|
Article Excerpt
A support gap exists for novices, especially those who teach in schools of poverty (Johnson, Kardos, Kauffman, Liu, & Donaldson, 2004). Because teacher quality can make an enormous difference in educational opportunities for children (Sanders & Rivers, 1996), beginning teachers need targeted support to overcome the many challenges of learning to teach. In high-poverty districts where turnover is highest, the quality of school cohesion and performance is affected when teachers leave (Ingersoll, 2004). Those responsible for school leadership and policy often do not realize that creating a quality induction program can make a tremendous difference in teacher satisfaction, growth, retention, and impact on students. Only 1% of beginning teachers participate in sustained, comprehensive induction programs (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Although the public expects beginning teachers' performance to resemble that of experienced teachers, novices without adequate support need 3 to 7 years of teaching to reach their maximum impact on student learning. Comprehensive induction programs are a way to accelerate this process and minimize the amount of time it takes for a beginning teacher to be most effective in promoting student learning (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004; Villar, 2004).
Schools face serious challenges as beginning teachers leave before they can develop fully as high-quality teachers. As many as 14% of teachers quit after the 1st year, with numbers rising as high as 50% leaving within 5 years of taking their first teaching position. At the point when a teacher is ready to make a major impact on student achievement, he or she is likely to have left the profession (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004). Strong induction programs that provide opportunities for teachers to be involved in decision making and that have strong administrative support along with support to develop strong classroom management can keep teachers in the profession (Ingersoll & Smith, 2004). Such programs support organizational and instructional conditions that can help novices develop as high-quality teachers early in their career.
To combat high attrition rates and improve teacher quality, researchers have begun to define the qualities and components of comprehensive induction programs that make a difference in the lives of teachers and students (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004; Britton, Paine, Pimm, & Raizen, 2003; Fletcher, Strong, & Villar, 2005; Ingersoll, 2001; Stanulis, 2006). This study examines the impact of a program designed to incorporate several features thought to be important for induction programs aimed at improving teacher quality in ways that link teaching to student engagement. The program focuses on a research-based conception of high-quality teaching known as effective balanced instruction.
Findings from a series of research studies characterized three components of effective balanced instruction specifically in literacy (e.g., Dolezal, Welsh, Pressley, & Vincent, 2003; Pressley et al., 2001; Pressley, Allington, Wharton-McDonald, Block, & Morrow, 2001; Wharton-McDonald, Pressley, & Hampston, 1998), which we have worked to weave with other research and adapt across subject areas (Stanulis & Manning, 2002; Stein, Smith, Henningsen, & Silver, 2000). These three components, teaching of worthwhile content, excellent classroom management that engages students, and strong motivation and scaffolding of student learning, described in Table 1, compose the basis of the vision of teaching that is the intended outcome of the mentoring in this induction program.
Comprehensive Induction Program Components
As a Teachers for a New Era institution (Carnegie Corporation, 2001), we created a specific vision for a comprehensive induction program (Stanulis, 2006). As coprincipal investigators of the Teachers for a New Era project at our institution, the second author (Floden) facilitated cross-college collaborations and a structure to institutionalize this work. As the induction director, the first author (Stanulis) led the design, implementation, and research in the induction program. Part of this induction program involved the evolution of a collaborative partnership between a midwestern urban school district and our university, which was created to pilot-test a comprehensive induction program in a district that anticipated hiring more than 100 teachers for the 2005-2006 school year.
The treatment and comparison groups were similar in some of the induction assistance they received. All beginning teachers in this urban district were invited to participate in university-led induction experiences. These induction experiences for all new teachers included three half-day orientation sessions held to prepare teachers for this urban context before the school year began, four professional development sessions for the novices during the school year, work with a comprehensive Web-based resource, and a series of seminars for principals. All of the treatment- and comparison-group teachers attended the orientation sessions held at the beginning of the school year. Five teachers from the treatment group attended at least one of the four after-school university-led seminars held across the year; 6 teachers from the comparison group attended at least one of these seminars.
The additional induction support received by teachers in the treatment group was intensive mentoring. Those who participated in the treatment group (but not those in the comparison group) interacted weekly with partially released mentors who received intensive preparation from university staff. The purpose of this research study is to compare induction that does not include intensive mentoring to induction that does include a specific model of intensive mentoring based on balanced instruction.
Within the program that includes intensive mentoring, induction is defined as a distinct phase in learning to teach (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a) that "stand[s] as a key juncture of learning, growth, and support" for beginning teachers (Paine, Pimm, Britton, Raizen, & Wilson, 2003, p. 15). At this juncture, the quality of support and learning is critical. The quality of interactions between beginning teachers and their colleagues can play a critical role in the success of novice teachers (Johnson, 2004).
Yet in our experience, we have found that the assignment of mentors is typically based on convenience, volunteerism, and entitlement rather than on selection of mentors who are willing to help novices continue learning to teach (Stanulis, Meloche, & Ames, 2008; Wood & Stanulis, in press). Within the induction program with intensive mentoring, preparation of mentors focused on helping novices enhance student achievement through development of effective balanced instructional practices. Such "educative" mentoring places emphasis on engaging beginning teachers in joint inquiry with a mentor to help novices understand the importance of learning from practice while providing tools useful for studying teaching, including observation, feedback, and analysis of student work (Allen, 1998; Feiman-Nemser, 2001b). This guidance goes beyond sharing instructional tips to place the mentor in a teaching role to build on knowledge and experiences gained at the university. Mentor preparation within this program builds on the research base of Feiman-Nemser (2001a, 2001b), the New Teacher Center (2005; Villar, 2004), and Stanulis et al. (2008), who found that through careful preparation and support, mentors can learn to have instructional conversations with novices that include understanding subject matter (Feiman-Nemser, Schwille, Carver, & Yusko, 1999), planning instruction, student engagement, and formative assessment (Wood, 1999).
Although it is a common component of induction, mentoring is underdeveloped in most school contexts. Our state is typical in having an unfunded state mandate to provide a mentor for each beginning teacher. To comply with this mandate, school districts often assign mentors to provide support for novices without contemplating the complexities of and possibilities for mentoring. Without any preparation, the assigned mentor can become a "buddy," available for advice and explaining school procedures but rarely observing or providing feedback about teaching and learning (Stanulis et al., 2008). Evidence suggests, however, that when mentors have substantial preparation and when the mentoring is instructional and standards based, beginning teachers can also have a significant impact on student achievement (Fletcher et...
|
