“…Of course the teacher is free to attempt to apply new ideas, techniques, and practices in his or her classroom, usually after the inservice is over; the apparent assumption being that practicing teachers have the ability to transfer information delivered in workshops, institutes and summer courses directly into applied use (Wood & Thompson, 1993). We challenge this assumption in light of the long-standing criticisms regarding the limited utility of such forms of didactic inservice (Bozonne, 1994;Dirx, Spurgin, Lavin & Holder, 1993;Hammons, 1976;Hendrickson et al 1993;s DeGeronimo, 1988;Langone, Koorland & Oseroff, 1987;Vailancourt & Bacchus, 1987;Young, 1977), and the repeated demonstrations of what is required to make inservice effective (Cavallaro, Stowitschek, George & Stowitschek, 1980;Knapczyk, 1993;Marshall, Inservice Education Practice and Follow-up Over the years, there have been numerous illustrations of the importance of embedding systematic practice and follow-up into inservice education programs; some early examples being micro-teaching in minicourses (Borg, Kelly, Langer & Gall, 1970; Stowitschek & Hofmeister, 1974), remote monitoring of technique implementation (Cavallaro et al 1980;Young, 1977), and later, in situ coaching, supervision and mentoring (Barringer & Cheney, 1997;Joyce, 1987;Lignugarus-Kraft & Marchand, 1993;Pierce & Miller, 1994;Showers, 1990;Showers & Joyce, 1996). Regardless of the information at hand, there persists a near exclusive reliance on expository modes of delivery (Cavallaro et al 1980;Hendrickson et al 1993;Hindman & Polsgrove, 1988;Rau, 1989;Rosenberg, Jackson & Chong-Hwa, 1996).…”