AN ANALYSIS OF MENTOR-BASED INDUCTION PROGRAM COMPONENTS AND TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF IMPROVEMENT IN TEACHING
by
KATARZYNA ANNA PICKERING B.A., University of Colorado, 2001 M.A., University of Colorado, 2004
A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
In Educational Leadership, Research, and Policy Department of Leadership, Research, and Foundations
ii © Copyright by Katarzyna Anna Pickering 2013 All Rights Reserved
iii
This dissertation for Doctor of Philosophy degree by Katarzyna Anna Pickering
has been approved for the
Department of Leadership, Research, and Foundations by
____________________________ Dick Carpenter, Chair
____________________________ Corinne Harmon ____________________________ Aldo Ramirez _____________________________ Barbara Frye ____________________________ John Weishaar __________________ Date
iv
Pickering, Katarzyna Anna (Ph.D., Educational Leadership, Research, and Policy)
An Analysis of Mentor-based Induction Program Components and Teachers’ Perceptions of Improvement in Teaching
Dissertation directed by Professor Dick Carpenter
This study examined the relationship between mentor-based induction program components and beginning teachers’ self-perceived improvement of their teaching as a result of work with their mentors. The conceptual framework for this study was adapted from a National Center for Education Evaluation report by identifying key components of mentor-based induction programs specified in the literature and contextual factors that are useful to consider when interpreting analyses. A restricted data license for the First through Third Waves Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study Preliminary Data File was obtained from the National Center for Educational Statistics for the purpose of this study. Given that the outcome variable is ordinal, hierarchical generalized linear modeling (HGLM), the non-linear counterpart to hierarchical linear modeling was used. HGLM results indicated there is not a statistically significant relationship between beginning teachers’ self-perceived overall improvement of their teaching as a result of working with their mentors and mentor criteria, mentor collaboration time, observation time, and the frequency with which the mentor teacher worked with the beginning teacher in eight identified areas.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this dissertation is a result of the support and encouragement of many caring individuals. I am very grateful for each person’s unique contribution and wish to express my sincere appreciation to each one.
I would like to thank Dr. Dick Carpenter who has served as my Committee Chair. His expertise and guidance have been invaluable to me. I would also like to thank the other members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Corinne Harmon, Dr. Al Ramirez, Dr. Barbara Frye, and Dr. John Weishaar, for their support and assistance. Special thanks to Dr. Weishaar who early in my career encouraged me to be the leader I never imagined I could be, pursue this next step in my education, and always put forth my best (beefy) work.
Special acknowledgement and sincere thanks go to my parents, Zbigniew and Jolanta, who taught me the value of hard work and to never give up on my dreams. Their consistently high expectations and belief in my abilities have driven me to continue to climb higher, no matter what obstacles may be in my way. I will forever appreciate all they sacrificed in life in order for me to have opportunities in mine. Heartfelt thanks to my in-laws, Kent and Leone, who consistently provided encouragement and support throughout this process. I am also grateful to other members of my family and to my friends, each of whom helped me in many different ways as I pursued this goal.
My deepest appreciation and love is extended to my family. Completion of this work would not have been possible without my husband Mike, who gave me constant encouragement and unyielding support throughout the entire process. I am truly blessed
vi
to have been able to embark on this journey with my best friend and mentor. I would also like to thank my incredible children, Alexis and Tyler, for their love, patience, support, and understanding. They have made many sacrifices these past few years yet they continue to inspire and amaze me with their upbeat attitudes and unconditional love and support. This work is dedicated to them.
My sincerest thanks go to everyone who has been part of this support system and journey. Babi- wreszcie skończyłam!
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION ...1
Statement of Problem ...3
Purpose of Study and Research Questions ...4
Conceptual Framework ...8
Context ...10
Mentor-Based Induction Program Components ...13
Outcomes for Beginning Teachers ...14
II. LITERATURE REVIEW ...17
Induction Policy ...17
Induction Program Outcomes ...22
Teacher Commitment and Retention ...22
Teacher Instructional Practices ...23
Teacher Perceptions of Improvement ...23
Student Achievement ...24
Comprehensive Induction Program Components ...24
Mentor Criteria...26
Mentor/Mentee Collaboration Time ...27
Mentor/Mentee Observations...28
Mentor Activities (Individualized Professional Development) ...29
viii
Classroom Management and Discipline ...31
Instructional Methods ...31
Student Assessment Practices ...32
Selecting Curriculum and Developing Lesson Plans ...33
Interacting with Parents ...34
Technology Integration ...34 Reflecting on Practice ...35 Summary ...36 III. METHODS ...37 Introduction ...37 Data ...39
Schools and Staffing Survey ...40
Teacher Follow-up Survey ...40
Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study ...41
Instrumentation ...41
First Wave Questionnaire ...41
Second Wave Questionnaire ...42
Third Wave Questionnaire ...42
Sample...43
SASS School Sampling Frame and Sample Selection ...43
SASS Teacher Sampling Frame and Sample Selection ...44
ix Data Collection ...45 Data Processing ...46 Data Analysis ...48 Description of Variables ...49 IV. RESULTS ...59
Research Question 1: Mentor Criteria ...59
Research Question 2: Collaboration Frequency ...60
Research Question 3: Observation Frequency ...62
Research Questions 4-11: Mentor Activities ...64
V. DISCUSSION ...67
Key Induction Components ...68
Mentor Criteria...68
Mentor/Mentee Collaboration Time ...68
Mentor/Mentee Observations...69
Mentor Activities ...69
Induction Program Outcomes: Teachers’ Perceptions of Improvement ...70
Interpretation ...71
Limitations ...77
Recommendations for Future Research and Practice ...79
Conclusion ...81
REFERENCES ...84
x
A. ORIGINAL CODING OF VARIABLES ...98
B. HLM ANALYSIS TABLES ...105
B1. HLM RESULTS MENTOR SAME SUBJECT/GRADE ...105
B2. HLM RESULTS COLLABORATION FREQUENCY ...106
B3. HLM RESULTS OBSERVATION FREQUENCY ...107
xi TABLES Table
1. Description of Recoded Variables ...50
2. Level One Descriptive Statistics ...55
3. Level Two Descriptive Statistics ...54
4. HGLM Results Mentor Same Subject Same Grade ...60
5. HGLM Results Mentor/ Mentee Collaboration Frequency ...61
6. HGLM Results Observation Frequency...63
xii FIGURES Figure
1. Glazerman et al’s., (2008) Conceptual Framework ...8 2. Conceptual Framework ...10
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
In recent years, interest in formal teacher induction has grown due to a national increase in emphasis on teacher quality. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), emphasized the importance of teacher quality. Title II provides almost $3 billion per year to states to train, recruit, and prepare high-quality teachers, and the implementation of teacher induction programs is an allowable use of Title II funds (AFT, 2001; Isenberg et al., 2009). NCLB stresses the importance of high quality professional development and asks educators “to engage in systematic, continuous improvement in the quality of the educational experience of all students” (Elmore, 2000, p. 3). It requires states to ensure that highly qualified teachers are in every public school classroom (Neville & Robinson, 2003) and high-quality professional development opportunities are available to teachers. Teaching is complex work, and pre-employment teacher preparation programs are not sufficient in providing all of the knowledge and skills for teachers to be successful; a significant number of skills must be acquired through on-the-job training (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). A body of research has shown that teachers improve dramatically between their first and second years of teaching, considerably so between their second and third, and relatively little in subsequent years (National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009). Consequently, districts need to provide an environment in which novices receive adequate support (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011) through the formation of job embedded and on-going professional learning (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995).
Comprehensive, multi-year induction programs accelerate the professional growth of new teachers, reduce the rate of new teacher attrition, provide a positive return on investment, and improve student learning (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). Because effective induction program delivery is so integral to the success of beginning teachers, key induction program elements should be identified in order to develop new teachers’ practice and accelerate their effectiveness in the classroom (Goldrick, Osta, Barlin, & Burn, 2012). Effective mentors are critical to high quality induction programs, and the selection, training, and ongoing support of teacher mentors is vital to the implementation of impactful, instructionally-focused support to beginning teachers (Goldrick, et al., 2012).
This study focuses specifically on how mentor-based (Strong, Villar, & Fletcher, 2008) induction program components affect beginning teachers’ self-perceived overall improvement of their teaching. To address the research questions in the study, a conceptual framework was adapted from a National Center for Education Evaluation report (Glazerman, et al., 2008) by identifying key components of mentor-based induction programs specified in the literature and contextual factors that are useful to consider when interpreting analyses. A restricted data license for the First through Third Waves Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study (BTLS) Preliminary Data File was obtained from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) for the purpose of this study. The BTLS follows a cohort of beginning public school teachers initially interviewed as part of the 2007-08 Schools and Staffing Survey. The BTLS has several objectives, including gaining a better understanding of how teachers respond to
beginning teacher satisfaction, mobility, and attrition (Tourkin et al., 2011). Hierarchical generalized linear modeling (HGLM) is used to analyze data from the questionnaires administered to teachers nested in schools. HGLM has the advantage of allowing the analysis to simultaneously model relationships within and between hierarchical levels of grouped data, thereby making it more efficient at accounting for variance among
variables at different levels than other existing analyses (Woltman, Feldstain, MacKay, & Rocchi, 2012).
Statement of Problem
While many districts use some form of teacher induction or mentoring, they often do so in response to an unfunded state mandate and with modest local resources
(Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). An example of informal teacher induction includes “buddying” each new teacher with another full-time teacher without providing any training, supplemental materials, or release time for the induction to occur (Goldrick, et al., 2012). While teacher induction is common, induction that is intensive,
comprehensive, structured, and sequentially delivered in response to teachers’ emerging pedagogical needs is not common (Isenberg, et al., 2009). According to the New Teacher Center, a national non-profit dedicated to improving student learning by accelerating the effectiveness of new teachers and school leaders, effective mentors are an essential component of a comprehensive induction program (Goldrick, et al., 2012). In addition, The New Teacher Center states that induction policies should articulate research-based program elements including the frequency and duration of mentor-mentee contact time and opportunities for classroom observation, feedback, and discussion (Goldrick, et al.,
2012). It is necessary for districts to not only be aware of the elements of high quality induction programs but also the structures that must exist to allow beginning teachers to engage in high quality job-embedded learning opportunities. Unfortunately, many programs still operate as old-fashioned buddy systems that provide limited emotional and logistical support. It is important to move districts toward systemized initiatives that use carefully selected and trained mentors and provide structured time for interaction focused on improving content knowledge, classroom management, and instructional skills
(Goldrick, et al., 2012). While elements of effective mentor-based induction programs are discussed in current research, very little emphasis has been placed on whether teachers perceive the support they are receiving improve their practice.
Purpose of Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of mentor-based induction program components on teachers’ self-perceived overall improvement of their teaching as a result of working with a mentor. Because mentoring and induction focus on supporting novice teachers, it is important to capture and analyze teachers’ perceptions of how work with a mentor affected their practice. It is also important to understand the circumstances under which mentoring within an induction program is effective, and while organizations such as the New Teacher Center have established mentor quality and program delivery policy criteria, current research does not address how mentor criteria and key mentor-based induction program elements affect teachers’ perceptions of how the support they receive improves their instruction. The New Teacher Center (Goldrick, et al., 2012) recommends that programs move toward rigorous mentor selection based on qualities of
an effective mentor, ongoing professional development and support for mentors,
sanctioned time for mentor-teacher interactions, multi-year mentoring, and intensive and specific guidance that has the ability to move teacher practice forward. Their
recommendations also include pairing mentors with beginning teachers of similar teaching assignments and providing mentors regular release from classroom teaching duties to provide them with dedicated time to excel in their professional role, including interactions with and observation of beginning teachers during the school day (Goldrick, et al., 2012).
This first part of this study analyzes three components of mentor-based induction programs—mentor criteria, collaboration time, and observations—to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference in teachers’ perceptions of how working with a mentor improved their teaching. This section of the study attempts to address three research questions utilizing teacher’s perceptions of overall improved teaching as the dependent variable. These research questions are:
1. Is there a statistically significant difference in beginning teachers’ self-perceived overall improvement of their teaching resulting from work with mentors between those with a mentor teacher who has experience teaching the same grade
level/content area and those who do not have experience teaching the same grade level/content area?
2. Is there a statistically significant relationship between beginning teachers’ self-perceived overall improvement of their teaching resulting from work with mentors and the frequency with which they met with their mentors?
3. Is there a statistically significant relationship between beginning teachers’ self-perceived overall improvement of their teaching resulting from work with mentors and the frequency with which their mentors observed them? The next part of this study focuses on mentor activities (individualized
professional development) by analyzing how the frequency with which the mentors and mentees worked together in eight identified areas (teaching subject matter or grade level, classroom management and discipline, using or incorporating a variety of instructional methods, using technology in the classroom, assessing students and interpreting
assessment data, selecting and adapting curriculum/instructional materials and/or writing lesson plans, interacting with parents, and reflecting on teaching practice) affected their self-perceived overall improvement of their teaching. Eight questions are included in the survey, which serve as the independent variables in this section of the study.
The following research questions will guide this part of the study:
4. Is there a statistically significant relationship between beginning teachers’ self-perceived overall improvement of their teaching resulting from work with mentors and the frequency with which the mentor teacher worked with the beginning teacher on teaching their subject matter or grade level?
5. Is there a statistically significant relationship between beginning teachers’ self-perceived overall improvement of their teaching resulting from work with mentors and the frequency with which the mentor teacher worked with the beginning teacher on their classroom management and discipline?
6. Is there a statistically significant relationship between beginning teachers’ self-perceived overall improvement of their teaching resulting from work with mentors and the frequency with which the mentor teacher worked with the beginning teacher on using or incorporating a variety of instructional methods? 7. Is there a statistically significant relationship between beginning teachers’
self-perceived overall improvement of their teaching resulting from work with mentors and the frequency with which the mentor teacher worked with the beginning teacher on using technology in their classrooms?
8. Is there a statistically significant relationship between beginning teachers’ self-perceived overall improvement of their teaching resulting from work with mentors and the frequency with which the mentor teacher worked with the beginning teacher on assessing students and interpreting assessment data? 9. Is there a statistically significant relationship between beginning teachers’
self-perceived overall improvement of their teaching resulting from work with mentors and the frequency with which the mentor teacher worked with the beginning teacher on selecting and adapting curriculum, instructional materials, and/or writing lesson plans?
10. Is there a statistically significant relationship between beginning teachers’ self-perceived overall improvement of their teaching resulting from work with mentors and the frequency with which the mentor teacher worked with the beginning teacher on interacting with parents?
11. Is there a statistically significant relationship between beginning teachers’ self-perceived overall improvement of their teaching resulting from work with
mentors and the frequency with which the mentor teacher worked with the beginning teacher on reflecting on their teaching practice?
Conceptual Framework
To address the research questions in the study, a conceptual framework was adapted from a National Center for Education Evaluation randomized control trial study investigating the impacts of comprehensive teacher induction (Glazerman, et al., 2008). Figure 1 displays the conceptual framework used by Glazerman et al. (2008).
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework (Glazerman, et al., 2008) Context Local Area
School Classroom
Teacher
Induction Program Components Orientation
Assessment
Professional development workshops Mentoring/peer coaching Small-group activities Observation Key Outcomes Teacher practices Student achievement Teacher retention Mediating Factors
Teacher attitudes: satisfaction and preparedness
Glazerman et al.’s (2008) framework shows how contextual factors, program components, and other mediating factors might affect teacher and student outcomes. The structure and implementation of an induction program is likely to be influenced by characteristics of the area, the school, the classroom, and the teacher (Glazerman, et al, 2008). Glazerman et al. (2008) discussed the wide variety of induction program components and how different programs emphasize different approaches. They hypothesized that the more a given component is emphasized, the larger its effect on outcomes. Glazerman et al.’s (2008) framework also included two mediating factors: teacher satisfaction and teacher preparedness. They hypothesized that induction may affect these two intermediate factors, which in turn may help explain changes in final outcomes (Glazerman, et al., 2008; Isenberg, et al., 2009).
Glazerman et al.’s framework was adapted for this study by identifying key components of mentor-based teacher induction programs specified in the literature as well as contextual factors that are useful to consider when interpreting analyses.
Mediating factors were not, however, incorporated into the conceptual framework for this study for several reasons. The data used for this study do not adequately capture teacher satisfaction and preparedness as a result of induction. Additionally, Glazerman et al. (2008) found that teachers receiving comprehensive induction (treatment) did not report being more satisfied or feeling more prepared to teach than control teachers at any time over the four years in which data were collected. For these reasons, mediating factors are not incorporated into the conceptual framework for this study. Although Glazerman et al.’s (2008) model appears to imply interactions in their analysis, interactions were not incorporated into their study. For this reason, interactions were also not included in this
study. Figure 2 illustrates how mentor-based induction program components and school and teacher contextual factors might affect the outcome, teachers’ perceptions of teaching improvement resulting from work with mentors.
Figure 2. Conceptual Framework Context.
The structure and functioning of an induction program is likely influenced by school and teacher characteristics (Isenberg, et al., 2009). Following previous research (Ingersoll & Alsalam, 1997; Smith & Rowley, 2005), school and teacher level
characteristics have been incorporated into the model to control for their effects. School characteristics include school level (elementary, middle, high), school size, percent free and reduced lunch, urbanicity, and percent minority students. School characteristics can affect the structure and functioning of an induction program as well as the outcome. The differences between school levels (elementary, middle, high) can affect induction components such as mentor criteria; middle schools and high schools are
Context
School Level: Level of school (elementary, middle, high), Size, Percent free and reduced lunch, Urbanicity, Percent minority students
Teacher Level: Gender, Race, Education level, Certification type, Age
Induction Program Components Mentor criteria
Mentor/Mentee collaboration time Mentor observations
Mentor activities (Individualized PD)
Outcome
Teachers’ self-perceived improvement resulting from work with mentor
more likely than elementary schools to have a mismatch between the mentor and the mentee’s subject areas (Smith, 2007). Collaboration time between mentors and mentees and time for observations can also be affected by specific scheduling differences between levels. It may be more common for elementary and middle level mentors/mentees with similar assignments to have common plan time than at the high school level (Louis, Marks, & Kruse,1996). The downside to common plan time is finding release time for observations when both the mentee and mentors are scheduled to teach at the same times. School level differences may also affect the outcome, teachers’ perceptions of
improvement as a result of working with a mentor. Previous research has indicated that teachers who teach younger students (elementary level) hold higher self-efficacy beliefs (Klassen & Chiu, 2010), which may in turn affect their perceptions of improvement.
School size is important because of its consequences for interaction in the school workplace; small schools have greater chances for collegial consultation and
administrative support (Bidwell, Frank, & Quiroz, 1997). A small school, however, may have higher attrition rates (Smith and Ingersoll, 2004) and as a result have fewer teachers who meet specific mentor criteria. This in turn can affect the outcome; mentees who are assigned mentors who lack certain criteria may perceive less improvement as a result of their work with the mentor. The percentage of free and reduced lunch students, a measure of poverty concentration (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004), and minority students in a school can also affect the mentor activities the mentees and mentors are engaged in. There may be an increased emphasis on instructional methods that meet the needs of diverse learners and increased emphasis on effective interventions (Reeves, 2003). High poverty/ high minority schools also tend to have more teacher turnover (Smith &
Ingersoll, 2004); therefore, lack of effective mentors with specific criteria may be an issue. Schools with high populations of free and reduced lunch students may qualify for Title 1 funding, which may provide increased opportunities for professional development and instructional resources (Dole, 2004). Differentiating instruction to meet the needs of diverse learners is a more complex teaching skill (Achinstein & Barrett, 2004) and beginning teachers may perceive less improvement in their teaching if they do not quickly master such a skill. Lack of effective mentors due to higher teacher retention (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004) may also affect the outcome. Finally, urbanicity may also affect resources and mentor quality. Rural and urban schools often struggle with retention issues and are often forces to hire less qualified applicants (Holloway, 2002), which may affect the quality of available mentors. Scheduling challenges for mentor/ mentee interactions may be more prevalent in rural settings in which common plan time is rare as teachers take on instructing in multiple subject areas (Holloway, 2002)
Outcomes may be affected as well; lack of mentors meeting specific criteria can also affect teachers’ perceptions of improvement.
Teacher characteristics incorporated into the model include gender, race, education level, certification type, and age. These teacher characteristics can affect the functioning of a mentor-based induction program and the interactions between the mentor and mentee. Mentors may have different interactions and engage in different mentor activities with male teachers vs. female teachers. In past studies, gender differences helped to explain teacher attrition: Career satisfaction and commitment to teaching were higher for women than men (Chapman & Lowther, 1982). Gender and race may also affect perceptions of teaching improvement. Research indicates gender and race
differences in self-efficacy can lead to differences in teachers’ perceptions of
improvement (Cianni & Romberger, 1995). Teacher education level and certification type may affect the activities mentors and mentees engage in. Darling-Hammond (2000) stated there is a positive relationship between the extent of teachers’ coursework and their teaching performance, including their students’ achievement. Therefore, a teacher with an advanced degree in his/her content area may need less content focused mentoring and more assistance in use of effective instructional strategies. Certification status has also been shown to have an influence on student achievement, teachers’ demonstrated skills, and effectiveness (Darling-Hammond, Berry, & Thoreson, 2001); therefore, a beginning teacher who entered the field through alterative certification and did not experience student teaching may also have different needs than those with traditional certification. Education level and certification type can also play a role in teacher self-efficacy beliefs (Flores, Desjean-Perrotta, & Steinmetz, 2004), which in turn may affect perceptions of improvement. Finally, teacher age may also affect self-efficacy beliefs. Self-efficacy beliefs were found to increase with age for teachers new to the profession (Chester & Beaudin, 1996); these beliefs may affect perceptions of improvement as a result of work with a mentor.
Mentor-Based Induction Program Components. Mentor-based induction programs may include a variety of possible components. Several themes emerged from the literature regarding components of high quality mentor-based induction programs (Bartlett & Johnson, 2010; Curran & Goldrick, 2002; Fry, 2007; Goldrick, et al., 2012; Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011; Wong, 2003). These components were incorporated into the conceptual framework and include mentor criteria, time for
mentor/mentee collaboration, mentor/mentee observations, and mentor activities. Based on previous mentor criteria research (Fry, 2007; Goldrick et al., 2012; Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004), it is hypothesized that having a mentor with experience teaching the same subject and same grade will have a positive effect on the outcome of this study, teachers’
perceptions of improvement as a result of working with a mentor. It is also hypothesized that as the frequency of mentor/mentee interactions around the remaining three mentor-based induction components (collaboration, observations, mentor activities) increase the larger the effect these components will have on the outcome. This hypothesis is modeled after Glazerman et al.’s (2008) presumption that the more intense the emphasis on a given component, the larger the effect on the outcomes. Research also supports the correlation between increased frequency (intensity and duration) of mentor-based induction program components and outcomes such as student achievement (Rockoff, 2008; Strong, et al., 2008). Rockoff (2008) indicated that teachers who receive more hours of mentoring had higher student achievement score gains in math and reading than those who had fewer hours of mentoring. Fletcher, Strong, and Villar (2008) found that mentor-based induction can have a positive effect on student achievement if the program allows for weekly contact and mentor selectivity is high.
Outcomes for Beginning Teachers. The key outcome in this study is teachers’ self-perceived improvement resulting from work with a mentor. While current induction research focuses on outcomes such as teacher attrition, teacher performance, and student achievement, there is a gap in research focusing on how teachers perceive the support they received through mentor-based induction improves their practice. There exists a body of research around teacher induction and self-efficacy, a teacher’s confidence in the
ability to promote student learning (Ginns & Watters, 1996; Hoy & Spero, 2005; Mulholland & Wallace, 2001). Research indicates that novices with higher personal teaching efficacy were (a) rated more positively on lesson presenting behavior, classroom management, and questioning behavior (Saklofske, Michayluk, & Randhawa, 1988); (b) found greater satisfaction in teaching, had a more positive reaction to teaching, and experienced less stress (Hoy & Spero, 2005); and (c) indicated greater optimism that they would remain in the field of teaching (Hall, Burley, Villeme, & Brockmeier, 1992). The first few years of teaching are critical in the development of teacher self-efficacy; once efficacy beliefs are established, they seem resistant to change (Hoy & Spero, 2005). Hoy and Spero (2005) stated that teacher perception of successful performance raises efficacy beliefs, contributing to the expectation that performance will be proficient in the future. This study analyzes whether there is a statistically significant relationship between beginning teachers’ self-perceived overall improvement of their teaching as a result of working with their mentors and mentor criteria, mentor collaboration time, observation time, and the frequency with which the mentor teacher worked with the beginning teacher in eight identified areas (teaching subject matter or grade level, classroom management and discipline, using or incorporating a variety of instructional methods, using
technology in the classroom, assessing students and interpreting assessment data, selecting and adapting curriculum/instructional materials and/or writing lesson plans, interacting with parents, and reflecting on teaching practice). In brief, hierarchical generalized linear modeling results indicated there is not a statistically significant relationship between beginning teachers’ self-perceived overall improvement of their teaching as a result of working with their mentors and mentor criteria, mentor
collaboration time, observation time, and the frequency with which the mentor teacher worked with the beginning teacher in eight identified areas.
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review for this study includes factors that provide insight into the research questions developed for this study. This includes an examination of (a) induction as it relates to policy; (b) research on induction program outcomes; and (c) research related to comprehensive mentor-based induction program components. Induction Policy
One of the main policy responses to the problems of turnover and inadequate preparation is to support beginning teachers with a comprehensive induction program (Glazerman, et al., 2008). The primary objective of teacher induction programs is to support and provide guidance to new teachers, but the implementation of these programs varies greatly (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). Induction can mean a one-day workshop, series of courses, an ongoing teacher learning network, a mentor to work with, or some combination thereof (Bartlett & Johnson, 2010). Some programs pair up a new teacher with another teacher without providing any training, materials, or time for induction to occur (Glazerman, et al., 2008), while others have set criteria and specifications. Programs also vary as to how they select, prepare, assign, and compensate the mentors themselves (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). Furthermore, the length and intensity of programs vary, with some lasting one year while others target teacher practice over the course of three or more years (Bartlett & Johnson, 2010). Teacher induction is common, but induction that is comprehensive, intensive, structured, and sequentially delivered in response to teachers’ emerging needs is less so (Glazerman, et al., 2008). Researchers suggest that policies regarding induction yield significant increases in teacher knowledge
and student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000) and have argued for targeted induction that addresses curriculum and learning needs of new teachers (Bartlett & Johnson, 2010).
Congressional interest in teacher induction has grown as a result of an increased emphasis on teacher quality through NCLB (Glazerman, et al., 2008). NCLB, which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), emphasized the importance of teacher quality, and Title II provides nearly $3 billion per year to states to train, recruit, and prepare high-quality teachers (Isenberg, et al., 2009). NCLB
requires states to ensure that highly qualified teachers are in every public school classroom (Neville & Robinson, 2003) and high-quality professional development opportunities are available to teachers. Because of the complexity of teaching, a significant number of skills must be acquired through on-the-job training (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011), and districts need to provide an environment in which novices receive adequate support (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011) through the formation of job embedded and on-going professional learning (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995) in which teachers are engaged in analyzing student work and discussing effective pedagogy (Little, 1993; Stein, Smith, & Silver, 1999). Additional federal initiatives, such as the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, authorized grants for teacher induction and
mentoring programs and demonstrated the federal interest in a policy response grounded in providing induction as a core means to improve teacher quality (Glazerman, et al., 2008).
In the past decade, there has been a rapid expansion of state-level induction policy, and funding for induction programs have changed substantially (Bartlett &
Johnson, 2010). In the 1990s state-sponsored induction was rare, but by 2001, 33 states reported offering an induction program for novice teachers (AFT, 2001; Bartlett & Johnson, 2010). However, of those 33 states, only 22 mandate and fund the programs. According to the American Federation of Teachers, in the remaining states the policies “function only as good intentions, neither mandated nor financially supported” (AFT, 2001, p. 4).
The New Teacher Center developed ten policy criteria that support and guide local school districts to design and implement high quality programs. These policy criteria include:
1. Teachers Served-State policy should require that all teachers receive induction support during their first two years in the profession.
2. Administrators Served-State policy should require that all school administrators receive induction support during their first two years in the profession.
3. Program Standards-The state should have formal program standards that govern the design and operation of local teacher induction programs.
4. Mentor Selection-State policy should require a rigorous mentor selection process. 5. Mentor Training-State policy should require foundational training and ongoing professional development for mentors.
6. Mentor Assignment and Caseload-State policy should address how mentors are assigned to beginning teachers, allow for manageable mentor caseloads, and encourage programs to provide release time for mentors.
7. Program Delivery-State policy should identify key induction program elements, including a minimum amount of mentor-new teacher contact time, formative assessment of teaching practice, and classroom observation.
8. Funding-The state should provide dedicated funding to support local educator induction programs.
9. Educator Accountability-The state should require participation in and/or completion of an induction program to advance from an initial to professional teaching license.
10. Program Accountability-The state should assess or monitor program quality through accreditation, program evaluation, surveys, site visits, self-reports, and other relevant tools and strategies.
The New Teacher Center contends that states that come closest to meeting the ten criteria will raise the likelihood that novice teachers will receive sufficient induction and mentoring support and will enjoy the benefits of enhanced teacher effectiveness
(Goldrick, et al., 2012). Despite an influx in induction programs, it is clear that
considerable work must still be done to ensure that every novice teacher receives support. In their analysis of the 50 states’ induction policies, the New Teacher Center (Goldrick, et al., 2012) reported that “no single U.S. state has perfected its induction policy to ensure the provision of high-impact, multi-year induction support for all beginning educators” (p. iv). According to Bartlett and Johnson (2010):
effective state induction policy must guide schools through clear information about program quality and quantity, and set definite and measurable goals while simultaneously allowing for local adaptability and autonomy. It is a delicate balance: States shrink their responsibility when they are overly deferential to local
control, but they limit effectiveness when overregulation constrains local adaptation. (p. 869)
Restrictive policies can inhibit the growth and development of induction programs, while flexibility with strong policy elements such as funding, standards, assistance, and
network support can move districts in the right direction (Johnson, Goldrick, & Lasagna, 2010).
State level policies regarding induction programs affect district level
implementation and design (Curran & Goldrick, 2002). According to the New Teacher Center (Johnson, et al., 2010, p. 12), “mandating induction, providing funding,
implementing program standards, and requiring some level of program accountability appear to increase the prevalence of intensive programs.” A study by the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) indicated that more districts implemented new teacher support programs in states that have core comprehensive state-level policies either requiring or strongly encouraging such programs (Curran & Goldrick, 2002). Program design elements, such as training for mentor teachers or additional professional development for novice teachers, were also more consistently provided by districts in states that require them to do so (Hare & Heap, 2001). While the comprehensiveness of state induction policies vary widely, most are based on the assumption that a mandate will have a positive influence of the provision of induction and mentoring support and will thereby have positive effects on teaching quality and student learning (Johnson, et al., 2010). Comprehensive induction programs are often the result of formal and systemic state policies that prioritize the needs of novice teachers through funding and infrastructure (Johnson, et al., 2010).
Induction Program Outcomes
In their meta-analysis of research on induction and mentoring, Ingersoll and Strong (2011) found that support and assistance for beginning teachers have a positive impact on three sets of outcomes: teacher commitment and retention, teacher classroom instructional practices, and student achievement. The following sections describe current research findings for these three outcomes as well as the outcome in this study, teachers’ perceptions of improvement.
Teacher commitment and retention. Almost a third of novice teachers leave the profession within three years, creating a revolving door of inexperienced teachers and draining district resources and energy (Stansbury & Zimmerman, 2002). Research indicates that comprehensive induction programs significantly increase the likelihood teachers will stay in the profession (AFT, 2001; Breaux & Wong, 2003; Curran &
Goldrick, 2002; Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004; Ingersoll & Smith, 2004; Strong, 2009; Strong, et al., 2008; Wood & Stanulis, 2009). Well-designed programs can provide beginning teachers with support that helps them survive classroom management challenges, curriculum and instruction questions, and feelings of isolation that contribute to the nationwide attrition problem (Fry, 2007). Ingersoll and Smith’s (2004) analysis of a national sample found some types of support were associated more than others with a reduced level of turnover. Positive supports included having a mentor in the same field, common plan time, regularly scheduled collaboration time, and being part of a network of teachers (Ingersoll & Smith, 2004). Specific to mentoring, Gold (1999) reported that the first year attrition rate of teachers without mentors was 18%, whereas the attrition rate of first year teachers with mentors was 5%. Odell and Ferraro (1992) stated that
beginning teachers greatly valued the emotional support they received from their mentors and were more likely to remain in the teaching profession as a result.
Teacher instructional practices. High quality induction programs not only improve teacher retention, they also influence teaching practices (Curran & Goldrick, 2002). Ingersoll and Strong (2011) found that beginning teachers who participated in some kind of induction performed better at various aspects of teaching, including classroom management, lesson planning, using effective questioning practices, differentiation, and maintaining a positive classroom environment. Mentor-based
programs also have been found to have a positive effect on classroom practices. Evertson and Smithey (2000) found that mentees participating in a mentoring program could more effectively organize and manage instruction at the beginning of the year, establish more workable classroom routines, and better manage classrooms and student engagement than beginning teachers who did not participate in mentoring.
Teacher perceptions of improvement. The connection between professional learning experiences, changes in teacher practice, student achievement, and teachers’ perceptions has been investigated for several decades. Guskey (1986) presented a model that portrays the sequence of events from professional development experiences to changes in teachers’ perceptions. According to this model, changes in teachers’ perceptions are likely to take place only after changes in student learning outcomes are evidenced (Guskey, 1989). Significant changes in teacher perception are only likely to occur when teachers see that a practice enhances the learning of students in their class (Guskey, 1989). As mentors work with new teachers on classroom practice–for example,
a new instructional approach, the use of new materials or curricula, or modification of teaching procedures or classroom format–significant change in teacher perception is seen as contingent on their gaining evidence of change in the student learning outcomes (Guskey, 1989).
Student achievement. Since the activities of an induction program are at least one step removed from the students, it is challenging to design research that can test the existence of a causal relationship between induction and student achievement (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). However, several studies link intensity and duration of mentoring to student achievement. Rockoff (2008) indicated that teachers who receive more hours of mentoring had higher student achievement score gains in math and reading than those who had fewer hours of mentoring. Fletcher, Strong, and Villar (2008) found that mentor-based induction can have a positive effect on student achievement if the program allows for weekly contact and mentor selectivity is high. Their results indicated that a more intense mentoring model showed higher class reading gains for its beginning teachers after controlling for differences in district size, poverty, and student race/ethnicity.
Comprehensive Induction Program Components
Induction is a distinct phase of a teacher’s preparation and professional development and extends beyond the first year of employment (Curran & Goldrick, 2002). According to Mutchler (2000), induction occurs in three stages:
survival/discovery, experimentation/consolidation, and mastery/stabilization. The survival and discovery stage occurs at the point of career entry. The survival theme has to do with the shock associated with confronting the complexity of instructional
management while the discovery theme refers to the initial enthusiasm of having a classroom and feeling like a colleague (Day & Sachs, 2004). The second stage typically occurs between the second and third year of teaching and is associated with teachers gaining a better understanding of the big picture and overall goals of teaching. The stabilization/mastery phase is characterized by affirmation and a personal commitment to teaching as a career (Day & Sachs, 2004). Teacher induction programs tend to focus on the first stage by providing initial support to meet the immediate needs of new teachers and help them transition into the classroom. Many programs still operate as old-fashioned buddy systems that provide limited emotional and logistical support; it is important to move districts toward systemized initiatives that use carefully selected and trained mentors and provide structured time for interaction focused on improving content knowledge, classroom management, and instructional skills (Goldrick, et al., 2012). It is clear that the quality, quantity, and form of induction is significantly related to the effectiveness of induction (Bartlett & Johnson, 2010), and there are indications about what constitutes an effective program for novice teachers .
Several themes have emerged from the literature regarding components of high quality induction programs (Bartlett & Johnson, 2010; Curran & Goldrick, 2002; Fry, 2007; Goldrick, et al., 2012; Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011; Wiebke & Bardin, 2009; Wong, 2003). These components include high quality mentors, time for collaboration, observations, and mentor activities. It is important to note that all of these components are mentor-based elements of comprehensive teacher induction. In recent decades, mentoring programs have become a dominant form of teacher induction, and the terms mentoring and induction are often used interchangeably (Strong, 2009). Mentoring
and induction are, however, two distinct terms. Wong (2003) indicated that mentoring is only one part of an induction program. Induction is a process that is ongoing and
systematic, while mentoring is an action. In its most basic form, mentorship is a buddy system that provides novice teachers with a supportive staff member (Bartlett & Johnson, 2010). “On the other side of the continuum, mentorship provides new teachers with highly trained and networked members of an induction/learning community offering formative assessment and feedback based on and directed at the improvement of their evolving teaching practice” (Bartlett & Johnson, 2010, p. 849). According to the New Teacher Center, effective mentors are at the heart of a quality induction program (Goldrick, et al., 2012). By 2001, statutes in 29 states required mentors be part of the induction process, and 21 states established criteria for mentors (AFT, 2001). Goldrick et al. (2012) stated that “the selection, training, ongoing support and thoughtful utilization of teacher mentors is critical to the provision of impactful, instructionally focused support to beginning educators” (p.10). It is for this reason that this study focuses exclusively on these mentor-based components.
Mentor criteria. Of the ten New Teacher Center recommendations, three focus specifically on mentor quality. They recommend state policy should require a rigorous mentor selection process, expect foundational and ongoing training for mentors, and address how mentors are assigned to allow for manageable mentor caseloads and encourage release time for mentors (Goldrick, et al., 2012). The New Teacher Center (Goldrick, et al., 2012) recommends that programs move toward rigorous mentor selection based on qualities of an effective mentor, ongoing professional development and support for mentors, sanctioned time for mentor-teacher interactions, multi-year
mentoring, and intensive and specific guidance that has the ability to move teacher practice forward. Their recommendations also include pairing mentors with beginning teachers of similar teaching assignments and providing mentors regular release from classroom teaching duties to provide them with dedicated time to excel in their professional role, including interactions with and observation of beginning teachers during the school day (Goldrick, et al., 2012). Fry (2007) suggested assigning new teachers caring and capable mentors who have a common planning period and teach at the same grade level and content area. Having a mentor who teaches in the same field can also reduce attrition rates; Ingersoll and Kralik (2004) found that having a mentor in the same field reduced the risk of leaving at the end of the first year by about 30% while having a mentor who teaches a different subject area only reduced the risk of leaving by 18%.
Mentor/Mentee collaboration time. Collegial collaboration is a very important element of induction programs (Horn, Sterling, & Subhan, 2002; Howe, 2006).
Beginning teachers want to interact with colleagues and value the interaction they experience with their mentors (Luft & Cox, 2001; Wildman, Magliaro, Niles, & Niles, 1992). Fry (2007) suggested assigning new teachers to classrooms to keep them near their teaching teammates in order to facilitate collaboration and support.
Smith and Ingersoll (2004) found that beginning teachers who participated in collective induction activities, such as planning and collaboration with other teachers, were less likely to move to other schools and less likely to leave the teaching profession after their first year of teaching. The frequency with which beginning teachers meet with mentors also affects teacher retention. Parker, Ndoye, and Imig (2009) found that
beginning teachers who met with mentors at least once monthly were more likely to commit to remaining in the profession than their peers who had received less support. Ingersoll and Smith (2004) also found that regularly scheduled collaboration time with mentors reduced the risk of leaving by 43%.
Mentor/Mentee observations. Lesson observations and follow-up discussions with a mentor have been identified as critical components of a comprehensive teacher induction program (Luft & Cox, 2001; Wang, Odell, & Schwille, 2008). Mentors should be provided time to observe their mentees; it is also beneficial to arrange for beginning teachers to observe their mentors as well as other teachers throughout the school
(Algozzine, Gretes, Queen, & Cowan-Hathcock, 2007; Arnold-Rogers, Arnett, & Harris, 2008). Observations help beginning teachers reflect on their own teaching (Stansbury & Zimmerman, 2002) and internalize new ideas about teaching (Barnett, 1990; Wang, et al., 2008) and student learning. Mentors can help beginning teachers achieve a level of learning beyond what they achieve by themselves (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). In order for observations and feedback experiences to be meaningful, mentors and novices must understand the purpose of observations and have a system for recording and discussing information (Barnett, 1990). Barnett (1990) warns that expecting mentors and novices to observe each other without providing training in the observation and feedback process can create problems. It has been suggested that mentors and novices practice
observation and feedback skills in a simulated setting. This initial practice can create awareness of how to adjust observation strategies, allows mentors and novices to determine what events and activities are best suited for observation, and helps mentors and novices to establish a trusting relationship that permits experiential learning through
the coaching process (Barnett, 1990). An additional advantage to providing opportunities for beginning teachers to observe and be observed is that they are more likely to be socialized to the norms of collegiality and continuous improvement (Huling-Austin, 1992). Findings from studies based on beginning teachers’ self-reports indicate that observations and lesson-based discussions with a mentor are identified as valuable components in mentor-based induction (Wang et al, 2008). In their study on new teacher perceptions of support, Andrews, Gilbert, and Martin (2007) found that the opportunity to observe other teachers was valued most by beginning teachers, but less than half of the responding teachers were ever provided this support. Hall, Johnson, and Bowman (1995) analyzed new teachers’ journals, which led to the conclusion that what beginning
teachers value most is the opportunity to observe others’ teaching and to be observed by colleagues. Such observations helped them reflect on their own teaching and how students learn.
Mentor activities (individualized professional development). Structured, sustained, intensive professional development programs that allow new teachers to observe others, to be observed by others, and to be part of networks or study groups where all teachers share together, grow together, and learn to respect each other’s work are integral to new teacher development (Wong, 2004). Just as beginning teachers display a wide variety of needs, concerns, and problems during the early years of teaching, mentors demonstrate diverse and extensive ways to meet those needs (Wildman, et al., 1992). Algozzine et al. (2007) stated that one of the best ways to strengthen induction is to allow new teachers some discretion about which activities they would find valuable. Many of the issues that frustrate beginning teachers are predictable.
Some of these issues can be addressed by mini courses or seminars while others such as classroom management and assessment are worthy of more attention and can be
addressed through ongoing collaboration with a mentor (Stansbury & Zimmerman, 2002). The following sections further describe ways that mentors can offer assistance in a variety of areas as well as any relevant research findings.
Teaching the subject matter or grade level. Subject matter is an essential component of teacher knowledge as a myriad of teaching tasks, such as selecting
worthwhile learning activities, giving helpful explanations, asking productive questions, and evaluating students’ learning, all depend on the teacher’s understanding of what it is that students are to learn (Ball & McDiarmid, 1989). Most teachers begin their careers with some expertise in the content area they teach but will likely not be proficient in transforming it in ways that students can comprehend (Huling-Austin, 1992). Mentors, given appropriate training (Huling-Austin, 1992), can support beginning teachers with subject matter and grade level specific needs and concerns. In order to maximize
effectiveness, mentors should teach the same content and work at the same grade level as the beginning teacher (Fry, 2007; Hiiffman & Leak, 1986; Huling-Austin, 1992; Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004). Subject-specific components of induction programs may be important in developing the learning of new teachers (Wang, et al., 2008). Luft, Roehrig, and Patterson (2003) compared the effects of content-focused induction, general induction, and lack of induction support on teachers’ conceptions and practice of teaching. They found that teachers who participated a program that incorporated content-focused support were more likely than the other two groups of teachers to hold beliefs aligned with
student-centered practices. These teachers were also more likely to implement more student-centered inquiry lessons and feel fewer constraints in their teaching.
Classroom management and discipline. Beginning teachers list classroom management as one of their top concerns because, unlike student teaching experiences, it is not until the first year of teaching that they face the responsibility of setting up and maintaining their own classroom management system (Fox & Singletary, 1986). Mentors can assist beginning teachers in a variety of ways including helping with the
establishment and implementation of a workable system of rules, routines, and procedures; managing student behavior; and establishing a positive classroom culture (Evertson & Smithey, 2000). It is important to provide opportunities for mentors and beginning teachers to discuss various areas of management, including organizing the room, monitoring student responsibility, planning activities for the first week,
maintaining management systems, and organizing instruction to maximize student engagement (Feiman-Nemser, Parker, & Zeichner, 1992). Mentoring has been found to have an effect on classroom practices (Evertson & Smithey, 2000). In their experimental study, Evertson and Smithey (2000) found that beginning teachers participating in a mentoring program had better classroom management practices than teachers who did not participate in mentoring. Teachers who were mentored could more effectively organize and manage instruction, establish more workable classroom routines, and increase student engagement.
Instructional methods. New teachers enter their careers with varying degrees of skill in instructional design and delivery (Rowley, 1999). Mentors can provide
give clear explanations and presentations, differentiate and individualize assignments, appropriately pace lessons, and incorporate a variety of research based instructional strategies (Evertson & Smithey, 2000). This can be accomplished through shared experiences that promote collegial dialogue focused on enhancing teacher performance and student learning (Rowley, 1999). These shared experiences can take different forms including: mentors and mentees can engage in team teaching or team planning, mentee observations of mentors, mentor observations of mentees, and observations of other teachers (Rowley, 1999). Previous research has identified a significant relationship between mentoring and increased use of effective instructional practices (Evertson & Smithey, 2000; Stanulis & Floden, 2009). Using a matched comparison group design, Stanulis and Floden (2009) found that teachers who received mentoring had greater improvement in instruction than teachers in the comparison group.
Student assessment practices. Assessment is a huge topic that encompasses everything from statewide accountability tests to district benchmark or interim tests to everyday classroom tests and informal assessments (Garrison & Ehringhaus, 2007). Assessments can be used for a variety of reasons, including accurately reflecting student achievement, motivating students, and driving instruction (Stiggins, 2005). Graham (2005) indicated that beginning teachers’ assessment concerns fell into several categories including designing goals; rubrics; fairness of grading; grading and motivation; validity of assessments; and time. Mentors can provide support to beginning teachers in
assessment development, implementation, and analysis. In regard to assessment development, mentors can help beginning teachers think through the purpose of an assessment, collaboratively design assessments, and assist in developing rubrics
(Graham, 2005). Mentors can also assist with student data analysis and engage in data-driven discussions. Athanases and Achinstein (2003) found that mentoring that is
grounded in knowledge of students and assessment practices can bring individual student learning into focus and provide new teachers with methods for shaping instruction to meet students’ varied learning needs.
Selecting curriculum and developing lesson plans. The standards movement has shifted curricular focus from textbooks to three arenas in which teachers engage in curriculum development, including design, construction, and curriculum mapping
(Remillard, 1999). Beginning teachers’ attempts to engage in curricular work often raises pedagogical, curricular, and content area questions for them that are not easily answered by reference to the textbooks or teacher’s guides (Nicol & Crespo, 2006). The design arena involves selecting and designing tasks, whereas the construction arena involves incorporating these tasks in the classroom and responding to students’ encounters with them (Remillard, 1999). The curriculum mapping arena involves determining the organization and content of the entire curriculum (Remillard, 1999) by aligning
instructional resources to standards. Mentors can assist beginning teachers in curricular work by helping them engage in the curriculum mapping and revision process and supporting them in finding resources that align to standards. Freiberg, Zbikowski, and Ganser (1996) found that teachers felt a sense of confidence and a more clearly defined set of beliefs about teaching and curriculum as a result of mentoring. Another study indicated that both the process and outcomes of curriculum change seem to be highly dependent on the communication style and make-up of the mentees and their relationship with the mentor (Provident, 2005).
Interacting with parents. Parent involvement has a strong basis in research and practice, and it is a key component in teacher induction programs (Greenwood &
Hickman, 1991). Mandel (2006) discovered that new teachers were very concerned with practical issues about surviving their first year, such as dealing with parents. There are considerable benefits to parental involvement, including higher academic achievement, attendance, positive student attitudes and behavior, and parent satisfaction with teachers (Greenwood & Hickman, 1991). Mentors can assist beginning teachers in building relationships with families by helping develop more systematic methods of
communication, including newsletters, websites, and positive notes (Davis & Higdon, 2008). Mentors can also help shape beginning teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about parental involvement (Greenwood & Hickman, 1991).
Technology integration. Educational technology, especially the use of computers and associated information technology, plays a prominent role in education today, and understanding the range of possibilities, appropriate applications, and relevant
pedagogical strategies requires an array of knowledge on the part of the teacher.
(Margerum-Leys & Marx, 2004). The ability to incorporate instructional technology into instruction is becoming more of a requirement for teachers. Wenglinsky (1998) found that teachers who have engaged in professional development in technology integration and teachers who use technology for teaching higher order thinking have higher levels of student achievement. Technology integration is unique in the sense that beginning teachers and their mentors can fulfill the role of mentor for the other, depending on the knowledge to be acquired and the abilities of the participants (Margerum-Leys & Marx, 2004). While beginning teachers may have had more exposure to current technology,
mentor teachers can help mentees handle the complex teaching and learning situations that arise as teachers incorporate applications of technology in their teaching practice (Bransford et al., 1986). Mentoring has been shown to help teachers gain confidence in technology use when presenting technology-enriched content and gain the ability to work through a variety of technology problems (May, 2000). Franklin, Turner, Kariuki, and Duran (2001) also found that one-on-one mentoring overcame many of the time and access barriers to technology integration in elementary classrooms. Such mentoring enabled teachers to design lessons around technology-rich resources, solve technical support problems, and incorporate technology in the teaching and learning process.
Reflecting on practice. Research over the past two decades has suggested that reflection is at the heart of effective educational practice (Pedro, 2006) and has become recognized as a crucial element in the professional growth of teachers (Calderhead & Gates, 2004). The value of reflection has been reiterated by many researchers (Pedro, 2006). Reflection is a mental activity that can happen before, during, and after action (Schön, 1983), and teachers who reflect continuously are developing their practice and may reach higher standards of performance (Mustafa, 2005). Baird, Fensham, Gunstone, and White (1991) found that reflection acted to improve teacher knowledge, awareness, and control of classroom practice. Reflective teaching contributes to professional development by encouraging teachers to analyze, discuss, and evaluate practice
(Calderhead, 1993). In their first year, new teachers need the support of professionals in their new school environment to help develop reflective practice, and mentors can use many strategies to help a beginning teacher organize his or her thoughts and make sense of classroom events (Pedro, 2006). Pedro (2006) stated that mentors can engage in a
variety of activities to help develop reflective practice, including asking questions to encourage reflection on lessons and activities; giving honest feedback and offering different perspectives to help beginning teachers build on their practice; and probing into a variety of areas to help the beginning teacher go beyond the technical level of
reflection. Harrison, Lawson, and Wortley (2005) found that when mentors use reflective practice strategies there is an increase in professional independence for the beginning teacher.
Summary
There are many benefits to comprehensive, multi-year induction programs. Such programs accelerate the professional growth of new teachers, reduce the rate of new teacher attrition, provide a positive return on investment, and improve student learning (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). New teacher induction programs are common, but programs that are comprehensive, intensive, structured, and sequentially delivered in response to teachers’ emerging needs are less so (Glazerman, et al., 2008). Effective mentors are critical to high quality induction programs, therefore, key mentor-based induction program elements should be identified in order to develop new teachers’ practice and accelerate their effectiveness in the classroom (Goldrick, et al., 2012). Using a
conceptual framework adapted from a National Center for Education Evaluation report (Isenberg, et al., 2009), this study focuses on how mentor-based induction program components affect beginning teachers’ self-perceived overall improvement of their teaching.
