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/8481

Vancouver

Akkuş R, Karakaya M. The Effects of the Professional Development Program Supported by On-the-job Visits on the Pedagogies of Mathematics Teachers. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2020;15(3):em0608. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/8481

AMA

Akkuş R, Karakaya M. The Effects of the Professional Development Program Supported by On-the-job Visits on the Pedagogies of Mathematics Teachers. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2020;15(3), em0608. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/8481

Chicago

Akkuş, Recai, and Melisa Karakaya. "The Effects of the Professional Development Program Supported by On-the-job Visits on the Pedagogies of Mathematics Teachers". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2020 15 no. 3 (2020): em0608. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/8481

Harvard

Akkuş, R., and Karakaya, M. (2020). The Effects of the Professional Development Program Supported by On-the-job Visits on the Pedagogies of Mathematics Teachers. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 15(3), em0608. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/8481

MLA

Akkuş, Recai et al. "The Effects of the Professional Development Program Supported by On-the-job Visits on the Pedagogies of Mathematics Teachers". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 15, no. 3, 2020, em0608. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/8481