CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
With the publication of A Nation at Risk rose a series of “educational excellence”
reforms designed to change the nature of schools, students, and teachers (Alliance for
Excellent Education, 2004, p. iv). The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
reported that across the nation, 9.3 percent of public school teachers leave the classroom
before they complete their first year of teaching and more than one fifth of public school
teachers leave their position within their first three years of teaching (Rosenow, 2005
cited in Greiner & Smith 2006). With regards to the characteritics of individuals who
leave the teaching profession, the most consistent findings of the empirical research
literature reports that the highest turnover and attrition rates seen for teachers occur in
their first years of teaching and after many years of teaching when individuals are near
retirement (Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin 2004 cited in Guarino, Santibannez & Deley
2006). “The most serious consequence and direct disadvantage of high teacher turnover
is that it erodes teaching quality and student achievemnt” (NCTAF, 2003, p.33).
Recently, the NCTAF (2003) report indicated that “many schools are becoming revolving
doors; losing as many teachers as they hire each year” (p.9). Recent research indicates
that “Teachers with positive perceptions about their working conditions are much more
likely to stay at their current schools than educators who are more negative about their
conditions of work, particularly in the areas of leadership and empowerment” (Hirsch &
Emerick, 2007, p. 14).
The Problem
According to Ingersoll, principals who face difficulties in locating sufficient
1
numbers of qualified job candidates “most commonly do three things: hire less-qualified
teachers, assign teachers trained in another field or grade level to teach in the
understaffed area, and make extensive use of substitute teachers” (1997, p. 42).
According to a report issued by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education (AACTE), “The so-called teacher shortage is actually an exodus of certified
teachers, and nationwide, schools of education, with a few exceptions, graduate enough
teachers to meet the vacancies due to teacher retirement” (Ingersoll, 2002; National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future [NCTAF], 2003). Attracting and
retaining highly qualified male and female teachers has gained national attention.
Statement of the Problem
“Arguments have been made that the current demand for teachers is not a result of
a shortage of teachers but rather due to the high attrition rate of existing teachers,
particularly those who leave education within the first 5 years of their career” (Darling-
Hammond & Sykes, 2003). They argue that school staffing problems are caused not so
much by an insufficient supply of qualified individuals, but by “too many teachers
leaving teaching” (Ingersoll, 1997 p.2). In addition, once schools and districts hire new
teachers, they must expend “enormous energies developing [these] new teachers, who are
likely to leave after only a few years and be replaced by yet another recruit in need of
special resources and support” (NASBE, 1998, p.7). Much attention and research have
been focused on teacher turnover; however, there is a need for new research on retention,
particularly amongst first through fifth year teachers in Texas public schools, especially
in urban schools.
Ingersoll and Smith (2004), in a schools-and-staffing survey, found in a sample of
2
more than 3,000 beginning teachers that those who experienced induction and mentoring
support were less likely to leave the school than were their counterparts who lacked this
support (p. 30). However, very few studies exist that examine new teachers’ perspectives
on effective and ineffective mentoring and self-efficacy scores in relation to gender. Due
to the lack of research, there is a shortage of teachers in Texas. According to the National
Association of State Boards of Education, “Most states do not need to recruit more
candidates into teacher preparation programs. Most states do not even need to attract
higher quality candidates to teaching. What states do need, however, are targeted
programs that attract candidates who are willing and able to meet the needs of the school
in which they will be asked to teach”. (1998, p.13).
Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose of the study was to identify whether teachers’ self-efficacy
level and mentoring experience have a significant impact on those who remain in the
field as opposed to those who leave. Gender was carefully analyzed to see whether there
was a relationship in how males and females view mentoring and their levels of self-
efficacy as they relate to the school setting. Given the lack of current empirical studies
using efficacy, teacher perspectives, and principals’ perceptions of mentoring programs
as predictors of retention, it was necessary to examine to what extent, if any, teachers’
mentoring experience, self-efficacy, and gender played in teacher retention.
Conceptual Framework
Bandura (1986) advanced the notion that individuals possess beliefs that enable
them toexercise a measure of control over their thoughts, feelings, and actions, that “what
people think, believe, and feel affects how they behave” (p.25). Bandura (1989) contends
3
that when people erroneously believe that they are unable to accomplish a given task,
people will choose not to act despite the promise of a rewarding consequence: “Self-
perceived inefficacy can thus nullify the motivating potential of alluring outcome
expectations”(p.1180). Bandura (1977) argued that because people are able to control
their own actions, and since interpretation should be considered a form of behavior, it
follows that how people represent their conduct is subject to the workings of the mind:
“Behavior control not only allows one to manage the aversive aspects of an environment.
It also affects how the environment is likely to be perceived. Potentially stressful
situations that can be controlled are constructed as less life threatening, and such
cognitive appraisals further reduce anticipatory emotional arousal” (p.199). Bandura
(1997) contends that nothing that happens in the world is independent of an individual’s
interpretation, but that interpretations are not independent of the actual surroundings in
the external world: “Life is full of reality checks that, in consequential matters, can bear
down unmercifully on foolish actions spawned by faulty judgment….Some
interpretations of reality have greater explanatory, predictive, and operative power than
do others” (p.475). According to Bandura (1977) “The more believable the source of
information, the more likely are efficacy expectations to change” (p. 202). Bandura
(1977) also believes that, “ In the process of self-regulation, the experiential component
acts when preexisting self-concepts exert selective influence on which aspects of one’s
ongoing behavior are given the most attention, how they are perceived, and how
performance information is organized for memory representation. Mood states also affect
how one’s performances are self-monitored and cognitively processed. For example,
when people are in a despondent mood they interpret events negatively and recall
4
unpleasant events easily, whereas in a positive mood they take a more favorable view of
matters and bring positive experiences more easily to mind” (p.337).
The conceptual theoretical mode is based on the idea that new teachers who
participate in an effective mentoring and induction program will develop coping behavior
that will help them remain in the teaching field. Those teachers who do not participate in
mentoring and induction programs may not develop those coping behaviors and,
therefore, will exit the field. The social cognitive theory views individuals as both
products and producers of their environments and social system. Bandura (1994) defined
self-efficacy as “people’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of
performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives” (p. 71). According
to Bandura (1994),
An individual with a high sense of self-efficacy will more likely face challenges
head-on rather than avoid them. Individuals with high level of assurance attribute
failure to inadequate knowledge and skills or to a lack of effort, both of which can
be acquired. In contrast, an individual with low self-efficacy deals with failure in
a completely different manner. These individuals will focus on their deficiencies;
obstacles to success slacken their efforts, and they often give up (p. 72)
Bandura continued, “Self-efficacy will help determine how a new teacher may or may not
be able to deal with certain situations” (p. 73). “Teacher efficacy beliefs have also been
negatively correlated with undesirable professional outcomes such as teacher burnout
(Brissie, Hoover-Dempsey, & Bassier, 1988), teacher stress (Bliss & Finneran, 1991),
and teacher absenteeism” (Imants & Van Zoelen, 1995).
5
Research Questions
This study focused on answering the following questions:
1. Is there a significant difference in Texas elementary teachers’ self-efficacy
scores and mentoring scores in relation to gender?
2. Is there a significant difference in Texas middle-school teachers’ self-efficacy
scores and mentoring scores in relation to gender?
3. Is there a significant difference in Texas high-school teachers’ self-efficacy
scores and mentoring scores in relation to gender?
Null Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were tested:
Ho1- There is no statistically significant difference in self-efficacy scores and
mentoring scores between elementary school male and female teachers.
Ho2- There is no statistically significant difference in self-efficacy scores and
mentoring scores between middle-school male and female teachers.
Ho3- There is no statistically significant difference in self-efficacy scores and
mentoring experiences scores between high-school male and female teachers.
Conceptual Underpinnings for the Study
“Principals and teachers make decisions each year regarding the retention or
resignation of their careers, which can have a profound affect on students. Beliefs play an
integral role in the decision-making process of teachers” (Bonvin, 2003: Pouliot, 2000).
Recent research indicates that “Teachers with positive perceptions about their working
conditions are much more likely to stay at their current school than educators who are
more negative about their conditions of work, particularly in the areas of leadership and
6
empowerment” (Hirsch & Emerick, 2007, p. 14). “Indeed, research has shown that
approximately one-quarter of all beginning teachers leave teaching within four years”
(Benner 2000; Rowan et al. 2002). If the problem is not corrected, the shortage of
teachers may increase significantly and student achievement will continue to decrease.
Significance of the Study
Recently, the NCTAF (2003) noted that “Teacher retention is the answer to
staffing all the nation’s classrooms with a highly qualified teacher. Our inability to
support high quality teaching in many of our schools is driven not be too few teachers
entering, but by too many leaving” (NCTAF, 2003, p.8) . The NCTAF (2003) report, No
Dream Denied: A Pledge to America’s Children, concluded that “teacher shortage’ will
never end and that quality teaching will not be achieved for every child until we change
the conditions that are driving teachers out of too many of our schools” (p.3).
This study on teacher retention was significant because administrators have some
insight to how teachers perceived their abilities and mentoring experiences. The study
provided details on gender differences in relation to perceived abilities and mentoring
experiences. In addition, the study provided recommendations for future studies, such as
researching urban teachers and different behaviors that may cause teachers to have high
or low self-perceptions. The collected data could be used within the district to train
school leaders and to reduce teacher turnover throughout the district.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in this study:
1. Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Survey (1977 see Appendix 1) and the Kansas State
University Survey (1994 see Appendix 2) on mentoring are appropriate instruments to
7
use in trying to gauge teachers’ attitudes.
2. The teachers in the schools selected for the survey are adequate representatives
of how most elementary, middle-, and high-school first-through-fifth-year teachers feel
about self-efficacy and mentoring experiences.
3. Because Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Scale (1994) and the Kansas State University
Mentoring Survey are used, it is assumed that there is a range of teachers who will score
high and low on such scales.
Limitations of Study
While the present study has supplied much useful information about leadership
and teacher retention, it has several limitations that must be acknowledged. The study
provided a variety of information for Texas public schools but not for schools outside of
Texas. In addition, the research was focused on first- through 5th-year teachers. With
respect for both groups of teachers it is possible that the more efficacious teachers and
teachers with excellent experiences responded to each of the surveys. On the down side,
teachers with low efficacy levels or ineffective mentors may have failed to answer the
survey all together.
Definitions of Terms
AEIS - The Academic Excellent Indicator System reports provide a large amount
of information on the performance of students in each school and district in Texas
annually. In the fall, the AEIS reports are posted online (Texas Education Agency)
Attrition - For this study, attrition refers to teachers who leave the teaching
profession altogether (Ingersoll, 2003a).
Beginning teachers - Beginning teachers are teachers who have been in the field
8
for 5 years or less (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003).
Campus mentoring program - A campus mentoring program affiliates a new
teacher with an experienced staff member or team to provide guidance and assistance
during the new teacher’s transition to teaching (O’Neill, 2004).
District characteristics - District characteristics include student demographics
(ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status) and district and staff information (Texas
Education Agency)
Elementary certified — The Texas Education Agency issues a provisional
certificate to an applicant who has acquired a bachelor’s degree and who is otherwise
eligible to teach in Texas public schools. The Elementary Certificate requires at least 60
semester hours of general education and 36 semester hours of academic specialization
(Teacher Certificate Handbook, p. 5).
Elementary school — An elementary school usually includes anywhere from the
first four to the first eight grades and often a kindergarten.
High school — A high school is any 3- to 6-year secondary school serving
students approximately 14 to 18 years of age. Four-year schools are by far the most
common; their grade levels are designated freshman (9th grade), sophomore (10th),
junior (11th), and senior (12th). Comprehensive high schools offer general academic
courses and specialized commercial, trade, and technical subjects. Most U.S. high schools
are tuition-free, supported by state funds. Private high schools are usually classed as
either parochial or preparatory schools.
Induction programs — Comprehensive induction programs support new teachers
for at least 2 years and include a number of components: high quality mentoring,
9
common planning time, ongoing professional development, an external network of
teachers, and standards-based evaluation (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004; Smith
& Ingersoll, 2004b).
Mastery experiences - Mastery experiences refers to the successful experiences
that build an individual’s self-efficacy (Bandura, 1994).
Mentor - A mentor is an experienced, highly successful veteran educator who is
skilled at providing instructional support and committed to the role of coaching a new
teacher (Ingersoll & Smith, 2004).
Middle school — Middle schools generally have grades spanning the 3 to 5 years
between elementary school and high school, are focused on the educational needs of
students in these in-between years, and are designed to promote continuous educational
progress for all concerned (Alexander & George, 1981, p. 3).
Personal efficacy — Personal efficacy is the belief that the individual teacher
holds in his or her own ability to affect student learning. According to Ashton and Webb
(1986), personal efficacy relates to individual or internal “assessment of their own
teaching competency” (p. 4).
Teaching efficacy — Ashton and Webb (1986) define teaching efficacy as
“teachers’ expectations that teaching can influence student learning” (p. 4).
Teacher retention - Teacher retention is the process of retaining teachers in the
teaching profession (Harell, Leavell, van Tassel, & McKee, 2004).
Teacher’s sense of efficacy — The teacher’s sense of efficacy is a concept or
belief held by teachers that all children can learn, regardless of family background or
other environmental or hereditary factors. The construct has two independent strands, a
10
sense of teaching efficacy and a sense of personal efficacy (Ashton & Webb, 1986).
Teacher need to replace more than 2 million teachers over the next decade (Howard,
2003).
Teacher turnover - Teacher turnover refers to teachers exiting the field of teaching
altogether and those transferring to another school (Ingersoll, 2002).
Organization of Study
The study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 contained the introduction,
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, conceptual framework, guiding
research questions, hypotheses, significance of the study, study limitations, definition of
key terms, and study organization. Chapter 2 includes the review of the literature.
Chapter 3 describes the design, procedures, analysis, and findings of the study. Chapter 4
reports the analysis of the data. Finally, Chapter 5 includes the summary results and
conclusions and the recommendations and implications for further study.
11
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This dissertation examined the differences between male and female teachers’
attitudes towards self-efficacy scores and mentoring experiences in school on all levels.
The primary purpose of the study was to identify whether teachers’ mentoring perception
scores and self-efficacy level scores affect teacher retention or departure from education
according to gender. Administrators must recognize which variables attribute to teacher
turnover and retention. Once these variables are recognized, principals will be able to
establish or make changes to the existing mentor programs and increase self-efficacy
levels. The review of literature focused on the following areas of discussion (a) teacher
issues; (b) theoretical background on self-efficacy and mentoring; (c) studies on teachers,
mentors, and staff.
Theoretical Background of Self-Efficacy
Albert Bandura (1977) first introduced the cognitive social learning theory. He
theorized that the behavior a person exhibits is influenced by his or her beliefs regarding
an outcome expectation and an efficacy expectation. In an outcome expectation, a person
estimates that “a given behavior will lead to a certain outcome. Efficacy expectation
refers to the belief that a person has regarding his ability actually to perform the
“behavior required to produce the outcome” (p. 193). These two outcomes are distinct,
particularly in the educational setting, because while a teacher may believe that specific
12
teacher behaviors will lead to a better classroom environment, improved student learning,
increased class participation, and so on, that same teacher may not have confidence in his
or her ability to perform those behaviors. These two sets of expectations have been
labeled by educational researchers as “teaching efficacy” and “personal teaching
efficacy” (Gibson & Dembo, 1984, p.573). The concept of teacher efficacy was first
introduced in two RAND Corporation studies that concluded that “teachers’ attitudes
about their own professional competence, in short, appear to have major effects on what
happens to projects and how effective they are” (Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, &
Zellman, 1977, p. 137).
Teacher Quality in Schools
“While researchers tend to agree that teacher quality is an important
determining factor in influencing student outcomes, there is little consensus about the
relationship between specific teacher credentials (e.g., experience and degree level) and
characteristics (e.g., age, race, and ethnicity) and teacher effectiveness. An example of
certification determing certification would be that teacher attributes commonly used for
certification, recruitment, screening, and selection of teachers (i.e., certification status,
degree,and experience levels) are not strongly correlated with student learning gains”
(Goldhaber and Brewer 2000; Hanushek 1986, 1997). “America faces tremendous
challenges as it seeks to reform the nation’s educational system with the goal of leaving
no child behind” (Joftus & Maddox-Dolan, 2002, p.1). “Common sense suffices:
American students are entitled to teachers know their subjects, understand their students
and what they need, and have developed the skills required to make learning come alive”
(NCTAF, 1996, p. 10). Despite increased awareness of the nation’s teacher-quality
13
challenges and reforms to address national shortcomings, “we are still far from having a
caring and competent teacher in every classroom” (U.S. Department of Education, 2000,
p.iii).
Teacher Experience and Retention
According to Feistretzer, “One-third to two-fifths of the qualified candidates who
graduated form college fully qualified to teach do not enter the teaching profession
immediately after earning their degree” (Feistritzer, 1999, p.2). “Studies of beginning
teachers from a variety of both traditional and alternative teacher preparation programs
showed that many new teachers do not feel adequately prepared to meet the challenges
they face when they first begin teaching in their own classrooms” (Berry, 2004; Public
Education Network,2003). “Across the United States, school and district leaders are
beginning to recognize the critical importance of providing sustained and purposeful
professional support to teachers, including—and perhaps especially—those in the
beginning years of their profession, as a means of maintaining a strong, stable workforce
and improving measurable outcomes for student learning” (Berry, 2004; Johnson et al.,
2005). Johnson (2006) in The Workplace Matters: Teacher Quality, Retention, and
Effectiveness states that “Those seeking to improve schooling must understand the
important links between the workplace, effective instruction, and teacher retention,
teacher quality, and effective teaching all tend to point to a set of workplace conditions
that facilitate these goals” (p.17). According to Olson (2003) schools that are more
successful in retaining new teachers have six qualities: (1) safe and orderly environments;
(2) respectful of all; (3) ongoing support for new teachers; (4) timely provision of
14
materials; (5) strong instructional leadership by principals; (6) and the development of
others’ leadership skills (p.21).
Roles Mentors Are Expected to Play
“Mentoring is an active collegial and reciprocal relationship built on the basis of
negotiation and trust, to give constructive criticism to support progression and career
advancement of the mentee” (Bush, Coleman, Wall, & West-Burnham, 1996; Clutterbuck
& Sweeney, 2005; Daresh, 1995; Hauling- Austin, 1989; Scandura, Tejeda, Werther, &
Lankau, 1996). “First mentors must be committed to the kind of teaching that performers
expect them to implement and must know how to work with novices as agents of change”
(Cochran-Smith, 1991: Feiman_Nemser & Parker, 1992: Guyton & Hidalgo, 1995: King
& Bev, 1995). “Second, mentors need to develop a deeper understanding of the subject
matter” (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1990: Huling-Austin, 1992). “Third, mentors are
expected to have a deep understanding of the relationship between principled knowledge
and teaching practice and to help novice teachers develop similar understandings of the
context of teaching” (Carter, 1988; Kennedy, 1991a, 1997).
"The first years of teaching are an intense and formative time in learning to teach,
influencing not only whether people remain in teaching but what kind of teacher they
become" (Feiman-Nemser, 2001, p. 1026). Possibly the most critical aspect of effective
mentoring programs is the matching of mentors and protégés. There is no absolute way to
“ensure that matches made are ‘matches made in heaven’ (Playko, 1995, p.91). In
mentoring there is “a great deal of team-building, and intense communication and
information sharing” (Fullan, 1999, p. 37). Egan (1986) observes that the “availability of
the mentor is an important factor in the success of the relationship” and that
15
“approachability and receptivity are important aspects of the mentoring relationships”
(pp. 6-7). Mentors’ support assists mentees to make the transition from “student to
practicing professional” (Upson, Koballa, & Gerber, 2002, p. 4). Although reflection
impacts on thinking, mentees need to be taught the skills of reflection and be provided
with a “multitude of opportunities to practice those skills” (Greene & Campbell, 1993, p.
37), which is guided through the mentor’s personal attributes. Critical self-reflection is
considered “the main catalyst for the development of autonomy and expertise”
(Veenman, de Laat, & Staring, 1998, p. 6). Mentoring involves complex personal
interactions “conducted under different circumstances in different schools” (Wildman,
Magliaro, Niles, & Niles, 1992, p. 212). Indeed, if mentors are not supportive then
mentees may not be receptive to mentor’s facilitation Mentoring programs for beginning
teachers have become the norm in many states (Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004). Mentoring was
often equated with induction, although it was becoming more apparent that mentoring
was only one important part of an effective induction process (Alliance for Excellent
Education, 2004; Bickmore, Bickmore, & Hart, 2005). Unfortunately, there are schools
that implement programs without considering the factors that create effective mentor-
mentee relationships. A mentoring program benefits the new teacher, the mentor, and,
most important, the students (Bartwell, 2006). Brown (2003) suggested that some believe
that, through the implementation of mentoring programs, the dropout rate can be cut from
roughly 50 percent to 15 percent during the first five years of teaching. Mentors provide a
smooth transition from pre-service training to actual professional employment.
“Across the United States, school and district leaders are beginning to recognize
the critical importance of providing sustained and purposeful professional support to
16
teachers, including—and perhaps especially—those in the beginning years of their
profession, as a means of maintaining a strong, stable workforce and improving
measurable outcomes for student learning” (Berry, 2004; Johnson et al., 2005). However,
as many as fifty percent of beginning teachers do not participate in induction programs
beyond a one-time orientation and only 1 percent of the new teacher workforce
participates in the kind of comprehensive program recommended by researchers
(Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004; Johnson et al., 2005) The importance of meeting
the professional growth needs of mentors is underscored by researcher Ingersoll (2004)
and Feiman-Nemser (2001), who separately raise the issue of mentoring experiences that,
on the basis of poor and/or outdated models of practice held by some veteran teachers,
actually impede new teacher growth and undermine the intended reform agenda.
Similarly, Darling-Hammond (2005), in an article entitled “Educating the New Educator:
Teacher Experiences
Teacher Education and the Future of Democracy,” paints a compelling picture of
the paints a compelling picture of the complexity of what today’s teachers are asked to
know and demonstrate. Often, she asserts, we are asking teachers to practice in ways that
are substantially different from those that have been experienced before. Expecting that
even veteran teachers will possess the knowledge and communication skills to articulate
this new agenda is a concern According to Johnson (2004), “In integrated professional
cultures, mentoring is organized to benefit both the novice and the experienced teachers,
and structures are in place that further facilitate teacher interaction and reinforce
interdependence” (p. 159). Ingersoll and Smith (2004), in an analysis of the 1999-2000
Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) found that almost 9 in 10 new teachers
17
reported that their mentors were helpful (p. 690). In a review entitled, “Who Stays in
Teaching and Why: A Review of the Literature on Teacher Retention,” Johnson et al.
(2005) reports that mentoring was particularly positive for new teachers who “taught the
same grade and subject as their mentor and worked more often with him or her” (p. 88).
Findings from an Education Trust study cited by Johnson et al. (2004) are similarly
troubling: “No matter which study you examine, no matter which measure of teacher
quality you use, the pattern is always the same—poor students, low-performing students,
and students of color are far more likely than other students to have teachers, who are
inexperienced, who are inexperienced, uncertified, poorly educated, and under-
performing.”
Exacerbating the problem, according to Berry (2004), is the limited research on
how to recruit, train, and retain teachers for hard to staff schools, and further, that what is
known is not well used Kaplan and Owings (2004) stated that principals have a
leadership role in bringing beginning teachers to professional maturity. The effectiveness
of the teacher mentor component depends on how it is designed (Berry, 2004; Darling-
Hammond, 2003; Jensen, 1987). One way to accomplish the goal of mentor design is to
be actively engaged in the development and support of a mentoring program for novice
teachers. Ingersoll (2004) and Feiman-Nemser (2001) separately raised the issue of
mentoring experiences that, on the basis of outdated models of practice held by some
veteran teachers, might actually impede new teacher growth and undermine the intended
reform agenda.
Researchers have pointed out that "…relationships can be established or enriched
by learning or encouraging mentor-like behavior rather than by selecting certain types of
18
people…" (Papalewis, Jordan, Cuellar, Gaulden, & Smith; 1991, p. 6). Glover and
Mutchler (n.d.) gained a qualitative perspective of existing Texas mentoring programs
implemented at the district and school levels. The researchers conducted interviews with
individuals who held diverse perspectives on local mentoring activities. These individuals
included mentor and novice teachers, school administrators, and district staff. This
research began by focusing on the one-on-one mentoring arrangement. It did not take
many visits to schools to see that one-on-one mentoring was only a part of the full picture
of successful teacher induction and development. The study provided a rich
understanding of how mentoring for beginning teachers occurs in practice and explained
how schools and districts planned and implemented mentoring programs. Unfortunately,
this study revealed that three sites were only minimally addressing beginning teachers’
needs relative to work with an increasingly diverse student population. The findings of
this study clearly pointed to implications for the continued development of mentoring
programs in the state of Texas.
A good teacher may not necessarily be a good mentor; there are further
characteristics, roles, and responsibilities involved in effective mentorship (Johnson,
2003). Effective mentoring and development programs include having mentors who are
trained in the same content, common planning periods for teachers in the content area, a
reduced teaching schedule, and an external network of teachers (Southern Regional
Education Board, 2004). A recent Education Commission of the States analysis of
research studies documenting the impact of mentoring on teacher retention (Ingersoll &
Kralik, 2004) concluded that there was empirical support for the claim that assistance for
new teachers and, in particular, mentoring programs for new teachers has a positive
19
impact on teachers and their retention. As Menchaca (2003) warned, a mentor program
“has the potential to affect teacher retention, improve the attitudes and instructional
strategies of novice teachers and provide professional growth opportunities for the
mentor teachers” (p. 26), and it can even be effective in recruitment, but “its success will
depend on how well it is supported by principals” (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004b).
Many school districts have developed induction/mentoring program models in
recent years. Nevertheless, many mentor teachers receive no training or inadequate
training and only limited support for their work. Rowley (1999) asserted that, for a
mentor to demonstrate these abilities, he or she must receive ongoing training and
professional development. In addition, he articulated that there are significant criteria that
need to be present for a good mentoring program to exist. Mentors need to be (a)
committed to the role of mentoring, (b) accepting of the new teacher, (c) skilled at
providing instructional support, (d) effective in different interpersonal contexts, (e)
continuous learners, and (f) able to communicate hope and optimism (pp. 20-21).
According to Hurst and Reding (2002), aside from leading, teaching, and guiding,
a mentor should also serve as an advocate for the novice teacher. The mentoring process
should be grounded on a solid mentor-mentee relationship. The mentoring goal
encompasses four concepts: leading through example, leading through guidance, leading
through communication, and supporting by being an advocate (Hurst & Reding).
Effective mentoring programs benefit the mentee, the mentor, and the school (Feiman-
Nemser, 2001; Haack, 2006).
Induction
Traditionally, beginning teachers have been given few, if any, opportunities to
20
participate in formal induction into the education profession (Lake, 2006). The history of
induction programs in the United States is quite young. In the 19th and most of the 20th
centuries, induction for new teachers did not exist. As a form of professional
development, an effective induction program is well-structured and comprehensive,
involves many people and components, and usually continues as a sustained process for
the first 2 to 5 years of a teacher’s career (Wong, 2005). According to an historical
review of new teacher support (Fulton, Yoon, & Lee, 2005), comprehensive induction
programs support new teachers for at least 2 years and include a number of components:
high-quality mentoring, common planning time, ongoing professional development, an
external network of teachers, and standards-based evaluation (Alliance for Excellent
Education, 2004; Ingersoll & Smith, 2004).
Recent studies have shown that more effective induction programs include
training, guidance, and compensation for mentors; required time for structured interaction
between a new teacher and a mentor teacher; and orientation and training programs for
first-year teachers before the school year begins (Gold, 1996). For instance, a program in
rural Louisiana reduced annual teacher attrition rates by nearly 40 percent by providing a
training program on classroom management in the summer before employment, assigning
an experienced teacher to support each new teacher within his or her school, and holding
monthly meetings that specifically addressed new teachers’ concerns (Archer, 2003).
Induction programs undeniably present a valuable experience for beginning teachers, but
the programs that stress constant feedback and collaborative environments remain a rare
experience for most new teachers (Wilson, 2006). Educators do not agree on what
teachers should know or what constitutes the best learning environments. Therefore, new
21
teacher induction programs differ from district to district. Although the nature of
induction programs varies widely, the two strategies on which they focus are assistance
and assessment (Dunn, 2006).
In 2003, 79 percent of new teachers reported that they were involved in some type
of induction program (Ingersoll & Smith, 2004). The primary reason for induction
programs is to engage in collaborative learning and professional growth and to provide an
ongoing support system for new teachers (Dunn, 2006). New teacher induction programs
can provide sound structured opportunities for new teachers to build effective teaching
skills. Moreover, some new-teacher induction programs assign new teachers with a
mentor who plays many roles, such as a counselor to provide support or a challenger to
encourage new teachers to do their best (National Education Association, 2002). Very
few induction programs provide new teachers with all of the components that constitute a
comprehensive induction program. In fact, only one percent of new teachers receive this
type of induction when they enter the teaching profession (Ingersoll & Smith, 2004).
Although the majority of new teachers participate in some version of induction,
the degree of support they receive varies greatly (Ingersoll, 2003c). In addition, the
Southeast Center for Teaching Quality reported that districts that are developing
induction and mentoring programs with well-designed assessment and support
components are producing positive retention trends for all teachers (Berry, Hopkins-
Thompson, & Hoke, 2002). As defined by researchers, the induction program is a
strategy set forth to assist novice teachers in the transition from pre-service training to
full-time teaching, a strategy that has the potential to assist in retaining novice teachers
(Bartell, 2005; Brewster & Railsback, 2001; Gold, 1996; Huling-Austin, 1992;
22
Menchaca, 2003; Veenman & Denessen, 2001).
From the available research on new educator induction programs, we know that
nearly 50 percent of new teachers leave within their first 5 years of teaching (Ingersoll &
Smith, 2004). An Alliance of Excellence Education report, “Tapping the Potential:
Retaining and Developing High-Quality New Teachers,” strongly suggested that districts
implement new teacher induction programs. The program recommended that a
comprehensive induction program begin before teachers get into the classroom to
integrate “beginnings into the [National Partnership for Teaching in At-Risk Schools]
profession by guiding their work, further developing their skills, and evaluating their
performance during the first few years of teaching” (Alliance for Excellent Education,
2006, p. 8).
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a term that is difficult to describe as a single construct, and the
definition of job satisfaction varies between studies (Morice & Murray, 2003; Protheroe,
Lewis & Paik, 2002; Singer, 1995). Rosenholtz (1985) identifies the central problem of
establishing effective schools in poor settings as being that “good teachers are difficult to
recruit and almost impossible to retain because the rewards of teaching do not outweigh
the frustrations.” (p. 354) Bogler (2001) noted job satisfaction is important in terms of
teacher retention, but is also related to teacher empowerment, school culture, quality
work environment, and student achievement. Greater job satisfaction is also a critical
factor to consider in terms of recruitment of new teachers into the profession. It is not
surprising that researchers suggest schools must give more attention to increasing teacher
job satisfaction to recruit and retain quality personnel (Bogler). As the importance of
retaining quality teachers steadily continues to increase, numerous studies have
determined factors contributing to teacher satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Colgan, 2004;
Houchins, Shippen & Cattrett, 2004; Kleinhenz & Ingvarson, 2000; Reyes & Hoyle,
1992).
23
Studies continue to search for a connection between the internal construct
of teacher job satisfaction, for example, sense of success, commitment to the profession,
motivation for coming to work, or self-perception of worth, and the external conditions of
teacher evaluation such as work place conditions, collaborative processes, autonomy,
professional development, or administrative support (Butt & Lance, 2005; Davis &
Wilson, 2000; Woods & Weasmer, 2002; Zembylas & Papanastasiou, 2005).
Teacher Turnover
Adding new teachers to replace those who have left is costly (Johnson & Kardos,
2005, p. 8). “Although schools’ racial compositions and proportions of low-income
students predict teacher turnover, salaries and working conditions—including large class
sizes, facilities problems, multi-track schools, and lack of text-books—are strong and
significant factors in prediction high rates of turnover; when these conditions are taken
into account, the influence of student characteristic on turnover is substantially reduced”
(Loeb, Darling-Hammond & Luczak, 2005). Findings from an Education Trust study
cited by Johnson et al. (2004) are similarly troubling: “No matter which study you
examine, no matter which measure of teacher quality you use, the pattern is always the
same—poor students, low-performing students, and students of color are far more likely
than other students to have teachers who are inexperienced, uncertified, poorly educated,
and under-performing. Many of those teachers demonstrate most or all those unfortunate
qualities all at the same time”(Carey in Johnson et al., 2004, p. 2). Acomprehensive
induction program for new teachers becomes critical in hard to staff schools where
teachers need ongoing development in cultural competency, because teachers who are not
prepared or well supported in their work with culturally and economically diverse school
24
children are more likely to become teacher turnover statistics and add to weakened
teaching practices (Johnson et al., 2005, p. 11).Minarik, Thornton, and Perault (2003) and
Kaplan and Owings (2004) reported that administrators will have to hire 200,000 teachers
annually for the next 10 years to meet the educational demands in the United States. In
Texas, Herbert and Ramsey (2004) reported that the number of teachers certified each
year increases, but the attrition rate and teacher shortage continue to grow. We know that
certain kinds of people are more likely to leave their teaching jobs and certain schools are
more likely lose teachers. But do these distinctions matter and, if so, how? Increasingly
researchers, practitioners, and policy makers have focused their attention on retention
(Guarino et al., 2004; Ingersoll, 2001; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; National Commission
on Teaching and America’s Future, 2003). One major reason is that research has
confirmed, with increased methodological rigor, that teacher quality makes a difference
in student learning (Goldhaber & Anthony, 2004; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2002;
Rockoff, 2003; Rowan, Correnti, & Miller, 2002; Sanders& Horn, 1998; Sanders &
Rivers, 1996; Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997).
Understanding why teachers leave is the first step in getting them to stay.
Teachers leave when they encounter environments that lack essential professional support
systems: (a) support from school leadership,) organizational structures and workforce
conditions that convey respect and value for them, and (c) induction and mentoring
programs for new and experienced teachers (Ingersoll, 2001a; Johnson et al., 2001).
Much attention and research have been focused on teacher turnover; however,
there is a need for new research on retention, particularly in urban schools. Research
shows that the national turnover rate for teachers is over 16 percent and as high as 50
25
percent in urban schools (Ingersoll, 2002). In fact, the National Commission on Teaching
and America’s Future challenged the nation to improve teacher retention by 50 percent
by 2006 (NCTAF, 2003). The teachers who leave after their first year are often among
the best and brightest. Several studies have shown a significant correlation between those
who leave and high achievement on examinations such as the SAT (Ingersoll & Smith,
2004).
Cost of Turnover
The organizational cost related to turnover is the reverse of the gains an
organization receives from retaining quality employees. It is estimated that the cost of
replacing an employee varies between 70 percent and 200 percent of the departing
employee’s salary (Kaye & Jordan-Evans, 2001). The time and energy invested in each
new hire results in lost opportunity costs because that time is not available for other
organizational needs. Another factor to consider when employees leave is the inherent
loss of explicit and tactic organizational knowledge (Droege & Hoobler, 2003). Explicit
knowledge, acquired through formal and informal trainings, refers to organizational
policies and procedures and to the content knowledge essential to a position.
Teachers hold 3.8 million jobs in elementary and secondary U.S. public and
private schools, representing approximately 4 percent of the total civilian workforce
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2006).
Over three-quarters of the teachers were females, with 18 percent of the teaching
force newly hired (Strizek, Pittsonberger, Riordan, Lyter, & Orlofsky, 2006).
Furthermore, the Alliance for Excellent Education (2004) estimates that the cost of
recruiting, hiring, and training a new teacher is approximately 30 percent of the departing
26
teacher’s salary. A Texas study of new-teacher attrition conducted in 2000 identified an
annual state budgetary cost of between $329 million and $2.1 billion based on an annual,
statewide 15.5 percent turnover rate on the model selected for calculation (Berry, 2004;
Johnson, Berg, & Donaldson, 2005). As Sparks (2002) stated, “Retaining teachers is one
of the top educational challenges facing our country today” (p. 323).
An enormous rate of turnover was recently up to about 15 percent nationwide
annually and is the major factor driving the need for new teachers, compared to about 10
years earlier when there was only a 3 percent turnover rate. Moreover, a recent policy
brief from the Alliance for Excellent Education (2005) estimated that, nationally, costs of
replacing public-school teachers who drop out of the profession prior to retirement were
$2.2 billion a year (using the U.S. Department of Labor’s figure that attrition costs an
employer 30 percent of the departing employee’s salary). Nationally, approximately 30
percent of new teachers leave within 3 years, and 40 percent to 50 percent leave within 5
to 7 years (Huling-Austin, 1992; Ingersoll, 2002b; Ingersoll & Smith, 2004).
According to the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future
(2003), there are several steps that districts use to calculate the number of leavers,
beginning with first entering the number of teachers who left the school the previous
year. Second, in order to calculate the cost of each teacher who left, one must enter the
estimated cost, which in Texas is $8,400 for urban schools and $3,600 for non-urban
schools. Third, officials analyze the estimate including the costs of recruiting, hiring,
processing, and training a new teacher. Finally, the average estimate is calculated. The
Web site of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future has a calculator,
which calculates all of the costs.
27
Principal Leadership
The relationship between each teacher and her or his principal is unique.
Although one might anticipate that teacher perceptions of principal leadership are
influenced by peers, each teacher has a unique perspective on principal leadership
(Barnett & McCormick, 2004). In fact, Sparks (2002) indicated that teachers, even those
in the most demanding settings, are far more likely to remain in their positions when they
feel supported by administrators, have strong bonds of connection to colleagues, and are
aggressively pursuing a collective vision for student learning about which they feel
passion and commitment. On the other hand, a lack of support from the administration
tends to lead to teachers’ feeling that they do not belong to the learning community,
which is the foundation of a strong school.
A leader’s influence is largely manifest through influencing school conditions and
teachers’ work, which in turn affect school and student outcomes. Positive and supportive
leadership by principals is important to teachers. Leaders also must ensure that teachers
have adequate resources and materials to do their job (Darling-Hammond, 2003; Ingersoll
& Smith, 2003). Furthermore, sufficient common planning time should be built into the
schedules of classroom teachers and specialists so that they can address instructional
needs and classroom concerns (DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003). Research has
indicated that the successful principal is one who can provide guidance, inspiration, and
new vision for contemporary education (Bennis, 2003). Leadership is first and foremost
responsible for the decisions one makes or fails to make (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001; Heifetz
& Linsky, 2002).
Among the attributes associated with trust were the communication of clear
28
expectations to parents and students, a shared vision among faculty, consistent
administrative support for teachers, and processes for group decision making and
problem solving (Hirsch & Emerick, 2007). Effective principals teach, they help, they
encourage, but mostly they serve. They provide the steadiness and stability that teachers,
students, parents, and communities need to function productively in a school environment
(Drago-Severson, 2004).
On the other hand, inadequate administrative support has been reported as a
common point of dissatisfaction among beginning teachers (Certo & Fox, 2002; Colgan,
2004; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Kelly, 2004). Teacher turnover is particularly high among
new teachers who are most dependent upon principal leadership and support. In a recent
study, Hanushek et al. (2004) found that in Texas, the percentage of teachers leaving low-
performing schools (20 percent) is significantly higher than those leaving high-
performing schools (15 percent). If schools are to succeed in retaining teachers, a proper
infrastructure should be in place that allows teachers to focus most of their time and
energy on teaching. With this in mind, school leaders should give new teachers less of a
workload and fewer responsibilities and duties so that they can concentrate on their
classrooms and students (Sargent, 2003).
Beginning Teachers
On the face of it, teacher turnover and shortage may appear relatively benign.
Today’s teaching force is the largest in history, and in recent years over 150,000 new
teachers have graduated from preparation programs annually (National Commission on
Teaching and America’s Future, 2003; National Education Association, 2003). A
growing body of literature on how teachers develop expertise suggests that novice’s
29
progress through a continuum, or various stages, of development (Berliner, 1994, 2004;
Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Berliner, for example,
describes five stages—from novice to expert—that characterize teacher development. His
model focuses on the cognitive processes of teachers (e.g., how they think and describe
their work). In each successive stage of Berliner’s continuum, teachers demonstrate more
effective teaching practices as well as increasingly complex ways of thinking about these
practices. Berliner characterizes the behavior of a novice as “rational, relatively
inflexible, and [tending] to conform to whatever rules and procedures he or she was told
to follow” (p. 206). As novices move through the various stages of development, they
become more adept at reflecting on experiences and using this knowledge to inform their
teaching practices. The expert, or final, stage in Berliner’s developmental continuum is
characterized by teachers who act fluidly and effortlessly.
“The first years of teaching are typically the most challenging for beginning
teachers. Often novice teachers struggle to survive day to day” (Bartell, 2005). “Novice
teachers quickly find that what they learned in the university does not assist them in the
day-to-day realities within the classroom” (Good & Brophy, 2003). “Further, there is
significant research that demonstrates teacher perceptions toward student capabilities
largely determine student performance” (Delpit, 1995; Williams, 2003). “A study in
Texas found that teachers with zero to two years of experience were almost twice as
likely as more experienced teachers (with 11 to 30 years of experience) to exit the Texas
public schools and almost four times as likely to switch school districts” (Hanushek,
2003). “This trend is not necessarily out of character for professional fields as a whole;
researchers disagree on whether attrition rates for new teachers are significantly higher
30
than for recent graduates in other professional fields” (Ingersoll, 2000; Henke & Zahn,
2001). However, as large numbers of the teaching force are now near retirement, more
young and inexperienced teachers will need to be hired to fill these pending vacancies.
Beginning teachers’ successful adjustment to their new roles depends on many
influencing factors (Gagnon, 2004; Thompson, 2004). Studies of beginning teachers from
both traditional and alternative teacher preparation programs show that many new
teachers do not feel adequately prepared to meet the challenges they face when they first
begin teaching in their own classrooms (Berry, 2004; Public Education Network, 2003).
Although novice teachers have received pre-service training, “it can’t possibly prepare
them to do all of the things that teachers need to do at once as they teach” (O’Neill,
2004). Turnover is particularly problematic among novice teachers. A recent study of
nearly 400,000 teachers in the state of Texas found that teachers who chose to change
districts were more likely to take a job where there were fewer minorities, lower poverty
rates, and higher student achievement. On average, teachers tended to transfer to districts
that had 2 percent fewer African American students, 4.4 percent fewer Hispanic students,
6 percent fewer low-income students, and slightly higher average student test scores
(Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2002).
Within their first five years of teaching, about one-third of new teachers leave
their positions (Darling Hammond, 2003). Historically, as many as half of all beginning
teachers leave the profession within the first 5 years of teaching. Currently, 14 percent of
new teachers exit by the end of the first year, 33 percent are gone within 3 years, and
almost 50 percent leave in 5 years (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004a). As schools constitute
organizations that are highly dependent on the coherence, commitment, and continuity of
31
their staff to produce positive student outcomes, a high degree of teacher turnover can be
a serious and cost-intensive problem (Ingersoll, 2001a; NCTAF, 2003).
High turnover rates disrupt children’s education in general, splinter instructional
programs, and undermine professional development processes (Johnson, Kardos,
Kauffman, Liu, & Donaldson, 2004). Research indicates that “teachers with positive
perceptions about their working conditions are much more likely to stay at their current
school than educators who are more negative about their conditions of work, particularly
in the areas of leadership and empowerment” (Hirsch & Emerick, 2007, p. 14).
Attrition
The cost of extreme teacher attrition to public education beyond the expense of
normal operating costs in districts is a waste of taxpayers’ money, and it does not
contribute to the education of Texas children (Shockley, Guglielmino, & Watlinton,
2006). Teacher attrition is vital to improving student achievement. Teacher turnover
affects the sense of school community and weakens the ability of the school to sustain
improvement. (Ingersoll, 2001a; NCTAF, 2003). Teacher attrition continues to be a
costly burden to many school districts. Texas loses between $8,000 and $48,000 for each
beginning teacher who leaves (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003).
Attrition 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). A contributing factor to teacher attrition is the stress experienced by novice
teachers during their induction years into the teaching profession. Imazeki (2005) pointed
out that few studies of teacher attrition differentiate between teacher exit from the
profession and teacher transfer to another school or district. Her results suggested that
32
failing to differentiate teachers who transfer from those who leave the profession
obscures the information on behavior of teachers who transferred.
From a national perspective, 9 percent of U.S. public school teachers are reported
to leave the profession before completing their first year of teaching, and more than 20
percent of new teachers leave their positions within three years (Kaplan & Owings,
2004). Further studies showed that between one-third and one-half of all teachers leave
the profession within the first 5 years (Darling-Hammond, 2003; Ingersoll & Smith,
2003, 2004; Kaplan & Owings, 2004; Minarik et al., 2003).
A majority of teachers are creative and motivated by a number of external factors,
but they become frustrated with the inner workings of the organization’s internal politics
or within specific situations (Mathisen, 2006). When comparing attrition rates of
beginning teachers after the first year of service to the rates of those who did participate
in either an induction or mentoring program, researchers have found lower percentage
rates of attrition for the latter group (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). Turnover is particularly
problematic among novice teachers. As schools constitute organizations that are highly
dependent on the coherence, commitment, and continuity of their staff to produce
positive student outcomes, a high degree of teacher turnover can be a serious and cost-
intensive problem (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; NCTAF, 2003).
Self-Efficacy
“Teacher efficacy has proven to be powerfully related to many meaningful
educational outcomes such as teachers’ persistence, enthusiasm, commitment, and
instructional behavior, as well as student outcomes such as achievement, motivation, and
self-efficacy beliefs” (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001, p. 783). Therefore, teacher
33
efficacy affects the personal effectiveness of the teacher and plays a role in teacher
turnover. Accommodating individual learning styles preferences through complementary
educational, instructional, teaching, and counseling interventions results in increased
academic achievement and improved student attitudes toward learning (Dunn, Griggs,
Olson, Gorman, & Beasley, 1995). In his foundational treatise “Self-Efficacy: The
Exercise of Control,” Bandura (1997) emphasized that personal efficacy is the key factor
in initiation and execution of intentional actions, also known as agency. He illustrated his
theory with the following statements: “If people believe they have no power to produce
results, they will not attempt to make things happen” (p. 3). “Self-belief does not
necessarily ensure success, but self-disbelief assuredly spawns failure” (Bandura, p. 77).
In the development of one’s self-efficacy, Bandura’s research suggested the term
causation denotes the functional dependence between events that occur as one’s
definition of personal efficacy is evolving.
In social cognitive theory, the human agency operates with an interdependent
connection between certain critical factors. In the transactional view of self and society,
internal factors in the form of cognitive, affective, and biological events; behavior; and
environment events all operate as interaction determinants that influence on another bi-
directionally (Bandura, 1997). The concepts of self-esteem and perceived self-efficacy
are used interchangeably as though they represented the same phenomenon. In fact, they
relate to entirely different things. According to Bandura, perceived self-efficacy is
concerned with judgments of personal capability, whereas self-esteem is concerned with
judgments of self-worth. There is no actual fixed relationship between beliefs about one’s
capabilities and whether one likes or dislikes oneself.
34
Perceived self-efficacy regulates human functioning through cognitive processing,
motivational behavior, and one’s mood or affect (Bandura, 1997). Based on social
cognitive theoretical framework, a teacher’s self-efficacy is “the extent to which the
teacher believes he or she has the capacity to affect student performance” or “organize
instruction that motivates student learning” (Bandura, 1996; Brouwers & Tomic, 2003;
Deemer & Minke, 1999; Denzine, Cooney, & McKenzie, 2005; Onafowora, 2004). The
literature shows that teacher efficacy is a potent construct that determines instructional
effectiveness (Deemer & Minke, 1999; Guskfy, 1987). Literature has provided strong
evidence that teacher’s sense of efficacy, which is defined as “teacher’s judgment of his
or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning,
even among those students who maybe difficult or unmotivated” (Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001, p.783),. Bandura (2001) emphasized, in his guide for developing
self-efficacy scales that self-efficacy is a domain and task-specific construct and its items
should reflect this specificity.
Darling-Hammond, Chung, and Frelow (2002) suggested that teachers’ sense of
preparedness and sense of self-efficacy are related to their feelings about teaching and
their plans to stay in the profession. Teacher efficacy has been linked to teachers’
enthusiasm for teaching (Allinder, 1994: Guskey, 1984) and their commitment to
teaching (Coladarci, 1992; Evans & Tribble, 1986). A study conducted by Riggs et al.
(1994) supports evidence that teachers’ sense of efficacy increases when they receive
learning opportunities that provide them with greater skills. .
The relationship between self-efficacy and teacher behavior has been well
established in the research. Clearly, a teacher’s ability to reach students and affect change
35
begins with his or belief that he or she can. As Pajares (1996) stated, “Efficacy beliefs
help determine how much effort people will expend on an activity, how long they will
persevere when confronting obstacles, and how resilient they will prove in the face of
adverse situations—the higher the sense of efficacy, the greater the effort, persistence,
and resilience” (p. 544).
Gender
Gender has also been a focus of a number of research studies in reference to
teacher turnover. In Krieg’s (2006) study of teacher quality and attrition, a large disparity
in turnover rates was found when the results were sorted by the variable of gender.
Krieg’s study found that, contrary to popular perception; high-quality female teachers
were more likely to stay in the profession but that retention among males was not related
to teacher quality. Krieg also found that more females left for family reasons and males
with higher degrees in the technical sciences were more likely to leave (pp. 13-27). If in
fact, more women stay in the field than men, why are the percentages of male and female
turnover rate comparable?
Furthermore, women are more likely than men to enter teaching. Henke, Chen,
Geis, and Knepper (2000), in a longitudinal study of more than 11,000 college graduates
who received degrees between July1992 and June 1993, found that women were more
likely than men to enter the teacher pipeline (i.e., to have taught in a school, to have
become certified to teach, to have applied for a teaching position, or to be considering
teaching).
36
Summary
Previously, Chapter I indicated that there was a problem with teacher retention.
Because teachers leave within their first 3 years of teaching, little or no data have been
collected to find out why. Chapter II has identified the purpose of the study. Many factors
contribute to teacher retention, such as principal leadership, mentoring, and beginning
teachers’ perspectives. Chapter III seeks to address the phenomenon of teacher retention
as it relates to mentoring and self-efficacy. In that chapter, research questions, research
methodology, and designs will be created to prepare for the research study.
37
CHAPTER III
METHOD OF PROCEDURE
The primary purpose of the study was to identify whether teachers’ self-efficacy
level and mentoring experience have a significant impact on those who remain in the
field as opposed to those who leave. This study used descriptive statistics and T-test to
determine if teachers have high or low self-efficacy levels and experiences in mentoring.
In addition, evaluation ratings were grouped by levels of teaching such as elementary,
middle and highs school teachers. Gender was used as a base to determine the difference
between a male and female teacher’s perception of his or her self-efficacy levels or
mentoring experiences. The study addressed the phenomenon of teacher retention as it
relates to mentoring and self-efficacy scores. A teacher was able to participate in the
survey if they were Texas certified in a public school, currently teaching and a first
through fifth year teacher.
Statement of the Problem
Arguments have been made that the current demand for teachers is not a result of
a shortage of teachers but rather due to the high attrition rate of existing teachers,
particularly those who leave education within the first 5 years of their career (Darling-
Hammond & Sykes, 2003). Much attention and research have been focused on teacher
38
turnover; however, there is a need for new research on retention, particularly amongst
first through fifth year teachers. Due to the research and turnover rates, teachers’
perceptions must be fully understood to change the turnover rates.
Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose of the study was to identify whether teachers’ self-efficacy
level and mentoring experience has a significant impact on those who remain in the field
and those who leave. Gender was carefully analyzed to see whether there is a relationship
in how males and females view mentoring and their levels of self-efficacy as they relate
to the school setting. Given the lack of current empirical studies using efficacy, teacher
perspectives, and principals’ perceptions of mentoring programs as predictors of
retention, it was necessary to examine to what extent, if any, teachers’ mentoring
experience, self-efficacy, and gender are factors in teacher retention.
Research Questions
This study will focused on answering the following questions:
1. Is there a significant difference in Texas elementary teachers’ self- efficacy
scores and mentoring scores in relation to gender?
2. Is there a significant difference in Texas middle-school teachers’ self- efficacy
scores and mentoring scores in relation to gender?
3. Is there a significant difference in Texas high-school teachers’ self-efficacy
scores and mentoring scores in relation to gender?
Null Hypotheses
The following hypotheses will be tested:
Ho1- There is no statistically significant difference in self-efficacy scores and mentoring
39
scores between elementary school male and female teachers.
Ho2- There is no statistically significant difference in self-efficacy scores and mentoring
scores between middle-school male and female teachers.
Ho3- There is no statistically significant difference in self-efficacy scores and mentoring
experiences scores between high-school male and female teachers.
Research Site
Due to equal opportunity and factors associated with providing unbiased
information, the research site was online. Participants were allowed to complete the
survey online in the comfort of their home or school. Individuals who participated in the
study currently reside in Texas.
School Characteristics
Due to the research status, 20 Texas schools participated in the research study.
School campuses with enrollments of over 500 pupils were considered high enrollments
schools. Schools with less than 500 pupils were considered low enrollment schools.
Moreover, campuses with more than fifty percent minority enrollment were considered
high minority campuses and those campuses with less than fifty percent minority
enrollment were considered low minority campuses. Two elementary schools had less
than 500 pupils enrolled at the time of the survey. Of the twenty schools selected, 10 of
the schools had over fifty percent minority enrollment.
Research Methodology
Data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS) for Windows software (standard) version 16. Within the study, Descriptive
statistics, T-Test were utilized in the quantitative study. Coefficient alpha (also called
40
Cronbach’s alpha or the reliability coefficient) was used in the scale reliability analysis.
The predictor variables in the study are the following: self-efficacy level scores, and
mentoring perception level scores. In the study, gender will be the criterion variable. The
results from the surveys were reported in tabular form. Responses obtained in the study
were compared not only by years of teaching, but also by gender frequencies. Nominal
categories were created from the survey response. Each response is an indicator of
teacher attitude. In addition, the researcher will group each of the groups by gender to
observe the responses.
Research Design
A quantitative design was used to capture the complex reality of teacher’s
perceptions on mentoring and self-efficacy. The study incorporated Bandura’s Instrument
of Self-Efficacy for Teachers, which measures the self-efficacy level of each teacher in
the study. The second survey entitled, “Induction Mentoring Program for Novice
Teachers,” adopted from Kansas State University, is also utilized in the survey. The study
uses multiple sources of data: surveys, district Websites, the Texas Public Education
Information Management System (PIEMS), and the Texas Academic Excellence
Indicator System (AEIS).
First, each teacher had the opportunity to answer the self-efficacy survey.
Upon completion, each first-year teacher, second-year teacher, and so on was given a
survey entitled the Induction Mentoring Program for Novice Teachers. When completed,
the researcher took the first surveys and grouped each one by gender and teaching level.
Next, the researcher retrieved the second survey and groups each year teacher by gender.
Charts for tallying the prescribed structured responses were created. After all the
41
responses were tallied, tables were constructed with the totals needed to compute simple
percentages and statistical significance for all comparison groups.
Table 1
Summary of Variables found
Independent Variable Dependent
Teacher Self-Efficacy Levels
Gender Mentoring Experiences
Levels in which the teacher teaches
Population and Sample
The participants in the study included elementary, middle, and high school
teachers in Texas with one to five years of teaching experience who are certified in Texas
as of spring 2008. The study includes 20 of 7,870 Texas schools. The Texas Education
Agency provided the names of different schools in Texas .The total sample for the study
was 150 teachers. Using the sample size calculator with a 95 percent confidence level and
a confidence interval of 10 percent, at least 50 teachers will need to respond to represent
the desired population. The researcher’s school was not included in the study.
The anticipated 106 first through fifth year teachers were given an informed
consent letter and asked to participate in the research study by responding to a teacher
survey and a teacher efficacy scale. The investigation was implemented online with the
42
approval of the principal and teacher of each perspective school. Teachers were asked to
rank their perceived general self-efficacy perception scores, as well as their mentoring
experience scores. Teachers were asked to rank other independent item measures relevant
to teacher retention such as job satisfaction in relation to self-efficacy and their
relationship with their mentor, community involvement and create a positive school
climate.
Instrumentation
Two questionnaires were used in the study. The first questionnaire that
was used is entitled, “Bandura’s Instrument Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale, which consists
of 31 items. The survey includes the following headings: Efficacy to Influence Decision
Making, Efficacy to Influence School Resources, Instructional Self-Efficacy,
Disciplinary Self-Efficacy, Efficacy to Enlist Parental Involvement, Efficacy to Enlist
Community Involvement and Efficacy to Create a Positive School Climate.
A second survey designed by the Kansas State University Professional
Development School Project was used in this study. The survey includes 12 statements
regarding the teachers mentoring experiences. Each question centers on the teacher’s
experience with his or her mentor. All teachers were asked to respond to each of the
statements. Permission has been verbally granted to use this model. The multiple-choice
questions was used as a data source to determine the participants perceptions on
leadership, mentorship, professional development, induction programs, and mentorship.
Validity
The author’s bias was addressed by using triangulation, which included the use of
two surveys. The approach supported the validity of the collected quantitative data
43
described by participants of the investigation. The objective was to analyze the
perceptions of each teacher’s experience with mentoring and understand the feelings of
the teachers. Each participant was able to form his or her perception without any
coaching or promoting from the researcher. This study employed different strategies that
may promote validity. The use in the survey of multiple questions creates unbiased
questioning techniques.
Reliability
Joppe (2000) defines reliability as, “The extent to which results are
consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total population under the study
is referred to as reliability and if the results of a study can be reproduced under a similar
methodology, then the research instrument is considered to be reliable” (p. 1). The study
used the Test-Retest Reliability method on each survey to confirm consistency among the
different administrations. The first administration was given in the months of February
and March. The same test was administered in June of 2008 to determine if the test is
reliable and if each respondent answered the same or felt the same way about a particular
issue. In addition Dr. Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Test and the Kansas State University
Mentoring survey have been used in numerous studies and developed by groups of
educational doctors who have researched various topics in relation to self-efficacy or
mentoring
Dr. Bandura
Bandura’s exercise self-efficacy scale: Validation in an Australian cardiac
rehabilitation setting.
A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale by Margaret
44
Chesney, Torsten Neilands, Donald Chambers, Jonelle Taylor and Susan
Folkman.
Bobo Doll experiment
A multi-study investigation of self-efficacy measurement issues by Shane Spiller
and Robert D. Hatfield.
A Production Self-efficacy Scale: An Exploratory Study by Mosley, Don, C, Jr.
Boyar, Scott L, Carson, Charles, M.Pearson, Allison W.
KSU Survey
The survey was conducted and tested by a group of professors from Kansas State
University. The survey is new and have not been utilized in many studies, but was
developed by a team of educational doctors.
Each survey has multiple questions, which reduces bias. Second, individuals who
participated in the study were not familiar with the researcher; therefore, the answers will
be more accurate. Reliability of the survey instruments and the data analysis consisted of
correlation coefficients, which can be determined using tests, questionnaires, and
instruments (Airasian & Gay, 2003, p. 101). Question responses may be interpreted once,
and then the researcher may follow up on the questions. When looking for reliability, the
researcher will test the instrument numerals and then retest. Due to the fact that the
survey utilized in the research is research based, the above means may be unnecessary. In
ensuring reliability, the researcher will conduct field-testing at a local elementary,
middle, and high school in Texas. Data will be taken back to the participant in the study.
Participants will be able to form their own perceptions without any coaching or
prompting from the researcher. Approval was appropriate in allowing the perspective
45
schools to participate in the teacher questionnaire. The researcher followed the necessary
district approval and obtained the IRB approvals prior to the collection of data.
Data Collection and Recording
The teacher retention study was quantitative in design. Copies of Bandura’s Self-
Efficacy Measurement and Kansas State University Mentoring Project were sent to all
certified teachers who had also taught up to five total years. A cover letter consisting of a
description of the study and informed consent information were included. Upon
completing the survey online, the teacher was suggesting that he or she wanted to
participate in the survey. Administrators in each building were contacted by the
researcher and asked to distribute the materials to all participants. All principals had extra
hard copies of the survey for teachers who did not feel comfortable using the internet.
Participants were asked to complete the surveys online within 10 days from the date of
receipt. A follow-up phone call was sent five days after the initial phone call was made.
Primary data collection was administered through survey research of first-
through fifth-year teachers. Responses from each of the participants on self-efficacy and
mentoring perceptions were analyzed. Important data will be extracted, coded, and
categorized according to gender. Both of the surveys were summarized and analyzed. The
statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS statistical analysis program to
compute the results gather from Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Measurement and Kansas State
University Survey. An alpha level of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.
Frequencies and percentages were generated for the variables of age, level teachers
taught and the scores generated from the survey
Analysis of Data
46
Means, standard deviations, and number of responses were calculated for
the total score of Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Measurement and Kansas State University
Survey. A T-test was used to view the relationship between male and female perceptions
concerning mentoring and self-efficacy. The total scores for both instruments were
calculated and analyzed to examine the relationship.
Research questions one through four guided the examination of the
differences in the relationship between Bandura’s instrument and Kansas State University
Instrument, depending on two predictors: gender and teaching assignment grade level.
Descriptive statistics and a T-Test were used where appropriate. Relevant themes and
patterns were identified. The perceptions of each participant were complied into a big
picture explanation of the topic. Analysis and conclusions was based on individual
experiences shared by the participants and experiences and observations of the
researcher.
Table1
Summary of Analysis for Research Questions
Research Question Survey Question Analysis
1-3 1-33 Dr. Bandura
1-12 Kansas State University
Descriptive Statistics
Discriminatory Analysis
T-Test
Summary of Methodology
Research Questions 1 through 3: In order to obtain an average value, all
the data values were added up and divided for each one of the survey questions for Dr.
47
Albert Bandura and the Kansas State University Mentoring Group to obtain the average
for each particular question. Once the average was provided for each question, the
average of each question was then added to the average the other questions and a total
was provided. Once the total was provided, the mean was then divided by the number of
responses and a mean score was provided separately for elementary, middle and high
school males who participated in the survey and all elementary, middle and high females
who participated in the survey. SPSS was utilized to obtain the mean and standard
deviation. The standard deviation was derived from finding the average sets o of
numbers. Next, the average was subtracted from the numbers on the original survey. The
new values from the subtracted numbers are the deviations form the average. All of the
deviations were squared individually. After each value was squared, all the new values
were added together. After adding all the numbers together, the sum was divided by the
amount of numbers on the original list. Upon obtaining the sum that was divided, the
square root was taken, which provided the standard deviation. Chapter III presented
research questions, research methodology, and the research design for the study.
Variables were described in the study. Population and sample selection were also
discussed. Sections describing instrumentation, validity, and reliability were analyzed.
Data collection and components of how the data would be collected were discussed.
Different tests were described in order to allow the researcher to obtain information
relevant to the study. Data collection and result findings in the study will be included in
Chapter IV. Finally, Chapter V presents the summary
48
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA
The purpose of the chapter is to present the analysis of data collected in the study
of factors that prevent or keep teachers in the education field. This section describes
findings as they relate to each research question. Each question will be followed by a
quantitative description of some of the survey questions in relation to the percentage of
respondents. Descriptive information in the form of means and p values is reported
followed by statistically significant findings.
Characteristics of Survey Respondents
A total of 106 surveys were taken on line by Texas public teachers who had
taught for 1 to 5 years. After making phone calls to the superintendent in the districts and
principals, a total of 106 surveys were received for a response rate of 84 percent. The
responses are recorded online and have been used to help compare means among male
and female respondents in each teaching level throughout the chapter. The results were
used to address the research questions and hypotheses developed for the study.
Descriptive data of the participants’ gender and level of teacher are included.
Descriptions of the research site and the population and sample are included in this
chapter. Statistical analysis of each research question is reviewed, and the results of data
49
analyses are presented in tables to illustrate statistical significance. Tables were also used
to delineate correlations between teacher self-efficacy scores and mentoring scores.
Statistical analyses of the hypotheses are also presented.
Research has linked teachers with positive mentoring experiences and high self-
efficacy levels to teacher retention. Information on teacher retention which deals with
perceptions plays a leading role in student achievement. It is important to explore which
teacher characteristics correlated with a teacher’s self-reported perceptions of self-
efficacy as well as mentoring experiences in the Texas school setting. The more positive
a teacher is, the more successful the student will become.
Presentation of Quantitative Data
Upon identifying all first through fifth year teachers in Texas, it was determined
that the elementary teachers participated more in the survey as compared to middle and
high school teachers as indicated in Table 1. It was further determined that more females
participated in the research study overall than male teachers as indicated in Tables 2,3,4,
and 5. Finally, it was determined that further research on gender inequalities in schools
may be appropriate.
Description and Statistical Analysis
Teachers (N=106) in Texas currently employed in Texas public schools in grades
K-12 completed the two surveys. Of those surveyed, 107 completed enough of the survey
for data analysis. Among the 106 participants, 87 were females which equated to 81.1
percent and 19 were males which equated to 16.9 percent. All data collected on the
Kansas State University survey on mentoring and Albert Bandura’s Self-Efficacy survey
were summarized and analyzed using a frequency distribution summary, a profile of
50
means and standard deviations and t-test analysis. The results were used to address the
research questions and hypotheses developed for the study. As illustrated in Table 1, 48
respondents served Texas Elementary students, 29 respondents served Texas Middle
School students and 29 served Texas High School students.
Descriptive data of the participants’ gender and teaching levels are included.
Descriptions of the research site and the population and sample are included in this
chapter. Statistical analysis of each research question is reviewed, and results of data
analyses are presented in tables to illustrate statistical significance. Tables were also used
to delineate correlations between elementary, middle and high school teachers mentoring
experiences and self-efficacy levels. Statistical analyses of the hypotheses are also
presented.
TABLE 2
PERCENTAGE OF TEACHERS AT EACH LEVEL
TEACHING
LEVELS
N=107 %TOTAL
Elementary 45.3
Middle 27.4High 27.4
Table 3
PARTICPANT'S GENDER
Gender NUMBER PERCENT
Female 87 81.1
Male 19 16.9
51
Table 4
PARTICIPANT’S GENDER BY TEACHING LEVEL
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Gender Number Percent
Female 41 85.4
Male 7 7
MIDDLE SCHOOL
Table 5
Gender Number Percent
Female 28 96.9
Male 1 3.4
HIGH SCHOOL
Table 6
GENDER NUMBER PERCENT
Female 18 62.1
Male 11 37.9
52
Participants’ responses were analyzed using the percentage of responses
generated in Table 4. The participants’ responses provided answers and insight into how
teachers feel about their self-efficacy levels. In addition, the top 5 responses were
selected according to the survey in each category and level of teaching. One question
asked, “How much can you influence the decisions that are made in the school? Fifty
seven percent of the elementary male teachers believed that they could have some
influence over the school, which also allows these teachers to feel empowered. On the
other hand, forty-eight female teachers believed that they had some influence over the
decisions that are made in the school.
A second question which had a high percentage was, “How much can you do to
get the instructional materials and equipment you need? Seventy one percent of the males
believed that they had some influence over resources as compared to thirty-four females.
A third question which generated a high percentage rate was, “How much can you do to
keep students on task on difficult assignments?” Fourteen males believed that they could
do quite a bit to keep students on task, as compared to sixty-eight female teachers. A
fourth question which had a high efficacy rate was, “How much can you do to get parents
to become involved in school activities?” Only twenty-eight percent of the male teachers’
believed that they had some influence over parental involvement as compared to sixty-
one female elementary teachers. Finally, the question that generated a high response was
“How much can you do to increase student’s memory of what they have been taught in
previous lessons?” Seventy-one percent of the males believe that they have quite a bit of
influence on increasing student’s memory, while sixty-eight of the female teachers
53
believe that they can do quite a bit in increasing a student’s memory.
In the self-efficacy survey, there were questions that yielded low levels of self-
efficacy levels. The first question was “How much can you help other teachers with their
teaching skills?” Twenty eight of the males believed that they would be of little help,
while twelve females believed that they could assist very little. Secondly, when teachers
were asked, “How much can you do to enhance collaboration between teachers and the
administration to make the school run effectively, fifty-seven of the males believed that
they could do very little to enhance the collaboration between teachers and
administrators, while twenty-two of the teachers believed that they could do very little to
allow the school to run effectively. Another question that was asked in the survey was,
“How much can you do to reduce school drop out?” Of the elementary males surveyed on
the question of school drop out, forty two percent believed that they would be of little
help, with reducing the levels while twenty two of the females believed that they would
be of little help. When teachers were asked, “How much can you do to get business
involved with working in the school, forty-two males believed that they could do very
little to get these businesses involved, while 29.3 percent of females believed that they
could do very little to get businesses involved. The final question which generated a
sense of low-self-efficacy was the question of, “How much can you do to reduce school
absenteeism?” Fifty-one percent of the males indicated that they could do very little to
reduce school absenteeism, while thirty one percent of the females indicated that they
could do very little.
Quantitative Data
Question number one for elementary males was based on different decisions
54
which are made in school. Decisions relating to instructional strategies, student
discipline, new programs, community involvement and how to assist students were a
factor in the number of teachers who believed they had some influence. The continuum
for the response of answers for the male teacher was considered very low or in the
middle. Forty two percent of the male teachers believed that they had very little influence
on making decisions, while fifty seven percent of the male teachers believed that they had
some influence. When comparing the male teachers to the female teacher’s response, the
female teachers had a slight lower rate in believing that they could make decisions
concerning the school. Twenty nine percent of the female teachers believed they had very
little influence on making decisions in the school, while forty eight percent of the female
teachers believed that they had some influence. Within the group, a small percentage of
the females believed that they could do quite a bit when decisions were made in the
school. While analyzing this question, several factors must be considered such as each
teacher’s personality and the relationship in which the teacher had formed with the
principal.
Third Research Question
The analysis of the difference between a middle school’s teacher's self-efficacy
scores and mentoring scores in relation to gender was charted using descriptive statistics.
The problem was stated in the null form for analysis. The null hypothesis was expressed
as follows: There is not a significant difference between genders when observing self-
efficacy scores and mentoring scores according to gender.
The data regarding a teacher's self-efficacy level and mentoring score were
collected by means of a Liker scale. The respondents' scores of expectation could range
55
from a low of 0 to a high of 100.00. The mean and standard deviation for the data of the
average teacher satisfaction score for self-efficacy and mentoring were calculated. These
gains were obtained from teacher who has taught 1-5 years. A t-test was calculated for
the self-efficacy score and mentoring score to determine if the means of the two samples
were or at least significantly, different. The p has to be less than.005, which indicates that
there were not significant differences in the teachers’ scores according to gender as
indicated in Table 8. There is a linear relationship between an elementary male and
female’s perceptions of their self-efficacy levels and mentoring experiences. Therefore,
the null hypothesis suggest that there is no significant difference between a male and
female's self efficacy scores and mentoring scores in relation to teacher retention is not
rejected. The mean for males and females were calculated and significant figures were
tested.
Second Research Question Analysis
The analysis of determine the relationship between a male and female middle
school teacher's self-efficacy scores and mentoring scores in relation to teacher retention.
The problem was expressed in the null form for analysis. The null hypothesis was stated
as follows: There is no relationship between a male and female middle school teacher's
attitude concerning self-efficacy levels and mentoring experiences.
As illustrated in Table 9, the mean and standard deviation for the data of the
average teacher satisfaction score for self-efficacy and mentoring were calculated. These
gains were obtained from teachers who have taught 1-5 years. A t-test was calculated for
the self-efficacy score and mentoring score to determine if the means of the two samples
were or at least significantly, different. The p value for the calculation was set at p<.005,
56
which indicates that there were not significant differences in the teacher’s scores
according to gender. The t-test performed on the means of the self-efficacy scores and
mentoring scores did not have a significant relationship amongst male and females. The
null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between a male and female's self
efficacy scores and mentoring scores in relation to teacher retention is not rejected. .
Third Research Question Analysis
The analysis to determine the relationship between a male and female high
school teacher's self-efficacy scores and mentoring scores in relation to teacher retention
was completed through descriptive statistics and the t-test. The problem was expressed in
the null form for analysis. The null hypothesis was stated as follows: There is no
relationship between a male and female middle school teacher's attitude concerning self-
efficacy Levels and mentoring experiences. The mean and standard deviation for the data
of the average teacher satisfaction score for self-efficacy and mentoring were calculated.
These gains were obtained from teachers who have taught 1-5 years. A t-test was
calculated for the self-efficacy score and mentoring score to determine if the means of the
two samples were or at least significantly, different. The p value for the calculation was
set at p<.005 which indicates that there were not significant differences in the teacher’s
scores according to gender as indicated in Table 10. The t-test performed on the means of
the self-efficacy scores and mentoring scores did not have a significant difference
between the two variables, indicating that there is a linear relationship between middle
school male and female teacher's perceptions of their self-efficacy levels and mentoring
experiences. Therefore, the null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference
between a male and female's self -efficacy scores and mentoring scores in relation to
57
teacher retention was not rejected.
This chapter presented the results centered on four research questions. Descriptive
and survey data provided information helpful in determining the degree of the
relationship between teacher self-efficacy levels and mentoring levels. Additional
inferential statistics provided insight to gauge the degree of differences in the relationship
between teacher efficacy levels and mentoring experiences in relation to gender. Chapter
5 presents an overview of the study and a summary of findings. Conclusions and
recommendations for future studies are also discussed in Chapter 5.
Summary
This chapter presented the results centered on four research questions. Descriptive
and T-Test Analysis and survey data provided information helpful in determining the
degree of the relationship between self-efficacy scores and mentoring scores in relation to
gender. Additional inferential statistics provided insight to gauge the degree of
differences in the relationship between teacher evaluation practices and teacher job
satisfaction dependent on three predictors. Chapter 5 presents an overview of the study
and a summary of findings. Conclusions and recommendations for future studies are also
discussed in Chapter 5.
58
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
The teacher retention problem has been an ongoing process for many
years. In order to fix the teacher retention problem, researchers and educators must began
to plan support programs for new teachers. According to Ingersoll, “This nation is facing
a teacher turnover rate of over 16.5 percent and as high as 50 percent in hard to fill urban
schools” (2001).
The data that identified the factors that influence a teacher’s decision to remain in
education or leave was performed using two surveys. Several themes emerged from the
analysis. The data analysis taken from the research answered all three research questions.
The first research question that was answered was: Is there a significant difference
in Texas elementary teachers’ self-efficacy scores and mentoring scores in relation to
gender? The data analysis revealed that first through fifth year teachers attributed the
following percentages for self-efficacy and mentoring experiences while serving in the
Texas public schools:
59
Self-Efficacy (Female)
48 percent of Texas female teachers surveyed believed they can influence
decisions in school quite a bit.
56 percent of Texas female teaches surveyed believed they can do nothing
about class size.
39 percent of the Texas female teachers surveyed believed they could do
quite a bit to get through to difficult students.
48 percent of the Texas female teachers surveyed believed that they could
do quite a bit motivate students.
43 percent of the Texas female teachers surveyed believed that they had
some influence in getting community groups to work with the schools.
39 percent of the Texas female teachers surveyed believed they could do
quite a bit to make the school a safe place.
31 percent of the Texas female teachers surveyed believed they can do
quite a bit to help other teachers teach.
29 percent of Texas female teachers surveyed believed they can do quite a
bit to reduce the dropout rate.
56 percent of the Texas female teachers surveyed believed they can do
quite a bit to get students to do well in school .
60
Self-Efficacy (Males)
42 percent of the Texas male teachers surveyed believed they can do
very little to influence the decisions made in the school.
85 percent of Texas male teachers surveyed believed they can do
nothing to influence the class sizes in the school.
14.3 percent of the male teachers surveyed believed they can do quite
a bit to get through to the most difficult students.
14 percent of the male teachers surveyed believed they can do quite a
bit to motive students.
28 percent of Texas male teachers surveyed believed they have some
influence in getting community groups involved in the school.
14 percent of the Texas male teachers surveyed believed they can do
quite a bit to make the school a safe place.
14 percent of Texas male teachers surveyed believed they can do quite
a bit to help other teachers with their teaching skills.
14 percent of the Texas male teachers surveyed believed they can do
quite a bit to reduce the dropout rate.
28 percent of Texas male teachers surveyed believed they can do quite
a bit to gets to do well in school.
61
Elementary Males/Females Self-Efficacy Results
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Efficacy 1 7 91.4286 15.74650 5.95162
2 41 102.2927 12.70481 1.98416
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
F Sig. t df
Efficacy Equal variances assumed .629 .432 -2.021 46
Equal variances not assumed
-1.732 7.394
Mentor Equal variances assumed .440 .510 -.318 46
Equal variances not assumed
-.343 8.734
A total of 106 Texas teachers participated in the study. There were 47 elementary
female teachers and 7 elementary male teachers who participated in the elementary
section of the survey. The mean for elementary male teachers was 91.4 and the mean for
female elementary teachers was 102.2. The significant value for males was is Due to the
interpretation that the p<.05, so there is not a statistically significant difference in female
and male self-efficacy scores in relation to gender and the hypothesis 1 is rejected.
KSU Mentoring Survey Results
Mentor 1 7 38.4286 10.69045 4.04061
2 41 39.9512 11.87003 1.85379
62
Mentoring Survey (Elementary Female)
41 percent of the Texas elementary female teachers surveyed believe that having a
mentor was a positive experience.
24 percent of the Texas elementary female teachers surveyed believe they meet
regularly with their mentor.
24 percent of the Texas elementary female teachers surveyed believe the mentor
apply best practices most of the time.
41 percent of the Texas elementary female teachers believe the principal
understand the process of mentoring.
Mentoring Survey (Elementary Male)
28 percent of elementary Texas male teachers believe that having a mentor
was a positive experience.
14 percent of elementary Texas male teachers believe that they meet with the
mentor sometimes.
42 percent of elementary Texas male teachers believe that the mentor always
apply the best practices.
14 percent of elementary Texas male teachers believe the principal really
understand the mentoring process.
The mean of the Kansas State University Mentoring Survey for males was 20.015
and the mean for females was 19.752. There were 47 elementary female teachers and 7
elementary male teachers who participated in the survey. The mean difference of the
male and female scores are 0.263, which is make p<.05, so there is not a statistically
63
significant difference between elementary male and female mentoring scores.
The second research question was: Is there a significant difference in Texas
elementary teachers’ self-efficacy scores and mentoring scores in relation to gender? This
study reveals that middle school teachers and elementary teachers have some view points
that are similar and some that are quite different. The self-efficacy scores for middle
school female Texas teachers consisted of certain answers such as these:
Self-Efficacy (Females)
17 percent of the Texas middle school female teachers surveyed believe they can
do quite a bit to influence decisions made at the school.
42 percent of Texas middle school female teachers surveyed believe they can do
nothing when it comes to a teacher’s class size.
32 percent of Texas middle school female teachers surveyed believe they can do
quite a bit to get through to difficult students.
21 percent of Texas middle school female teachers surveyed believe they can do
quite a bit to motivate students.
60 percent of Texas middle school female teachers surveyed believe they have
some influence in getting the community involved.
60 percent of Texas middle school female teachers surveyed believe they can do
quite a bit to make the school a safe place.
35 percent of Texas middle school female teachers believe they can do quite a bit
to help teach other teachers.
28 percent of Texas middle school female teachers surveyed believe they can do
quite a bit to reduce the dropout rate.
64
50 percent of Texas middle school female teachers surveyed believe they can do
quite a bit to get students to do well in school.
Self-Efficacy (Males)
The one Texas middle school male surveyed believe he has some
influence over the decisions made in school.
The one Texas middle school male surveyed believe he has very little
control over the class size in school.
The one Texas middle school male surveyed believe he has some
influence over trying to help the difficult student in school.
The one Texas middle school male surveyed believe he has some
influence over motivating the students in the classroom.
The one Texas middle school male surveyed believe he has very little
control in getting the community involved in the school.
The one Texas middle school male surveyed believe he could do many
things to keep the school safe.
The one Texas middle school male surveyed believe he has some
influence over helping the teachers with teaching skills.
The one Texas middle school male surveyed believe he has some
influence over reducing the dropout rate.
The one Texas middle school male surveyed believe he could do quite
a bit to get students to do well in school.
Middle School Males/Females Self-Efficacy Results
65
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Efficacy 1 1 99.0000 . .
2 28 98.5357 12.47659 2.35785
Mentoring 1 1 43.0000 . .
2 28 35.5000 12.20049 2.30568
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Efficacy Equal variances assumed . . .037 27 .971
Equal variances not assumed
. .
Mentoring Equal variances assumed . . .604 27 .551
Equal variances not assumed
. .
66
The mean for Texas middle school male teachers is 20.000 and the mean for
Texas middle school female teachers is 20.001. There were 28 female middle school
Texas teachers who participated in the study and one male teacher. The mean difference
of the male and female scores is .008, which makes p<.05, so there is no statistically
significant difference between middle school male and female scores which means that
HO2 is accepted.
Middle School Male/Female KSU Results
Mentoring Survey (Middle Male)
The one middle school Texas male teacher who participated in the middle
school survey believe that having a mentor was a positive experience.
The one middle school Texas male teacher who participated in the middle
school survey believe that most of the time he and his mentor have an
opportunity to meet.
The one middle school Texas male teacher who participated in the middle
school survey believe that the mentor apply best practices sometime.
The one middle school Texas male teacher who participated in the middle
school survey believe that the principal understand the mentoring process.
Mentoring Survey (Middle Female)
17 percent of the middle school Texas female teachers who participated in the
middle school survey believe that having a mentor was a very positive
experience.
17 percent of the middle school Texas female teachers who participated in the
middle school survey believe that they meet regularly most of the time.
67
10 percent of the middle school Texas female teachers who participated in the
middle school survey believe that their mentor apply the best practices most of
the time.
32 percent of the middle school Texas female teacher who participated in the
middle school survey believe that the principal fully understand the mentoring
process.
The mean of the Kansas State University survey for males is 20.000 and the mean
for the female participants is 20.0002 The difference between the two means is .098,
which makes p<.05, therefore, there is not a statistically significant difference between
the male and female mentoring scores in the middles school level.
The third research question was: Is there a significant difference in Texas high-
school teachers’ self-efficacy scores and mentoring scores in relation to gender? This
study revealed that Texas high school teachers self-efficacy levels are similar and
different when compared to elementary and middle school teachers. High school
teachers’ self-efficacy levels are important especially in the area of keeping students
motivated to learn.
Self-Efficacy (High Female)
11 percent of Texas female high school teachers surveyed believe they can
influence decisions that are made in the school.
72 percent of Texas female high school teachers surveyed believe they can do
nothing about the class sizes.
68
33 percent of the Texas female high school teachers surveyed believe they can do
quite a bit to get through to the most difficult students.
27 percent of the Texas female high school teachers believe they can do quite a
bit to get students motivated to do their work.
44 percent of the Texas female high school teachers surveyed believe they had
some influence over getting the community groups involved.
33 percent of the Texas female high school teachers surveyed believe they can do
quite a bit to make schools a safe place.
22 percent of the Texas female high school teachers surveyed believe they can
help other teachers teach.
16 percent of the Texas female high school teachers surveyed believe they can do
quite a bit to help reduce the dropout rate.
55 percent of the Texas female high school teachers believe they can do quite a
bit to help students do well in school.
Self-Efficacy (High Males)
63 percent of the Texas high school male teachers surveyed believe
they can do very little to influence the decisions that are made in the
school.
36 percent of the Texas high school male teachers surveyed believe
they can do quite a bit to get through to the most difficult students.
18 percent of Texas high school male teachers surveyed believe they
can do quite a bit to get students motivated.
69
36 percent of Texas high school male teachers surveyed believe they
have some influence over getting community groups involved in
working with the schools.
63 percent of Texas high school male teachers surveyed believe they
can do quite a bit to make the school a safe place.
27 percent of Texas high school male teachers surveyed believe they
can do quite a bit to help other teachers with their teaching skills.
63 percent of Texas high school male teachers surveyed believe they
can do very little to reduce school dropout.
36 percent of Texas high school male teachers surveyed believe they
can do quite a bit to get students to do well in school.
High School Males/Females Self-Efficacy Results
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Efficacy 1 11 93.8182 8.28032 2.49661
2 18 87.2778 20.25370 4.77384
Mentoring 1 11 36.4545 8.43046 2.54188
2 18 32.7222 13.19004 3.10892
70
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Efficacy Equal variances assumed 5.794 .023 1.015 27 .319
Equal variances not assumed
1.214 24.460 .236
Mentoring Equal variances assumed 3.663 .066 .837 27 .410
Equal variances not assumed
.929 26.894 .361
The mean for the Texas high school male teachers was 20.005 and the female
mean was 20.004. There were 11 Texas high school male teachers who participated in the
high school study and 18 Texas high school female teachers who participated. The
difference in the mean was .001, which makes p<.05, so therefore; there is no significant
difference in the male and female self-efficacy score and H03 is rejected.
High School Male/Female KSU Results
Mentoring Survey (High Male)
45 percent of the Texas male high school teachers surveyed believe that
for the most part having a mentor was a positive experience.
54 percent of Texas male high school teachers surveyed believe that they
meet regularly sometimes.
18 percent of the Texas male high school teachers surveyed believe that
the mentor applies best practices most of the time.
71
9 percent of the Texas male high school teachers surveyed believe the
building administrator fully understand the mentoring process.
Mentoring Survey (High Females)
38 percent of the Texas female high school female teachers surveyed believe that
having a mentor was a positive experience.
16 percent of the Texas female high school female teachers surveyed believe that
they meet on a consistent basis.
27 percent of the Texas high school female teachers believe the mentor apply the
best practices most of the time.
11 percent of the Texas high school female teachers surveyed believe that the
principal fully understand the process of mentoring.
HIGH SCHOOL KSU FEMALE/MALE
The mean of the mentoring survey for Texas high school male teachers was
20.012 and the mean for Texas high school female teachers was 20.005. There was a total
of 18 high school female teachers who participated in the study and 11 high school
female teachers who participated in the study. The mean difference for male and female
teachers in Texas is .007, which makes p<.05, which accepts HO3.
The primary purpose of the study was to identify whether teachers’ self-efficacy
level and mentoring experience have a significant impact on those who remain in the
field as opposed to those who leave. The major factors that the dissertation reviewed
were:
A. Self-efficacy scores of first through fifth year teachers
B. Mentoring scores of first through fifth year teachers
72
This study began with the participants’ perceptions toward each of the
surveys administered. All of the participants had different perceptions of their
abilities and the mentoring experiences that they had in school. The majority of
the stories had common themes, which suggest that teachers need to have a voice
in decisions affecting the classroom and that mentors and teachers need time to
meet. In general, the teachers who participated in the survey appear to be satisfied
with their abilities and mentoring experiences in the past and present because
most believe that they do have a voice. All of the teachers did not feel that they
had voice in selection of pupils and aspects dealing with classroom structure and
others believed that their mentoring relationships could be stronger if the principal
understood the process and if their was consistent communication. It is very clear
that the communication skills of the administration and others on campus are vital
in keeping these teachers confidence levels up and having exceptional mentors
who can lead in an urban or suburban school.
Recruitment and Retention
Recruitment and retention in Texas is a big issue. Depending on the ways in
which teachers are recruited, it is evident if the teacher will remain or leave the district. In
several schools in Texas, there are job fairs in which candidates are able to attend and
submit resumes. Many times, due to the need of teachers, many teachers are hired at the
site and no further research or investigation is conducted. In order to thoroughly ensure
that the teacher is the right personality for the job, three initiatives should take place.
In order to determine if the teacher is the right fit, administrators must conduct
research. In researching the applicant, one must first review the applicant’s attendance
73
record with permission. In doing so, the administrator will know if this applicant is
committed to the task or get burned out easily. In addition to reviewing the attendance
record, it would also be wise to check the amount of discipline referrals to the office this
teacher has had for the semester or year. If administrators check discipline referrals, this
will provide the administrator with information containing classroom management, which
is pertinent to learning. Finally, if all of the attendance and discipline is alright, go
through the process of interviewing the applicant and also try to see the teacher in action
to see what type of creative learning strategies the teacher have for students.
Second, look for potential teachers who already serve in the district. When
administrators hire those already in the district, the district save money on training and
other areas which can be utilized for instruction. By selecting someone in your district,
the administrator will be able to receive accurate information concerning the skills of the
teacher, as well as seek outside references that the teacher has provided. Finally, the
teacher will know and understand how to serve the students and this may prevent
instructional disruptions and assist in the learning process on campus.
Conclusions
The following are conclusions derived from the current study:
The results of this study concurred with current research findings on the beliefs of
teachers regarding self-efficacy levels and mentoring experiences.
Teachers believed that they have a voice in certain situations in school decision
making, but feel that more needs to be done with the mentoring programs such as
communication, planning time and most of all, the mentor applying best practices.
74
Although principals make mentoring programs a priority on campus, many
teachers believe that principals have some basic understanding of the mentoring
program, but do not fully understand the program in order to implement it
properly.
Teachers do not feel empowered to speak up concerning class sizes. Later in the
recommendations, there will be research on the learning process and how
different personalities have an impact on how the student learns in the classroom.
Urban schools are in trouble due to the constant flow of teachers leaving. It is
important that principals understand the mentoring process to support teachers in
challenging schools.
Principals and teachers rely on their own back ground experiences for making
decisions regarding classroom structure and the delivery of curriculum in the
classroom.
Elementary, middle and high school teachers possess differences in beliefs and
knowledge based on experience, however; there is not a significant difference in
how the teachers in each grade level feel.
Recommendations
As suggested earlier in the research, the state of Texas allowing many initiatives to
take place in order to help education. An example of some of the initiatives for education
is the newly elected President. Barak Obama who proposed some billion dollars in funds
for Texas public schools, the highly qualified teacher clause which was set in place and
alternative certification. All of the initiatives that are set in place provide resources for
75
the students and the teachers. Some of the recommendations to assist principals with the
teacher turnover rate are as follows:
Extensive research should be administered on teaching behaviors which correlates
with self efficacy. Gardner, Simpson, Craftwood and other researchers should be
studied to identify different behaviors and cycles that a teacher goes through when
building confidence and being able to determine if a mentoring program is set in
place correctly.
Teachers should be trained in how to effectively apply Bloom’s Taxonomy when
teaching a lesson to motivate students. Many times, students become bored with
the same curriculum piece and some teachers may feel that they cannot motivate
the students to want to learn, so therefore; if the teacher is able to bring the
students to the application level, then the students can be engaged in the lesson.
Administrators should get teachers involved in the Tribes training, which is a
training that fosters professional growth through communication and building
relationships through innovation and team work. This training is a 21 hour course
and the district can pay for the training. As a participant, the teacher can earn so
many incentive hours for extra pay.
The district personnel should develop cultural professional development classes
which relates to understanding students of different backgrounds. The cultural
professional development class consists of the participant’s coming up with ways
to celebrate differences in relation to cultural makeup.
76
Administrators should empower teachers to become to research the best practices
for students. In addition, the administrator should have resources available for
teachers to grow professionally.
District officials must have training in recruitment and retention. Three main
focuses must be known in the process:
1. A support system in which the teacher have several outlets to turn to for
assistance.
2. A knowledgeable administrator who understands how to effectively run a
mentoring program to assist in teacher growth and development.
3. A teacher must have a flexible mind and heart in order to ensure that each
decision is right for the student.
In dealing with teachers and schools being culturally responsive, the conceptual map
in multicultural research and teaching proposed by Bennett (2001, 175), includes four
genre clusters: curriculum, reform, equity pedagogy, multicultural competence and social
equity. “Research suggests that when teachers have had the benefit of multicultural
teacher education preparation, they are less likely to embrace cultural deficit views
(Irvine, 2003). Ladson-Billings (1992) explains that culturally responsive teachers
develop intellectual, social emotional, and political learning by “using cultural referents
to impart knowledge, skills and attitudes” (p.382). Hollins, (1996) adds that education
designed specifically for students of color incorporates “culturally mediated cognition,
culturally appropriate social situations for learning, culturally valued knowledge in
curriculum content” (p. 13).
Recommendations for further Studies
77
Effective teaching is necessary in building the foundation of a productive school.
Districts in Texas have adopted many procedures such as alternative certification and
highly qualified teachers and other initiatives to improve the Texas schools. The
following recommendations are based on the research and what is needed in Texas public
schools:
“The research on urban schools suggests that the turnover rate for teachers is over
16 percent and as high as 50 percent in urban schools” (Ingersoll, 2003). A study
should be conducted to evaluate the perceptions of teachers in urban school
settings. In order to effectively understand the implications of confidence, voice
and support, a study must be conducted in the urban settings.
A qualitative study should follow this quantitative study to see if teachers have
some recommendations as to how administrators can effectively help build
support bases which build confidence levels. In addition, the teachers’ voice
should be heard on what they need in a mentoring program.
A program evaluation study should be administered to see if the mentoring
programs in Texas are effectively run and what recommendations the researcher
find that will be helpful in promoting a successful program on the school campus.
A research study should be performed on the Affective Taxonomy (which was
developed under the leadership of David Krathwohl), the Psychomotor
Taxonomy, (which was tailored to the cognitive frame of reference and developed
under the leadership of Elizabeth Simpson) and the Psychomoter Taxonomy,
(which was tailored to the affective frame of reference and developed under the
leadership of Anita Harrow. In reviewing this research, it is important to see how
78
the each of the taxonomies affect behavior and relates to how teachers view their
abilities and experiences in school.
Findings
Overall findings of this study offer many implications for professional educational
practice. Based on specific findings, the following conclusions were warranted:
1. Components of self-efficacy levels and mentoring experiences varied according to
each individual teacher. The study addressed Self –Efficacy survey, consisting of 30
items, Self-efficacy Survey (SES) subscale Decision making, consisting of 2 items, (SES)
subscale of School Resources, consisting of 1 item, (SES) subscale of Instructional Self-
Efficacy, consisting of 9 items, (SES) subscale, Disciplinary Self-Efficacy, consisting of
3 items, (SES) subscale of Parental Involvement, consisting of 3 items, (SES) subscale of
Community Involvement, consisting of 4 items, (SES) subscale of Positive School
Climate, consisting of 8 items. Each item has a scale of one through five and the range is
indicated for each instrument and subscale.
2. Gender was not a factor in the difference of scores between a teacher’s self-efficacy
scores and mentoring scores. The largest proportion (45.3 percent) of the participants
taught on the elementary level.
3. Teaching assignment grade level was not a factor in the differences between self-
efficacy levels and mentoring experiences as it relates to gender.
Contributions to the Literature
“Evidence shows that large school districts experience less turnover than small
districts, and wealthier and rural districts have less turnover than poorer and urban
districts. There is evidence that middle schools experience more turnover than other
79
schools, reportedly due to more discipline problems (Guarino et al., 2006). Retention of
teachers generally is higher in public schools than in private schools, albeit there are
many exceptions to this generalization” (Guarino et al., 2006).
The data from this study indicated that the self-efficacy scores and mentoring
scores in relation to gender did not statistically have an effect on a teacher’s perceptions.
School principals and districts can use the results from this study to promote positive
dialogue with teachers and other district personnel. The manner in which an administrator
perceives the significance of the scores by all teacher’s determine if one can find the right
key that will fit in the door of teacher dedication. Teachers can accurately reflect and
personally critique their professional teaching skills when they are aware of research and
best practices. A principal who conveys the importance of teacher perceptions establishes
a collaborative working relationship and environment.
We have more then enough teachers with degrees and certifications. What we
don’t have is the academic preparation of teachers. Only a minority, 39 percent, have a
bachelors or graduate degree in any content area. The majority of teachers today have a
degree in education and even their masters may be in pedagogy. There is a mismatch
between teachers’ academic preparation and the increasingly rigorous demands of the
classroom (Ravitch, 2003, p.1).Teacher preparation needs to address attributes of high
levels of self-efficacy and mentoring so that teacher candidates are aware of the
importance of effective teaching. Feiman-Nemser (2003) explains that beginning
teacher’s stories typically reflect themes of reality shock, lonely struggles to survive, and
the loss of idealism. Teachers who are in colleges need to be placed in a traditional
school where there are behavioral problems. Many times internship teachers are placed in
80
schools where there are little or no discipline issues, which cause a problem when hiring
time approaches. As research suggest, the most need for teachers is in the challenging
schools.
Summary
Recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers has become a focus for school
district administrators since the codification of the No Child Left Behind Act (2002). As
a federal mandate, schools must place highly qualified teachers in the classroom. With
the increase of teacher retention, and the expense of recruitment, it is imperative that
districts determine what leads to positive mentoring experiences and self-efficacy levels
in teachers. This study enhances the knowledge base that addresses the question of how
to keep teachers satisfied with the profession and keep them from leaving. By giving
administrators access to information such as this research study, teachers will have a
spoken voice and mentoring programs and self-efficacy standards may be enhanced. to
81
APPENDIX A
Letter of Permission from the Kansas Professional Group
You have our permission to use the survey, as long as you credit it to the
"Kansas State University Professional Development School Project." Good
luck with your research.
Andrew G. Bennett Voice: (785) 532-0562
Dept. of Mathematics Fax: (785) 532-0546
Kansas State University Email: [email protected]
Manhattan, KS 66506 Web: www.math.ksu.edu/~bennet
82
APPENDIX B
Letter of Permission from Dr. Albert Bandura
Alfreda,
Feel free to use the teacher efficacy scale.
Thanks,
Dr. Bandura
Albert BanduraDavid Starr Jordan Professor of Social Science in PsychologyJordan Hall, Bldg 420Stanford UniversityStanford, California 94305-2130650/[email protected]
83
APPENDIX C
BANDURA’S INSTRUMENTTEACHER SELF-EFFICACY SCALE
This questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better understanding of the kinds of things that create difficulties for teachers in their school activities. Please indicate your opinions about each of the statements below by circling the appropriate number. Your answers will be kept strictly confidential and will not be identified by name.
Efficacy to Influence Decision making
1. How much can you influence the decisions that are made in the school?1. Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
2. How much can you express your views freely on important school matters?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
Efficacy to Influence School Resources
3. How much can you do to get the instructional materials and equipment you need?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
Instructional Self-Efficacy
4. How much can you do to influence the class sizes in your school?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
84
5. How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
6. How much can you do to promote learning when there is lack of support from the home?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
7. How much can you do to keep students on task on difficult assignments?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
8. How much can you do to increase students’ memory of what they have been taught in previous lessons?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
9. How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal10.How much can you do to get students to work together?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
11.How much can you do to overcome the influence of adverse community conditions on students’learning?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
12.How much can you do to get children to do their homework?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
Disciplinary Self-Efficacy
13.How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
14.How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
15.How much can you do to prevent problem behavior on the school grounds?
85
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
Efficacy to Enlist Parental Involvement
16.How much can you do to get parents to become involved in school activities?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
17.How much can you assist parents in helping their children do well in school?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
18.How much can you do to make parents feel comfortable coming to school?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great DealEfficacy to Enlist Community Involvement
19.How much can you do to get community groups in
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
20.How much can you do to get churches involved in working with the school?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal21.How much can you do to get businesses involved in working with the school?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
22.How much can you do to get local colleges and universities involved in working with the school?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
Efficacy to Create a Positive School Climate
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
23.How much can you do to make the school a safe place?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
24.How much can you do to make students enjoy coming to school?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
25.How much can you do to get students to trust teachers?
86
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
26.How much can you help other teachers with their teaching skills?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
27. How much can you do to enhance collaboration between teachers and the administration to make the school run effectively?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
28.How much can you do to reduce school dropout?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
29.How much can you do to reduce school absenteeism?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
30.How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork?
1.Nothing .2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
87
APPENDIX D
Mentoring SurveyNew Teachers
Please record the degree of your agreement to each of the following statementsby circling one number on the scale below allowing 1 to represent total disagreement and 5 to represent complete agreement.
1.Having a mentor was a positive experience for me.
1 2 3 4 5
2. I have grown professionally as I interacted with my mentorand completed the recommended activities.
1 2 3 4 5
3. I met regularly and frequently with my mentor as wecompleted formal activities as well as informally discussing myconcerns.
1 2 3 4 5
4. I have observed my mentor applying best practices as amodel for my instruction.
1 2 3 4 5
5. I received the assistance and support I needed to become aneffective teacher and part of the instructional team.
88
1 2 3 4 5
6. I had many questions that were not answered as Iparticipated in mentoring activities this year.
1 2 3 4 5
7. Adequate time was provided to complete suggestedmentoring activities and effectively address the problems weencountered this year.
1 2 3 4 5
8. The evaluating administrator respected the confidentiality ofthe mentoring relationship.
1 2 3 4 5
9. My building administrator encouraged collaboration toprovide adequate time for mentoring activities.
1 2 3 4 5
10. Support for mentoring is shown at the district level inmultiple ways.
1 2 3 4 5
11. Training and support has been provided to enable me toapply the practices that will assure all my students aresuccessful.
1 2 3 4 5
12. My building administrator and district administratorscompletely understand and support the induction/mentoringprocess.
1 2 3 4 5
89
APPENDIX E
Cover Letter to Teachers
Alfreda LoveWaco, Texas
I have been asked to participate in a research study concerning teacher retention. The purpose of the study is to obtain information concerning my views of self-efficacy and mentoring as it relates to my personal experiences. I also understand that there 150 individuals expected to participate in the study.
Each participant will be selected because of their first through fifth year teaching experience. The researcher will contact each school district and ask to speak to the principal or assistant principal. Permission will be obtained from one of the administrators or designees. Once the principal provides gives the researcher permission to conduct the survey, the researcher will provide the link as well as contact information. All participants will be aware that a follow-up call or email will be provided to make sure the answers selected is accurate. Each participant will be asked to read the form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study.
Teacher retention has become a national crisis. Research suggests that teachers are leaving the field in record numbers, especially between the first and fifth year of teaching. The information obtained in the research will give you a voice and will be read by many administrators and teachers. Your selection in the survey is a way to ensure that your continued satisfaction in the school workplace.
By participating in the survey, there are several benefits. First, administrators are in tune to how a diverse group of first through fifth year male and female teachers’ feels about mentoring and self-efficacy. Secondly, teachers will be able to reflect on his or her
90
experiences as well as understand how to grow professionally. Finally, as a participant, you will have a voice in a research study concerning your area of expertise.
Before the researcher asks for volunteers, the IRB committee from Prairie View will have approved the study. I understand that I must complete all the questions on the survey to ensure valid results. Finally, I understand that all of my information will be kept confidential at all times. If I have any questions, I may contact Alfreda Love [email protected] or [email protected].
Date_____________________________Signature___________________________
APPENDIX FLetter to Participants
Alfreda LoveWaco, Texas
I am a student in the Ph.D. program in Educational Leadership at Prairie View A and M University. I am currently conducting research on teacher retention and ask for your participation. My dissertation topic is An Analysis of Teacher Retention in Relation to a First through Fifth Year Teacher’s Self-Efficacy Level and Mentoring Experience Based on Gender. The survey is on the following web link will be provided upon approval. Each participant will have one survey. The first survey will ask questions concerning the teacher’s level of confidence when dealing with various situations. The second survey contains questions based on your first year mentoring experience.
The questionnaire will include questions about your self efficacy levels as well as mentoring experiences. Confidentiality will be maintained at all times. . Should you have any questions, please contact Alfreda Love at emonya_love@yahoo. If you would like to speak to someone other than the researchers, you are encouraged to contact Marcia Shelton ([email protected]) in the Compliance Office for Research and Development P.O. Box 519; MS 1200 Prairie View, Texas 77446. I look forward to your response and will keep you posted on the research. I will send you various emails to remind you of deadlines and times. Sincerely,
Alfreda LoveResearcher at PVAMUStatement of Consent________________________________
91
Participant in the study_________________________
Signature of investigator______________________________________ Date:___Signature of Chair__________________________________________________
REFERENCES
Airasin, P., & Gay, L. R. (2003). Educational research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education ,101-102.
Alexander, W. M. & George, P. S. (1981). The exemplary middle school. Fort Worth,
TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2004). Tapping the potential: Retaining and developing highqualitynew teachers. (Report). Washington, DC. Retrieved June 16,2008,fromhttp://www.all4ed.org/publications/TappingThePotential/TappingThePotential.pdf.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2006). Tapping the potential: Retaining and developing high-quality new teachers. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved May 21, 2007, from http://www.all4ed.org/publications/TappingThePotential/TappingThePotential.pd
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2005). Teacher attrition. A costly loss to the nation and to the states. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved May 21, 2007, from http://www.all4ed.org/publications/TeacherAttrition.pdf
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2006). Tapping the potential: Retaining and developing high-quality new teachers. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved May 21, 2007, from http://www.all4ed.org/publications/TappingThePotential/TappingThePotential.pd
Allinder, R.M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86-95.
92
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, (2002, September 9). NCTAF shifts focus from supply to retention. Symposium paves way for new report AACTE Briefs, 23 (11), 1,3.
Anderman, L.H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Motivation and middle school students [ERIC digest]. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 421 281)
Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L, Pascal, A., Pauly, E., & Zellman,G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angelesminority schools (Report No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.
Baker, Bruce Fuller, Edward J., &. Young, Michelle D (2007, April). The relationship between principal characteristics, principal turnover, teacher quality and student Achievement.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self efficacy. Advances in Behavioral Research and
Therapy, 1, 237-268.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist,44, 1175-1184.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).
Bandura, A. (1996). Multifaceted impact on self-efficacy beliefs on academic
functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206-1222.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In G. V. Caprara (Ed.), La valutazione del’autoeffcacia (The assessment of self-efficacy) (pp. 15-37). Trento, Italy: Erickson. (Reprinted in Evaluar, 2001, 2, 7-37.)
93
Barnett, D. (2004). School leadership preparation programs: are they preparing tomorrow’s leaders? Education and Urban Society, 125(1), 121.
Barnett, K., & McCormick, J. (2004). Leadership and individual principal-teacher relationships in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 406-434.
Bartell, C. A. (2005). Cultivating high-quality teaching through induction and mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bartwell, C. A. (2006). Shaping teacher induction policy. Teacher Education, 22(4), 27-43.
Benner, A. D. 2000. "The Cost of Teacher Turnover." Austin, Texas: Texas Center for Educational Research. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECOnline/txbess/turnoverrpt.pdf
Bennett, C. 2001. Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational Research, summer, 71(2), 171-217.
Bennis, W. (2003). On becoming a leader (revised ed.). New York, NY: Perseus.
Berliner, D. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performance. In J. Mangieri & C. C. Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students: Diverse perspectives. Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Berliner, D. (2004). Describing the behavior and documenting the accomplishments of expert teachers. Bulletin of Science, Technology, & Society, 24, 200-212.
Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change (Vol. 3): Factors affecting implementation and continuation (Report no R-1589/8-Hew). Santa Monica, CA: Rand. (ERIC Document reproduction service no: ED 140 432).
Bernshausen, D., & Cunningham, C. (2001, March). The role of resiliency in teacher preparation and retention. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Dallas, TX.
Berry, B. (2004). Recruiting and retaining “highly qualified teachers” for hard-to staff schools. Kappan, 85 (9), 684-689.
Berry, B., Hopkins-Thompson, P., & Hoke, M. (2002). Assessing and supporting new teachers: Lessons from the Southeast. Chapel Hill, NC: The Southeast Center for Teaching Quality, University of North Carolina.
Bickmore, D., Bickmore, S., & Hart, L. (2005, September). Interdisciplinary teaming as an induction practice. NASSP Bulletin, 89, 30-53.
Blank, W. (1997). Authentic instruction. In W.E. Blank & S. Harwell (Eds.), Promising
94
practices for connecting high school to the real world (pp. 15-21). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 407 586)
Bliss, J., & Finneran, R. (1991). Effects of school climate and teacher efficacy on teacher stress. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5) 662-674.
Brewster, C., & Railsback, J. (2001). Supporting beginning teachers: How administrators, teachers and policymakers can help new teachers succeed. Retrieved April 13, 2007, from http://www.nwrel.org/request/may01/textonly.html.
Brissie, J.S., Hoover-Dempsy & Bassler, O.C. (1998). Individual, situational contributors to teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Research, 82(2), 106-112.
Brooks, N., Bruno, E., & Burns, T. (1997). Reinforcing students’ motivation through parentInteraction. (Report No. PS-025753). Master’s thesis, Saint Xavier University &IRI/Skylight, 1997. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED411074)
Brophy, J. E., & Everston, C. M. (1974). Appendix to First Year Data of Texas Teacher Effectiveness Project: Complex Relationships Between Teacher Process Variables and Student Outcome Measures: Texas Univ , Austin Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.
Brown, S. (2003). Working: Why mentoring programs may be the key to teacher retention. Techniques, 78(5), 18-22.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2003). A test of the factorial validity of the Teacher Efficacy Scale. Research in Education, 69, 67-79.
Butt, G., & Lance, A. (2005). Secondary teacher workload and job satisfaction: Do successful strategies for change exist? Educational Management Administration and
Leadership, 33(4), 401-422.
Carter, K. (1988). Using cases to frame mentor-novice conversations about teaching Theory Into Practice, 27 (3), 214-222.
Certo, J. L., & Fox, J. E. (2002). Retaining quality teachers. High School Journal, 86(1), 57-76.
Choy, S. P., Chen, X., Bugarin, R., & Broughman, S. P. (2006). Teacher professional development in 1999-2000: What teachers, principals, and district staff report (NCES 2006-305). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of
95
Experimental Education, 60, 323-337.
Colgan, C. (2004). Is there a teacher retention crisis? American School Board Journal, (August), 22-25.
Cooper, J. M. & Alverado, A. (2006). Preparation, Recruitment and Retention of Teachers. International Academy of Education, Brussels; Belgium Cotton, K., & Wikelund, K.R. (2001). Parent involvement in education. Retrieved May 3, 2002,from Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Web site: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/cu6.html
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc,
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in teacher quality. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). How can we ensure a caring, competent, qualified teacher for every child? New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching $ America’s Future.
Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., and Wilson, S. (2001, February). A case of successful teaching policy: Connecticut’s long-term efforts to improve teaching and learning. University of Washington: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sclan, E. (1996). Who teaches and why. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research teacher education: a project of the Association of Teacher Educators (second ed., pp. 67-101). New York, NY: Author.
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: how well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4).
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: why it matters, what leaders can do? Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6-13.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: a national teacher supply policy for education: the right way to meet the “highly qualified” teacher challenge [Electronic Version]. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n33/.
Davis, J., & Wilson, S. M. (2000). Principals’ effort to empower teachers: Effects on
96
teacher motivation and job satisfaction and stress. The Clearing House, 73(6), 349-353.
Dev, P.C. (1997). Intrinsic motivation and academic achievement: What does their relationship imply for the classroom teacher? Remedial and Special Education, 18(1), 12-19.
Droege, S.B., & Hoobler, J.M> (2003). Employee turnover and tacit knowledge disfussion: A network perspective: Journal of Managerial Issues 15 (1), 50-66.
Deemer, S., & Minke, K. (1999). an investigation of the factor structure of the Teacher Efficacy Scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 1-10.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: New Press.
Den Brok, P. Darrell, F. Rickards, T., Bull, E.. (2006). Californian science students’ perceptions of their classroom learning environments. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 3- 25.
Denzine, G., Cooney, J., & McKenzie R. (2005). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Teacher Efficacy Scale for prospective teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 689-708.
DiPaola, M. F., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2003). Principals and special education: The critical role of school leaders (COPPSE Document No. 1B-7). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.
Drago-Severson, E. (2004). Helping teachers learn principal leadership for adult growth and development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Droege, S.B., & Hoobler, J.M. (2003). Employee turnover and tacit knowledge disfussion: A network perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15 (1), 50-66.
Dunn, R., Griggs, S. A., Olson, J., Gorman, B., & Beasley, M. (1995). A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model. Journal of Educational Research, 88(6), 353-362.
Dunn, K. (2006). Teacher mentoring and induction. Educational Leadership, 43(8), 249-254.
Egan, J. B. (1986). Induction the natural way: Informal mentoring. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Council of Inservice Education. Nashville.
Eberhard, J., Reindhardt-Mondragon, P., & Stotlemyer, B. (2000). Strategies for newteacher retention: Creating a climate of authentic professional development forteachers with three or less years of experience. Corpus Christi, TX: South TexasResearch and Development Center, Texas A&M University.
97
Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. (2002). Community programs to promote youth development.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Education Commission of the States. (1999). Teacher recruitment, preparation and retention for hard-to-staff schools. Retrieved September 30, 2006, from http://www.ecs.org/initiatives/geringer/chicago%20hard-to-staff%20meeting%20report.htm.
Education Statistics Quarterly, U.S Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). The condition of Education 2005. Crosscutting Statistics, 7(1), 1-9.
Epstein, J.L., Coates, L., Salinas, K.C., Sanders, M.G., & Simon, B.S. (1997). School, family,and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Epstein, J.L., & Sheldon, S.B. (in press). Present and accounted for: Improvingstudent attendance through family and community involvement. Journal of Educational Research.
Evans, E.D., & Tribble, M.N. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy and commitment to teaching among pre-service teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80(2), 81-85.
Feiman-Nemser S., & Parker, M.B. (1990). Making subject matter part of the conversation on helping beginning teachers learn to teach (Research Report No. 90-3). East Lansing: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1113-1055.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2003). What new teachers need to learn. Educational Leadership
60(8), 25-29.
Feistritzer, C.E. (1999). Teacher quality and alternative certification program. Testimony before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Washington, DC.
Ferguson, R., & Ladd, H. (1996). Additional evidence on how and why money matters. In H. Ladd (Ed.),Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Fraenkel, J. & Wallen, N.E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research ineducation. (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fuller, F. (2003). Beginning teacher retention rates for TXBESS and Non-TxBESS
98
teachers: Texas State Board for Educator Certification.
Fulton, K., Yoon, I., & Lee, C. (2005). Induction into learning communities. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. Retrieved August 2005, from http://www.nctaf.org/documents/nctaf/NCTAF_Induction_Paper_2005.pdf.
Gagnon, D.L. (2004). Influencing factors that foster first-year teacher success. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education and Leadership, Cardinal Stritch University, Milwaukee, WI.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: an introduction (7th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Ganser, T. (1995, April). A road map for designing quality mentoring programs for beginning teachers.Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Wisconsin Association for Middle Level Education, Stevens Point, WI.
Gold, Y. (1996). Beginning teacher support. Attrition, mentoring, and induction. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: a project of the Association of Teacher Educators (2nd ed., pp. 548-594). New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference.
Good, T., & Brophy, J. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Greene, M. L., & Campbell, C. (1993). Becoming a teacher: The contribution of teacher education.Lethbridge: University of Lethbridge, Alberta.
Gritz, R. M. and N.D. Theobald (1996). “The Effects of School District Spending Priorities on Lengthof Stay in Teaching.” Journal of Human Resources 31:3:477–512.
Grolnick, W.S., & Slowiaczek, M.L. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: Amultidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65,237-252
Guskfy, T. (1987). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy. Journal of Educational Research, 81, 41-47.
Guarino, C. M., Santibañez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 173-208.
Guskey, T.R (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affective characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 245-259.
Guarino, Cassandra, Lucrecia Santibanez, Glenn Daley, and Dominic Brewer (2004). “A
99
Reviewof the Research Literature on Teacher Recruitment and Retention.” Santa Monica, CA: RANDCorporation. TR-164-EDU.
Imazeki, Jennifer (2005). “Teacher Salaries and Teacher Attrition.” Economics of Education Review24:431-449.
Theobald, Neil D. (1990). “An Examination of the Infl uence of Personal, Professional, and SchoolDistrict Characteristics on Public School Teacher Retention.” Economics of Education Review 9:3:241–250.
Haack, P.A. (2006). Mentoring and professional development programs: Possibilities and pitfalls. Music Educators Journal, 92(4), 60-64 W
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.
Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39, 326-354.
Harrell, P., Leavell, A., Van Tassel, F., and McKee, K. (2004). No teacher left behind: Results of a five year study of teacher attrition. Action in Teacher Education, 26(2), 47-59.
Harris, D. and S. Adams (2003). Putting teacher labor markets in context: A comparisonof turnover across professions and industries. Economic Policy Institute, Washington,DC.
Harvard Management Update. (April, 2000). Employee retention: What managers can do. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Heifetz, R., & Laurie, D. (2001). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review (December), 131-140.
Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leading with an open heart [Electronic Version]. Leader to Leader, 26, 28-33, from http://leadertoleader.org/leaderbooks/L2L/fall2002/heifetz.html.
Heller, D. A. (2004). Teachers wanted: Attracting and retaining new teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Henke, R., Chen, X., Geis, S., & Knepper, P. (2000). Progress through the teacherpipeline: 1992–93 college graduates and elementary/secondary teaching as of 1997.Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Henke, R., Zahn, L., and Carroll, C., (2001). Attrition of New Teachers Among Recent College Graduates: Comparing Occupational Stability Among 1992-93 Graduates Who Taught and Those Who Worked in Other Occupations (NCES 2001-189).
100
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington DC.
Herbert, K., & Ramsay, M. (2004). Teacher turnover and shortages of qualified teachers in Texas public school districts. Austin, TX: Texas State Board for Educator Certification.
Henderson, A. T. (1987). The evidence continues to grow: Parent involvement improves studentAchievement. (Report No. ISBN-0-934460-28-0). Columbia, MD: National Committeefor Citizens in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED315199)
Herman, J.L., & Yeh, J.P. (1980). Some effects of parent involvement in schools.(Report No. CSE-R-138). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Boston, MA. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED206963)
Hirsch, E., & Emerick, S. (with Church, K., & Fuller, E.). (2007). Teacher working conditions are student learning conditions: A report on the 2006 North Carolina teacher working conditions survey. Hillsborough, NC: Center for Teaching Quality. Retrieved June 22, 2007, from http://www.teachingquality .org/pdfs/twcnc2006.pdf
Hollins, E.R. (1996). Culture in School Learning: Revealing the Deep Meaning. Mahwah, NJ: ErIbaum.
Holloway, J. (2001). The benefits of mentoring. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 85-86.
Houchins, D., Shippen, M. & Cattret, J. (2004). The retention and attrition of juvenile justice teachers. (2004). Education and Treatment of Children, 27(4), 374-393.
Howard, T.C. (2003). Who receives the short end of the shortage? Implications of the U.S teacher shortage on urban schools. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(2), pp.142-160.
Hoy, W. K. (2001). Wayne K. Hoy’s web site: Instruments. Retrived July 14, 2007, from http://www.coe.ohio-state.edu/whoy.
Hudson, M.J. (1998). Linking school and community to build national recruitment and preparation programs for teachers of color: Emerging leadership qualities. Education and Urban Society, 31, 62-72.
Huling-Austin, L. (1992). Research on learning to teach: Implications for teacher induction and mentoring programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 173-180.
Hull, J. W. (2004). Filling in the gaps: understanding the root causes of the teacher shortage can lead to solutions that work. Threshold (Spring), 8-15.
101
Hurst, B. & Reding, G. (2002). Teachers mentoring teachers. Phi Delta Kappan Fastback. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Imants, J. and Van Zoelen, A., 1995. Teachers’ Sickness Absence in Primary Schools, School Climate and Teachers’ Sense of Efficiency. School Organization 15, 77-87.
Imazeki, Jennifer (2005). “Teacher Salaries and Teacher Attrition.” Economics of Education Review24:431-449.
Ingersoll, R.M. (1999). The problem of under-qualified teachers in American secondary schools. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26-37.
Ingersoll,R.M. (2000). Why do high-poverty schools have difficulty staffing their classrooms with qualified teachers? Renewing our Schools: Securing our future. A National Task Force on Public Education. A joint initiative of the Center for American Progress and the Institute for America’s Future. Retrieved October 1, 2006 , from http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/ingersoll-final.pdf
Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.
Ingersoll, R. (2002a). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription. NASSP Bulletin, 86(June), 16-31.
Ingersoll, R.M. (2002b). Out-of-field teaching, educational inequality, and the organization of schools: An exploration analysis. Seattle, WA.
Ingersoll, R. (2003a). Is there really a teacher shortage? (Research Report No. R-03-4). Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
Ingersoll, R.M (2003b). The Teacher Shortage: Myth or Reality? Educational Horizons, 81(3), 146-152
Ingersoll, R. (2003c). Understanding the problem of teacher quality in American schools. Education Statistics Quarterly 1(1).
Ingersoll, R. (2003d). Who controls teacher’s work? Power and accountability in America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ingersoll, R., & Kralik, J. (2004). The impact of mentoring on teacher retention: What the research says. Education Commission of the States Retrieved on December 15, 2007: from http://www.ecs.org/clearninghouse/50/36/5036.htm
Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.
102
Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2004). Do teacher induction and mentoring matter? Educational Leadership, 87(March), 28-40.
Irvin, J.J. (2003). Educating teachers for a diverse society. Seeing with the cultural eye. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
James, W. (1975). Pragmatism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1885)
James, W. (1985). Psychology: The briefer course. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1892)
Jensen, M. C. (1987). Induction programs support new teachers and strengthen their schools. Eugene, OR: Oregon School Study Council.
Johnson, B. (2003). Teacher collaboration: good for some, not so good for others. Educational Studies, 29(4), 337-350.
Johnson, S. (2006). The workplace matters: Teacher quality, retention, and effectiveness.
Washington DC: National Education Association.
Johnson, S. M., Birkeland, S., Kardos, S. M., Kauffman, D., Liu, E., & Peske, H. G. (2001). Retaining the next generation of teachers: The importance of school-based support. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Letter Research Online. Retrieved May 14, 2008, from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/.
Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Kauffman, D., Liu, E., & Donaldson, M. (2004). The support gap: New teachers’ early experiences in high-income and low-income
schools [Electronic Version]. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12. Retrieved December 11, 2004 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n61/.
Johnson, S. M. (2004). Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive inour schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, S. M., Berg., J. H., & Donaldson, M. L. (2005, February). Who stays in teaching and why: A review of the literature on teacher retention. Cambridge, MA: The Project of the Next Generation of Teachers, Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Johnson, S.M., & Kardos, S.M. (2005). Bridging the Generation Gap. Educational Leadership, 62(8), 8-14.
Johnson, S. M. (2006, summer). Why new teachers stay. American Educator, 7-21.
Joppe, M. (2000). The Research Process. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://www.nova.edu/sss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf
103
Kaplan, L. S., & Owings, W. A. (2004). Introduction: Teacher effectiveness [Electronic Version]. NASSP Bulletin. Retrieved March 25, 2004 from http://80 elibrary.bigchalk.com.zproxy.tamu.du:2048/libweb/elib/do/document?Set=sear.
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.
Kaye, B., & Jordan-Evans, S. (2001). Retaining key employees. Public Management, 83, 6-12.
Kelly, S. (2004). An event history analysis of teacher attrition: Salary, teacher tracking, and socially disadvantaged schools. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(3), 195-220.
Kleinhenz, E., & Ingvarson, L. (2000). Teacher accountability in australia: Current policies and practices and their relation to the improvement of teaching and learning. Research Papers in Education, 19(1), 31-49.
Krieg, J.M. (2006). Teacher quality and attrition. Economics of Education Review, 25, 13-27.
Kushman, J.W., Sieber, C., & Heariold-Kinney, P. (2000). This isn't the place for me: School dropout. In D. Capuzzi & D.R. Gross (Eds.), Youth at risk: A prevention resource for counselors, teachers, and parents (3rd ed., pp. 471-507). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A culturally relevant approach to literacy teaching. Theory Into Practice, 31(4), 312-320.
Lake, W. (2006). Why teachers deserve the money. The Tribune, 5(6), 5-10.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Toronto, Canada: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project. Retrieved July 15, 2007, from www. edschools.org/teacher_report.htm.
Levy, Abigail, Fields, Erica & Jablonski, Erica. (2006). Overview of research. What we know and don’t know about the consequences of science and math teacher turnover. Paper presented at the NCTAF Symposium on the Scope and Consequences of K-12 Science and Mathematics Teacher Turnover.
Loehr, J., & Schwartz, T. (2003). The power of full engagement. NY: Free Press.
Lopez, A., Lash, A., Schaffner, M., Shields, P., & Wagner, M. (2004). Review of
104
research on the impact of beginning teacher induction on teacher quality and retention. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved May 30, 2006, fromhttp://policyweb.sri.com/cep/publications/publications.jsp.
Lumsden, L.S. (1994). Student motivation to learn (ERIC Digest No. 92). Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 200)
Mark, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Mathisen, S. B. (2006). Bullying at work. Antecedents and outcomes. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Bergen Norway.
Menchaca, V. (2003). A wake-up call for principals: Are your novice teachers leaving? Catalyst for Change, 33(1), 25-27.
Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2006). Advanced and multivariate statisticalapproach: Practical application and interpretation (3rd Ed). Glendale, CA:Pyrczak Publishing.
Minarik, M., Thornton, G., & Perrault, G. (2003). Systems thinking can improve teacher retention. The Clearing House, 76(5), 230-235.
Morice, L. & Murray, J. (2003). Compensation and teacher retention: A success story. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 40-43.
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (1996). What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future. New York, NY: Author.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future [NCTAF]. (2003). No Dream Denied: A Pledge to America’s Children. Washington, DC: Author. Available online at www.nctaf.org.
National Education Association (2002-2005). Better beginnings: Helping new teachers survive and thrive. Retrieved January 1, 2008 from http://www.nea.org/teachershortage/betterbeginnings.html.
National Partnership for Teaching in At-Risk Schools. (2005). Qualified teachers for at-risk schools: a national imperative. Washington, DC. Retrieved May 14, 2008, from http://www.ncrel.org/quality/partnership.htm.
Nieto, S.M. (2003). Going? Educational Leadership, 60(8), 15-18
No Child Left Behind (2001). [Available from http://ed.gov].
Odell, S., & Huling, L. (2000). Quality mentoring for novice teachers. Reston, VA:
105
Kappa Delta Pi International Honor Society.
Olson, L. (2003). Swimming upstream. Education Week on the web: Editorial Projects in
Education, 22(17), 21.
Onafowora, L. Teacher Efficacy Issues in the Practice of Novice Teachers. Educational Research Quarterly, 28, 34-42.
O’Neill, L. M. (2004). Support systems: Quality induction and mentoring programs. Threshold (spring), 12-14.
Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality. The Civil Rights Project. Harvard University.
Owings, W. A. (2004). Introduction: Teacher effectiveness [Electronic Version]. NAASP Bulletin. Retrieved March 24, 2007, from http://80-elirary.bigchalk.com.ezproy.tamu.edu:2048/libweb/elib/do/document?set=sear.
Pajares, F. (1996). Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578
Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and self-efficacy. Retrieved May 14, 2008, from http://www.emory.edueducation/mfp/eff.htm].
Papalewis, R., Jordan, M., Cuellar, A., Gaulden, J., & Smith, A. (1991). School administrators for the culturally and linguistically diverse: A formal mentor training program in progress. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 333 094)
Pong, S., Pallas, A. (2001). Class size and math achievement in the United States and abroad. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(3), 251-273.
Protheroe, N., Lewis, A., & Paik, S. (2002). Promoting teacher quality. Retrieved January 18, 2003 from www.ers.org/spectrum/win02a/htm.
Public Education Network. (2003). The voices of the new teacher. Washington, DC: Public Education Network.
Ravitch, D. (2003). Strengthen teacher quality: A brief history of teacher professionalism.A paper presented at the White House Conference on Preparing Tomorrow’sTeachers. Washington, D.C. Retrieved on June, 29, 2007 from www.ed.gov.
Reyes, P. & Hoyle, D. (1992). Teachers’ satisfaction with principals’ communication Journal of Educational Research 85(3), 163-168.
Riggs, I. M. (1994). Toward enhancing science teaching self efficacy: An inservice
106
project.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in ScienceTeaching, Anaheim, CA.
Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2000). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement.Unpublished manuscript.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Effective Schools: Interpreting the Evidence. American Journal of Education, 352-388.
Rosenow, D. (2005). Stress, burnout and self-esteem among educators. Journal of Border Educational Research, 4, 87-90.
Rowland, Cortney and Coble, Charles (2005) Targeting Teacher Recruitment and Retention Policies for At-Risk Schools North Central Regional Educational Laboratory , Naperville, Sargent, B. (2003). Finding good teachers and keeping them. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 44-47.
Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. (2002). What large-scale survey research tells usabout teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects Study ofElementary Schools. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525–1567
Rowley, J.B. (1999). The good mentor. Educational Leadership, 56(8), 20-22.
Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement: Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS).
Retrieved September 2000 from http://www.mdk12.org/practice/ensure/tva/tva_2.htm
Sargent, B. (2003). Finding good teachers and keeping them. Educational Leadership, May 2003, Vol. 60, No. 8, 44-47.
Sheldon, S.B., & Epstein, J.L. (2001a, August). Focus on math achievement: Effects of familyand community involvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanSociological Association, Anaheim, CA. Retrieved July 5, 2002, from National Networkof Partnership Schools Website: http://www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/type2/issue11/ ttype2k4.htm
Sheldon, S.B., & Epstein, J.L. (2001b). Improving student behavior and discipline with familyand community involvement. Retrieved July 5, 2002, from Johns Hopkins University,National Network of Partnership Schools Web site:http://www.csos.jhu.edu/ p2000/type2/issue12/ttype215.htm
Shockley, R., Guglielmino, P., & Watlinton, E. (2006). The costs of teacher attrition. A paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement. Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Simon, B.S. (2000). Predictors of high school and family partnerships and the influence
107
of partnerships on student success. Doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, 2000.Retrieved July 5, 2002, from National Network of Partnership Schools Web site:http://www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/type2/issue10/ttype2j4.htm12
Singer, K. F. (1995). Participatory decision making and teacher job satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Widener University.
Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004a). Reducing teacher turnover. What are the components of effective induction? American Education Research Journal, 41, 687-714.
Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004b). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681-714.
Stedman, J.B. (2004 June 16). K-12 Teacher quality: Issues and legislative action. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. (CRS Report No. RL30834).
Southeast Center for Teaching Quality (2002). Recruitment and retention strategies in a regional and national context. Retreived March 03, 2003 from http://www.teachingquality.org/resources /pdfs.
Sparks, D. (2002). High-performing cultures increase teacher retention. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council.
Strizek, G. A., Pittsonberger, J. L., Riordan, K. E., Lyter, D. M., & Orlofsky, G. F. (2006). Characteristics of schools, districts, teachers, principals, and school libraries in the United States: 2003-04 schools and staffing survey. Retrieved December 16, 2007.fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubinfo.asp?pubid=200631
Strong, M., & St.John, I. (2001). A study of teacher retention: The effects of mentoring for beginning teachers. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz.
Strong, M. (2005). Teacher induction, mentoring and retention: A summary of the research. The New Educator, 1, 181-198.
Taylor, D. & Tashakkori, A. (1997). Toward an understanding of teachers desire for participation in decision-making. Journal of School Leadership, 7(Nov), 609-628.
Texas Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). The Cost of Teacher Turnover. Austin TX: Texas State Board of Educator Certification.
Texas Education Agency. n.d., Academic Excellence Indicator System. Online, http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2006/glossary.html.
Texas Education Agency. n.d., Public Education Information Management System. Online, http://www.tea.state.tx.us
Theobald, N. D., & Laine, S. W. M. (2003). The impact of teacher turnover on teacher
108
quality: Findings from four states. In M. L. Plecki & D. H. Monk (Eds.), School finance and teacher quality: Exploring the connections (pp. 33-54). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Thompson, S. (2004). Developing teacher leaders: The principal’s role. Reston, VA: National Middle School Principal Association.
Trubowitz. S. (2004). The why, how, and what of mentoring. Phi Delta Kappan 86(1), pp.59-62.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-785
Upson, L., Koballa, T., & Gerber, B. (2002). Preparing science specific mentors: A look at onesuccessful Georgia program. In Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of theAssociation for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC.
U.S. Department of Education, International Affairs Office. (2004). Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Washington, D.C. Education Publications Center:.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2006). Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2006-07 Edition, Teachers-Preschool, Kindergarten, Elementary, Middle, and Secondary. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved December 17, 2006, from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm.
Van Voorhis, F.L. (2001). Interactive science homework: An experiment in home and schoolconnections. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 85(627),20-32.
Veenman, S., & Denessen, E. (2001). The coaching of teachers: Results of five training studies. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7 (4), 385-417.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement [Electronic Version] from www.mcrel.org.
Wheatley, M. (2002). Turning to one another: Simple conversations to return hope to the future. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Wildman, T. M., Maggliaro, S. G., Niles, R. A., & Niles, J. A. (1992). Teacher mentoring: An analysis of roles, activities, and conditions. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 205-213.
Williams, J. S. (2003). Why great teachers stay. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 71-74.
Wilkinson, G. A. (1994). Support for individualizing teacher induction. Action in
109
Teacher Education, 16(2), 52-62.
Wilson, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (2001). A case of successful teaching policy: Connecticut’s long-term effects to improve teaching and learning. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Wilson, S. (2006). Principals’ efforts to empower teachers. The Clearinghouse, 83(1), 3-10.
Woods, E.G. (1995). Reducing the dropout rate. In School Improvement Research Series (SIRS): Research you can use (Close-up No. 17). Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved October 2, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/9/c017.html
Woods, A. & Weasmer, J. (2002). Maintaining job satisfaction: Engaging professional as active participants. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED6519795)
Wong, H.K. (2005). What the World Can Teach US About New Teacher Induction. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(5), 379-384.
Wright, S., Horn, S., & Sanders, W. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects onstudent achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of PersonnelEvaluation in Education, 11, 57–67.
Zellman, G.L., & Waterman, J.M. (1998). Understanding the impact of parent schoolinvolvement on children’s educational outcomes. The Journal of Educational Research,91(6), 370-380.
Zembylas, M. & Papanastasiou, E. (2005). Modeling teacher empowerment: The role of job satisfaction. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(5), 433-459.
Zuckerman, J. T. (1999). From dependence to self-reliance and competence: One first- year science teacher in a mentoring relationship. American Secondary Education, 28(2), 17-22.
110
VITAAlfreda Love
[email protected]. 2006-2007- Principal Certification-Texas A and M University2005-Present- Pending Ph.D. Prairie View and Texas A and M University (Educational Administration 2002-2005 Masters in Educational Leadership. Prairie View A and M University
PERTINENT EMPLOYMENT
2005-Present-Waco ISD Assistant Principal2002-2005-Tennyson Middle School-Teacher/Coach2000-2007-United States Army Reserve-Administration
Topic Researched
An Analysis of First through Fifth Year Teacher’s Self –Efficacy Scores and Mentoring Scores in Relation to Gender.
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
111
NAACPAfrican American Chamber of CommerceHigher Ground ProductionsSouthern Leadership SocietyTeam in TrainingWaco Striders ClubWho’s Who among Athletes?Who’s Who Among ProfessionalsNational Congress for WomenAmerican Federation for TeachersAfrican American Administrators
HONORARY SOCIETIES
Kappa Delta Sigma-Full memberVolunteerSt. Judes Children’s ResearchToys for TotsCaritasSalvation Army
PROFESSIONAL SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
Upcoming-2008 Florida ISD-Involving Parents and the Communities in School Business
2007-Empowering the Community through Education A National Perspective of Special Education Through the Eyes of an AdministratorA Well Rounded Professional Development for Students
2006-Implementing the Realms of Meaning in a School Setting Ethics in the Educational System Change Agents in Business and Schools
Professional MeetingsTexas A and M Symposium on EducationPrairie View A & M Symposium on EducationSan Antonio Symposium
PUBLICATIONS IN NATIONAL JOURNAL
Love, Alfreda and Kritsonis, William. (2007). A Principals Role in Teacher Retention.
112
Love, Alfreda, and Kritsonis, William (2006). Change Agents Understand Direction
Love, Alfreda (2005). A Well Rounded Professional Development for Students
Love, Alfreda. (2005). A National Perspective of Special Education Through the Eyes of an Administrator
113