Meeting the Needs of New
Teachers: A Progress Report
It is evident that recruiting and retaining quality teachers is a national problem. Twenty to fifty percent of teachers leave the profession in the first years of teaching (Darling Hammond and Sclan, 1996) and almost ten percent do not even finish their first year (Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999). Five-year attrition rates are even more staggering, with estimates ranging from thirty-five percent in suburban areas to fifty percent in urban and isolated rural areas (Danielson, 1999; Moir & Gless, 2001). A contributing factor to teacher attrition is the stress experienced by novice teachers during their induction years into the teaching profession. The kind of teaching reflected in current standards for students and teachers is a complex process that may also contribute to teachers’ need for increased support and guidance (Kauffman, Johnson, Kardos, Liu & Peske, 2002). Feiman-Nemser (2001) argues that this kind of teaching requires a continuum of learning experiences that connect teacher preparation, new teacher induction, and professional development. She argues that school/university partnerships can offer promising programs that provide the necessary continuum of “serious and sustained professional learning opportunities for teachers” (p. 1055).
In this article,
we explore a small part of the larger issue of retaining quality teachers in
elementary schools. We base this
exploration on our study of beginning teachers’ needs and desires as they work
in a standards-based reform environment.
Simultaneously we studied teachers’ perceptions of a pilot induction
program designed to facilitate their work in our current standards-reform
environment. We want to better
understand how new teachers experience teaching in the current standards-based
reform environment. We believe teachers’
perspectives can guide us in improving our teacher preparation and induction
programs. The purpose of this report is to share the results of our efforts to
improve teachers’ ability to teach in a standards-based environment and to
improve our university-based teacher induction program.
Literature Informing our Work
Our work is framed
by the literature on induction and standards-based reform.
Several authors (American Federation of Teachers, 2001; Berry et al., 2002; Feiman-Nemser, 2001) suggested the importance of induction programs, noting that pre-service teacher education programs can never completely prepare teachers for teaching, and recommended that induction programs include cooperative efforts that include universities and school systems. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) recognized the need for induction programs, citing retention of new teachers as a primary objective of such programs. They indicated that novice teachers leave the profession for various reasons; however, they indicated that the lack of support was the most cited reason for leaving the profession. The AFT report suggested that induction programs enable new teachers to better link theory to practice, thereby facilitating better prepared teachers who are confident and, therefore, more likely to remain in the profession. Their recommendations also included that induction programs should include a cooperative effort between school systems and teacher education programs at universities (2001). Similar recommendations were made by the National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (2000) that induction programs be collaborative, that they involve careful mentor selection, and that the emphasis of such programs be on teacher development and assessment of teacher skills.
The focus on
standards-based reform means that teachers must be able to use standards for
planning their instructional strategies and classroom activities. Teachers have
national standards to which they must adhere, as well as state and local
standards. As
Teachers must know not only their subjects, but also how to plan standards-based units and lessons and translate subject matter knowledge into curriculum appropriate for students. They must be able to assess students’ progress continuously, while accommodating individual, language, and cultural differences. To make matters more complicated, beginning teachers must know how to do all of this while learning school and district policies, figuring out the basics of classroom management, and fitting into the school organization in which they find themselves (2002).
Cohen and Hill (2000) suggested that the existence of standards and assessments does not guarantee that classroom teachers would be familiar with them or that classroom instruction reflected standards, a determination that we are particularly aware of in our programs. A study of 50 first and second year teachers (Kaufman, Johnson, Kardos, Liu and Peske, 2002) showed that despite a state’s extensive development of standards and statewide assessment, beginning teachers struggled with curriculum (what to teach and how to teach) and received little or no guidance in their struggles. A review of the literature by Wang and Odell (2002) provided additional evidence of the need for support for preservice and beginning teachers in learning standards-based teaching. Their review provided a comprehensive description of the teaching practices expected by the standards-based movement, what novices are expected to learn, and the role that support can play. This confirmed our concern that there is an urgent need to reconsider the support we provide to new teachers related to teaching in a standards-based environment.
Research Questions
We wanted to ensure our
graduates feel confident in their ability to perform well in their first year
in a standards-based environment, so we decided to investigate how Georgia
State University (GSU) might better meet their needs, thereby facilitating
their smooth transition into the classroom and, ultimately, helping to retain
them. Therefore, for
this study, the research questions were identified in two categories:
1.
The needs of beginning teachers
What are the needs of beginning teachers?
How does what we do in teacher
preparation facilitate (or constrain) what teachers encounter and need in order
to teach in a standards-based reform environment?
2. Methods
of support for beginning teachers
What can we do to help teachers function better in a standards-based environment?
What guidelines can we suggest to better prepare teachers for a standards-based reform environment?
Context
Faculty and staff from GSU, a large urban institution in the southeast, and the four largest school districts in the metropolitan Atlanta area (Atlanta City, DeKalb, Gwinnett, and Fulton Counties), along with the Georgia Association of Educators, created a consortium to develop an induction program that took into account teachers’ ability to use standards to guide instruction. GSU designed an induction program that would enhance the individual system programs. The consortium met regularly to refine the GSU program, to discuss issues affecting the program, and to develop strategies for assessing teachers’ needs and the effectiveness of the induction model.
Another aspect of
new teacher preparation addressed by the consortium is that of enabling new
teachers to teach in a standards-based environment.
The Induction Pilot
Program
Faculty
at
GSU’s induction program addressed both support and professional development for teachers. The support offered included personal contact, group contact, and technological contact. A faculty representative from each teacher education program was assigned as a contact person. This person was available to new graduates by e-mail, telephone, or appointment for an in-person conference or visit to the teacher’s classroom to discuss any problems the new teacher was experiencing. As needed, the faculty contact would refer teachers to appropriate faculty members to ensure that the problem was addressed. Group contact was available to new teachers through voluntary seminars held for GSU graduates. The topics for these seminars were based on teachers' needs. Technological contact was facilitated through the establishment of a technology infrastructure that included a public website to share information about induction and support and a website with password protection to facilitate graduates’ participation in chat rooms, threaded discussions, and links to resources online. To determine the effectiveness of this model and what those who participated believed we could do to improve our induction program and their ability to teach in a standards-based environment, the following methodology was developed.
Methodology
A qualitative approach was taken to evaluate our progress in meeting the classroom needs of our graduates. This approach was deemed to be more useful for generating the types of data needed to answer the research questions. Qualitative means of data collection, including surveys, phone interviews, focus groups, and document analysis, were tools used to collect data. An overview of the participants, instruments and timeframe for data collection are summarized in Table 1. A description of the design of the formative evaluation follows.
Beginning Teachers
Needs/Concerns
Data for this component
of study included two different strategies:
written surveys and focus group interviews. This line of inquiry began in May 2001 with
the first survey of all student teachers (P-12) who were graduating that
semester. The Beginning Teacher Needs
Survey (BTNS), a 14-item questionnaire, was developed based on the work of
Veenman (1984), who conducted a meta-analysis of 91 studies of the perceived
problems of beginning teachers. The instrument was adapted and piloted with
student teachers following their final internship. This survey asked these
graduating students how much help they believed they needed and how they
typically addressed issues such as classroom management, relationship with
parents and school professionals, time management, lesson planning, and
technology use. Student teachers were
asked to respond to their “degree of needs” and “their potential sources of
support” The BTNS is currently undergoing a series of reviews and pilot testing
for its content, scoring, and language.
The following March,
another 20-item survey was distributed by school system principals to recent graduates
(within the last three years) who were currently employed in the metro school
systems. This survey was designed to
determine the perceptions of recent graduates (one to three years) about the
extent of their needs during their first years of teaching and the
effectiveness of their teacher education program to prepare them for
standards-based work. The survey
included multiple choice, likert-scale and open-ended questions. Of the 466
surveys distributed, 133 were returned for a 28% return rate. Of the 133
respondents, only 116 were complete and used for analysis. Forty-three teachers
shared their suggestions in response to the open-ended question.
Based on survey responses, university faculty conducted focus groups with self-selected teachers (also recent graduates) to discern their understandings of standards, identify their preparedness to teach to standards, and describe their needs as beginning teachers. Two university faculty met with groups of between 2-8 teachers (P-12, including special education) for approximately one hour. The conversations were audio-recorded and transcribed. Teachers responded to questions about their preparation to teach in a standards-based environment, including planning for and teaching to standards, resources available, and student assessment. They were paid $75 for their participation.
Evaluation of Induction Efforts
This component of the study involved determining beginning teachers’ views of the induction program. In May 2002, twenty graduates who participated in the induction program during their first year of teaching were recruited to provide a representative sample of the graduates in terms of ethnicity, subject and level of teaching. Fourteen of the 20 graduates were accessible and agreed to participate in the study; all 14 participated in the phone interview and nine completed the survey. The participants were paid $200 for full participation or $50 for partial participation. Ideally, the participants would complete all surveys, attend at least one seminar, review the web site and evaluate it, and participate in one chat room discussion. Only two participants participated in all activities; five participants were involved in all but one activity, and one person participated in only one activity. We attributed the poor participation to the timing; the work was completed at the end of the school year, when teachers are heavily involved in testing and other end of the year activities.
After participating in the components of the induction program (chat room, website, seminars), these first year teachers were asked to evaluate their experiences in these activities using a 24-item, likert-scale questionnaire. Survey questions inquired about their expectations for the activity, the activities they found most useful, the changes they would suggest for future programs, and additional comments about their experience in these activities. Follow up phone interviews were conducted with 14 beginning teachers to assess their use of the website and resources, their interest in the seminars, and their willingness to maintain personal contact.
Data for analysis included results of the three surveys (May 2001, March 2002, and May 2002), phone interviews, and field-notes and transcriptions from focus groups. Data were analyzed separately depending on the nature of the data, then combined and coded. The data from the survey of beginning teachers and the focus groups were categorized using the INTASC standards (a component of GSU’s conceptual framework) to organize the data and make recommendations.
Findings
The Needs of Beginning Teachers
The needs assessment instrument asked teachers how much help they believed they needed and how they typically addressed such issues as classroom management and discipline, relationships with parents and school professionals, time management, lesson planning, and technology use. The results of the survey indicated that our students felt well prepared and believed that they had few needs as they made the transfer from the university to a classroom of their own. In addressing their needs, they indicated that they believed school mentors played a strong role in helping student teachers address their needs, while university faculty were rarely viewed as a resource. These findings indicate a need for faculty to encourage their graduates to access the resources available to them through the university.
The following findings
were based on analysis of survey data from practicing teachers reflecting their
beliefs and feelings about their preparation now that they are teaching. There were 20 survey items: 4 questions
related to demographics (e.g., years of experience and area of certification)
and 16 Likert-scale evaluation items related to teachers’ preparation to teach
in a standards-based environment. For each of the 16 Likert-scale items,
teachers chose one of these five responses: Not
At All, Not Very Well, Adequately, Well, or Very Well.
Table 2 provides descriptive statistics on the 16 evaluation items and provides more detailed information about ranges of responses. The means varied from 3.05 to 4.03 falling into the “adequately” to “well” levels of the scales. For many items, most teachers indicated they are well prepared. Those items were: a) teach to standards, b) formulate effective standards, c) create content, d) develop and use assessment, e) develop rubrics, f) engage students, g) know standards, h) use many resources, i) analyze data from assessments, j) differentiate instruction, and k) organize lesson plans. For all but four of the 16 evaluation items, the highest response frequency was at level 4, Well. For all but three of the 16 items, a combined 50% or more of teachers chose the responses Well and Very Well.
One survey item on which fewer than 50% of teachers responded Well and Very Well was “work with students to close the achievement gap between students who traditionally achieve poorly and those who traditionally achieve well”. The highest response frequency (31.9%) was at level 3, Adequately; a combined 46.6%--not a majority--answered Well or Very Well.
A second survey item for which the combined frequencies of the responses Well and Very Well did not represent a majority of responses was “involve parents in child’s education”. The single highest response frequency was Well, representing 30.2% of responses. Less than half, or 40.5% of teachers, chose Well or Very Well. Almost the same percentage reported being prepared Not At All or Not Very Well for involving parents.
The third survey item for which less than a majority chose the responses Well and Very Well was “use the community as a resource for meeting standards”. Responses on this item were dispersed fairly evenly among the bottom, middle, and top thirds of the Likert scale. A combined 37.1% of respondents answered that they were prepared Well or Very Well for this task. The highest single response frequency on this survey item, at 30.2%, was Adequately. Similarly, 32.8% of teachers responded that their GSU teacher education program prepared them Not At All or Not Very Well to use the community as a resource for meeting standards.
The response Not At All did not occur at all on four evaluation items: knows appropriate standards, able to teach to standards, use assessment to inform instruction, and uses resources to meet standards. This response (not at all) occurred most frequently—in 9% and 10% of the sub-sample respectively—on two items, “involve parents in child’s education” and “use community as resource to meet standards”. The next highest frequency of the response Not At All was nine occurrences, or 8%, on the item “communicate with parents”.
Overall, survey data indicated that our teacher education programs were providing adequate preparation in teaching to standards. Data also indicated that within some areas of certification and for some teacher tasks (closing the achievement gap, developing knowledge of appropriate standards, using the community as a resource, and communicating with and involving parents in students’ education), improved preparation might benefit our students.
In the open-ended
questions on the survey and in the focus group discussion, teachers were asked
to talk about standards-based teaching and identify concerns and offer
suggestions regarding preparation for teaching in a standards-based
environment. Overall, teachers spoke
hesitantly about their familiarity with and implementation of standards. However, they spoke strongly and harshly
about their view of standards as an infringement on their professional autonomy
because standards are directly linked to standardized testing. They reported that they see little connection
among standards and testing and improving classroom teaching and learning
processes. They struggled to articulate
what a standards-based environment means to them and suggest they need
mentoring to improve. They are concerned
with their opportunities for growth, given that they have little control over
their professional development.
Analysis provided eight
more specific categories of concerns and suggestions emerging from the teachers’
responses. These were: a) curriculum, b)
field experiences, c) classroom management, d) assessment and testing, e)
parental and community involvement, f) the realities of teaching, g) diversity,
and h) technology. We organized them in
order of the frequency of responses with the last three categories (realities
of teaching, diversity, and technology) having five or fewer responses.
Curriculum
Forty-four comments from
the survey related to curricular issues, and 24 of those referred to teachers
being unfamiliar with the nature and variety of standards they must use, for
example, the state Quality Core Curriculum standards, the local school system’s
standards, and content standards such as the National Council of Teacher of
Mathematics (NCTM) Standards. In
addition, teachers asked for more assistance in using standards to plan for
instruction to meet the needs of individual children. In talking with teachers,
they struggled to describe a standards-based environment and acknowledged their
confusion in applying what they view as a multitude of standards to their
practice. They articulated their concern
that the emphasis on standards pushed them to focus on the achievement of
children, leaving little time to consider the “whole child” or children from
diverse backgrounds. Another concern
they shared is their perceived need to cover all standards in a short period of
time. Teachers shared that they have
many resources to assist in their planning and teaching but suggest that
aligning them with standards is necessary.
As researchers/observers we found a noticeable absence of attention to
children’s individual needs in the discussion on standards congruent with
teachers’ concerns that they are not adequately prepared to teach standards based
on individual learning styles of students.
Assessment and testing
There
were 18 suggestions made by respondents about assessment and testing. These suggestions indicated that more
instruction was needed to prepare candidates in how to assess their students’
progress and how to use those results to inform their teaching and
planning. They wanted more exposure to a
variety of assessments, formal and informal, and how to interpret the results
of assessments. In conversations with
the teachers, assessment also was a recurring concern. They acknowledged a strong emphasis in their
schools on academic achievement as demonstrated by performance on standardized
tests despite their knowledge that “there is more to a child than what he or
she demonstrates on these tests”. They
stated that they would like more instruction and experiences on how to design
and use a variety of assessments, how to interpret results, and how to use
those results to inform their teaching.
Field experiences
In the
open-ended questions of the survey, respondents shared 17 comments related to
their field experiences, primarily regarding better communication and
understanding between GSU and school administrators about what GSU requires of
teacher candidates. In the focus groups,
for example, they reiterated their need for more exposure to the assessment
process, including sharing student progress with parents. They requested opportunities to discuss their
struggles with curriculum and assessment issues and problem solve with colleagues
and faculty in the context of field experiences.
Parental and community involvement
Respondents
offered 13 suggestions related to parental and community involvement. Teachers
expressed concerns related to involving the community and parents in the classroom
in school activities, creatively and effectively. They needed additional guidance in how to
conference with parents and how to communicate with parents, particularly when
parents are upset or angry. In conversations with teachers, they acknowledged their
discomfort in working with parents, often feeling intimidated or ignored. They would like more assistance in how to
develop relationships with parents and utilize the community as a resource.
Realities of teaching
Comments
related to the realities of teaching (N=5) reflected teachers’ concern that
candidates were not “aware of or prepared for what they are getting into”,
especially “the heavy paperwork”. They
were concerned about the many “non-student” related responsibilities and the
out of class expectations that seem so overwhelming, particularly as related to
standards and assessment.
Classroom management, diversity and
technology
Four comments suggested
that there was a need for more instruction on and experience with effective
classroom management strategies. There
were three suggestions for more instruction in working with diverse groups of
children, including non-English speaking students. Two comments were made about
the need for more technology training.
In conversations with teachers, they reiterated their need for help in
differentiating instruction for learners. They also suggested that while they
have had a lot of technology training, they are not proficient in using it to
enhance instruction. Given that these three areas were heavily emphasized goals
in our programs, the small number of identified concerns is viewed as
improvement but not realization of our efforts.
For this data to be useful in
informing university faculty and school partners we chose to develop a
framework to organize the data and guide future work. Since GSU uses the INTASC standards as one
component of its conceptual framework, we used these ten standards for
organizing the concerns and suggestions.
This framework (a lengthy document available by contacting the first
author) illustrates the issues and guidelines that educators need to consider
as they encourage and instruct teacher candidates to practice in a
standards-based environment.
Evaluation of Induction Efforts
Two seminars dealing with parents and classroom management were offered. One participant attended the seminar on dealing with parents, while 7 participants attended the classroom management seminar. The participant who attended the seminar on dealing with parents indicated having learned “ways to communicate effectively with parents” and came away with “excitement and good ideas.” There were mixed responses in the classroom management seminar as to whether needs were met. Two participants indicated that their needs had not been met. One of these participants revealed the desire for sessions to incorporate “several experienced teachers” and a “larger audience.” The other participant whose needs were not met indicated the desire for more specific classroom management techniques. The rest of the participants in this seminar indicated that they now had “better ways to keep kids under control” and that the seminar had “opened a forum for discussion and to pick up new methods.” The strengths of the seminars, they noted, included the “organized, concise, useful, relevant … specific strategies,” the shared ideas and experiences, the relaxed atmosphere, and the opportunity to get their questions answered. Several suggestions for improvement were also made.
- Seminars
should be held at some other time than
- Participants should be grouped by grade level.
- Three of the participants stated that they had no need to attend such seminars at the beginning of the school year, as they did not yet have enough experience to know what their needs were.
- The other participants indicated that a seminar at the beginning of school might be helpful, but, as one participant shared, another seminar at the end of the first year would also be helpful to enable them to share experiences and reflect on their own experience. All but one participant indicated the desire to participate in another seminar; the one who did not wish to do so stated that the county system offers similar classes and assigned mentors.
- Some of the topics they suggested for future seminars related to teaching students with varying ability levels, making lessons interesting for both students and teachers, grade specific information, survival courses in school law, security/safety, Spanish, assessment, discipline, dealing with colleagues, and classroom organization.
The chat room provided participants with opportunities to discuss the topic of dealing with parents and of classroom management. No one participated in the chat room dealing with parental involvement, and three participants interacted in the chat room on classroom management. The three who participated found the experience helpful in terms of providing a venue for sharing ideas in a friendly manner that is easily accessed from home. One participant suggested that it be more organized, while the other two noted no changes needed. Two of the three indicated they would find the chat room useful at the beginning of the school year, while the other participant suggested that one needed more experiences to reflect on. All participants indicated that they would participate again in the future. They specifically noted the desire for grade or subject specific information, classroom organization information, or undirected opportunities to share ideas and concerns. Their concerns regarding access to the chat rooms revolved around problems with logging in or missing the scheduled time(s) for chat room discussions. They all found the venue comfortable for discussion.
General evaluation questions about the various aspects of the program asked about additional support participants would like to see included in the program. Their responses included increased contact with mentors and experienced GSU graduates and information on gangs.
As part of the induction program, GSU faculty members volunteered to be a contact person for graduates of each program to provide such services as e-mail communication about problems and issues, seminars for small groups specific to that program, and classroom visits. Additional ideas participants shared for this relationship were to provide additional information on handling difficult situations with students, faculty, and legal issues and to provide follow up feedback.
Their survey responses about which aspect of the induction program was most helpful were evenly divided between the web site and the seminars. Of the seven who responded to this question, three of the participants indicated the web site as being most helpful and found the links and autonomy in use of the web site to be strengths, while three others who found the seminars to be most helpful focused on the opportunity to share their own experiences and learn from others’ experiences. One participant stated that all of the venues were helpful, as they met different needs.
The website survey asked questions about the ease of use of the website and about the usefulness and importance of the information provided on the website. Topics addressed on the website included information about teaching methods and resources, classroom management, working with parents and with students with special needs, assessment and testing, teacher certification, graduate education, mentoring, sharing of ideas, and professional growth. Participants responded that the website was easy to log into and use, and they liked the simple layout. They rated the site high on whether it was useful and high to moderate its importance to them. Several participants indicated that they had difficulty finding the information they needed, as the directions for using the WebCT were unclear to them. The content section was, for the most part, rated high to moderate on its usefulness and importance; very few participants rated this section low to moderate.
The phone survey of participants yielded additional data regarding the induction program. From these phone interviews, we found that some participants were unfamiliar with the website, did not always know who their contact person was at GSU, and would welcome personal contact from GSU faculty.
These results are being viewed as formative evaluation findings to be used to make changes in our induction program. Some anticipated changes include holding seminars at alternative locations, being more proactive in contacting our graduates, and increasing awareness of the website earlier in the program.
Suggestions
for Continuing Induction Work
The variety of
data collected and the amount of information amassed is helpful in
understanding the concerns of new teachers currently practicing in a
standards-based environment. The
findings indicate that, while our beginning efforts have been helpful to the
teachers who participated in the program, more work is needed. Based on their
feedback, it is apparent that a more organized effort is required that includes
better communication with our graduates. The results of both aspects of this
study mirror the statewide findings in the 2001 Georgia Professional Standards
Commission (PSC) study on teacher retention. Teachers need to be made aware of
the resources available to them through the university and community in
general. The mentoring of these participants by university faculty to address needs
of new teachers is one area that needs to be strengthened. Better communication
and publicity of how GSU can work with its graduates for induction purposes
would facilitate increased usage of the website, chat rooms, and seminars.
Holding seminars on a variety of topics at school sites, rather than at GSU,
may also increase participation. Issues to be addressed might include parental
involvement, classroom management, grade or subject specific information,
diversity (addressing the needs of non-English speaking students), social
development/safety issues, various aspects of working in a standards-based
environment, closing the achievement gap, and seminars specifically designed to
teach technology skills to access the website and chat rooms. An effort also must be made to encourage more
university faculty and beginning teachers to participate. Providing reduced
teaching loads for faculty and beginning teachers is one possibility supported
by the literature (Berry et al., 2002). While all of these are excellent ideas
for improving the program, they are costly. No new monies have been made
available for such purposes; hence, we will have to be creative to be able to
provide such services. As suggested by AFT (2001), faculty in GSU’s teacher
education program have begun to collaborate with local school systems, but a
more cohesive, cooperative effort is needed. By combining efforts, we can
reduce the costs of duplicating services and share resources to bring about the
development and implementation of an induction program that truly meets the
needs of new teachers in
We are optimistic that the combined focus of assessing new teachers’ classroom needs about how to teach in a standards-based environment and the provision of continued induction support can enhance the retention of new teachers. Improving our induction strategies and assessing the retention of our graduates are next steps in our continuing efforts.
Table
1. Overview of data collection over time
|
Beginning Teachers’ Needs |
May 2001 |
March 2002 |
May 2002 |
|
Participants |
All student teachers (P-12) graduating Sp 02 |
116 self-selected beginning teachers/graduates with 1-3 years experience |
15 self-selected beginning teachers/graduates with 1-3 years experience |
|
Instrument/method |
14-item Beginning Teacher Needs Survey (BTNS) focused on teachers’ perceived needs and their choice of support |
20-item Standards-Based Teaching survey with likert-style and open-ended questions focused on their needs for teaching in a standards-based environment |
Focus groups with 8 question protocol focus on their needs for teaching in a standards-based environment |
|
Evaluation of Induction Efforts |
|
|
|
|
Participants |
|
|
8 first year teachers/graduates |
|
Instrument/method |
|
|
24-item likert-scale survey of induction website; Phone interviews with10 items related to induction components: seminars, web page, personal contact |
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics on the 16 Evaluation
Items
References
American
Federation of Teachers (September, 2001). Beginning Teacher Induction: The
Supporting New Teachers:
Lessons from the Southeast.
Southeast: Measuring Progress,
Moving Forward.
Cohen, D. & Hill, H. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance:
The mathematics reform in
Danielson, C. (1999). Mentoring
beginning teachers: The case for mentoring. Teaching
and Change, 6(3), 251-257.
Darling Hammond, L. & Sclan, (1996).
Falk, B. (2002). Standards-based reforms: Problems and possibilities. Phi
Delta
Kappan, 83(8), 612-620.
Fideler,
E. & Haselkorn, D. (1999). Learning the roles:
Urban teacher induction
practices in
the
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2003). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to
strengthen and
sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6),
1013-1055.
Huling-Austin, L. (1992). Research on learning to teach: Implications for teacher
induction and mentoring programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3),
173-180.
Kauffman, D., Johnson, S., Kardos, S., Liu, E., & Peske, H. (2002). “Lost at sea”: New
teachers’
experiences with curriculum and assessment. Teachers College Record, 104(2), 273-300.
Moir, E.
& Gless, J. (2001). Quality induction: An
investment in teachers. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 28(1), 109-114.
National
Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (Summer, 2000). District
induction
programs that work. Urban Initiative Partners Newsletter, (2) 2.
Professional Standards Commission.
(2001). Phase 1 Report: Georgia
Teacher Retention
Study: A statewide analysis of the factors that lead
to the retention of teacher’s in
Serpell, Z. (2000). Beginning teacher induction: A
review of the literature. (Report No. SP039330).
the
Southeast.
Veenman,
S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational
Research, 54,
143-178.
Wang, J. & Odell, S. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standards-based reform:
A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), pp. 481-546.
Yinger, R. & Hendricks-Lee, M. (2000). The language of standards and teacher Education
reform. Educational Policy, 14(1), pp. 94-106.
Meeting the Needs of New
Teachers:
A Progress Report
Julie Rainer
Dangel
Barbara Kawulich
Edi Guyton
January 2004