ILLINOIS NEW TEACHER COLLABORATIVE (INTC) 2009 CONFERENCE REPORT LAURA A. BARWEGEN, ED.D. DEPARTMENT...

ILLINOIS NEW TEACHER COLLABORATIVE (INTC) 2009 CONFERENCE REPORT

LAURA A. BARWEGEN, ED.D.DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

WHEATON COLLEGE

Purpose of Assessment Report

to provide information to the INTC Board regarding overall conference participant perceptions;

to determine if there were significant differences in perceptions among the 2007, 2008, and 2009 conference participants; and

to report differences in participant perceptions that were found to be dependent upon participant’s position held within the district, school size, district type, stage of mentoring program, or geographical location within the state of Illinois.

Demographics Who Was There? 141 survey respondents 24.1% - administrators, 11.3% - mentees, 36.1% - mentors,

(71.4% “battery” – up from 67.5% in 2008), 16.5% - “support personnel”, 0.8% - higher education (N = 1), and 11.3% - “other/special.” Include “mentor coordinator” as category for 2010 survey.

24% respondents came from schools under 400 students, up from 16.4% in 2008, and 4% in 2007

Balanced representation from urban, suburban,and rural: 26.4%, 39.2%, and 34.4%, respectively

Almost half of the attendees (49.2%) are developing an existing program, and a quarter (24.2%) are initiating a beginning program and another quarter (26.6%) are evaluating a defined program

Table 1. Percentage of conference participants identified with school type: 2007-2009 comparisons.

2007 2008 2009

Urban 25.20% 26.00% 26.40%

Suburban 43.40% 31.00% 39.20%

Rural 31.40% 43.00% 34.40%

Table 2. Percentage of conference participants identified with school size: 2007-2009 comparisons.*

20072008 2009

1-250 4.00% 8.25% 8.50%

251-400 18.70% 8.25% 15.50%

401-1000 40.00% 26.80% 32.60%

1001-2500 37.30%(1001+)

23.71% 11.60%

2501-5000 -- 9.28% 9.30%

5001+ -- 23.71% 22.50%*I have some concerns about this survey item. Individuals may be misconstruing school size with district size. This item should be restated for the 2010 survey.

Table 3. Percentage of conference attendees identified with geographical location: 2007-2009 comparisons.

2007 2008 2009

Chicago area 1.20% 6.67% 6.90%

Suburban Chicago 34.10% 20.00% 28.50%

Northern Illinois 11.80% 21.90% 19.20%

Central Illinois 43.20% 36.19% 41.50%

Southern Illinois 7.90% 15.24% 3.80%

Table 4. Comparison between 2007-2009 respondents in the developmental stage of their program.

2007 2008 2009

Initiating a beginning program 27.40% 15.84% 24.20%

Developing an existing program 56.70% 61.39% 49.20%

Evaluating a defined program 15.90% 21.78% 26.60%

Goals of INTC Annual Conference that are Assessed through Survey Inform Participants of Innovative Ideas in Mentoring

Programs Across the State and Nation Assist Districts Developing Plans for Retaining Quality

Educators within their School/District through the Development of Quality Mentor Programs Sharing State and National Perspectives and Research

Provide Assistance for Districts to Develop, Enhance, and/or Evaluate District Mentoring Programs

So, how did we do this year?

GOAL #1 Inform Participants of Innovative Ideas in Mentoring Programs Across the State and NationTable 5. Perceptions of innovative ideas presented at the 2009 conference, in descending according of mean value.

Goal 1. Inform participants of innovative ideas in mentoring programs across the state and nation

MEAN/SD STRONGLY AGREE

(4)

AGREE(3)

DISAGREE(2)

STRONGLY DISAGREE

(1)

I was able to discuss mentoring programs with others throughout the state.

M=3.56SD=.53

48.5% 44.1% 1.4%

I learned new information about successful mentoring programs.

M=3.50SD=.63

57.7% 35.0% 7.3%

I learned new information about the Illinois standards

M=3.45SD=.60

50.4% 43.9% 5.8%

This conference strengthened my knowledge about the defining features of successful mentor programs.

M=3.43SD=.66

51.5% 40.4% 7.4% 0.7%

I learned about the various mentoring programs across the state of Illinois.

M=3.42SD=.61

47.9% 47.1% 4.3% 0.7%

The ideas presented at the conference will help strengthen the mentor program in my districts.

M=3.41SD=.63

48.5% 44.1% 7.4%

The hotel facilities and accommodations were good.

M=3.38SD=.69

47.8% 44.9% 5.1% 2.2%

The presenters at this conference were engaging and informative.

M=3.21SD=.68

36.3% 48.9% 14.8%

The Exhibits were valuable. M=2.84SD=.74

17.2% 53.1% 26.6% 3.1%

L. Huling’s presentation was valuable. M=2.74SD=1.00

26.1% 35.8% 23.9% 14.2%

Table 6. Perceptions of innovative ideas presented at the conference: 2007-2009 comparisons.

Goal 1. Inform participants of innovative ideas in mentoring programs across the state and nation

2007MEAN/SD

2008MEAN/SD

2009MEAN/SD F value


M=3.44SD=.57

M=3.41SD=.59

M=3.56SD=.53 2.812

I learned new information about successful mentoring programs.

M=3.63SD=.49

M=3.51SD=.52

M=3.50SD=.63 2.337


M=3.56SD=.55

M=3.42SD=.61

M=3.43SD=.66 2.720

I learned about the various mentoring programs across the state of Illinois.

M=3.72SD=.46

M=3.38SD=.52

M=3.42SD=.61 17.989**


M=3.56SD=.50

M=3.46SD=.54

M=3.41SD=.63 2.938

The hotel facilities and accommodations were good.M=3.64SD=.53

M=3.28SD=.69

M=3.38SD=.69 11.648**

The presenters at this conference were engaging and informative.

M=3.28SD=.58

M=3.37SD=.55

M=3.21SD=.68 2.126

The Exhibits were valuable.M=3.41SD=.55

M=3.11SD=.72

M=2.84SD=.74 26.821**

*p < .05, **p < .01

GOAL #1 Inform Participants of Innovative Ideas in Mentoring Programs Across the State and Nation


Kudos for Well organized and committed to staying on time Breakout sessions with “shout outs” to Monroe County ROE

#45, Naperville, Just in Time, Danville teachers, and Bloomington Group District #5, I-KAN

Great food (and wine!) Overall breakout sessions


The 2010 planning committee might consider

(1) the timing of the conference and its proximity to ISAT testing;(2) the keynote speaker carefully chosen with an eye/ear for the motivational

aspects of a conference opening;(3) the planning, possibly including disparate sessions for beginning teachers

to network with one another, in addition to attention to the different levels and needs that are dependent upon initiating, developing, and evaluating programs within districts;

(4) the late start and late ending time on the first day, which was not favorable for many participants. One participant stated that “I would really like the sessions to start early and end early. 6:30 – 7:00 was really late, and made for a brutally long day;” and

(5) re-evaluating the exhibits. For each year that the conference has been held, the participants’ perceptions of the value of the exhibits has significantly decreased.

GOAL #2 Assist Districts Developing Plans for Retaining Quality Educators within their School/District through the Development of Quality Mentor Programs Sharing State and National Perspectives and Research

Table 7. Perceptions of the sharing of state and national perspectives and research, in descending according of mean value: 2009.

Goal 2. Assist districts developing plans for retaining quality educators within their school/district through the development of quality mentor programs sharing state and national perspectives and research


(4)

AGREE(3)

DISAGREE(2)

STRONGLY DISAGREE

(1)

I left this conference with a plan for developing/enhancing our district induction and mentoring program.

M = 3.40SD = .62

46.2% 48.5% 4.5% 0.8%

This conference will assist my district in the development of a quality mentor program

M = 3.39SD = .62

46.7% 45.9% 7.4%

This conference will assist my district in developing plans for retaining quality educators.

M = 3.33SD = .61

40.4% 52.2% 7.4%

This conference contributed to the inclusion of state and national perspectives and research in the plan we developed.

M = 3.24SD = .64

35.1% 53.7% 11.2%

GOAL #2 Assist Districts Developing Plans for Retaining Quality Educators within their School/District

through the Development of Quality Mentor Programs Sharing State and National Perspectives and Research

Table 8. Perceptions of the sharing of state and national perspectives and research: 2007-2009 comparisons.

Goal 2. Assist districts developing plans for retaining quality educators within their school/district through the development of quality mentor programs sharing state and national perspectives and research

2007MEAN/SD

2008MEAN/SD

2009MEAN/SD

F value

Pearson r correlation with Conference Year

I left this conference with a plan for developing/enhancing our district induction and mentoring program.

M = 3.57SD = .53

M = 3.31SD = .56

M = 3.40SD = .62 7.278** -.130**

This conference will assist my district in the development of a quality mentor program

M = 3.54SD = .54

M = 3.46SD = .52

M = 3.39SD = .62 2.559 -.112*

This conference will assist my district in developing plans for retaining quality educators.

M = 3.56SD = .56

M = 3.42SD = .53

M = 3.33SD = .61 6.068** -.170**

This conference contributed to the inclusion of state and national perspectives and research in the plan we developed.

M = 3.37SD = .59

M = 3.24SD = .63

M = 3.24SD = .64 2.214 -.095

*p < .05, **p < .01

GOAL #2 Assist Districts Developing Plans for Retaining Quality Educators within their School/District through the Development of Quality Mentor Programs Sharing State and National Perspectives and Research

Kudos for Research and data presented by the keynote address and IERC; Information on what is needed in a plan; Information from the pilot programs; and Time provided for districts to discuss the information presented.The 2010 planning committee might consider(1) Segregating groups dependent upon stage of mentoring program; (2) Continuing to emphasize the importance of bringing the “battery” members and/or

representatives of the district/school mentoring program; (3) Incorporating assessment and data into the conference but as a breakout session for

interested parties; and(4) Attend to the correlational trends between conference year and survey items. One item the

planning team may want to mull over is the emphasis upon helping districts to retain quality educators, since this is the strongest negative correlation of the four items. Is it the goal of the conference to assist with this retention process? What are the sessions and/or activities that contribute to this goal? These are two possible questions for the planning team to consider.

Table 9. Perceptions of assistance provided to districts in developing, enhancing and/or evaluating district induction/mentoring programs: 2009 conference.Goal 3. Provide assistance for districts to develop, enhance, and/or evaluate district mentoring programs


(4)

AGREE(3)

DISAGREE(2)

STRONGLY DISAGREE

(1)

The time allotted for districts to develop, enhance, and/or evaluate their mentoring and induction programs was valuable.

M=3.45SD=.62 51.9% 41.4% 6.8%

I was provided with the opportunity to develop, enhance, and/or evaluate the district mentoring program.

M=3.43SD=.58 47.7% 47.7% 4.5%

The conference provided sufficient time to network with others within my district.

M=3.38SD=.66 47.8% 42.5% 9.7%

Opportunity to use Illinois standards M=3.37SD=.62 44.7% 47.7% 7.6%

The conference provided sufficient time to network with others outside my district.

M=3.35SD=.63 42.6% 49.3% 8.1%

The presenters chosen enabled and/or assisted in the development, enhancement, and/or evaluation of mentoring programs.

M=3.31SD=.66 41.9% 47.3% 10.9%

GOAL #3 Provide Assistance for Districts to Develop, Enhance, and/or Evaluate District

Mentoring Programs


Mentoring Programs

Table 10. Perceptions of assistance provided to districts in developing, enhancing and/or evaluating district induction/mentoring programs: 2007-2009 comparisons.

Goal 3. Provide assistance for districts to develop, enhance, and/or evaluate district mentoring programs

2007MEAN/SD

2008MEAN/SD

2009MEAN/SD

F value


M=3.40SD=.66

M=3.30SD=.63

M=3.45SD=.62 1.725


M=3.48SD=.61

M=3.29SD=.56

M=3.43SD=.58 3.480*

The conference provided sufficient time to network with others within my district.

M=3.39SD=.75

M=3.27SD=.68

M=3.38SD=.66 1.131

The conference provided sufficient time to network with others outside my district.

M=3.08SD=.71

M=3.21SD=.66

M=3.35SD=.63 5.641**

The presenters chosen enabled and/or assisted in the development, enhancement, and/or evaluation of mentoring programs.

M=3.30SD=.62

M=3.35SD=.57

M=3.31SD=.66 .169

*p < .05, **p < .01

Kudos for Adjusting the time from previous conferences for in-district and between-district

networking and planning; There is a pattern dependent upon conference year for participants’ agreement

that time is provided for them to work with others outside of their district (r = .164). Even though it is considered a weak correlation, it is statistically significant.

The 2010 planning committee might consider

(1) Presentations which align with the conference goals and are motivational and informative about assisting districts in developing, enhancing and/or evaluating mentoring programs;


Mentoring Programs

SURVEY ITEMMEAN/SD


M=3.56SD=.53

I learned new information about successful mentoring programs. M=3.50SD=.63


M=3.45SD=.62


M=3.43SD=.58


M=3.43SD=.66


M=3.41SD=.63

The pattern evidenced from the highest rated items above is that districts found the time provided to develop, enhance, and/or evaluate their own mentoring programs to be valuable, and the opportunities, discussions, ideas, and information given to them at the conference to help them reach this end for their own districts is the key element to this conference.

Table 11. Highest rated survey items (M > 3.40) for 2009 conference.

Table 12. Overall lowest rated survey items (M < 3.30) for 2008 conference.

SURVEY ITEM MEAN/SD

L. Huling’s presentation was valuable (G1). M=2.74SD=1.00

The Exhibits were valuable (G1). M=2.84SD=.74

The presenters at this conference were engaging and informative (G1).

M=3.21SD=.68

This conference contributed to the inclusion of state and national perspectives and research in the plan we developed (G2).

M = 3.24SD = .64

The presenters chosen enabled and/or assisted in the development, enhancement, and/or evaluation of mentoring programs (G3).

M=3.31SD=.66

In regard to the inclusion of state and national perspectives, the 2010 conference committee may want to discuss whether this item is of such significant value as to attempt to plan more intentionally ways to increase this inclusion, or they may determine that the level of inclusion is about right, since the highest rated items in Table 11 indicate that districts are coming to the conference to initiative, develop, and enhance their own mentoring and induction plans and not necessarily to learn about state and national perspectives and research, unless they can contribute to strengthening their own district’s or school’s plan.

Differences between Demographic Subgroups

No differences were found that were dependent upon position held or size of school/district;

A significant difference was found between beginning programs and developing/ evaluating programs for the item, “learned new information;” and

Significant differences were found that were dependent upon district type and geographical region.

Table 13. Survey Items with significant differences in conference perceptions dependent upon district type.

URBANN = 33

SUBURBANN = 49

RURALN = 43

F RATIO

Ideas will help strengthen program 3.69 3.34 3.31 4.313*

Presenters were engaging and informative 3.50 3.15 3.05 4.502*

Strengthened knowledge about program features 3.69 3.28 3.38 3.758*

Huling presentation 3.24 2.67 2.32 8.552**

Exhibits were valuable 3.10 2.86 2.61 4.316*

Learned new information about standards 3.78 3.33 3.40 6.980**

Provided sufficient time to network inside district 3.66 3.40 3.15 6.030**

Provided sufficient time to network outside district 3.59 3.43 3.15 5.505**

Presenters chosen enabled or assisted with district plans 3.60 3.24 3.18 4.223*

*p < .05, ** p < .01

Table 14. Survey items with significant differences in conference perceptions dependent upon geographic region.

CHICAGON = 9

SUBURBAN CHICAGO

N = 37

NORTHERN ILLINOIS

N = 25

CENTRAL ILLINOIS

N = 54

SOUTHERN ILLINOIS

N=5

F RATIO

Huling presentation 3.78+ 2.74+ 2.71+ 2.46+ 2.80 3.531**

Hotel facilities and accommodations 2.67+ 3.49+ 3.16 3.49+ 3.60 3.946**

New information about standards 4.00+ 3.35+ 3.54 3.39+ 3.60 2.624*

Provided sufficient time to network outside district 3.89+ 3.43 3.44 3.21+ 3.00 3.166*

*p < .05, ** p < .01

Laura Barwegen, Ed.D.Associate Professor & Secondary Education CoordinatorDepartment of EducationWheaton College630.752.5476 (office)815.751.8191 (cell)[email protected]

Date post:	18-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	angel-james
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

ILLINOIS NEW TEACHER COLLABORATIVE (INTC) 2009 CONFERENCE REPORT LAURA A. BARWEGEN, ED.D. DEPARTMENT...

Documents