Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
BTSA and California's beginning teachers: how technology affects California's teacher induction process
(USC Thesis Other)
BTSA and California's beginning teachers: how technology affects California's teacher induction process
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
BTSA AND CALIFORNIA’S BEGINNING TEACHERS:
HOW TECHNOLOGY AFFECTS
CALIFORNIA’S TEACHER INDUCTION PROCESS
by
Jennifer Tedford
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2007
Copyright 2007 Jennifer Tedford
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study could not have been completed without the support and
assistance of my family, friends, and colleagues. Without my husband, Tony, I
firmly believe that I could not have achieved what should have been impossible
considering the obstacles of my past. My parents and sisters, especially
Rebecca, provided me with the frequent cheerleading I desperately needed to
move forward, even when I thought I could not. My editor and friend, Greg,
never once doubted my vision and provided me with invaluable conversations on
the elegance of language. Finally, I acknowledge the unfailing support of my
dissertation committee, Dr. Reynaldo Baca, Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores, and
especially Dr. Michael Genzuk, whose insight and thoughtful contributions made
all of the difference in the professional quality of this document.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................. ii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................ vii
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1
Background Of The Problem ...................................................................... 1
Purpose Of The Study ................................................................................. 3
Research Questions ..................................................................................... 5
The Importance Of The Study..................................................................... 5
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................ 6
Overview Of Research Design.................................................................... 6
Theoretical Frameworks.............................................................................. 7
Sample And Population .............................................................................. 8
Data Collection............................................................................................ 8
Delimitations............................................................................................... 9
Limitations .................................................................................................. 9
DEFINITION OF TERMS.............................................................................. 10
OUTLINE OF CHAPTERS............................................................................ 11
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................... 13
THE NATION'S DEMAND FOR HIGHLY QUALIFIED EDUCATORS... 13
Urban And Rural Education: Effects On School Communities............... 15
School Community And Socieconomic Status: Effects On Teacher
Retention .................................................................................................. 16
MENTORING AND TEACHER RETENTION ............................................ 17
Effective Mentoring Structures: Addressing Teacher Efficacy ................ 19
Barriers To Effective Mentoring............................................................... 21
Mentoring And Technology...................................................................... 22
TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS....................................................... 24
Pre-Service University Training And Teacher Development ................... 24
Technology And Teacher Education Programs ........................................ 28
State Induction Programs .......................................................................... 31
California’s Beginning Teacher Support And Assessment Induction
Program..................................................................................................... 36
iv
SUPPORTING BEGINNING TEACHERS AND TECHNOLOGY
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT............................................................. 38
The Quality And Delivery Of Professional Development ........................ 38
Professional Learning Communities......................................................... 40
Professional Learning Communities As A Constructivist Framework..... 43
The Professional Learning Community In The Electronic Era................. 46
Technology-Driven Professional Development........................................ 46
MULTIMEDIA LITERACY AND BEGINNING TEACHERS.................... 51
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework................... 54
SUMMARY OF TEACHER INDUCTION AND THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORKS ............................................................................................ 56
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 59
OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 59
Population And Sample ............................................................................ 60
RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................... 64
Interview Data........................................................................................... 64
Observation Data....................................................................................... 67
Archival Data ............................................................................................ 68
DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES.............................................................. 69
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................... 71
SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY.............................................................. 71
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS.............................................................................. 72
DEMOGRAPHICS ......................................................................................... 73
Community Characteristics....................................................................... 74
Participant Characteristics......................................................................... 75
The Influence Of Age And Previous Career............................................. 80
THE BTSA INDUCTION PROCESS AND CFASST ONLINE................... 84
CFASST Online And The Volume Of Data ............................................. 85
CFASST Online And The Quality Of Mentoring Time............................ 86
BTSA Induction Online Features And Teacher Use................................. 89
BTSA Induction Online And Participant Feedback.................................. 91
BTSA INDUCTION ONLINE AND DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION...... 93
BTSA Induction Online And Support Providers ...................................... 93
BTSA Induction Online And Meeting Schedules..................................... 96
BTSA Induction And Credential Coursework .......................................... 97
BTSA INDUCTION, TECHNOLOGY, AND TEACHER RETENTION .... 99
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................................................ 101
CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS .................................................................. 104
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 105
v
INTERVIEW, OBSERVATION, AND ARCHIVAL DATA...................... 105
LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH.................................................................................................. 115
CONCLUSION............................................................................................. 118
REFERENCES.............................................................................................. 120
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................... 130
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................... 132
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................... 137
APPENDIX D ............................................................................................... 141
vi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS, STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS..........................61
TABLE 2: DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS, SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHICS............................61
TABLE 3: BTSA INDUCTION PARTICIPANTS................................................................77
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY, AN EMERGING FRAMEWORK.....................42
FIGURE 2: CONCEPTUAL MAP OF RIMS/BTSA ONLINE SYSTEM..................................50
FIGURE 3: FACTORS OF INFLUENCE ON BEGINNING TEACHERS IN BTSA
INDUCTION AND THEIR OUTCOMES .........................................................................114
viii
ABSTRACT
Although California has experienced an increase in candidates entering
the K-12 teaching profession over the last five years, baby-boomer retirements
and high turn-over continue to contribute to school staffing problems that exist
throughout California’s diverse communities. In order to retain highly qualified
beginning teachers with formalized mentoring and professional development,
California’s Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) program was
created by the California Department of Education (CDE) and the California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC). All public school districts
receive state funds to administer the mandated BTSA Induction program;
however, each district has a great deal of freedom in how it delivers the program.
Recent advances in technology have resulted in the emergence of programs
throughout California in which technology is used as a vehicle for delivering the
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) Induction program. This
study explored the experiences of the BTSA Induction program in two districts
that utilize technology in innovative ways to mentor beginning teachers. How
technology affects the mentoring and professional development of beginning
teachers was evaluated in this multi-site case study.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In his science fiction masterpiece Fahrenheit 451 (1953), Ray Bradbury
predicted a world in which technology has rendered written literacy obsolete, and the
written word has little value. He envisioned a society in which visual media has
replaced books, and the value of creative thinking is displaced by destructive
consumerism. While Bradbury may not have been correct in his vision of the future of
the written word, he was remarkably accurate in how he saw the evolution of the
media’s escalating power. Text literacy has not disappeared; indeed, it has exploded
into inestimable variations that transcend traditional books and paper. Video, Internet
blogs, personal websites, podcasts—technology is evolving faster than most can
comprehend, resulting in a critical need for not only text literacy, but a broader form
of multimedia literacy. Such a need is essential for all individuals in modern society
(see Alvermann, 2004; Moore, 2001; Thoman & Jolls, 2004)), and a starting point in
addressing this need may be found with today’s educators.
Background of the Problem
Although definitions vary, multimedia literacy can be defined as a critical
awareness of how media and its vehicles of delivery influence information that is
represented in text, images, and sound (see Schwarz & Brown, 2006 for a collection of
recent definitions). A critical awareness of media includes not only an understanding,
but also the skills to use such vehicles of communication. Because society is
increasingly deluged with digital communication, multimedia literacy has become an
2
essential requirement in K-12 education (California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing, 2005; Goetze, Brown, & Schwarz, 2006). Meeting this requirement,
however, has become problematic due to the high attrition rate among the California
teaching force.
School staffing problems, particularly in communities that are economically
disadvantaged, make it difficult to retain teachers who can effectively utilize
multimedia tools. Although California has experienced an increase in the number of
candidates entering the K-12 teaching profession over the last five years, baby-boomer
retirements and high turn-over continue to contribute to the teacher staffing problem
that exists in Southern California’s schools. Indeed, Reed, Rueben, & Barbour (2006)
noted in the recent report on the retention of teachers that California is currently
experiencing a notable shortage of teachers in the areas of math and science, a
problem of recruitment that is not projected to improve in the foreseeable future. The
volume of new teachers working in urban schools and/or schools with students from
economically disadvantaged households pose particular challenges for districts that
must provide mentoring and professional development with the aim of retaining
quality educators in schools that are often labeled low-performing.
To resolve teacher staffing problems, California’s Beginning Teacher Support
and Assessment (BTSA) program was created by the California Department of
Education (CDE) and the CCTC in order to retain highly qualified teachers. This
formalized induction program provides mentoring and professional development
during teachers’ first two years in the classroom in order to retain teachers while they
3
obtain a Professional Clear Credential. Considered a success according to a 2002
report issued by the WestEd/SRI, an independent agency that conducted the appraisal
for the CCTC, the BTSA program has increased the retention rates of first- and
second-year teachers (Tushnet, Briggs, Elliot, Esch, Haviland, Humphrey, Rayyes,
Riehl, & Young, 2002). The overall aims of the program are directed at providing
funding, resources, and support for first and second year teachers who engage in an
induction process.
All public school districts receive state funding to administer the BTSA
Induction program, which is designed around the California Standards for the
Teaching Profession (CSTP); however, smaller districts are grouped into consortiums
that utilize funds to collaborate on professional development activities for beginning
teachers. The state created six clusters with a total of 153 participating consortiums.
While every consortium must meet the CSTP set by the State Superintendent of
Education, each district has the freedom to deliver the program along with its funding,
resources, and support in the way that best suits its needs according to the district’s
culture.
Consequently, the program in which new teachers engage can vary
considerably from district to district, prompting questions about consistency and
effectiveness across programs. Continuing advances in technology provoke additional
questions about how teacher induction programs are influenced by electronic
communication. This question is of enormous importance when considering the
impact of computer technology on how teachers are trained and mentored, as well as
4
how teachers then apply such technology knowledge in their classrooms to improve
student learning. Society has embarked on a period in which literacy alone is not
defined by knowledge of content and pedagogy; rather, multimedia literacy is essential
to a global community dominated by digital communication, presenting new
challenges for today’s teachers (Mishra & Koeler, 2006; Moore, 2001; Semali, 2006).
Purpose of the Study
Because teacher staffing problems are projected to increase in California in
spite of the state’s efforts to retain highly qualified teachers, teacher support and
mentoring programs, such as the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA)
Induction program, are critical in retaining highly qualified teachers. This program
continues to expand in order to support increasing numbers of first- and second-year
teachers; however, the many school districts which provide the BTSA Induction
program deliver it in significantly different ways, resulting in potentially dramatic
differences for new teachers engaged in what is ostensibly the same program.
Throughout the state, advances in computer technology have resulted in the
emergence of programs in which it is used as a vehicle for delivering mentoring and
professional development. The purpose of this study was to conduct a qualitative
analysis of the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) Induction
program with special attention given to the ways in which school districts use
computer technology in order to facilitate the induction process. Specifically, the
experience of teachers in the BTSA Induction program was examined in a multiple
case study, including a county office of education and two districts with different
5
demographic statuses which utilize computer technology in many aspects of the
induction process. An analysis of how mentoring and professional development
delivered with technology affect a new teacher’s experience and instructional choices
was conducted through the lens of social constructivism and technology theoretical
frameworks.
Research Questions
The primary research question is as follows:
1. What are the experiences of beginning teachers in the BTSA Induction
program with consideration of the recent addition of technology resources?
Related sub-questions are as follows:
a. In what ways does technology used to mentor and deliver
professional development make a difference in a BTSA
teacher’s experience?
b. What are the differences in how technology affects the delivery
of the BTSA Induction program in different districts, and how
do these differences affect a beginning teacher’s experience?
Importance of the Study
Because the induction and retention of quality K-12 educators are essential to
the success of California’s increasingly diverse student population, this study’s
exploration into the induction process of beginning teachers is useful for policy
makers, administrators, and BTSA Induction providers in the ongoing evaluation and
development of an effective induction program for California’s beginning teachers.
6
The recent introduction of technology into several BTSA programs throughout
California raises important questions about the value of multimedia scholarship and
literacy in program improvement. It is the constant state of change inherent in
technology that amplifies the need for continuous evaluation of the ways in which
teacher induction programs are affected by technology’s influence. This study
explored such questions from the perspective of those who experience it: BTSA
Induction administrators, BTSA Induction support providers, and most important,
BTSA Induction beginning teachers.
Methodology
Overview of Research Design
This study evaluated the BTSA Induction program within the context of
technology’s impact on mentoring and related professional development in two public
school districts in Southern California. The individual experiences of participants in
the BTSA Induction program at the county level and at districts of varying
demographic status were examined. Depth of study was supported through the
exploration of detailed issues of beginning teachers. Several dissertations have been
written on BTSA programs, with attention given to the individual experiences of new
teachers; however, no studies have heretofore addressed how technology has
influenced the mentoring and professional development a beginning teacher
experiences in the BTSA Induction program. Moreover, while substantial survey and
other quantitative data have been collected, few qualitative studies have been
conducted, resulting in an incomplete picture of a beginning teacher’s BTSA
7
Induction experience. This study aimed to contribute to this emerging body of
research.
Theoretical Frameworks
Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (1992) extends a social
constructivist position that learning takes place with the assistance of another more
knowledgeable individual. The BTSA Induction program’s structure of pairing a
beginning teacher with an experienced teacher is based on social constructivism.
Louis and Kruse’s Professional Community Framework (1995) builds on
Vygotsky’s constructivist framework wherein learning occurs through collaboration
with multiple participants, both novices and experts, engaged in a common goal. The
BTSA Induction program can be viewed as an emerging example of the professional
community model.
Shulman’s model of teacher content and pedagogical knowledge (1987)
provides a lens for viewing the stages of teacher development and expertise, and the
integration of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Mishra and Koehler’s
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework (2006) extends Shulman’s
model, suggesting that teachers need case-based instruction if they are to meaningfully
apply technology in the classroom. This study examined how technology is
integrated into the BTSA Induction process and continues to affect mentoring and
professional development activities in which beginning teachers participate.
Woolfolk and Hoy (1990), and later, Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy
(1998) expanded on Bandura’s theory of Self-Efficacy (1977) to consider the more
8
specific nature of teacher efficacy, a teacher’s feeling of competence in influencing
student achievement. In addition, Bandura (2002) recently examined the influence of
electronic technologies on personal and collective efficacy, also relevant to this study
in how the use of technology in the BTSA Induction program affects beginning
teacher efficacy.
Sample and Population
Purposeful sampling focused on typical cases within the larger context of
beginning teachers from two districts, one in an urban area and one in a rural area, that
are using technology for the purpose of teacher induction. Beginning teachers and
their support providers from two Southern California districts were included in the
sample. From each district, typical case sampling was done to illustrate the common
experiences of two second-year teachers and their mentors (called support providers)
with attention paid to the technology professional development which beginning
teachers receive. Additional sources of data included the local county office of
education and district administration responsible for new teacher induction, also
included in the sample.
Data Collection
Qualitative data was collected through interviews with and observations of
BTSA Induction participants. Audio-taped interviews were conducted with beginning
teachers and support providers in the BTSA Induction program with strict attention
given to what Patton terms “thick description” (2002, p. 437). Interviews were also
carried out with BTSA administration, including those who coordinate the program
9
and train support providers. Observations of BTSA meetings were also performed for
the purpose of gathering data about the differential experiences of beginning teachers
in the BTSA Induction program. County and district documents, such as the
consortium’s BTSA Induction report as well as each district’s BTSA Induction annual
report on the use of technology were also examined to elucidate important influences
on beginning teachers’ implementation of technology in their instruction. Overall,
triangulation of sources was attempted in order to discover new avenues of acquiring
information as well as to determine the findings’ consistency.
Delimitations
1. This study does not examine the possible influences of teachers’ personal
characteristics, such as race or ethnicity. Although these characteristics are
listed in the sample population characteristics, and while these factors may
influence a teacher’s experience in the BTSA Induction program, they were
beyond the scope of this study to be fully examined.
Limitations
This study is limited by the following factors:
1. Though the sample is purposeful, the number of participants is limited, in part,
by those who agreed to be interviewed. These participants may or may not
reflect teachers in environments other than urban communities; therefore the
results may not be generalized to every population.
2. The measurement instrument in this study is an inherent bias in its inability to
fully capture the comprehensive experiences of beginning teachers.
10
3. As with any qualitative study, this study’s use of participant perceptions is a
limitation with regard to the potential for bias.
Definition of Terms
Multimedia Literacy: critical awareness of how media and its vehicles of
delivery influence information that is represented in text, images, and/or sound.
Original and often non-traditional methods of communication such as computer
technology, video cameras, digital cameras, and music may be examined and/or used
by the multimedia-literate individual.
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA): a state-funded program,
co-sponsored by the California Department of Education (CDE) and the Commission
on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) designed to support the professional development
of newly-credentialed, beginning teachers and fulfill the requirements for the
California Clear Multiple and Single Subjects Credential.
Induction: a state-funded certification program that provides coursework in
order to earn a California Professional Clear Credential.
California Formative Assessment and Support System for Teachers
(CFASST): a support and formative assessment process designed to assist beginning
teachers' professional development in the BTSA program. This system is made up of
events in which teachers engage in a "plan, teach, reflect, apply" process, that blends
teaching knowledge with performance.
11
Participating Teacher (PT): Also sometimes referred to as a BT (Beginning
Teacher), First and second-year teachers who participate in the BTSA program. In
some cases, a third-year teacher may participate in the BTSA Induction program.
Support Provider (SP): experienced mentor teachers who support participating
teachers in the BTSA program.
California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP): comprised of six
standards from which teachers design their instruction. The standards include:
“engaging and supporting all students in learning, creating and maintaining effective
environments for student learning, understanding and organizing subject matter for
student learning, planning instruction and designing learning experiences for all
students, assessing student learning, and developing as a professional educator.”
Professional Learning Community (PLC): a group comprised of
administrators, school staff, students, and parents who share a vision of student
learning and collaborate on decision-making toward this goal.
Outline of Chapters
This study was conducted in order to examine the experiences of beginning
teachers in the BTSA Induction program within the context of how technology
professional development affects a beginning teacher’s experience. This chapter
introduces this topic with an overview of issues in education which impact new
teachers’ experiences. Chapter two reviews the literature on national and state
concerns regarding teacher retention in California’s diverse communities, pre-service
teacher education programs, as well as district-sponsored induction programs through
12
the lenses of social constructivism and technology theoretical frameworks. Chapter
three provides a description of the methodology used in this qualitative study. Chapter
four reveals the findings of data gathered on how technology has affected participants
in the BTSA Induction process. Chapter five describes limitations and
recommendations for future research, based on the results of this study.
13
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The literature reviewed in this chapter focuses on multimedia literacy issues
confronting beginning teachers as they engage in teacher induction in Southern
California public schools. Within this review, teacher staffing problems, teacher
education and support systems, the stages of teacher development, and the use of
technology to deliver mentoring and professional development for K-12 teacher
induction programs are discussed. First, the literature on teacher retention and the
nation’s teacher staffing problems in urban and rural communities are reviewed.
Second, the literature on mentoring and teacher education is discussed, with added
focus given to technology’s emerging influence. Third, teacher induction programs
across the nation are reviewed, with special attention given to California’s Beginning
Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) program as a professional development
structure. Finally, the literature on multimedia literacy in education is reviewed.
The Nation’s Demand for Highly Qualified Educators
One of the more troubling topics in education is the continuing debate about
the growing teacher shortage throughout the United States. A September 2000 U.S.
Department of Education’s Teacher’s Guide affirms the challenges facing the nation’s
need for quality educators, claiming that “American schools will need to hire more
than 2 million teachers in the next decade due to increased student enrollment and the
need to replace teachers who retire or otherwise leave the profession”
(http://www.ed.gov/pubs/TeachersGuide/teach.html). A more recent report by The
14
Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at Santa Cruz (2004) concluded that
California will need an additional 100,000 teachers over the next ten years (p. 9).
Moreover, “the gap between teacher supply and demand is expected to widen in future
years, peaking in 2012-13 at a shortage of about 52,000 teachers” (p. 9), or 38,000
teachers if interns are included in this number. These reports suggest that there is an
unmistakable teacher supply and demand problem facing California’s public schools.
Yet, the demand for teachers warrants further analysis if the problem is to be
more fully understood and addressed. According to Ingersoll (2002, 2003), the
teacher shortage is not accurately described as merely a result of teacher retirements
and increased student enrollment, common conclusions drawn by recent reports.
Ingersoll’s analysis of data drawn from the Schools and Staffing Survey, the Teacher
Follow-up survey, and the Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System reveal
that teacher staffing problems are a result of teachers’ moving to other schools or
leaving the profession altogether. That is, the problem may not exclusively be
described as a shortage. Rather, teacher turnover is attributable to what Ingersoll
terms as “movers” and “leavers,” resulting in schools with staffing problems (2003,
p.9). For policymakers, these data suggest that an emphasis on recruitment alone is
not an appropriate solution. Instead, combining careful recruitment and retention
policies may be a more effective in solving district staffing problems (Guarino,
Santibanez, Daley, & Brewer, 2004).
Recruitment alone and other supply-side solutions may not only fail to solve
the problem but could also make the situation worse. If recruitment strategies involve
15
lowering teacher standards, or if the effect of increasing teacher supply is to deflate
salaries or erode working conditions, then these measures may simply exacerbate the
root factors behind school staffing difficulties. (Ingersoll, 2003, p. 17). Data on
staffing problems have not gone unnoticed by policymakers, and the result is the
establishment of state-initiated teacher induction programs designed to support and
retain highly qualified teachers.
Urban and Rural Education: Effects on School Communities
Urban and rural education pose challenges for teachers that begin with the
connotation of the terms. According to Popkewitz (1998), “urban” and “rural” are
terms that transcend location and connote qualitative differences in the children who
belong to such communities. In contrast, students who live in suburban areas are less
likely to be categorized as either, and the result is a classification system that
associates suburban communities with power and social status. Urban and rural
communities, conversely, suggest an “otherness” that is outside of the norm and can
be linked to spatial politics that relegates these students to lower social status.
Moreover, the inequalities of location for urban and rural students move beyond
subjective opinion, as demonstrated by the uneven distribution of economic resources.
In their study of the educational inequalities of place, Roscigno, Tomaskovic-
Devey, and Crowley (2006) described the flight from rural areas as a “brain drain” (p.
2124) that occurs when educated individuals relocate to areas with greater economic
opportunity, leaving rural communities with little influence on local governments to
provide adequate educational investment. The inner city fares no better when local
16
governments are forced to choose between the overwhelming necessity for social
services and what is perceived as the less pressing need for educational investment. In
their analysis of school investments, Roscigno et al. found such spatial stratification
resulted in inequalities and outcomes that were striking, particularly in rural
communities. Measuring 10
th
grade math and reading achievement, the authors
concluded that after controlling for race/ethnicity and gender, school investments such
as the number of Advanced Placement courses offered, the student-teacher ratio, and
teacher encouragement of academic achievement—these investments mediated student
achievement deficits in urban and rural areas. Such data pose interesting questions for
educators grappling with finding ways of improving the achievement of struggling
students in these communities.
What complicates California’s attempt to meet federal performance mandates
is its high percentage of urban and rural communities. A 2005 report on rural
education found that while California students comprise only a 5% rural population,
these students represent a larger rural enrollment than most other states in the country.
In fact, the median number of students attending rural schools in California is 308,990,
while the number is only 148,579 for the United States overall (Johnson & Strange,
2005).
School Community and Socioeconomic Status: Effects on Teacher Retention
While spatial stratification and the resulting educational inequities are of
concern to educators and policy makers, the problem may be more accurately
identified as one mediated by a community’s socioeconomic status. Ingersoll’s (2004)
17
meta-analysis of teacher-turnover data showed that rural and urban high poverty
schools had a much higher teacher turnover rate than that of low poverty schools.
That urban and rural communities in California school are composed of high minority
populations further complicates teacher retention concerns. According to a 2004
RAND report on teacher recruitment and retention, the greatest impending need for
teachers will occur in urban schools with large minority populations. However,
teacher attrition is associated with these very schools, showing the highest amount of
attrition within a teacher’s first three years (Guarino, Santibanez, Daley, & Brewer,
2004). While RAND’s report is comprehensive and well-supported by Ingersoll’s
extensive research, the findings of Guarino et al. are limited by their lack of theory on
which to validate their results. Even so, the converging evidence of research suggests
that retention is a key area of focus, which has led researchers and educators to
explore new avenues for pre- and in-service teacher training to address concerns with
teacher retention rather than recruitment. Retaining teachers in schools that are
demographically and socio-economically diverse has led to the emergence of
mentoring programs that include the use of technology as a vehicle for communication
and professional development.
Mentoring and Teacher Retention
The practice of mentoring can be traced back to the origins of Greek literature.
In the Greek classic The Odyssey of Homer (1999), the goddess of wisdom, Athena,
takes the form of a character named Mentor, who guides Odysseus’ son Telemachos
while his father is away fighting the Trojan War. It is no coincidence that Mentor’s
18
role originates from the word mentos, "intent, purpose, spirit, passion" and the root
men, “to think,” which define the supportive nature of Mentor’s role in the epic. Like
their ancient Greek precursor, mentors play an increasingly essential role in the
teaching profession; however, teaching has more recently been called “the profession
that eats its young” (Halford, 1998, p. 33), leaving new teachers wary of soliciting
assistance from veteran teachers with whom they often compete for preferable
teaching assignments. In response to this problem, schools have begun formalizing
the mentoring relationship, providing induction programs in which veterans mentor
novices. According to Ingersoll (2003), Esch, Chang-Ross, Guha, Tiffany-Morales,
and Shields (2004), as well as the National Commission on Teaching & America’s
Future (2003), formalized mentoring program can improve teacher retention,
particularly when such programs provide mentor training and allow mentors and new
teachers release time to collaborate on the concerns of the beginning teachers.
According to McCann and Johannessen (2004), new teacher concerns include an
“unmanageable workload” and an inability to correct “classroom problems” (p. 142),
issues that appear to be predictors in why beginning teachers leave the profession.
Renard (2003) describes new teacher concerns as the competing demands of
classroom instruction versus extracurricular assignments, which often overwhelm new
teachers who have enough difficulty simply fulfilling their teaching obligations.
Mentoring can provide essential support for teachers who must learn to juggle a
variety of activities beyond teaching.
19
Effective Mentoring Structures: Addressing Teacher Efficacy
A return to the etymology of the word mentor provides a context in which to
view the ways mentoring can be effective and increase teacher retention. Inherent in
the word is the generous act of aiding another individual through a time of challenge
or difficulty. Hargreaves and Fullan (2000) capture this essential nature of mentoring:
In the drive to standardize teaching—to define and demarcate it through graded
benchmarks of knowledge and competence—it is easy to lose sight of
teaching’s emotional dimension, of the enthusiasm, passion, and dedication
that make many teachers great. Emotion energizes teaching but can also drain
it…Mentoring therefore, involves more than guiding protégés through learning
standards and skill sets and extends to providing strong and continuous
emotional support. (p. 53)
While giving teachers assistance in subject area content and pedagogy is important,
providing them with emotional support is also a critical component of effective
mentoring programs. Furthermore, Hargreaves and Fullan stress mentoring as a
vehicle for the development of teachers as change agents who serve as leaders in a
professional community of ongoing educational improvement (p. 55). Integrating new
teachers as members of the valued school culture can address the isolation that is a
common problem for beginning teachers. Renard (2003), along with McCann and
Johannessen (2004) reinforces Hargreaves and Fullan’s point on integrating new
teachers into the school culture with the support of mentors who help them deal with
the demands of teaching and as well as the profession’s related obligations. Renard
specifically advises that new teachers be given schedules that are parallel to those of
their mentors in order to maximize collaboration time and reduce isolation.
20
Roberts and Pruitt (2003) continue this idea of effective mentoring programs
with their recommendations that mentors and new teachers “teach comparable
students or the same or similar subjects, have common planning time, and have (both)
been provided with orientation to the mentoring process” (p. 145). Simply pairing a
new teacher with a veteran teacher is not sufficient to deliver meaningful support to
novices, a point echoed by Gilbert (2005) in her recommendation that the matching of
mentors to new teachers must be conducted with consideration given to the beginning
teacher’s needs.
Yet, effective mentoring must also address issues of teacher efficacy. A
mentor’s value may ultimately be found in providing subject area and pedagogical
support. Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy (1977) in which an individual believes he
or she can effect successful completion of a task has been extended to what Woolfolk
and Hoy (1990), and Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy (1998) later described as
teacher efficacy, a teacher’s sense of competence in influencing student learning
outcomes. Teacher efficacy is also linked to teacher retention. According to a study of
why teachers “stay, move, or leave” teaching, Johnson and Birkeland (2002) found
that a sense of efficacy was paramount in influencing these choices. Furthermore,
Tschannen-Moran et al. concluded that novice teachers with high teacher efficacy had
“a more positive reaction to teaching, and experienced less stress” (p. 236), suggesting
that effective mentor support systems can positively influence teacher efficacy and
teacher retention. Yet, the effect of mentoring on teacher efficacy is no longer defined
simply by the in-person guidance a veteran provides a novice. Rather, Bandura (2002)
21
suggests that personal and collective efficacy of individuals are dramatically
influenced by electronic communication. This new vehicle for exchange
paradoxically both increases and reduces the human connectedness in the mentoring
process. While electronic communication can increase the frequency of
communication, it can reduce the personal connection from which beginning teacher
benefit. What this means for mentors is the new challenge of guiding novices in how
utilizing technology’s benefits without losing sight of the personal relationship
established during the mentoring process.
Designing mentoring programs that genuinely serve beginning teachers in their
first years requires structured training and delivery of support. The data show that
such a structure can increase the retention of beginning teachers (Guarino, Santibanez,
Daley, & Brewer, 2004; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004).
Barriers to Effective Mentoring
While mentoring has gained increasing public support, it has its critics
regarding its practical implementation. In her examination of the mentoring
phenomenon at its inception in the 1980s, Little (1990) concluded that “the
proliferation of mentor programs results not from a groundswell of teacher interest,
but is largely a product of policy interests and institutional concerns” (p. 340). Little
poses critical questions for educators who have wholly embraced the practice of
mentoring with few studies to support its effectiveness. A study conducted by Wang
and Odell (2003) reinforces Little’s questions about the impact of mentoring. Wang
and Odell found that “preservice teachers may need to be conceptually ready to learn
22
from mentors and that mentors may need dispositions and skills necessary to support
preservice teachers” (p. 169), even when it means that student learning is
compromised in order to support the development of a new teacher’s practice. Such
inconclusive findings beg the question of how beginning teachers are to be mentored if
they are not conceptually ready for the mentor’s guidance. Moreover, the form of
guidance provided by mentors raises a host of questions in its wide range of
possibilities. In their analysis of mentoring programs, Semeniuk and Worrall (2000)
conclude that the ambiguity of the term suggests a kind of paradox in which the
process of mentoring simplifies the inherent complexity of teaching; that is, teaching
requires years of practice to refine as a craft, and perhaps as an art. The expanding
structure of mentoring may ultimately diminish the art of teaching. Semeniuk and
Worral extend the complexity of the issue with their assertion that “most researchers
recognize that the word ‘mentor,’ unmodified and uncontextualized, like most words,
has no precise meaning. Yet unlike most nomenclature, ‘mentoring’ has the power to
conjure up an interpersonal arrangement which they claim to be successful in varying
degrees” (p. 424), and herein lies the danger in mentoring. Mentors have great
flexibility in their role, which provides them with the power to shape a beginning
teacher’s attitudes and practices.
Mentoring and Technology
The demands on new teachers to apply technology pedagogy in increasingly
complex environments have led to a variety of mentoring and induction programs in
which technology support is provided. And yet, according to the U.S. Department of
23
Education, “Teachers do not receive the support and ongoing learning opportunities
they need. Four out of five teachers say they do not feel ‘very well prepared’ for the
realities of today’s classrooms, addressing the needs of diverse students and those with
special needs, integrating technology into their instruction, and teaching to challenging
standards” (2000). In response to these issues, the U.S. Department of Education
launched nine initiatives to address teacher quality, providing funding and support for
technology education and new teacher induction. Because teacher attrition rates are
high, mentoring programs have become a popular method for supporting and retaining
first and second year teachers.
The demands of a global society suggest that technology can be utilized in
creative ways to support beginning teachers in assimilating into both the school
culture and the larger culture of educators. Schools of education are beginning to
provide online courses designed around online communities of learners, allowing
students instant access to professors and other beginning teachers in a networked
space (Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996: Lepage & Robinson,
2005). A natural outgrowth of online courses is “e-mentoring,” partnerships between
K-12 schools and universities in which beginning teachers have access to a network of
other beginning teachers as well as mentors, improving feelings of school community
and teacher efficacy (Fisler & Firestone, 2006). E-mentoring creates access to a
discussion forum that provides information, coaching, and ultimately a space in which
novices can “find their balance” (National Commission on Teaching and America’s
24
Future, 2003, p. 68). The possibilities for technology’s use in mentoring are worth
further consideration.
Mentoring is a practice that has great appeal and increasing support, and may
positively impact teacher retention. In order to formalize the mentor-novice
relationship and increase the retention of beginning teachers, university schools of
education have begun to respond by designing programs that support teacher
development. The following section reviews the literature on university teacher
education programs.
Teacher Education Programs
Pre-Service University Training and Teacher Development
Because the success of teachers has much to do with the training they receive,
the quality of university teacher education programs continues to be a relevant concern
in the development stages of beginning teachers. The research on teacher education
program design has undergone intense scrutiny over the last twenty-five years, with
the emergence of two opposing perspectives. There are those who have concentrated
on curricular issues, emphasizing which content teachers should know and be able to
teach (Ball, 1990; Floden, 2005). Others, however, call for study of pedagogical
approaches, focusing on how one teaches in addition to what is taught (Darling-
Hammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust, & Shulman, 2005; Grossman, 2005;
Hammerness, et al., 2005; Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, Grossman, Rust, &
Shulman, 2005; Loughran, 1997). While there is little disagreement regarding the
value of both content knowledge and pedagogical practices in university teacher
25
education programs, what content knowledge, which pedagogical practices, and how
much of each continues to frustrate the development of teacher education programs
that reflect a coherent vision of what good instruction embodies. Moreover, there is
growing research which indicates that content knowledge and pedagogical practices
are lost in the context of the classroom. According to Hammerness et al. (2005) “even
when novice teachers have developed solid ideas about teaching, putting them into
action is extremely challenging,” (p. 374) due to the complexity and range of skills
required. Compounding this challenge is the research on a teacher’s first two years of
teaching as a predictor of future instructional effectiveness, reinforcing the critical
importance of pre-service and in-service teacher education program design (Rowan,
2002).
Fuller (1969) contends that the concerns of beginning teachers versus those of
experienced teachers also reveal much about how teaching can be conceptualized,
posing implications for teacher education programs. Fuller found that while
experienced teachers expressed concerns focused on the progress of their students,
beginning teachers revealed concerns that focused on themselves. For example,
beginning teachers expressed concern about such issues as “criticism from superiors,
maintaining discipline, and praise from inspectors” (p. 217). Whereas beginning
teachers focused on the “self,” more experienced teachers developed concerns for
“others,” suggesting a need for teacher education programs and K-12 induction
programs to address the spectrum of teachers’ issues over the course of their training.
26
Another seminal work in the area of teacher development is found in
Shulman’s (1987) model of teacher content and pedagogical knowledge. Shulman’s
work illuminates the flaws in teacher education programs as well as the underpinnings
of teacher effectiveness. While Shulman expresses “wonder at how the extensive
knowledge of teaching can be learned at all during the brief period allotted to teacher
preparation” (p. 7), he also condemns the teaching profession as one in which
“collective amnesia” (p. 11), is standard practice with little attention given to
reflection on process or collection of effective practices. Shulman’s model of
Pedagogical Reasoning and Action echoes Bloom’s Cognitive Taxonomy (Bloom,
1956) with Comprehension presented as a basic level of teaching, progressing to
Evaluation as a more sophisticated teaching approach. What is significant about
Shulman’s model is the addition of Reflection and New Comprehensions as iterative
processes that encourage teachers to return to what they know in order to build and
improve upon their practice. Returning to the earlier discussion of the conflict
between pedagogy and content knowledge as isolated processes, Shulman argues for a
process that ultimately integrates the two.
Effective university teacher education programs work in concert with the
stages of teacher development. Darling-Hammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust, and
Shulman, (2005) define the problems with program design as those with a foundation
of “connection and coherence” (p. 391), suggesting that the best programs “are built
around a strong, shared vision of good teaching practice” (p. 392). According to
Zeichner and Liston (1990), teacher education programs have historically been
27
grouped loosely into four philosophical traditions: 1) an academic tradition with a
focus on teacher knowledge, 2) a social efficiency tradition with a focus on teacher
pedagogy, 3) a developmental tradition with a focus on student cognitive
development, and 4) a social reconstructionist tradition with a focus on issues of social
justice. While such traditions are valuable to consider, the reality of teacher education
programs is such that all of these traditions are often embedded in university programs
with varying degrees of emphasis and consistency. Darling-Hammond et al. stress
program design that considers content with a cognitive map of teaching that connects
instructional theory to effective teaching in practice. Moreover, effective programs
address teacher learning in context with a scope and sequence that orients beginning
teachers to the process of instruction. Professional learning communities are an
effective forum both at the university level and in the environment of the school
community, such that teachers have access to the ideas of their beginning teacher
colleagues as well as those of more experienced professionals. In sum, Darling-
Hammond et al. advocate program design that builds on the best of instructional
theory along with the reality of effective classroom pedagogy.
Grossman’s (2005) review of pedagogy research may best highlight the
problem of effective teacher education programs. Echoing Darling-Hammond et al.’s
call for “connection and coherence” (2005, p. 391), Grossman concludes that the lack
of an overarching framework, which encompasses more than one pedagogy, is the
central flaw in designing effective preparation programs. A teacher education
program that is comprehensive yet clear in its vision and purpose continues to elude
28
teacher educators, resulting in a disparity of learning outcomes for developing
teachers.
One component of teacher education programs that has become increasingly
essential is the development of teachers as leaders. Leadership in public schools has
traditionally occurred in two ways: through the initiative of individual teachers who
return to universities for administrative credential coursework and by way of school
professional development activities that prepare teachers to assume leadership roles.
Yet, neither of these avenues addresses beginning teachers who must assume a
leadership perspective, often in their first two years. The paradox of heavy demands
followed by inconsistent preparation is noted by Sherrill: “universities and states are
quickly adopting changes and altering requirements for teacher preparation, but they
are not simultaneously developing and offering programs to prepare the teacher
leaders who are expected to implement change” (1999, p. 56). While some K-12
schools are structured to support new teachers in leadership roles (see Schmoker,
2001), many provide little or no support for teachers to develop leadership skills, and
schools of education appear to be doing no better in how they prepare teacher leaders.
Technology and Teacher Education Programs
Coupled with the traditional concerns in all teacher education programs is the
emerging question of how to integrate technology content and pedagogy into the
curriculum of teacher education. More recently, the call has been for technology to be
implemented not as a separate course, but as a strand throughout all coursework
(Brzycki & Dudt, 2005; Pohan & Dieckmann, 2005), transitioning to technology
29
professional development within a partnership between K-12 schools and universities
(Murrell, 2000; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996;
Pohan & Dieckmann, 2005), leading to the development of the teacher whom Pohan
and Dieckmann describe as “learner to implementer to leader” (p. 24).
Yet, the development of a teacher education curriculum that embraces a
multimedia technology platform continues to elude schools of education. According
to Moore (2001), the majority of data are now “born digital” (p. 28); that is, the
creation of information is no longer a paper-based process, posing questions regarding
attitudes related to the traditions of teaching. Training educators to embrace such a
fluid platform for instruction brings with it new challenges in light of the historical
traditions of teacher training that have emphasized a paper-based system of reading,
writing, and arithmetic. When the acts of reading and writing are performed via
digital means, the outcomes are not necessarily products that demand physical space;
rather, they may be located in a virtual space. Such a change in platform requires
thoughtful consideration of how to cultivate new and positive attitudes about how
teachers learn and how they will then teach students.
One way teacher education programs have embraced digital instruction is
through Web-based teaching portfolios. While the practical challenges of Web-based
portfolios are many (see Wetzel & Strudler, 2005), the outcomes can result in
philosophical and pedagogical benefits. For example, Milman (2005) found that
digital teaching portfolios allowed teachers to engage in a constructivist process of
reflection on teaching beliefs, which allowed teachers to refine and strengthen their
30
core reasons for having entered the profession. Shulman (1998) affirms this position,
asserting that a teaching portfolio is the “structured documentary history of a set of
coached or mentored acts of teaching…fully realized only through reflective writing,
deliberation, and conversation” (p. 37). As a vehicle for supporting the core vision
Darling-Hammond advocates for teacher education programs, portfolios are ideal.
Additionally, Milman found that digital teaching portfolios improved self-confidence
and skills in the use of technology, including pedagogical applications. In her study,
Milman’s interviews revealed that teachers’ improved abilities to use technology
encouraged them to use it for interviewing purposes (i.e., Web-pages) as well as to
share their knowledge and skills with colleagues (p. 387), resulting in benefits for the
new teacher as well as in-service teachers. While the implementation of teaching
portfolios can be a time-consuming process, particularly with regard to their
evaluation, their benefits to new teachers are numerous.
As digital portfolios and other methods of increasing the multimedia literacy of
pre-service teachers become more prevalent, universities’ progress on how to best
implement technology into teacher education programs continues to move slowly
(Davies, Szabo, & Montgomerie, 2002; Goetze, Brown, & Schwarz, 2004). In fact,
Hobbs (2004) concludes that “by and large, schools of education have yet to discover
media literacy” (p. 56), leaving new teachers with only superficial skills to effectively
teach students in a rapidly changing multimedia world.
Additional changes in education that have influenced the multimedia literacy
of beginning teachers are found in English language arts coursework at various
31
universities around the country. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE) 2003 standards include instructional technology use and analysis
as measures of teacher multimedia literacy. Moreover, universities such as
Appalachian State University, Pennsylvania State University, Oklahoma State
University, University of Missouri, Columbia, and University of Southern California
have begun adding multimedia literacy components to their undergraduate coursework
(Goetze, Brown, & Schwarz, 2006). In fact, the University of Southern California’s
Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, C.L. Max Nikias, recently
announced the launch of a program that will engage all undergraduate students in
multimedia coursework:
Beginning next fall we will introduce multimedia learning into the university’s
already-rigorous core curriculum, offering our students cutting-edge education
in this area. This programming represents a one-of-a-kind collaboration
between our School of Cinema-Television’s Institute for Multimedia Literacy
and our College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences. The curriculum will help
prepare our students to express themselves in the modern world; to
communicate clearly and cogently with an array of tools beyond the written
word.” (personal communication, March 20, 2006)
Communicating a clear vision that embraces and fully integrates multimedia literacy
into undergraduate coursework is a first significant step toward training teachers,
indeed all individuals, to be fully literate in a multimedia world.
State Induction Programs
In K-12 education, mentoring and induction programs have become standard
practice in states across the nation, largely due to the increased retention rates among
beginning teachers (see Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999). However, how induction is
32
defined by each state continues to vary and present misconceptions about what it is,
how it should work, and the results it should yield in beginning teachers (Horn,
Sterling, & Subhan, 2002; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future,
2003). In fact, according the American Federation of Teachers, “more than 34 percent
of the states—17 states in all—are silent on induction, offering neither policy guidance
nor funding” (2001, p. 2-3). A review of programs in Connecticut, Kentucky,
Washington, D.C., Georgia, and Arizona provide insight into the development of
teacher induction across the country.
In the Northeast, Connecticut’s Beginning Educator Support and Training
(BEST) program is considered a “best practices” model according to a report by the
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996), which found
Connecticut’s “quest for teacher quality…like the bunny battery that never stops” (p.
89). Connecticut’s commitment to teacher quality is evident in its high standards for
teacher education and licensure, including a two-year induction program that provides
mentoring, course-work focused on state-required multimedia portfolios, paid release
time, and a graduate degree by the end of the second year. The intensive and focused
quality of Connecticut’s BEST program resulted in “meteoric gains in the levels of
student achievement” (Horn et al. 2002, p. 16) and beginning teachers who “are
among the best prepared in the nation” (National Commission on Teaching and
America’s Future, 1996, p. 89). Additional proof of the success of Connecticut’s
program is found in the state’s reduced attrition rates; that teachers are remaining in
33
the profession suggests that the program is effective (Darling-Hammond & Berry,
1999).
In the middle part of the country, Washington D.C. and Kentucky have
struggled with reforming their teacher induction programs. Aaronson (1999) cites
lack of funding and lack of a focused vision for induction as the reasons for the slow
progress in Washington D.C. schools where mentoring programs have only recently
begun providing mentors to new teachers. Collaboration between D.C. public schools
and George Washington University has also been initiated recently to improve teacher
induction, a particularly critical concern considering almost half of D.C. public school
teachers are not credentialed in the subject they teach (National Commission on
Teaching and America’s Future, 1996, p. 146). As a result of radical reform in
funding and programs, Kentucky’s induction process is more structured, resulting in
teachers who receive training that better prepares them for effective subject area
teaching (Atwood, Shake, Slaton, & Hales, 1995). A focus on standards mandated by
the state in 1990 has also led to the Kentucky New Teacher Standards; teachers
receive mentoring their first year and are team-assessed on their performance in
teaching to these standards (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future,
2003). However, Atwood et al. also found that teachers felt unprepared in such areas
as assessment and portfolio practices, a perception that Atwood et al. found was due to
frequent changes in Kentucky’s mandates.
In the South, the Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program (GSTEP)
provides insight into the use of technology in induction programs. A partnership
34
among three Georgia universities, 11 public school districts, various business and state
agencies, GSTEP was created to reform the teacher induction process and improve
student achievement. While the GSTEP program has induction goals similar to many
of the other state induction program goals reviewed here, it diverges in its focus on the
use of technology to promote its goals. Georgia is also unique in its integration of
funding into the induction process for specific professional development on
technology. The GSTEP program’s aims are directed at involving a variety of
stakeholders in the induction process with a particular focus on training teachers to use
technology in new ways in order to improve student achievement.
In the West, Arizona’s induction program provides a snapshot of the
inconsistency with which districts struggle when developing induction programs.
According to Horn, Sterling, and Subhan (2002), only 137 of the 197 school districts
surveyed had induction programs, and these programs varied greatly, with a mere 34
districts providing consistent and ongoing induction programs. Horn et al. found
conflicts between topics addressed in new teacher professional development and the
goals reported by the districts. That is, the districts that were surveyed reported that
while the most commonly addressed topics included curriculum and standards, the
least reported goals were pedagogy and student achievement, suggesting a need for
consistent vision within the state. Survey data also revealed that while mentoring is a
part of Arizona’s induction programs, the mentor-novice relationship is informal with
no funding, guidelines, or expectations required by districts. Finally, funding was
found to be the greatest concern, with lack of financial support and resources cited as
35
the central reason that only 34 of Arizona’s 197 school districts have induction
programs.
In the Southwest, California’s Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment
program (BTSA) was designed after earlier efforts in Southern California’s Los
Angeles Unified School District in a partnership with California State University,
Dominguez Hills. In their evaluation of the program, Colbert and Wolff (1992) found
improved teacher retention rates and teacher effectiveness among teachers who
participated in the induction program. In fact, over 95% of teachers were still teaching
after three years in the program. Such compelling evidence supports higher education
analyses (see Genzuk, 1997) on the value of formalized support systems for beginning
teachers, resulting in legislation (SB 2042) that reshaped the teacher certification
process. The BTSA induction program emerged from this legislation in 1998 and was
developed by California Department of Education (CDE) and the California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC). These agencies created a two-year
funded induction program that included support and assessment in order allow
teachers to earn a Professional Clear Credential. The state is divided into six clusters,
which break down into county consortiums of multiple districts, offering 154 BTSA
Induction programs to 24,000 participating teachers across the state. California
appropriated $3,865 per instructor for the credentialing of new teachers in 2006-2007.
While 2005-06 funding was estimated at providing for 23,000 teachers, 25,297 were
actually served, resulting in a deficit. Funding the BTSA induction program includes
professional development, coursework, materials, and release time; yet, the ways in
36
which this funding is delivered varies from district to district. An analysis of the
program’s overall objectives is useful before examining the individual ways in which
districts provide the program.
California Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Induction Program
The California Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA)
defines its mission as follows: “The Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment
Program (BTSA) provides Beginning Teachers an effective transition into the teaching
career throughout the first and second year providing ongoing support, guidance, and
training” (http://www.btsa.ca.gov/). The California BTSA Program (E.C. 44279.2)
defines both purposes and objectives. The purposes of BTSA are to
• Provide an effective transition into the teaching career for first- and
second-year teachers in California
• Improve the educational performance of students through improved
training, information, and assistance for new teachers
• Enable beginning teachers to be effective in teaching students who are
culturally, linguistically, and academically diverse
• Ensure the professional success and retention of new teachers
• Ensure that a support provider provides intensive individualized support
and assistance to each participating beginning teacher
• Improve the rigor and consistency of individual teacher performance
assessments and the usefulness of assessment results to teachers and
decision makers
• Establish an effective, coherent system of performance assessments that
are based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession
• Examine alternative ways in which the general public and the education
profession may be assured that new teachers who remain in teaching have
37
attained acceptable levels of professional competence
• Ensure that an individual induction plan is in place for each participating
beginning teacher and is based on an ongoing assessment of the
development of the beginning teacher
• Ensure continuous program improvement through ongoing research,
development, and evaluation
In concert with these purposes and objectives are the California Standards for the
Teaching Profession, which all teachers must meet in their evaluation. In addition, the
State of California has moved to provide participating school districts with the ability
to clear a teachers credential with state-certified induction coursework. Thus,
beginning teachers must also meet 13 additional BTSA Induction standards to fulfill a
Clear Professional Credential. In sum, teacher retention, effective professional
development, instruction based on the California Standards for the Teaching
Profession, and a Clear Professional Credential are the central goals of what has
become the BTSA induction program, the primary way in which current teachers are
certified in the state (Olebe, 2001). This increased responsibility on local districts
raises questions about consistency, accountability, and the ways in which district staff
will be utilized to support an expanding program. While the BTSA Induction
objectives seem comprehensive and useful on initial consideration, further review
reveals few details in how districts are to administer the BTSA Induction process,
giving districts the freedom to deliver the program with a range of potential
effectiveness.
One disadvantage noted by beginning teachers in the BTSA Induction process
38
is the amount and repetition of paperwork that must be completed (Sinclair Research
Group, 2003). While the program has achieved its primary objective of improving the
retention of qualified educators (National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future, 2003), continuous program improvement demands that attention be given to
the paperwork concern as well as other matters. The use of technology is a way in
which one California district is addressing such issues. The Riverside, Inyo, Mono,
and San Bernardino districts, known as the RIMS districts, have established a
partnership with the University of California, Riverside to improve the quality of the
BTSA Induction program. In their partnership they have collaborated on coursework
requirements for the receipt of a Professional Clear Credential, and they have put
much of the CFASST process online, culminating in the teacher’s creation of a digital
portfolio by the end of his or her second year. While most California school districts
are providing the BTSA Induction program in a traditional, paper-based fashion,
several districts have begun to utilize the latest technology to deliver their program in
a more progressive manner.
Supporting Beginning Teachers and Technology Professional Development
The Quality and Delivery of Professional Development
A significant contributing factor in the development of teaching effectiveness
is the professional development teachers receive during their first two years in service.
According to the National Research Council (2000), teachers learn from the practice
of teaching, from informal interactions with other teachers, and from professional
development provided by outside consultants as well as other in-service teachers (p.
39
191). While professional development is universal in the teaching profession, the
delivery and quality vary. A common flaw in professional development is the same
flaw that Darling-Hammond et al. (2005) described in pre-service teacher education
programs: the lack of coherence and consistency in topics meaningful to teachers and
which build upon relevant interests.
In recent years accountability to federal and state mandates such as the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2000 have dominated consistency and relevance of
professional development topics. Such mandates have resulted in what Elmore
(2002), Newmann, (1997) and O’Day (2002) identify as the problem of external or
bureaucratic accountability systems overwhelming internal systems. Grappling with
external accountability systems forces teachers to “move chaotically from one demand
or source of information to another, with insufficient focus and time to learn” (O’Day,
p.300-301). This external focus also reinforces the National Research Council’s
concern with professional development that is not learner-centered; too often, teachers
are trained in areas that are deemed important by the district administration, resulting
in a disconnect between learning and relevant classroom application. Elmore (2002)
as well as Hufton, Elliott, and Illushin’s (2003) work on professional development
supports this reality; however, Elmore goes on to suggest that real potential lies in the
use of teachers who are already employing effective instructional strategies: “Just as
individual teachers are more likely to adopt new practices after powerful improvement
in student learning has been demonstrated to them, so too must the distinctions in
expertise be observable in actual classroom practice before they will be generally
40
acknowledged” (p. 27). To resolve this problem, teachers need to be at the forefront
of professional development decision-making. Jerald (2003) and Dill (1999) advocate
“a culture of problem solving” in schools, which translates into teachers becoming the
source for positive change (Dill, p.136). The design of professional development that
embraces a continuum of relevant topics is essential to the development of teaching
effectiveness.
Professional Learning Communities
In an attempt to cultivate teacher support for professional development that
drives improvement, schools have begun fostering programs in which teachers are the
nucleus of professional growth. Research supports the assertion that teachers learn
and apply subject area content knowledge and pedagogy more effectively when they
are involved in the design of professional development (Brown, Colbert, & Thomas,
2006; Sargent, 2003; Newman, King, & Youngs, 2000). Teacher buy-in is essential if
they are to embed new strategies into their instruction, making teacher-driven
professional development a promising method for successful ongoing instructional
improvement.
Professional learning communities have emerged as an alternative to the
bureaucratic, top-down form of decision-making. Akin to the action research model
(see Stringer, 1999), which involves stakeholders in problem solving and program
improvement, the professional learning community model views the school as a
professional community who are empowered by the collective responsibility for
student learning. The Professional Community framework developed by Louis and
41
Kruse (1995) offers a lens through which the structure of program improvement can
be viewed. Acting within this structure, the professional community drives change
from the ground up, meeting the need for professional development topics that are
relevant to teachers. For beginning teachers, the professional community design is
ideal in its core principle of cultivating the support of all teachers, a structure that may
be more influential than one-on-one mentoring in support of beginning teachers,
according to Johnson and Birkeland (2002). That support structures are embedded in
the framework makes it an integral system to initiate beginning teachers into the
professional learning culture (Louis & Marks, 1998). Figure 1 illustrates the
professional community structure:
42
Figure 1. Professional Community Framework
____________________________________________________________________
From “Professional Community, An Emerging Framework,” by K.S. Louis and S.D.
Kruse, 1995, Professionalism and community: perspectives on reforming urban
schools, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, p. 25. Copyright 1995 by Corwin Press.
Reprinted with permission of the publisher.
What is notable about Louis and Kruse’s framework is its supportive structure. The
isolation new teachers often experience can be alleviated by a system that includes the
elements of “access to expertise, socialization, and time to meet and talk” (p. 25). In
Potential Benefits of
School-Based
Professional Community
• Empowerment
• Personal Dignity
• Collective Responsibility
for Student Learning
Characteristics of School-Based
Professional Community
• Shared Values
• Reflective Dialogue
• Deprivatization of Practice
• Focus on Student Learning
• Collaboration
Structural Conditions that
Support School-Based
Professional Community
• Time to Meet and Talk
• Physical Proximity
• Interdependent Teaching
Roles
• Communication
Structures
• Teacher Empowerment
and School Autonomy
Social and Human Resources
That Support School-Based
Professional Community
• Openness to
Improvement
• Trust and Respect
Access to Expertise
Supportive Leadership
Socialization
43
their longitudinal study comparing professional community schools with traditional
structure schools, Louis and Marks (1998) found that Louis and Kruse’s professional
community framework improved “authentic pedagogy and social support for student
achievement” (p. 558). Using mixed methods, Louis and Marks conducted a teacher
questionnaire on pedagogical practices as well as their perceptions on school culture.
The researchers also engaged in year-long observations of the same topics used in the
questionnaire. Finally, they followed up with interviews of teachers, administrators,
and other members of the school community. In addition to its effective use of
quantitative and qualitative methods, what also distinguishes this study is its three-
year longitudinal time frame, suggesting that the positive results could be generalized
to other schools.
The Professional Learning Community as a Constructivist Framework
According to Vygotsky (1992), the Zone of Proximal Development is the
space in which learning takes place with the assistance of another more
knowledgeable individual. This model extends a social constructivist position that
learning and performance improvement occur through the collaboration between
novices and experts. The BTSA Induction program’s structure of pairing a beginning
teacher with an experienced one is based on social constructivism in which both the
mentor and novice contribute to the overall process and product of the educational
community, which moves beyond student learning to encompass teacher learning as
well. This framework extends a unidirectional model of cognitive apprenticeship (see
Rogoff, 1990) in which a more experienced expert assists a novice in how to think
44
about and perform a task. Rather, Vygotsky’s theoretical framework addresses the
social and contextual nature of learning that allows for a bidirectional exchange
between novice and expert, and a multidirectional exchange between novice and the
school professional community.
The implications of the professional community structure are found in how it is
mirrored in many emerging induction programs, including California’s BTSA
program. The professional community structure takes the socialization process of new
teachers and applies it to all teachers in a school. Expanding on the work of Louis and
Kruse (1995), Roberts and Pruitt (2003) contend that the professional learning
community assists new teachers: “In order to maintain a learning community, new
teachers must not only be supported in the development of their instructional and
management skills, but must also be assimilated into the culture of the school” (p.
144). Recommending a formalized support program for new teachers, Roberts and
Pruitt view the professional learning community as a structure that provides benefits to
the new teacher, the mentor, and the school. In particular, they suggest that teacher
retention is improved through a culture of supportive collaboration which secures a
school community that is consistent in its culture.
When Schmoker (2001) studied Adlai Stevenson High School’s professional
learning community, he found compelling evidence to support the framework of Louis
and Kruse (1995) and the assertions of Roberts and Pruitt (2003). Although Adlai
Stevenson High School is located in a middle-class Midwestern community with
average- to high-achieving students, it is also a school with 4000 students whose
45
achievement could be improved, according to the superintendent. This drive for
ongoing improvement resulted in the development of a professional learning
community that produced dramatic gains in student achievement. Schmoker
comments on the school’s collaborative approach that engages all teachers on a
regular basis, the idea being that “focused, ground-level collaboration will bear fruit”
(p. 14). Teachers consistently met to review assessment results and design
performance improvement based on student performance data. Even new teachers
were engaged in this process, having been initiated early on in order to view
assessment and accountability with a perspective of growth rather than a fear of
possible repercussions for low performance. Concurrently, Adlai Stevenson High
School began collecting “best practices” lessons for teachers, a problem Schmoker
notes with urgency: “one of education’s more glaring blind spots is the failure to keep
and catalogue the best lessons and units for the benefits of colleagues and future
teachers…the common sense of this rare practice fairly shouts at us. It dignifies the
teacher’s work and expertise. It also passes it on. It is a self-perpetuating intellectual
legacy of the team’s accomplishments” (p. 16). Schmoker’s point echoes Shulman’s
remark on education’s “collective amnesia” (1978, p. 11), yet public schools continue
to struggle with the collection of best practices, in spite of the advent of technology
networks and databases that could rather easily process such information.
What is notable about professional learning communities is the structure of
support they provide beginning teachers, encouraging novices to develop into school
leaders within teams; that is, new teachers are hired as experts and given assistance
46
within a team structure to collaborate and drive school improvement.
The Professional Learning Community in the Electronic Era
What is missing, however, from Louis and Kruse’s (1995) professional learning
community design is the use of technology as a vehicle for delivery of professional
development and school improvement overall. The advent of technology in delivering
professional development has materialized in such forms as e-mentoring, distance
learning, and other forms on online learning communities. To accommodate
electronic communication in current social structures, Bandura (2002) expanded on his
social cognitive theory with the position that digital technology is a powerful influence
on personal and collective efficacy, resulting in profound and evolving implications
for school professional learning communities. Bandura contends that while electronic
communication can increase the frequency of communication, it can also lead to a
disconnect—a disengagement from real human contact that can fragment rather than
unify the professional learning community, a problem of particular significance to
beginning teachers and the concern about teacher retention. The potential for
electronic communication to change the structure and outcomes of professional
development is only just beginning to emerge, posing complex challenges for
educational leaders in how it is best utilized.
Technology-Driven Professional Development
While professional development as a whole continues to reflect varying degrees
of success, new strategies for delivery have resulted in the use of online learning
communities to train new and veteran teachers. For example, the states of Louisiana,
47
Kansas, Texas, California, and Virginia have created programs that offer a variety of
professional development opportunities online. Furthermore, the need to attract and
retain quality educators has led Alabama, California, and Connecticut to develop
programs for beginning teachers, which allow them to access “best practices”
materials and interact with other more experienced teachers in an online community
(Pittinsky, 2005). Dede (2004) calls for what he terms “Distributed Learning
Communities” (p. 18) in which “teachers organize and facilitate not only student-
directed activities, but also the involvement in learning of families and social service
professional” (p. 20). Like the professional communicated structure advocated by
Louis and Kruse (1996), Dede describes a similar model that is distributed throughout
all levels of the school community, allowing for “shared power and responsibility” (p.
20) among all stakeholders committed to student learning. The need for multimedia
literacy has grown to encompass learning issues for teachers as well as students.
Much of the professional development that occurs in K-12 schools nationwide is
concentrated on technology instruction for the purpose of student performance
improvement. While beginning teachers are novices in most areas of teaching, they
often outpace their veteran colleagues in their overall multimedia literacy (Hargreaves
& Fullan, 2000). Moreover, the same is true when comparing teachers and students,
who also excel in multimedia knowledge and skills. Such a disparity begs the
question of who is the teacher and who is the student, resulting in experienced teachers
who frequently learn a great deal from students or newer teachers. To raise all teachers
to the level of multimedia expert, schools nationwide have begun including
48
technology instruction as a regular component of their professional development
programs.
The U.S. Department of Education initiated “Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers
to Using Technology” program (PT3), a multi-state consortium project from 2000-
2004, aimed at improving teachers’ use of technology. The PT3 project led to the
influential the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) project of 2005,
created by the International Society for Technology in Education (ITSE). The NETS
for teachers venture began in collaboration between ITSE and such organizations
Apple, Microsoft, NASA Classroom of the Future, and the National Council for the
Accreditation of Teacher Education (http://cnets.iste.org/consortium.html). These
technology standards include, 1) Technology Operations and Concepts, 2) Planning
and Designing Learning Environments and Experiences, 3) Teaching, Learning, and
The Curriculum, 4) Assessment and Evaluation, 5) Productivity and Professional
Practice, and 6) Social, Ethical, Legal, and Human Issues
(http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_stands.html). Although these standards have been
available to educators for two years, there is little research available on their use or
application in the classroom beyond that of the International Society for Technology
Education.
Building on the necessity of multimedia literacy for beginning teachers is
California’s BTSA Induction program, which has seen the advent of technology as a
vehicle for delivering technology professional development. Training teachers to
apply technology in their classrooms falls under BTSA Induction Program Standard
49
16, which requires “Using Technology to Support Student Learning”
(http://www.btsa.ca.gov/ba/profdev/profdev.html), a standard all beginning teachers
must meet to complete their certification. What is striking about California’s
requirement and that of the NETS for Teachers Project is the definition of technology
literacy each organization advocates. Whereas the NETS for Teachers Project
promotes authentic multimedia literacy, the State of California’s mandate is rather
minimal and general in comparison.
Concurrently, several districts in California have begun employing online
methods for completion of BTSA and Induction program requirements within the last
four years. In collaboration with a local university, the group of Southern California
districts known as the RIMS (Riverside, Inyo, Mono, and San Bernardino) districts
have created an online program that facilitates the CFASST electronic portfolio
process, as well as communication between the BTSA administration, support
providers, and beginning teachers in order to meet all BTSA Induction program
standards, including Standard 16. Figure 2 outlines the conceptual framework within
which the RIMS/BTSA districts operate:
50
www.rimsbtsaonline.edu
• News
• Messages
• Asynchronous messaging
options
HOME PAGE
• PT able to enter CFASST
online
• SP able to view and com-
ment
• Project Teacher can view
ON-LINE CFASST FORMS
• PT able to enter adminis-
trative froms online
• SP able to view and com-
ment
• Project Teacher can view
NON-CFASST FORMS
• Teacher Professional Devel-
opment tracking
• Evidence of Student
Achievement
• Reflective Practice
• Document management /
Document Sharing
• Credentialing requirement
check-off
• Collaboration
ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIO
• Credential Recommenda-
tion
• Program management
• Program improvement
• Research
REPORT GENERATION
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
Figure 2. RIMS/BTSA online system
___________________________________________________________________
From “RIMS/BTSA electronic portfolio for teacher professional development
(EPTPD) pilot program initial report & the transition to the RIMS/BTSA online
system: A conceptual framework.” Franco, Z., Lowder, S., Scott-Hendrick, L. (2002).
Public Record Online Report. University of California, Riverside.
What is unique about the RIMS/BTSA program is its application of technology for
both administrative and professional development purposes. While research has
shown that teachers often feel comfortable with the administrative uses of technology,
they frequently consider their knowledge of technology inadequate when applying it
toward student instructional activities (CDW-Government, Inc., 2005). The
RIMS/BTSA Induction program addresses both applications.
51
Multimedia Literacy and Beginning Teachers
While few will deny that multimedia literacy is important in our current age of
technology, determining what multimedia literacy is and how it is best delivered is a
popular topic of discussion among educators. Schwarz (2006) captures the
problematic nature of multimedia literacy well: “The United States produces the most
media—film, television, and music—in the world; yet, media literacy is still a new
concept to most Americans, including educators” (p. 5), this in spite of the fact that
media education was initiated in the 1970s with attention toward television and grew
in the 1980s with the advent of computers in schools. Yet, Schwartz’s point is well
taken when considering the many genres of media and what it means to be media-
literate. Ascertaining an agreed-upon definition of media literacy may not be currently
possible; however, Schwarz advances a useful definition: “Critical media literacy then
includes study of the social, economic, political, and cultural contexts of mass media,
including knowledge of how media corporations work and how the media affect
society as well as individuals” (p. 12). Within the context of K-12 education, teachers
have come to understand that media literacy demands a critical awareness of not only
the many ways in which media deliver information, but also the validity of their
messages with particular consideration given to how easily information can be
manipulated. Alvermann (2004) identifies this form of literacy as “the perceived
need to develop young people’s critical awareness of how all authored texts (print,
visual, and oral) situate them as readers, writers, and viewers within particular cultural
and historical contexts” (p. 78). This interpretation suggests that media literacy is
52
actually multimedia in nature; that is, the forms of technology used, the methods of
information delivery, the nuances in the message itself, and the infinite ways the
message is received can be viewed as a kind of gestalt, or product that is far greater
than the sum of its individual parts. Shortly after the turn of the 20
th
century,
filmmaker George Lucas echoed this idea with the contention that to be literate in the
21
st
century means that “students need to be taught to read and write cinematic
language, the language of the screen, the language of sound and image, just as they are
now taught to read and write text” (See Daley, 2003, p. 38-40), suggesting that non-
linear forms of communication take their rightful place alongside more traditional
forms of communication.
The use of technology may be more easily implemented by beginning teachers
than their veteran counterparts; however, technology skills do not necessarily translate
into multimedia literacy and effective pedagogical practices. Hobbs (2004) suggests
that teachers use their multimedia literacy skills for the purpose of developing
students’ creative or reflective talents, or to examine “economic, cultural, and social
media issues in contemporary society” (p. 43-44), an analytical process that is
becoming an increasingly essential component of what is considered to be a good
education. Hobbs continues to assert, however, that the required time and training are
not provided in our current system of education, thereby generating a teaching force
that cannot keep pace with the needs of a multimedia society.
The question emerges, then, as to what the best practices are for beginning
teachers who will have to embrace a multimedia platform of teaching. Thoman and
53
Jolls (2004) advocate a practice of inquiry that focuses on process as opposed to the
isolated practice of simple memorization of facts or technology skills. Rather,
teachers need to train students to be critical of all forms of text and to be able to use
those multimedia texts themselves. Goetze, Brown, and Schwarz (2006, p. 173-174)
pull from Project Look Sharp (1999) in their recommendation of principles for
applying multimedia literacy throughout a curriculum, which focus largely on critical
thinking skills. Teachers are the starting point for student critical thinking skills
including the ability to identify false media messages, understand media effects, and
the use of media to connect with the community beyond the classroom.
Goetze et al. (2006) suggest that principles for teaching students to be
multimedia literate could be applied to teacher education programs and then reinforced
in the K-12 classroom, providing beginning teachers with pedagogical practices that
work as more than mere abstract theory; rather, they can be applied in actual practice.
Semali (2006) furthers this instructional practice with his use of analytical frameworks
as a structure for examining multimedia information, including one for visual, social,
and narrative texts. Semali encourages teachers to challenge students to consider how
media influence our attitudes and perceptions. About visual media, Semali concludes:
“We know that media representations of family, interracial relations, and urban youth,
for example, are illusions, and yet it is difficult not to compare our own lives with
these messages and images, or, worse, to let these images define for us what we
should believe as truth” (p. 48). When teachers apply such pedagogical practices in
their classrooms, students emerge with greater multimedia awareness and
54
consciousness of media’s power. In sum, what multimedia literacy researchers are
advocating is precisely what the National Educational Technology Standards (2005)
intended with technology Standard Six: Social, Ethical, Legal, and Human Issues
(Alvermann , 2004; Goetze, Brown, & Schwarz, 2006; Hobbs, 2004; Schwartz, 2006;
Semali, 2006; Thoman & Jolls, 2004). The focus of this standard demands that
teachers both understand and teach the social issues that can be problematic in the
often dicey content and delivery of media. What makes these technology standards
particularly relevant to teachers is their scope of what it means to be multimedia
literate. The NETS for teachers move far beyond the idea of a teacher with a
computer to include a wide range of multimedia possibilities that teachers will
undoubtedly encounter and must prepare for.
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework
Of great concern to teacher induction programs developers and the mentors
who facilitate professional development is the ways in which beginning teachers make
choices about how they will address multimedia literacy, and technology, in particular.
In their analysis of how teachers use technology in their classroom instruction, Mishra
and Koehler (2006) posit a framework for how teachers synthesize technology,
pedagogy, and content knowledge in their classrooms. One key problem in the
effective integration and application of these elements is “the rapid rate of evolution of
these new digital technologies (which) prevents them from becoming “transparent”
any time soon” (p.9), thus leaving teachers with only a superficial understanding of
technology before it becomes obsolete. Mishra and Koehler conclude that the earlier
55
work of Shulman (1987) on the value of integrating knowledge of content and
pedagogy is an ongoing problem with the added element of technology knowledge.
To resolve the isolated nature of technology instruction, Mishra and Koehler propose a
framework in which overlapping circles represent Technology Knowledge (T),
Pedagogy Knowledge (P), and Content Knowledge (C). When the circles overlap, four
additional kinds of knowledge result in their TPCK framework, the ideal synthesis of
knowledge that teacher induction program designers and mentors must promote in the
induction of teachers who are truly multimedia literate.
The value of Mishra and Koehler’s framework is found in “developing a
nuanced understanding of the complex relationships between technology, content and
pedagogy, and utilizing this understanding to develop appropriate, context specific
strategies and representations” (2006, p. 14). Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPCK) moves beyond knowledge and application of any single element
in isolation; rather, effective teaching demands a fluid tension in the context of a
multimedia classroom. That is, a progressive classroom requires teachers who are
able to make decisions with consideration of TPCK and the complexity of what it
means to be multimedia literate. However, the authors are quick to concede that their
framework is, thus far, just that—an analytical framework “that is difficult to tease out
in practice” (p. 14). This difficulty is precisely where induction programs and mentors
are essential. Mishra and Koehler advocate teacher training that embraces a Learning
Technology by Design approach in which project-based, authentic activities replace
traditional lecture strategies, allowing teachers to act as “a practitioner” (p. 20).
56
Viewing TPCK not only in terms of what teachers know, but also in how teachers
make decisions about the integration of technology is essential to developing
multimedia literacy, a process on which teacher educators are working (see B. Cato, in
press). The professional development of teachers who are literate in all areas of
multimedia requires teacher education and induction programs that engage them in
meaningful and practical application of technological pedagogical content knowledge.
Summary of Teacher Induction and Theoretical Frameworks
While it is a given that teachers must have a solid foundation in what it means
to embody multimedia literacy, the reality of many teacher education and state
induction programs suggests only the beginnings of a coherent vision of how to
integrate technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge, all of which have a profound
impact on how teachers develop into literate users of multimedia. For beginning
teachers to be considered highly qualified, multimedia literacy is no longer a desirable
attribute; it is a fundamental characteristic of any teacher who expects to excel in
urban and rural K-12 schools. For California’s teachers, the diversity of the student
population continues to present challenges and opportunities to use technology in
reaching all students in a global society, a concept educators are only just beginning to
consider and put into practice (Cullen, Brush, Frey, Hinshaw, & Warren, 2006; Roach,
2004; Semali, 2006) Beginning teachers and the induction process mentor teachers
facilitate will reveal the ways in which technology can be successfully implemented
for the benefit of teachers and students.
57
Viewing current practices in teacher education through social constructivism
and technology frameworks reveals important qualitative distinctions among the
various programs that meet California’s BTSA Induction program requirements in
technology professional development for beginning teachers. The use of online
technology to facilitate the program is an emerging vehicle for delivery of professional
development, an area that warrants future study. Questions emerge surrounding the
social constructivist nature of online mentoring and professional development—does
Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (1992) affect beginning teachers in the
same way, and is that way as effective as in-person communication? Moreover, does
Louis and Kruse’s Professional Learning Community framework (1995) function in
the same way when collaboration among teachers is electronic? The ways in which
online technology alter the tenets of social constructivist theoretical frameworks is an
emerging area of research.
Online technology also raises questions about the stages of teacher
development, teacher efficacy, and multimedia literacy. Is Shulman’s model of
teacher content and pedagogical knowledge (1987) equally applicable to the stages of
teacher development and expertise in light of online mentoring and professional
development? One is given to conjecture regarding the possibility of increasing both
the efficiency and pacing of teacher development with the advent of electronic
communication. Furthermore, is the teacher’s sense of instructional efficacy
(Bandura, 1977, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998; Woolfolk and
Hoy, 1990) changed by the method of mentoring and professional development?
58
Could technology improve teacher efficacy? The question of how technology affects
existing theoretical frameworks continues to evolve along with technology itself,
presenting new challenges and opportunities for educational researchers and teacher
educators. Studies such as this one are vital in answering these questions.
The following chapter details the methodology used in this study.
59
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Overview
This qualitative study evaluated California’s Beginning Teacher Support and
Assessment (BTSA) Induction program within the context of technology’s impact on
mentoring and related professional development in two public school districts in two
Southern California counties. The individual experiences of second year teachers in
the BTSA program were examined within the context of two districts of varying socio-
economic statuses. Depth of study was emphasized, such that the detailed issues of
several beginning teachers were explored. Several dissertations have been written on
BTSA programs with attention given to the individual experiences of new teachers;
however, no studies have been conducted on how technology and professional
development influence a new teacher’s experience within the BTSA Induction
program. Because induction programs involve beginning and experienced teachers
with a wide range of multimedia experience, collecting qualitative data was an ideal
method of research. The purpose of this study was to examine beginning teachers’
experiences within the context of technology professional development in the BTSA
Induction program. The following research questions were posed:
Research Questions
The primary research question was as follows:
1. What are the experiences of beginning teachers in the BTSA Induction
program with consideration of the recent addition of technology resources?
60
Related sub-questions are as follows:
a. In what ways do technology and related professional development
make a difference in a BTSA Induction teacher’s experience?
b. What are the differences in BTSA Induction program implementation
in different districts, and how do these differences affect a beginning
teacher’s experience?
This study took place over the course of five months and included two public school
districts in two separate Southern California counties.
Population and Sample
Because the use of technology varies across California’s BTSA Induction
programs, this study sampled two school districts from separate counties in a Southern
California BTSA Induction consortium of districts. District #1 is a middle to upper-
middle class urban and ethnically diverse community in which 36.6% are White (not
Hispanic), 38.1% are Hispanic or Latino, 8.8% are African American, 4.6% are Asian,
1.2% are Filipino, and the remainder are American Indian (or Alaska Native), or
Pacific Islander (California Department of Education, 2006).
District #2, located in a rural locale, is populated primarily by lower middle-
class Hispanic and White residents, with a number of families working in the farming
and agriculture industries. California State Department of Education 2006
demographic data reveal a community primarily composed of Hispanic or Latino
students (39.5%) and White (not Hispanic) students (47.9%). Socio-economic data,
61
teacher–student ratio data and technology data for each school reinforce district
differences (Table 1 and Table 2):
Table 1
District Characteristics – Student Demographics
District Enrollment $/ Student ADA Free or Reduced
Lunch
Cal-Works
Program
District #1: 13,585
$5,871 33.8% 3.5%
District #2: 19,693 $6,296 71.7% 9.4%
Note: 2003-2004 CBEDS, California Department of Education Demographics Unit.
Prepared 6/23/06.
Table 2
District Characteristics – School Demographics
District Master’s
Degree or
Higher
Pupil-
Teacher
Ratio
# of
Computers
Students per
computer
Computers
with Internet
District #1
48.7 22.8 2,162 6.3 539
District #2 52.0 21.9 3,309 6.0 893
Note: 2003-2004 CBEDS; 2005-2005 California Department of Education
Demographics Unit. Prepared 6/23/06.
Most notable is the socio-economic status of the students in each district. Whereas
only a small percentage of students in district #1 receive reduced lunch or cash aid
benefits, almost three-quarters of students of students in district #2 receive free or
reduced lunch, and almost 10% receive cash aid benefits. While both districts provide
62
similar technology resources to students, questions emerge as to how teachers use
multimedia resources to effectively address different student populations. The
potential effect on the methods employed by teachers applying multimedia instruction
in each district is influenced by the degree of students’ exposure to computers and
technology: district #1 students are likely to have more access to technology resources
and, consequently, be more skilled in their use. In contrast, students in district #2 tend
to have students with fewer resources available to them, resulting in a lower level of
multimedia literacy. This disparity provoked questions as to how district
administrators facilitate technology mentoring and professional development for
beginning teachers, as well as how teachers will then consider varying student
multimedia literacy in their instructional design.
Purposeful sampling was conducted by determining those individuals who
could best provide information and insight into the BTSA Induction program (Table
3). Such data could be found with beginning teachers who were in year two of the
BTSA Induction program. Because data collection took place in the fall, year two
beginning teachers were able to speak to their first full year in the BTSA Induction
program, unlike year one teachers with only several months’ participation in the
program. From each district, typical case sampling was done to illustrate the common
experiences of two second-year teachers and their mentors (called support providers)
with attention given to the ways in which support providers facilitate professional
development with technology. Support providers have completed extensive training
on BTSA’s California Formative Assessment and Support System for Teachers
63
(CFASST) process and overall mentoring strategies, thus enabling them to speak
comprehensively on the relevant topics of technology pedagogy, technology
professional development, and teacher induction.
Finally, district and county administration were also included in the sample in
order to provide insight into the history of each district’s implementation of
technology into the BTSA Induction program. A total of eleven “information rich
cases” (Patton, 2004, p. 242) were initially proposed; however, the research design
was flexible and open to “opportunistic sampling” (p. 240), thus allowing for three
additional sources of information after the fieldwork had begun. While there are no
perfect research designs, collecting data from all levels of the BTSA Induction
organization resulted in an effort to gather what Patton describes as “data
triangulation” (p. 247), or multiple sources of data that were examined simultaneously
to determine relationships (Appendix A ).
Access to the sites was obtained through contact with the county office of
education’s Teacher Support Center Director, who oversees the BTSA Induction
program in both districts and agreed set up communication with both districts.
Information letters about this study along with site permission letters were sent to the
county office of education’s BTSA Induction director as well as to the administration
officials at both districts. (Appendix B).
64
Research Design
Data Collection Procedures
Qualitative data was collected through interviews with and observations of
BTSA Induction participants and the administrators who facilitate the program.
Audio-taped interviews with beginning teachers and support providers in the BTSA
program were conducted with strict attention given to what Patton terms “thick
description” (2002, p. 437), or the details that come with thoughtful questions and
responses in which interviewees have unlimited time to respond in full. Interviews
also took place with BTSA administration, including those who coordinate the
program and train support providers. Additionally, observations of BTSA meetings
were conducted in order to reveal significant qualitative data about the differential
experiences of beginning teachers in the BTSA program. Documents, such as the
consortium’s guidelines (handbooks and newsletters) on the use of technology as well
as the district’s report to the State of California on how they meet BTSA Induction
Program Standard 16, were examined in order elucidate important influences on the
value beginning teachers place on the mentoring and professional development they
receive during their two years of BTSA Induction. Overall, triangulation of sources
was executed in order to find new avenues of acquiring information as well as to
determine consistency (or lack of consistency) of findings.
Interview Data
Interview protocol was ensured through semi-structured interviews (Patton,
2004), which were audio-taped (Appendix B) with the aid of an interview guide.
65
Participants were coded according to their role and their site. For example, beginning
teachers were coded as BT, such that the first beginning teacher interviewed from
district #1 was coded, BT1a. One clarification should be noted about this code. In the
BTSA Induction program, beginning teachers are referred to as “participating
teachers,” or “PTs.” Because this term may result in confusion with the overall
participants of this study, beginning teachers were coded as BT throughout this study.
Support providers were coded as SPs according to district and to their relationship
with their beginning teacher. Administrators were also coded according to site and the
order in which the interviews were conducted, such that the administrator participant
from district number #1 was coded as AP1, and so on.
Each participant was interviewed for an average of 45 minutes with at least one
follow-up contact, in an attempt to address participants’ perceptions at the beginning
and at the end of the five months data were collected for this study. Capturing how
participants perceive the influence of technology in the BTSA Induction process was
the focus of interview data, and any changes in perception over the course of the five-
month period were noted.
The first set of questions gathered background information from participants.
Specifically, questions were formulated to yield information on how teachers’
personal histories and characteristics influence their perceptions of the mentoring and
professional development they receive in the BTSA Induction program. The
researcher focused her attention on such background questions as those related to age,
prior work experience and education level to determine participant perceptions of the
66
Web-based teacher tracking system the two districts use to facilitate mentoring and
professional development activities.
The second set of questions was designed to garner information on beginning
teachers’ knowledge and application of technology professional development in
completing the BTSA Induction process as well as its influence on beginning teacher
multimedia literacy. The study investigated how the method or vehicle of professional
development in which beginning teachers engage affects their sense of competency
about technology implementation and multimedia literacy. Specifically, the recent
introduction of an online format of the CFASST process was examined as to how it
affects the quality of a beginning teacher’s experience. In addition, technology
questions were created to determine the influence of the support provider relationship
in how teachers feel about the implementation of technology and multimedia literacy
tasks into their instruction.
Similar interview protocols were employed to elicit feedback from BTSA
Induction support providers and administrators who facilitate the program. In
particular, interview questions were designed to ascertain trends in responses and to
determine themes in the collective data from all levels of the BTSA Induction
program. For all interview data, written notes accompanied the audio-taping of
partcipants, and attention was paid to the tone as well as the body language of the
respondents (Merriam, 1998).
67
Observation Data
Observation fieldwork protocol was ensured with note-taking and coding of
data according to background information, mentoring, and technology professional
development activities (Appendix C). Purposeful observations of specific activities,
namely BTSA monthly meetings and BTSA Induction courses, were made.
Observations of administrators, beginning teachers, and support providers—another
form of data triangulation and methodological triangulation (Patton, 2004, p. 247)—
provided additional perspective on the ways technology has affected teachers in the
BTSA Induction process. For each district, monthly observations occurred at the
district offices where BTSA Induction meetings took place.
Merriam (1998) provides useful guidance on what to observe. This study
examined the physical setting of BTSA meetings and induction courses, the
participants, what they were doing with the content and how they were interacting
with each other, and what Merriam terms “subtle factors,” such as the symbolic
meaning of terminology used. This study also considered the behavior of the
researcher, a possible influence on events. While the researcher made every effort to
remain an outside and unobtrusive observer, her presence was occasionally noted by
the group, resulting in what Merriam calls “observer as participant” (p. 101). At times
this position was advantageous in gathering additional data from participants who
communicated with the researcher; at other times, it may have reduced the authenticity
of the observation by having changed the behavior of the participants, potentially
resulting in what is termed the “Hawthorne Effect” (Landsberger, 1958), a
68
phenomenon in which participant behavior changes due to a researcher’s interest in
the participants. Conversely, impact on the researcher was also a potential concern in
that extended fieldwork can risk objectivity when the researcher “goes native” (see
Kanuha, 2000), or becomes so entrenched in the participants’ world that the researcher
compromises the data gathered from the participants. While these concerns were
present, the researcher made every effort to implement methodology that resulted in a
valid study.
Archival Data
In order to further validate findings, document collection was conducted to
provide insight into the experience of beginning teachers in the BTSA Induction
process. The following documents were collected and analyzed:
• The consortium’s handbook on how the BTSA Induction standards are to be
scheduled and completed.
• The consortium’s guidelines to district administration and support providers on
how to complete BTSA Induction.
• The consortium’s adopted text on mentoring practices.
• Each district’s report to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
on the completion of professional development activities and hours.
• Each district’s internal report on how it is to accomplish technology
professional development.
69
• Other district level documents, including each district’s mission statement and
other documents that reveal important information on how beginning teachers
experience their first two years of induction.
Yin (2003) suggests a variety of documents that may be relevant in a case study.
These include “organizational records, survey data, and charts,” (p. 89) which can
further illuminate the experience of beginning teachers. Using multiple sources of
district and consortium archival data in this study led to what Yin calls “convergence
of evidence,” (p. 100), an additional method of increasing this study’s validity.
Data Analysis Procedures
The goal of the data analysis in this study was to extract themes from evidence
that converged from multiple sources and methods of data collection. While data
collection and analysis often and inevitably happened simultaneously, the systematic
coding of data and the detail of focused notes were essential to protecting the quality
of the findings. Regarding data analysis, Goetz and LeCompte (1981) assert that a
method of constantly comparing the data "combines inductive category coding with a
simultaneous comparison of all social incidents observed” (p. 58), resulting in
information that is focused on the central topics of the study. Post-activity data
management protocol required categorization for the coding of data (Appendix B) in
order to facilitate an accurate and efficient form of data reduction. Because most of
the interviews and observations were scheduled for weekday afternoons, time was
spent during each subsequent evening on managing the data collected. File pocket
folders and binders were created for each site in order to categorize data for later
70
analysis. Notes were reviewed after each data collection activity with attention given
to categories, patterns, and themes. Additional notes were taken at the end of each
week for the purpose of additional analysis while the fieldwork was still fresh in the
researcher’s mind. Data were then used in subsequent interviews with participants for
verification of findings. A more detailed analysis of all the data took place at the end
of each month and at the end of the five-month period, at which time notes were
reviewed and sections from audio-tapes were excerpted as key findings in this study.
Because this was a multiple case study, the interpretation of data required what
Merriam describes as the “within-case analysis” and the “cross-case analysis” (1998,
p. 194). The researcher began by analyzing data from district #1, developing
categories and patterns within the context of this site. Next, the analysis of district #2
was made with careful attention given to the varying processes between the two sites.
The third site of analysis, the county office of education, was used to present a third
perspective on the two sites, which yielded additional insight into the two districts’
operations and also added to the consistency of data. Analysis further occurred within
the context of grounded theory, notably the theories proposed in Chapter 2:
Vygotsky’s (1992) Zone of Proximal Development, Louis and Kruse’s (1995)
Professional Community Framework, Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework, Bandura’s (1977, 2002) self- and
collective efficacy constructs, and Woolfolk and Hoy (1990), along with Tschannen-
Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy’s (1998) teacher efficacy construct. The researcher
conducted careful analysis with these theories in mind, focusing on the deeper
71
contextual issues and overall phenomena of each district.
Ethical Considerations
Every attempt was made to increase the validity of the researcher’s analysis;
however, certain limitations did emerge. Because the researcher is a former BTSA
Induction support provider, she embarked on this research study with certain
preconceptions about the program. While the researcher’s experience was ultimately
considered a benefit to this study, personal biases were considered and evaluated
before engaging in the analysis process. An additional ethical consideration was the
university’s Institutional Review Board procedures that were required to protect the
subjects of this study. This process required signed site permission in order to collect
data from each site. Because teaching is an inherently political act involving the
control of information, the researcher decided on a research design which maintained
anonymity for each participant as a protective measure.
Summary of Methodology
The methodology used in this study was designed to gather information that
would lead to a more complete portrait of beginning teachers’ use of technology in the
BTSA Induction program. This process required time and detail in the collection,
management, and analysis of various data. Applying the methodology tools provided
by experts in the field, such as Merriam (1998), Patton (2002), and Yin (2003), along
with Goetze and LeCompte (1981), increased validity. In the end, the aim of this
qualitative study was to provide a valuable contribution to the field of multimedia
scholarship in teacher induction programs.
72
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
This study examined the ways in which technology affects the experiences of
beginning teachers in the Beginning Teacher Support Assessment (BTSA) Induction
process. In particular, the study focused on how technology has changed the
mentoring and professional development of beginning teachers as they progress
through two-year long program. Findings emerged from the following research
question:
1. What are the experiences of beginning teachers in the BTSA Induction
program with consideration of the recent addition of technology resources?
Related sub-questions were as follows:
a. In what ways does technology used to mentor and deliver professional
development make a difference in a BTSA teacher’s experience?
b. What are the differences in how technology affects the delivery of the
BTSA Induction program in different districts, and how do these
differences affect a beginning teacher’s experience?
This study was initiated with a pilot study in the researcher’s home school
district. Two veteran support providers were interviewed, one of whom was a member
of the committee that developed the BTSA Induction program in the district. These
individuals were selected because they could speak to both the administrative and
support provider perspectives on the evolution of the BTSA Induction program over
the last eight years. In addition, two second-year beginning teachers in the BTSA
73
Induction program were selected because they have experienced a full year of BTSA
Induction. Selection of second-year teachers also included participants of various ages:
one in her twenties, and the second in his forties. With all pilot study participants,
attention was paid to the clarity of the interview questions and how they might reveal
insight into the use of technology in the BTSA Induction program. Several questions
were refined, and a number of others were added (Appendix C). This pilot study
provided valuable information and served as an essential tool in developing the overall
research design.
This chapter is organized according the central themes which were derived from
interview, observation, and archival data used in this study (Appendices C and D).
Demographics
The methodology of this study called for a population of two districts of
dissimilar demographic status (Research Question #1b). District #1 is an ethnically
diverse, upper middle class urban district, with one-third of the student population
receiving some form of state aid. In contrast, district #2 is a more rural community in
which more than two-thirds of the student population receive some form of state
assistance. The combined socio-economic status and population characteristics of the
two participating districts became a considerable finding in this study; however, it
additional factors became more significant in how each district facilitates its BTSA
Induction program.
74
Community Characteristics
District #1 is an increasingly urban and ethnically diverse community in which
36.6% are White (not Hispanic), 38.1% are Hispanic or Latino, 8.8% are African
American, 4.6% are Asian, 1.2% are Filipino, and the remainder are American Indian
(or Alaska Native), or Pacific Islander (California Department of Education, 2006).
An examination of three years of district reports reveals a steady decline in the White
population, in contrast to the steady or increasing population of other ethnicities.
Moreover, observations of the city and schools revealed a population with economic
advantages. The district is located in a city that was built on the slope of California’s
hills, where the size of the homes and properties increase noticeably as one travels
higher up the hillside. New construction suggests an attempt to remain architecturally
consistent with older homes in the community, where redwood and stone bungalows
as well as grander ranch style houses dominate the landscape. Gated communities and
a country club located in the hills exemplify the upper middle socioeconomic status of
this district. One participant described the community as “the city of genteel living”
(SP1b), reinforcing observations of district #1’s lofty socio-economic position.
In contrast, district #2 is located in an area supported largely by the agricultural
industries and has a history of attracting migrant workers, largely Hispanic in
population. California State Department of Education (CDE) 2006 demographic data
reveal a community primarily composed of Hispanic or Latino students (39.5%) and
White (not Hispanic) students (47.9%), a demographic composition that has held
steady for the last three years according to CDE demographic data reports. This rural
75
community has long accommodated low-income housing, and this very advantage has
resulted in an influx of developers whose new housing tract signs dominate the city’s
entrance. Entering the city limits, one observes that this is a rural community
undergoing rapid suburban expansion, with new housing and commercial development
stretching the city’s boundaries. Rural fruit stands on the outskirts of town have been
replaced with strip malls and newly-constructed gated communities. Still, this
community is shaped by rural interests, as is evident from the agricultural industry’s
expansive presence that visibly surrounds the city; however, this appears to be
changing with the emergence of other commercial industries in the region. In sum,
one participant, a high school agriculture teacher, described the community as an “area
that is ag-based… agriculture in California is the number one industry we have here”
(BT2b), suggesting a lasting rural influence on the school district and overall
community.
Participant Characteristics
The sample of this study was selected in order to obtain perspectives on
technology from a variety of stakeholders in the BTSA Induction program. In
particular, gathering data on the common experiences of beginning teachers in their
first two years of BTSA Induction was a primary goal. The mentoring and
professional development these teachers received were similar in the two California
districts studied. A sample of 14 participants included five beginning teachers (year
two), five support providers, two district administrators, and two county office of
education administrators. While the original design of this study (see Appendix A)
76
called for two beginning teachers and their support providers from each district, one
additional beginning teacher and her support provider from district #1 volunteered to
be interviewed. Moreover, one additional county office of education administrator
agreed to be interviewed, and the researcher took advantage of these opportunities to
increase the scope of the findings. The flexible design of this study accommodated an
increase in the sample, resulting in a greater degree to which the findings could be
validated.
Table 3 details the personal and professional characteristics of the sample used
in this study. Data recorded in Table 3 is then explicated in the findings below.
Table 3
BTSA Induction Participants (N = 14)
BTSA Participant Title Subject Area Age Gender Highest
Degree
Earned
Previous
Career Outside
of Education
Technology Activities Related
to Mentoring and Professional
Development
Beginning Teacher,
Year 2, district #1c
(BT1a)
1st Grade 47 F BS Yes Email, CFASST online
Support Provider district
#1a (SP1a)
Staff
Development,
Reading
Coordinator
53 F MA No Email, CFASST online
feedback and approval
Beginning Teacher,
Year 2, district #1b
(BT1b)
10-12 English 37 F MA Yes Email, CFASST online,
multimedia classroom projects
Support Provider district
#1b (SP1b)
8
th
Grade
English
63 F MA No Email, CFASST online
feedback and approval,
instructional support of
multimedia classroom projects
Beginning Teacher,
Year 2, district #1a
(BT1c)
2nd Grade 40 F BA Yes Email, CFASST online
77
Table 3: Continued
Support Provider district
#1c (SP1c)
K-5 Reading
Specialist
38 F MA No Email, CFASST online
Beginning Teacher,
Year 2, district #2a
(BT2a)
5
th
Grade 37 F MA Yes Email, CFASST online
Support Provider district
#2a (SP2a)
Induction
Coach/Suppor
t Provider
39 F BA No Email, CFASST online
feedback and approval; web-
based teacher tracking system
training, instructional support of
PLC using technology; online
laptops used to conduct
observations
Beginning Teacher,
Year 2, district #2b
(BT2b)
9-12
Agriculture
25 F BA No Email, CFASST online,
multimedia classroom projects
Support Provider district
#2b (SP2b)
Induction
Coach/
Support
Provider
40 F MA No Email, CFASST online
feedback and approval; web-
based teacher tracking system
training, instructional support of
PLC using technology; online
laptops used to conduct
observations
78
Table 3: Continued
BTSA district #1
Administrator (AP1)
BTSA
Induction
District
Liaison
37 F MA No Email, CFASST online
feedback and approval, web-
based teacher tracking system
training
BTSA district #2
Administrator (AP2)
Director of
Professional
Development
47 M MA No Email, CFASST online
feedback and approval, web-
based teacher tracking system
supervision, technology support
of PLC, supervision of
Induction training, including
Induction Course 16
(technology)
County Office of
Education Administrator
(AP3)
Coordinator
of Teacher
Development
and special
projects
43 F MA No Email, CFASST online SP
training, facilitation of the web-
based teacher tracking system
County Office of
Education Administrator
(AP4)
Director,
Teacher
Support
Center
61 F MA No Email, CFASST online district
training, director of the web-
based teacher tracking system
79
80
The aim in selecting the above participants was the formation of a group who
could speak to all facets of the BTSA Induction experience. While the participants
in this study were largely female, this gender distribution reflected the larger year
two beginning teacher population found in each district. Data collection revealed
that district #1 had 15 females and 5 males, and district #2 had 50 females and 14
men. The age of the participants is another finding worth noting. The stereotype of
a beginning teacher in his or her early twenties has given way to a wider age
distribution among teachers found in these districts. Because this finding was
common to both districts, questions about a beginning teacher’s previous work
experience became relevant when considering their knowledge and application of
technology. Multimedia literacy is a given for teachers who are recent college
graduates; however, older teachers with previous outside careers enter education
with varying degrees of multimedia literacy and influential preconceptions. The
sample in this study reflects an older population of teachers entering the profession,
prompting questions about the changing demographics of the teaching force and its
implications for the instruction of and about digital technology.
The Influence of Age and Previous Career
The researcher developed background questions related to age, gender, and
previous career experience to ascertain potential personal influences on the
participants’ perceptions of technology’s influence in the BTSA Induction process
(Research Question #1). What quickly became apparent was the influence of age on
how beginning teachers perceived the value of technology in the mentoring and
81
professional development process. Beginning teachers in their twenties and early
thirties expressed more positive views of technology in the BTSA Induction process
as well as its overall influence on their instructional practices. Conversely, older
teachers including those in their late thirties and forties expressed views of
technology that suggested only minimal value within the overall BTSA Induction
process and little relevance to their instruction activities. While all of the beginning
teachers in this sample had recently earned a preliminary credential, which included
coursework in technology, the ages of the participants revealed an over-arching
influence on their perceptions of technology’s value, supporting the idea that
younger teachers who grew up in the digital age have more positive feelings about
technology and its use in education. This finding was also apparent in the age of
support providers and their perceptions of technology’s value. About this finding,
one county office of education administrator commented,
We found a real learning curve between our support providers and their
expertise in the area of technology and new teachers. It’s taken about five
years for this to, to kind of come to the same level where we feel everybody is
on the same plane. New teachers, people new to the profession, it’s a way of
life and they love it. Some of our more experienced support providers still
are having some trouble.” (AP4)
Support provider attitudes about technology may, of course, influence beginning
teacher attitudes about technology. Responses to questions about BTSA Induction’s
influence on participants’ multimedia literacy also varied according to the grade
level participants were teaching and the age of the teacher. While one high school
teacher in her thirties told the researcher that her support provider provided her with
82
a great deal of support in technology that influenced her BTSA Induction experience
as well as her overall multimedia literacy, making her
“more responsible to students…this year we’re doing a multimedia senior
project.” (BT1b),
another said that more support could have been provided on the use of the Web-
based technology used to complete CFASST online:
“It could be more user-friendly. I think there should be a better help tutorial
for people that are computer illiterate. It could start inside with the
providers and clarifications…more of a step, or how to.” (BT2a)
Moreover, other beginning teachers said that while they felt that their support
providers and district BTSA Induction liaisons provided training on the use of
technology in using the consortium’s Web-based teacher tracking system, several
expressed a lack of technology’s relevance to their instructional practices. In
particular, when discussion turned to the digital portfolio BTSA Induction teachers
are working toward, one beginning teacher stated,
“I like to do things in concrete. So, as far as putting it online; I mean it’s
easily accessible wherever I, you know, wherever I have a computer
available to me, but would I go back to it? I’m more likely to go back to
something that I can actually open up and look at…I’m more of a hard copy
person.” (BT1c)
Findings from all participants indicate that a teacher’s age, previous career, and the
grade level they teach may be variables in explaining their responses. Regarding this
last result, findings suggest that high school teachers appear to find more relevance
in technology’s use in their instruction than do elementary school teachers,
83
particularly those who teach the early grades. Yet, training was also found to be an
issue for this second grade teacher (BT1c), who conceded that a colleague who
taught first grade was taking students to the computer lab on a weekly basis the
previous year:
“I’m not really a big technology person. And, I really don’t use it in class
that much. I think if I knew a lot more, I probably would…See, we didn’t take
advantage of it at all because, first of all, most of my second grade team is
not tech-savvy, and in order for you to go, you’re the one that had to teach
the kids how to do it, and if you don’t know what you’re teaching, there’s no
purpose in you going in.” (BT1c)
This finding was echoed by a beginning teacher in district #2 who commented on
how lack of technology training prevented teachers from using technology in their
instructional practices:
“Because of the fact that BTSA’s not as user-friendly as it could be that it
keeps people that are already resistant to it away from it…because, I think, a
lot of people are resistant to technology, especially in the lower grades…we
don’t have time.” (BT2a)
Again, the age, previous career experience, and grade level of beginning teachers
suggest a possible partial explanation for this finding. Older teachers who have
experienced previous careers (in fields other than technology) and who teach lower
grades appear to desire more training and have less enthusiasm for technology
overall. In concert with this finding, support providers responded that they had
received minimal training on how to mentor beginning teachers with technology.
One support provider stated:
“We did have the booklet right there (pointing to a copy of the training
pamphlet). That would be the most of it.” (SP1b)
84
Another support provider echoed this comment:
“No, actually, the online has not been a training; I mean, they’ve gone over
the paperwork with us in our boxes, but have we actually sat at computers?
No.” (SP1c)
However, both support providers were quick to point out that the system included
effective technical support when there was a problem, and that it is “user-friendly”
overall. In contrast to these findings, one county office of education administrator
clarified the training received by support providers, pointing out that they attend a
single week-long training session at the beginning of the program and four sessions
throughout the year in which there is,
“a strand in each of these sessions that is specific to technology and standard
16 and working with their new teachers.” (AP4)
While this data at first appears contradictory, it may also suggest a lack of
effectiveness in the technology training support providers receive.
The BTSA Induction Process and CFASST Online
Both districts are unusual in that they are using a Web-based teacher tracking
system to complete BTSA’s California Formative Assessment and Support System
for Teachers (CFASST) process as well as to log their Induction course requirements
that result in a Professional Clear Credential. This Web-based teacher tracking
system is unique, as most California public school districts continue to track and
complete the BTSA Induction process, including CFASST, using a paper-based
system. The following findings are connected to Research Questions #1 and #1a.
85
CFASST Online and the Volume of Data
Interviews with participants in both districts revealed that beginning teachers
enter more data into the CFASST online system than they did with the paper-based
system (Research Question #1a). Findings from interviews suggest that the move
from a paper-based system to a Web-based system of CFASST completion affect
both volume and frequency of data entered. In fact, participants from district #1
recalled the previous year in which the Web-based tracking system had been
unavailable for several months, forcing them to complete CFASST events on paper:
“Some of the time we were spending was slow time of handwriting everything
in triplicate, or printing it even for neatness, and they did not elaborate as
well…I’m glad that we are working online because of the deeper reflection
that a teacher is willing to make when one can type; otherwise, it’s more like,
‘is that enough?’ kind of thing when you have to handwrite the whole thing.”
(SP1b)
Similarly, one district administrator reinforced the positive differences the online
aspects of the program have made in the quality of information entered by beginning
teachers:
“Our whole generation coming through here is so much more computer
savvy, and they can get on it and really answer the questions and spend time
with those pieces...I think they type more than they would write; they will sit
and you will get much more information because they can type much faster
than they can write.” (AP1)
All but one participant found the Web-based tracking system intuitive and helpful in
facilitating the teacher induction process. However, all participants indicated that
they did not wish to return to a paper-based system, as it slowed them down and
encouraged them to limit their responses to the minimum required for completion.
86
When I pursued AP1’s comment with a county office of education
administrator regarding the increase in data entered using CFASST online, she
responded with the possibility of mediating factors that affect this outcome:
“I do…So I agree with (AP1) on that. The question I don’t think we can tell
from…just what’s online, I don’t think we can tell to what extent any given
individual would have done the same on paper. So, we can say the trend is
that the responses are longer, seem to be more fully developed, but whether
that’s a factor of technology or a factor of the people coming out…most of
them have had the teacher performance expectations, so this whole reflecting
and capturing that is [part of their credential].” (AP3)
Overall findings of this study suggest current teachers appear to be entering more
data on the CFASST online system. However, questions remain about what the true
reasons are for this development. While technology appears to be a significant factor
in this trend, other factors, such as new developments in teacher education, may also
be at work.
CFASST Online and the Quality of Mentoring Time
Another key finding in this study was the perception of how CFASST online
affects the quality of time mentors and beginning teachers spend together (Research
Question #1a). Participants unanimously agreed that the efficiency of CFASST
online and the Web-based teacher tracking system provided support providers with
more time to engage in the one-on-one dialogue that can result in authentic support
for beginning teachers. One support provider commented,
“One of the support providers really hated it. She felt that she had more
dialogue when it was just on paper. But see, I think we do, at least with my
beginning teachers, we dialogue first and we worry about the paperwork…we
go online afterwards” (SP1c)
87
Support providers and beginning teachers also expressed the value the system’s ease
of access. One beginning teacher said,
“Everything’s online…it’s wonderful.” (BT2b)
Similarly, one support provider stated,
“I can pull it up from home; I can pull it up from my laptop here.” (SP1b)
In particular, beginning teachers stated that the ability to access the system from
home at any hour allowed them flexibility in completing the CFASST events.
Likewise, support providers commented that they could provide feedback from any
location, at any hour, and revisions could then be made by beginning teachers
without necessarily having to meet for this purpose. Participants revealed that the
value of this efficiency is found in taking out what may be an unnecessary step, the
necessity of meeting to review the event and then meeting again to review revisions.
“I find that it’s so much easier just to do it online and submit it…and they
can give you immediate feedback, I think is the best thing.” (BT2b)
Instead, CFASST online allows support providers to review and relay feedback
simultaneously in the online document. This process does not necessarily have to
occur digitally; in fact, one beginning teacher commented on how meeting to discuss
events was still an efficient and effective process:
“When we’re debriefing and I’m entering my data, I like to run it by her; this
is what I came up with. Am I totally off base? She’s guiding me…it’s not,
‘okay, I’ve sent it off to her, and then she reads it, then she comes
back’…That could be two weeks later. This is her teaching moment right
then.” (BT1a)
88
Participants revealed that because the interactive process of CFASST events has
been streamlined, support providers and beginning teachers said they were able to
schedule meetings beyond those exclusively related to the CFASST events or
Induction courses. One support provider stated,
“And quite often when I go in, we just talk about teaching for a while or if
they’ve had a hard day.” (SP1b)
In contrast to the support provider and beginning teacher perspective, one county
office of education administrator revealed mixed outcomes of the online aspect of
BTSA induction and the quality of mentoring time:
“I don’t really feel like it’s taken something off their plate…from our
perspective, we feel that our teachers are better informed of what’s required,
so we feel that’s a great information source, so in that way, I do think it’s a
great improvement, a huge improvement, but I don’t think it’s really helped
them or their support providers to be able to, to set it aside and say, ‘okay
now we’re going to go deal with the real thing in the classroom.’ (AP3)
However, a district administrator commented on the positive aspects of the online
program regarding accountability, and the quality of mentoring as it impacts
instructional improvement:
“It’s made them more self-sufficient, so that I think the support providers
then can refer them to that and spend more time actually on, ‘how do I help
you become a better teacher?’” (AP1)
All support providers and beginning teachers collectively commented that while the
electronic technology was often useful, nothing replaced the quality of in-person
mentoring time. Findings of this study suggest that the electronic technology used in
89
this program allows teachers and support providers to use their in-person mentoring
time more efficiently.
BTSA Induction Online Features and Teacher Use
Findings of this study revealed that beginning teachers expressed positive
responses about the CFASST online feature of the Web-based teacher tracking
system; however, teachers expressed little interest in the other features of the system
(Research Questions #1 and #1a). When asked about the discussion board and
professional development links available, one teacher stated,
“We’ve talked about that it’s there, but we’ve never really had a need…we’ve
dialogued in person.” (SP1c)
In an attempt to triangulate questions about how teachers use the discussion board,
the researcher questioned the county office of education director of teacher
education. This participant responded,
“We put resources on…they log in if they need something, they email, we
have a bunch of teachers who research and get it back to them.” (AP4)
One observation of a county office of education meeting at which district liaisons
were trained on the Web-based teacher tracking updates contradicts interview
findings with support providers and beginning teachers who collectively stated that
they have not used it. At this meeting, one county office of education administrator
directed district liaisons to encourage their support providers to facilitate the use of
the many features available on the website, including the professional development
link, which provides K-12 teachers with resources, e-mentoring, and additional
90
professional development online courses. Findings from observations and interviews
suggest that while this feature is advocated at the administrative level of the
program, it is not encouraged by support providers in both districts, and thus rarely
used by beginning teachers.
Archival data support this finding. The discussion board feature on the Web-
based tracking system listed ten discussion entries about CFASST on September 11,
2006. By December 18, 2006, there were only four additional entries in this
category. The discussion board feature has been available to beginning teachers
since September, 2004
1
; however, to date, only 36 responses have been entered in
the eleven categories available. Most surprising is the fact that of these entries, none
had been entered in the technology category, suggesting that beginning teachers
either 1) have no concerns about technology, or 2) have forgotten that this discussion
board is available to them. While the first conjecture is possible, interview and
observation data suggest that the latter idea is more likely. One support provider
explained this lack of access as related to the newness of the feature and fact that
there are so many resources available to teachers:
“I’ve looked on there a couple times and it’s not accessed as much because
there’s so much out there now, so many incredible sites…so many other
things that are huge…are out there.” (SP2a)
Because there is little encouragement from support providers and no clear leadership
driving this feature of the website, the lack of participation appears to perpetuate its
1
This date reflects the earliest response posted. It should be noted that the discussion board was
unavailable for part of the school year in 2005.
91
lack of use and overall relevance to beginning teachers’ professional development.
Yet, while this support provider conceded that other website features are not
accessed frequently, they do share information on the many resources available to
beginning teachers as part of the networking incorporated into BTSA Induction
meetings.
BTSA Induction Online and Participant Feedback
Findings from interview data revealed that all beginning teachers and support
providers in this study were able to provide feedback on the BTSA Induction process
in an annual, year-end survey prepared for the consortium and the state (Research
Question #1). A bi-annual newsletter published by the county office of education
provided fall 2006 state survey results, which included data on quality practices and
recommendations. However, little information was gathered on the Web-based
tracking system, with only a brief mention of the support provider training provided
in the summer and later follow-up training sessions.
While all participants said that they felt comfortable providing feedback on
the quality of the BTSA Induction program, only support providers stated that they
saw evidence of how their feedback was used to improve the BTSA Induction
process at the consortium level. It is possible that the two year term of BTSA
Induction simply does not allow beginning teachers to see their feedback
implemented; however, one beginning teacher’s response to interview questions
about this element of the program suggests that other factors are at work:
92
“I don’t think... To be honest, the survey really didn’t allow for personal
feedback…I don’t think it’s very specific to asking about changes, personal
changes that you’d like to see.” (BT2a)
In contrast, one support provider commented,
“We’ve complained about certain things, and we’ve also…we like the online,
but we’ve complained about, more so about the questions and the
redundancy of some of the information they’re asking about…but they’re
open to feedback…they’ve changed year one last year and they’ve revamped
year two.” (SP1c)
This support provider revealed that she had observed how the CFASST process had
been streamlined over the course of her tenure as a support provider, an outcome of
what she felt was directly linked to support provider feedback.
In addition individual feedback gathered from surveys given by each district,
interview and archival data revealed that focus groups were conducted. Only one
support provider interviewed, however, stated that she had participated in a focus
group. Analysis of archival data supports the implementation of focus groups as an
evaluative measure taken by the university/county office of education collaboration.
One county office of education administrator stated that focus groups are also
conducted with beginning teachers; however, the researcher could find evidence only
in archival data that focus groups had included support providers, and the overall
method of sample selection could not be determined. In sum, current findings
suggest that in gathering the perceptions of beginning teachers, feedback measures in
place are currently incomplete, thus limiting the scope of qualitative findings about
the Web-based tracking system this consortium of districts has implemented.
93
At the district level, however, beginning teacher feedback has resulted in
changes. District #2 used beginning teacher feedback to create additional
networking opportunities:
“At the end of the year when we get our evaluations back, everybody said,
‘We love the networking, we love the networking,’ and so we thought, what
better way than to really make it more a part of our meetings.” (SP2b)
This beginning teacher feedback led, in part, to the development of district #2’s use
of a professional learning community model, one of the many differences in
implementation observed between district #1 and district #2 (Research Question
#1b).
BTSA Induction Online and District Implementation
The ways in which the two districts of this study implement BTSA Induction
revealed key findings related to Research Question #1b. That is, although both
districts utilize the same Web-based tracking system, each facilitates the BTSA
Induction program in distinctive ways that suggest qualitative differences in a
beginning teacher’s experience.
BTSA Induction Online and Support Providers
A key finding that emerged from interviews and observations of both districts
was the number of support providers that could mentor beginning teachers with the
use of the Web-based tracking system (Research Question #1b). Interviews with
support providers from both districts revealed that more beginning teachers could be
94
accommodated with fewer support providers as a direct result of technology. About
this development, one support provider revealed,
“What the online process did for me is, I believe it’s allowed me to take on
more BTSA teachers, participating teachers, because the paperwork was just
insurmountable.” (SP1a)
The ability to electronically track beginning teacher progress and provide feedback
in CFASST online, as well as the ability to electronically track Induction course
progress is only now possible with this new Web-based technology. Even so, there
are still notable differences between the two districts.
Whereas district #1 employs multiple support providers for its 20 second-
year beginning teachers, ranging in ratios of up to nine second-year teachers per
support provider, district #2 employs only two support providers for 64 second-year
beginning teachers. This difference has much to do with the size of each district,
such that district #1 has 13,585 students whereas district #2 has 19,693 students
(CBEDS, 2004). The increase in student population is mirrored in the size of each
district’s BTSA Induction program. As district #2’s population grew, so too did its
BTSA Induction program, leading to a group method of implementation. Finding
qualified support providers is a related finding that has posed challenges for both
districts. District #1 has responded to this challenge by employing a range of
educators, including current and retired teachers and other administration to support
beginning teachers. The district liaison explained this variety among different types
of support providers with commentary on the difficulty of filling these positions:
95
“You know, support providers are hard to come by…we could always use
more support providers…we just don’t have the teacher power for support
providers at this time.” (AP1)
The small size of the district limits available funding for support provider stipends,
which further complicates the goal of providing quality support for beginning
teachers. The irony of this situation is that district #1’s high socio-economic status
can do little to help them with funding constraints. However, results from beginning
teachers suggest that district #1 is, in fact, succeeding in providing effective
mentoring. One beginning teacher said about her support provider,
“She’s a phenomenal provider. She’s not only very optimistic and a positive
kind of person, but she’s very empathetic. She listens to what I have to
say…but most things you have to look at from a whole different perspective.
So, she’s that perspective.” (BT1a)
In contrast to district #1’s implementation design, district #2 employees two full-
time “Induction Coaches” whose position is exclusively aimed at providing
beginning teachers with a successful BTSA Induction experience. This begs the
question of how successful district #2 is at providing this experience for beginning
educators. Findings are generally positive. One beginning teacher stated that they
were,
“…emailing a lot….we used to have special dinners with her cause we had
weird problems that no one had ever heard before, trying to revamp a
program…but she was always available to us.” (BT2b)
Yet, a second beginning teacher in this district commented on the need for more
training sessions from support providers on all aspects of technology.
96
Observation findings support the first beginning teacher’s evaluation of
district #2’s effectiveness. The researcher observed multiple incidents in which
beginning teachers engaged in positive dialogue about the BTSA Induction process.
Observations revealed constant and focused dialogue among beginning teachers
about CFASST events, Induction courses, and the Web-based tracking system.
Moreover, BT2A, a high school teacher, emphasized the point that even though both
support providers had backgrounds in elementary education, they provided effective
mentoring and professional development for upper-grade teachers, a finding that
contradicts the literature on mentoring beginning teachers (see Roberts & Pruitt,
2003). These observations lead to the next difference in the two district’s
implementation: their meeting schedules.
BTSA Induction Online and Meeting Schedules
Observations also revealed differences in how the two districts facilitate
meetings to complete CFASST events (Research Question #1b). District #1 holds
two formal meetings, one at the beginning and one at the end of year, while other
meetings are mutually decided upon by between the support provider and beginning
teacher(s). In contrast, district #2 holds formal monthly meetings at which the two
support providers help beginning teachers through CFASST events and other related
professional development. The latter point is also a relevant key finding, as district
#2 was observed to be engaged in professional development that moves beyond
CFASST. Notably, beginning teachers of all grade levels interact within the
district’s mandate of a “professional learning community” model:
97
“We are really moving this year into a PLC model…and having them develop
critical friends together…and they are going to be mixed grades…so that
there’s going to be a kindergarten, a middle school, and a high school…and
then they’ll come together as a group and discuss, ‘Where are you
struggling? What are the areas that you feel like I’m just not getting it?’ and
then they’ll share ideas.” (SP2b)
The concept behind this model states that educators from all levels interact and learn
from each other’s experience, creating a common culture dedicated to district-wide
improvement. In this case, the district challenged the professional development team
to apply the professional learning community model to the BTSA group. Support
providers, under the guidance of the professional development director, designed
opportunities for teachers of all grade levels to interact and learn from each other in
activities related to CFASST events.
BTSA Induction Online and Credential Coursework
A final difference between district #1 and district #2’s BTSA Induction
implementation is the delivery of BTSA Induction coursework (Research Question
#1b). Whereas district #1 provides only select BTSA induction courses free of cost
to its beginning teachers, district #2 provides all BTSA induction courses free of cost
to its beginning teachers. When district administrators were asked about how they
decide how to offer Induction coursework, the response was connected to the quality
of professional development:
“I like it that they (teachers) have a close-knit group here within the district
that we can…govern the environment and the training and so we can…host it
and make it more about what our needs are.” (AP2)
98
However, “sub issues” (AP2) were also noted, indicating that financial constraints
are evident in both districts. For district #2, hosting courses on site allows the
district more flexibility in how teachers spend their professional development time
away from the classroom—the district controls the time and place. The larger
finding here is in the way districts use their financial resources to provide
professional development for beginning teachers. Whereas district #2 is a large
district with more funding available from a variety of sources, district #1 is smaller
in scale with fewer resources and less flexibility in how to allocate funds. Ironically,
because district #2 has a greater percentage of students from low-income households,
its financial resources are greater overall, allowing it more flexibility in the way it
allocates funds. Programs such as BTSA Induction provide set funding according to
the number of teachers is serves, so that a district’s socio-economic status is rendered
irrelevant in determining the quality of a BTSA Induction program. Consequently,
district population differences rather than community socio-economic status can
have a greater impact on how the BTSA Induction program is facilitated, and how
beginning teachers experience the program. When asked about the impact of
technology on how districts facilitate mentoring and professional development in the
BTSA Induction program, one county office of education administrator commented,
It is a benefit, it absolutely is a benefit, and we couldn’t do it effectively
without that. I would have to say that across the board.” (AP4)
Technology may ultimately be a leveling force in both districts, contributing to
program effectiveness in both districts in spite of demographic and other differences.
99
BTSA Induction, Technology, and Teacher Retention
A final finding of this study emerged from interview and archival data on
teacher retention and this consortium’s BTSA Induction programs (Research
Question #1a). Current research states that formal teacher induction programs,
including California’s BTSA Induction program, have a positive effect on teacher
retention (see Reed, Rueben, & Barbour, 2006). One finding of this study was the
positive effect technology appears to have on the mentoring aspects in this
consortium of districts. When the question of whether or not technology was having
a positive effect on teacher retention was posed to the county office of education
administrator, she responded,
I think the mentoring piece is key. I think the technology has facilitated the
mentoring…technology alone would not retain a teacher, but couple that,
and technology is a strategy, a venue that you can use, a vehicle…to help
communicate and to facilitate the work…it’s an excellent tool to facilitate the
whole process.” (AP4)
While technology itself may not improve teacher retention, it can improve the
mentoring process, thereby improving the quality of a beginning teacher’s
experience in the BTSA Induction program. Interviews with teachers reveal positive
attitudes about their experience in the BTSA Induction program and the ways in
which technology has influenced this experience. One teacher from district #1
stated,
“The feedback I am getting from her as we’re discussing that, that has
changed my teaching style…you wouldn’t know that many things are out
there, including the technology, or what sites to go to that would be best to
find lessons, for you to find activities…and (SP1a) does.” (BT1a)
100
This positive response was echoed by a beginning teacher in district #2:
“We worked really closely with (SP2b) last year…without her help, I don’t
know how we would have made it.” (BT2b)
Support providers and administration from both districts reinforced these common
experiences with comments on the positive impact of technology on supporting
beginning teachers. Accountability is also a factor in teacher retention, as teachers
who are accountable for completing the BTSA Induction program are more likely to
remain in the teaching profession. Regarding accountability, one administrator from
district #1 remarked,
I think though that it’s really helped on accountability, them taking some/the
real responsibility of, ‘this is what I need to do, this is how I meet those
goals, this is how my support provider is going to help me, this is where I
have to step up,’ because in the past it seemed that we had to hold hands a lot
more.” (AP1)
Similarly, an administrator from district #2 commented,
I know they’re more likely to do it, because before, I do remember that they
were, like, when we were doing things manually, they had to be reminded to
get it done…now they can go online at any time, any hour, anywhere, and we
can go online and check. (AP2)
Findings suggest that because teachers are both mentored and held accountable
through a BTSA Induction process that uses technology as a cornerstone of its
implementation, teacher retention rates are strong.
Archival data from the consortium in collaboration with a local university
support the idea teacher retention is strong in this consortium of districts. In a nine-
101
year longitudinal study university researchers analyzed CBEDS data, looking
specifically at the retention rate of first-year teachers according to BTSA
participation versus teachers who were not active participants in BTSA. Using a
Chi-Square test (p< .001), results indicated that participating BTSA teachers
remained in teaching after their first year at statistically greater rates than teachers
who were not active in BTSA. Results were dramatic, with almost 20% of non-
program teachers leaving the profession after their first year versus the loss of less
than 10% of BTSA teachers after their first year. What this study does not address,
however, is the variable of technology as a mediating influence on teacher retention.
The study is also limited in its lack of comparison between this particular BTSA
program and that of other consortiums, provoking the questions about varying levels
of BTSA program effectiveness throughout the state. This comparison is particularly
important in light of the use of technology in this consortium, an innovation that the
majority of districts in the state have yet to adopt. State and consortium program
evaluation surveys are already in place; however, research on the National Center for
Education Statistics and the California Department of Education websites reveal that
current retention data are scant. In sum, results of this study suggest that technology
is a positive variable in the many components that make this BTSA Induction
program’s retention rates impressive.
Summary of Findings
Findings from this qualitative study revealed the impact of technology on
BTSA Induction in this consortium’s program. The study uncovered significant
102
impact on the ways in which a beginning teacher’s age influences perceptions of
technology in the classroom, and how this affects his or her experience with mentors
who help facilitate professional development (Research Question #1) . In addition,
findings pointed to technology’s influence on the development of the data beginning
teachers enter into the Web-based teacher tracking system, CFASST Online. That is,
teachers are entering more data online than they were when using the paper-based
system (Research Question #1a). Furthermore, veteran administrators and support
providers who had experienced the change to the Web-based teacher tracking system
suggested that the quality of mentoring time was improved through the efficiency of
the technology, efficiency that support providers stated was a result of their annual
feedback to the consortium regarding program quality (Research Questions #1 and
#1a). Although a survey of the program includes all participants in the BTSA
Induction program, findings exposed gaps in how feedback is gathered and used for
program improvement, notably the lack of feedback from beginning teachers and
how they use the numerous features of the online system. Additional findings on the
ways in which districts implement the BTSA Induction Online program uncovered
the many differences in the number of support providers, the design of meetings and
scheduling, and the ways in which coursework is provided to beginning teachers
(Research Question #1b). While these differences are dramatic, the findings do not
support any specific way of implementing the BTSA Induction Online program.
Indeed, the consortium’s respect for each district’s community culture and the
leveling influence of technology allow the wide range of districts in this consortium
103
to successfully meet program standards. A final finding was the implication of
technology’s impact on teacher retention (Research Question #1a). While this
district has conducted longitudinal studies on the BTSA Induction program’s impact
on teacher retention, it has not examined the variable of technology and how it may
contribute to this consortium’s overall remarkable retention rates of first-year
teachers.
Findings from this study have led to additional questions about the impact of
technology on beginning teacher induction. The following chapter provides a
discussion of the findings included in this study.
104
CHAPTER FIVE
IMPLICATIONS
Extensive research has been conducted on the emergence of multimedia
literacy in teacher education programs as an essential component of an effective
twenty-first century educator (Alvermann, 2004; Brzycki & Dudt, 2005; Davies,
Szabo, & Montgomerie, 2002; Goetze, Brown, & Schwarz, 2004; Hobbs, 2004;
Mishra, & Koehler, 2006; Moore; 2001; Pohan & Dieckmann, 2005; Thoman, &
Jolls, 2004). Moreover, technology has become an essential component of teacher
induction programs during a teacher’s first two years. In particular, the practice of
mentoring, supplemented by technology has created new avenues for communication
and support of beginning teachers (Campbell & Ozgul, 2002; Fisler & Firestone,
2006; Franco, Lowder, & Scott-Hendrick, 2002; Hargreaves, & Fullan, 2000;
Lepage & Robinson, 2005; National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future, 1996, 2003; Recesso, Wiles, Venn, Campbell, & Padilla, 2002).
Recent educational literature also suggests that mentoring can have a
valuable and lasting impact on the quality of beginning teacher instruction (Gilbert,
2005; Guarino, Santibanez, Daley, & Brewer, 2004; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2000;
McCann & Johannessen, 2004; Renard, 2003; Roberts & Pruitt, 2003; Smith &
Ingersoll, 2003). What is more, such literature reinforces Vygotsky’s Zone of
Proximal Development (1992) in which the support of a more experienced individual
can increase the effectiveness of a novice. For teachers, such literature and theory
validate the increase in more formalized mentoring programs that provide induction
105
for beginning teachers, a process that can also alleviate the continued concern over
school staffing shortages (Esch, Chang-Ross, Guha, Tiffany-Morales, & Shields,
2004; Genzuk, 1997; Guarino, Santibanez, Daley, & Brewer, 2004; Ingersoll, 2003;
Reed, Rueben, & Barbour, 2006). While such research is positive in its suggestion
that school staffing problems can be resolved, the use of technology to mentor
beginning teachers through the induction process has created new questions about
the effectiveness of formal induction programs across Southern California’s diverse
K-12 school communities. Little is known about how mentoring and professional
development delivered through technology impact beginning teachers. This study
responded to this deficiency in the current literature on beginning teacher induction
by examining technology’s use in mentoring and supporting beginning teachers in
California’s BTSA Induction program. The questions posed in this research study
attempted to respond to this gap.
Discussion
Interview, Observation, and Archival Data
The following section provides an analysis of interview, observation, and
archival data collected over the course of a five-month period.
Background Information Questions:
What is your current title, and how long have you served in your current
role?
What other positions, if any, have you held in education? Other careers?
What is your age, and what is your education level?
106
What challenges do you face in your current position?
Interviews were initiated with background information questions that
produced findings regarding participants’ age, previous career, and technology
perceptions. The researcher was surprised to find that beginning teachers no longer
fit into the stereotype of the twenty-something, fresh-out-of college novice. The
answers provided by this study’s respondents suggest that beginning teachers are
entering the profession at various ages. Interviews revealed ages ranging from 25 to
47 years, and observations suggested that this range of ages is not uncommon. This
range in beginning teacher age and experience requires that attention be paid to older
teachers’ previous experience and consequential perceptions of technology in their
instructional practice.
This tension between age and technology preconceptions have direct
relationships to such efficacy constructs as Bandura’s Self-efficacy theory (1977) as
well as the related teacher efficacy construct proposed by Woolfolk and Hoy (1990),
and Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy (1998). Furthermore, Bandura’s later work on
collective efficacy (2002) is relevant in considering the effectiveness of BTSA
Induction as an organization that provides the support older teachers need to promote
multimedia literacy. Addressing support provider and older beginning teacher
concerns about technology is essential to promoting multimedia literacy among
teachers as well as their students.
Technology Curriculum Questions:
What forms of technology are most effective in BTSA Induction?
107
Are you familiar with the NETS for Teachers, and do they have any influence
on the technology used in BTSA induction?
What kind of training do SPs receive to assist BTs in the implementation of
technology/multimedia literacy?
When asked about the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS)
for Teachers, the researcher was surprised to find that beginning teachers and support
providers had little or no knowledge of these standards. When administrators were
asked about these standards, responses diverted to California’s Induction Standard 16
and the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP), which are not
directly linked to the NETS. Although beginning teachers received technology
training in their credential programs as well as instruction in how it is uses in order
to complete the Web-based teacher tracking system, no information had been
provided to these participants on the conceptual design of the program—the “why”
of technology’s use in facilitating BTSA Induction. What is striking about this
finding is its lack of educational theory on which to base technology’s use. Directing
teachers to the state standards as a rationale for using technology may be enough to
motivate some teachers, but the findings of this study suggest that a lack of an
overarching theoretical framework on which to base technology’s use may prohibit
other teachers from seeing multimedia literacy as inherently valuable in one’s
instructional practice.
Findings on participants’ perceptions of technology’s value in their
instructional practice have direct connections to Shulman’s model of Pedagogical
108
Content Knowledge (1987) as well as Mishra and Koehler’s Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework (2006), which advocate a meaningful
integration of pedagogy, content knowledge, and technology knowledge in case-
based instruction. Only when teachers understand the “why” and the “how” of
technology’s use in their instruction can they authentically embrace multimedia
literacy.
Technology Professional Development and Mentoring Questions:
How has technology affected relationships/mentoring between BTSA
Induction participants? How might these relationships be different without
electronic communication?
How has the transfer of the CFASST program to an online format changed
the program?
What is the future of BTSA Induction in terms of the use of technology?
According to Hargreaves and Fullan (2000), veteran teacher retirements and
shifting demographics within the current teaching force could put mentoring
programs at risk; however, these authors did not anticipate the additional variable of
older teachers entering the teaching force, and how this group might demand
alternative forms of support, particularly with regard to technology. Findings from
this study suggest that when both the beginning teacher and the support provider are
older and have negative preconceptions about technology’s value in instruction,
mentoring to promote multimedia literacy will be a futile effort. Vygotsky’s Zone of
Proximal Development (1992) is relevant here, as support providers must have a
109
strong command of technology competency, and perhaps more important, they must
reflect an attitude that promotes overall multimedia literacy as a valuable component
of educational practice.
Related to age and attitudes toward technology are findings on the use of
technology to mentor and facilitate professional development for beginning teachers.
Interviews and observations suggest that technology continues to have unanticipated
influences on beginning teachers. For example, mentoring is a process that has
traditionally been conducted in person. The very physical presence of a mentor can
be a supportive act, provoking questions about how e-mentoring can fulfill this need
without compromising the relationship that mentors and beginning teachers build
(Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996; Fisler & Firestone, 2006;
Hargreaves & Fullan, 2000; National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future, 2003; Renard , 2003). On the value and use of e-mentoring, findings are
mixed. Whereas most of the participants stated that they take advantage of email
communication with their support provider, they also qualified such statements with
comments on the value of meeting in person. And yet, both districts, especially
district #2, indicated that they could not provide the volume of mentoring that they
do without the use of technology.
The findings in this study contradict the literature on effective mentoring
(Gilbert, 2005; Renard, 2003; Roberts & Pruitt, 2003) with regard to the necessity of
having mentors teach comparable subjects; however, findings on the quality and use
of time are supported by the literature when viewing schedules in a new way. That
110
is, district #1’s use of retired teachers and district #2’s use of “induction coaches”
whose sole position is to support beginning teachers allows these mentors flexible
schedules that can make them available to beginning teachers when needed. The
increased availability of a mentor may, therefore, be more influential in a beginning
teacher’s experience than teaching the same subject matter. For both districts,
increased availability is also defined by email communication, a aspect of
technology both districts appeared to use effectively in the mentoring process.
Moreover, all beginning teachers in this study stated that they do not take
advantage of the discussion forum on which they can share beginning teacher
concerns, or other Web-based professional development links for beginning teachers.
Their support providers echoed this response, indicating little experience with this
feature on the Web-based tracking system. Lack of leadership regarding the use and
relevance of this feature seems to perpetuate a cycle of limited use. Questions linger,
therefore, about the training and value of e-mentoring and other electronic forms of
communication support providers and beginning teachers have access to. While
many of these resources are a relatively new feature, participant responses indicate
that no teachers in this study were using this resource or had any intention of using it,
spurring questions as to these features’ value. Interviews with county office of
education administration as well as analysis of archival data (handbooks and
newsletters) provided no indication that additional features on the website are
planned in the future.
111
What kinds of feedback have you received from BTs and SPs about the
effectiveness of the online format of the program?
How are SPs chosen for the focus groups?
Results of this study suggest that this consortium of districts is largely
effective in its evaluative measures. This consortium conducts not only the state
survey, but also an additional mixed-method (quantitative and qualitative
questionnaire) survey. One area of deficiency is the use of focus groups; current
focus groups sample only support providers; however, a county office of education
administrator revealed that additional focus groups are planned with the goal of
gathering feedback from beginning teachers. This additional measure could provide
added information on the quality of this consortium’s BTSA Induction programs.
What variations have you noted in how different districts implement the BTSA
Induction program?
Related to BTSA Induction program quality are the data this study gathered
on variations in each district’s implementation. While the two districts sampled in
this study demonstrated different methods of implementation, each showed notable
effectiveness in providing a successful experience for beginning teachers. Interviews
from all levels of this BTSA Induction program revealed consistently positive
feedback on the quality of a beginning teacher’s experience. Multiple observations
over a five-month period reinforced this finding, with the researcher noting many
incidents in which beginning teachers interacted with support providers in focused
and positive dialogue.
112
District #2’s success can be linked to Louis and Kruse’s (1995) Professional
Community Framework, which builds on Vygotsky’s (1992) constructivist
framework. Engaged in a common goal of instructional improvement, educators
learn through collaboration with multiple participants, both novice and expert.
District #2 has designed a BTSA Induction program, which can be viewed as an
emerging example of the professional community model in that teachers of different
grade levels collaborate with each other and their support providers to improve their
overall instructional practice. Interviews and observations suggest that this
framework has fostered positive collaboration among teachers at all grade levels.
Moreover, the Professional Community Framework builds on what Bandura (2002)
proposes as electronic technology’s influence on personal and collective efficacy.
When teachers work together to improve their knowledge and application of
technology, multimedia literacy moves from concept to practice—a benefit that
radiates from the individual teacher to the collective district to the larger community.
A final interview question in this study emerged from the literature and the
archival data analyzed for this study:
What is the impact of technology on teacher retention?
Interview and archival data suggest that this consortium’s BTSA Induction
program has made notable gains in teacher retention. How technology factors into
this finding may be the most significant emerging question of this study. All
participants commented on the quality of the mentoring that support providers build
into their relationships. The researcher was surprised, however, to find connections
113
made to teacher retention. The theoretical frameworks proposed in this study are
relevant in the interpretation of findings. Notably, Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal
development (1992) as well as Bandura’s Self-efficacy theory (1977) and the related
teacher efficacy construct proposed by Woolfolk and Hoy (1990), and Tschannen-
Moran, Hoy, and Hoy (1998) advance the position that a teacher’s feeling of
competence has positive effects on the desire to remain in the profession. That is,
promoting teacher efficacy through formalized mentoring and effective professional
development programs may result in teachers who are better prepared to contend
with the many stresses of teaching, thus choosing to ultimately remain in the
profession (Johnson & Birkeland, 2002).
An analysis of the findings this study sets forth demonstrates the impact of
technology in the overall induction of beginning teachers at all levels of the BTSA
Induction process. Beginning teachers are influenced by many factors in the process,
including their age, previous experience, and the grade level they teach. They are
also influenced by the district’s BTSA Induction structure, whether it is a flexible
design as observed in district #1, or a formal professional learning community
structure as observed in district #2. Furthermore, the mentoring they receive from
support providers, delivered through technology, also influences beginning teachers.
Finally, beginning teachers are influenced by the CFASST process itself, online in
the case of this consortium. An interpretation of these findings is illustrated in
Figure 3:
114
Technology
Perceptions of
Technology’s
Educational Value
According to
Age/Previous
Experience/Grade
Level
District BTSA
Induction
Structure:
District #1’s
Flexible Meeting
Schedule Versus
District #2’s PLC
Model
Support Provider
Mentoring:
Email, CFASST
Online Support,
Multimedia
Lesson Planning
Support
CFASST Process:
Web-based
Teacher Tracking
System and
Cumulative
Digital Portfolio
Beginning Teachers
View of BTSA Induction
Technology: Positive
Views in this Study
Multimedia Literacy:
Improved in this
Consortium of Districts
Rate of Teacher
Retention: Higher in this
Consortium of Districts
Figure 3. Factors of Influence on Beginning Teachers in BTSA Induction and their
Outcomes.
How these factors influence beginning teachers is of the greatest importance
to the teaching profession as it embraces and promotes multimedia literacy. Findings
from this study indicate that the majority of participants had positive views of
technology as it is used in the BTSA Induction program. Many participants also
expressed improved overall multimedia literacy as a result of the support provider
115
mentoring they had received throughout the BTSA Induction process. Finally, the
high rate of teacher retention in this consortium is also worth noting. Common to all
of these factors regarding beginning teacher influence and outcomes is the
overarching influence of technology. The core question then becomes how much of
an influence technology ultimately has on beginning teachers and the BTSA
Induction process in which they engage.
In the end, this study resulted in findings that will inevitably lead to a
growing body of questions to be examined in future research. Interpretation of
findings suggests a number of themes in the need for future research.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
Recommendation #1
Future research must examine the ways in which age influences a beginning
teacher’s perceptions of technology. While all California teachers entering the
profession have taken a technology course in order to earn a preliminary teaching
credential, not all teachers enter the profession with the same level of technology
experience. Findings in this study showed a surprising number of older teachers
entering the profession after having left a previous career. This finding revealed
varying views of technology’s value in not only the BTSA Induction process, but
also in the classroom. That teachers who were older placed less value on the use of
technology in education suggests further research is needed to tease out the true
reasons for this view. It is unlikely that teachers can continue to ignore technology’s
influence on modern education; only when educational researchers and
116
administrators fully understand an older beginning teacher’s reasons for using or not
using technology can a school’s multimedia literacy improve. This study’s findings
suggest that this population of teachers carry with them preconceptions that may
positively or negatively influence their use of technology and overall multimedia
literacy.
Recommendation #2
A related area of research involves the study of how a beginning teacher’s
grade level influences perceptions about technology’s use in the teacher’s
instructional program. This study found that elementary school teachers expressed
less perceived value for the use of technology in student instruction. With the advent
of multimedia educational technology aimed at children as young as pre-school age
(e.g., Baby Einstein and other similar preschool products), as well as emerging
research on the value of game-based learning (see Squire, 2006), new forms of
digital instruction cannot be ignored by educators any longer, even for elementary
students in lower grades. Further research on the impact of multimedia technology,
including game-based learning technology, could elucidate improved forms of
instruction for K-5 educators.
Recommendation #3
Further research must be conducted on the impact of technology on teacher
retention. Results of this study suggest that this consortium of districts is showing
improved teacher retention, possibly due in part to the innovative technology it has
utilized. However, results of this study also indicate a formalized training program
117
for mentors that is highly effective. Technology and the mentoring practices that are
integrated in this BTSA Induction program are confounding variables; that is, it is
unclear from this study whether it is the quality of the mentoring this BTSA
Induction consortium is providing or its use of technology that is improving overall
teacher retention. Future studies that can tease out the truth of each variable’s impact
will be critical in the continued implementation of technology in the BTSA Induction
program, particularly for districts of differing socio-economic and demographic
statuses.
Recommendation #4
This study was limited in ascertaining a beginning teacher’s actual classroom
implementation of his or her growing multimedia literacy gained through BTSA
Induction coursework (e.g., Induction Standard 16). Future research should examine
the outcomes of technology’s use following the second-year BTSA Induction
program. What teachers actually do with the technology professional development
they have experienced can be studied only among teachers who have successfully
completed the BTSA Induction program. Research of this nature requires more time
than the constraints of this study permitted. While there is always the risk in
extended qualitative work, such that the researcher “goes native” as Kanuha (2000)
aptly termed, the five months spent on this particular study can be more accurately
viewed as a starting point for continued extended research. Moreover, because much
of the technology professional development teachers receive is completed during the
118
second semester of their second year, future research that includes third-year
teachers could prove fruitful.
Recommendation #5
Finally, continued research must be conducted on the BTSA Induction
program’s use of technology with consideration given to additional ethnographic
characteristics. That is, the ethnicity of teachers and students may mediate the
results of a beginning teacher’s perception and implementation of technology,
thereby affecting a student’s multimedia literacy. Similarly, a student’s ethnicity
may also mediate a student’s use of technology and overall multimedia literacy.
Gender is another area of research that this study was unable to address. Exploring
the ways in which different genders perceive and apply technology could prove
valuable in the field of multimedia scholarship. Ethnographic research that
addresses student and teacher characteristics is needed to clarify the impact of these
influences and their potential instructional impact.
Conclusion
Evidence of a cultured society is found in great literature that illustrates the
many facets of the human condition. As was true for Odysseus in The Odyssey of
Homer (1999), mentoring and support are essential to the human condition, even in a
multimedia world. The core of education is grounded in the mentor-novice
relationship, a critical bond between not only teachers and students, but also veteran
and novice teachers. The practice of mentoring dates back to ancient Greek history
and literature; however, the advent of twenty-first century technology adds
119
complexity to the process, resulting in added dimension in the delivery of
professional development of beginning teachers during the first two years of their
career. We are at a crossroads in beginning teacher induction: we can move forward
and seize the best that technology has to offer, capturing the prismatic possibility of
multimedia literacy. Or, we can lose ourselves in the morass of media consumerism
Ray Bradbury feared with good reason in his visionary novel, Fahrenheit 451
(1953). Today’s educators must bridge the gap between a concrete past and a less
tangible future by embracing a paradigm shift from traditional to nonlinear forms of
instruction. In the end, it is teachers who must be leaders in a world dominated by
media, a world demanding multimedia literacy.
120
References
Alvermann, D.E. (2004). Media, information communication technologies, and
youth literacies: A cultural studies perspective. American Behavioral
Scientist, 48(1), 78-83.
American Federation of Teachers, Beginning teacher induction: The essential
bridge, educational issues policy brief, No. 13 (AFT Educational Issues
Department: Washington, D.C., September 2001), pp. 2-3, Retrieved June
10, 2006: www.aft.org/edissues/teacherquality/Induction.htm.
Atwood, V.A., Shake, M.C., Bott Slaton, D., & Hales, R.M. (1995). Beginning
teachers’ perceptions of their preparation for agreement with and
implementation of primary school programs. Institute on Education Reform
University of Kentucky (UKERA) Occasional Papers. Lexington, KY:
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 414 278).
Ball, D. L. (1990). Prospective elementary and secondary teachers' understanding of
division. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 132-144.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (2002). Growing primacy of human agency in adaptation and change in
the electronic era. European Psychologist, 7(1), 2-16.
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (2006). “Objectives” Retrieved: June
8, 2006: http://www.btsa.ca.gov/.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: The
cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay Co.
Bradbury, R. (1953). Fahrenheit 451. New York, NY: Random House.
Brown, R.S., Colbert, J.A., & Thomas, S.T. (2006). An investigation of the impacts
of teacher-driven professional development on pedagogy and student
learning. Presentation American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education Convention, 2006.
Brzycki, D., & Dudt, K. (2005). Overcoming barriers to technology use in teacher
preparation programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4),
616-641.
121
Burke, S., & Errett, M. (Ed.). (2005). Teacher supply in california: A report to the
legislature (seventh annual report 2003-04): California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing (Office of Governmental Relations).
CDW-Government, Inc. (2005). Teachers Talk Technology 2005, CDW-G, Inc. 3
rd
Annual Survey Report. Retrieved March 12, 2006:
http://newsroom.cdwg.com/features/feature-08-29-05.htm,.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2005). Induction Program
Standards. Retrieved June 13, 2006: www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/
standards/Induction-Program-Standards.pdf.
California Department of Education. (2006). California Department of Education
Demographics Unit, (CBEDS) District Reports 2005-06, 2004-05, 2003-04.
Retrieved August 5, 2006: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/page2.asp?level=
District&subject=Enrollment&submit1=Submit.
Campbell, S., & Ozgul, S. (2002). First year technology mentoring for teachers and
faculty: Lessons learned. ED-MEDIA 2002 World Conference on
Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Association
for the Advancement of Computing in Education, Norfolk, VA: (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 476 980).
Colbert, J.A., & Wolff, D.E. (1992). Surviving in urban schools: A collaborative
model for a beginning teacher support system. Journal of Teacher
Education, 43(3), 193-199.
Cullen, T.A., Brush, T.A., Frey, T.J., Hinshaw, R.S., & Warren, S.J. (2006). NCLB
technology and a rural school: A case study. The Rural Educator, 28(1)
Daley, E. (2003). Expanding the concept of literacy. Educause Review, March, 33-
40.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (1999). Recruiting teachers for the 21
st
century:
The foundations for educational equity. The Journal of Negro Education,
68(3), 254-279.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L.
(2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. J. B. Darling-
Hammond (Ed.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers
should learn and be able to do (pp. 390-441). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
122
Davies, J.E., Szabo, M., & Montgomerie, C. (2002). Assessing information and
communication technology literacy of education undergraduates: Instrument
development. Report: ED-MEDIA 2002 World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education, Norfolk, VA: (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 476 992).
Dede, C. (2004). Enabling distributed learning communities via emerging
technologies – part one. T.H.E. Journal, 32(2), 12-22.
Dill, D. D. (1999). Academic accountability and university adaptation: The
architecture of an academic learning organization. Higher Education, 38,
127-134.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement.
Retrieved July 12, 2003: http://www.nsdc.org/library/results/res11-
02elmore.html.
Esch, C.E., Chang-Ross, C.M., Guha, R., Tiffany-Morales, J., & Shields, P.M.
(2004). California’s teaching force 2004: Key issues and trends. Santa
Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
Fideler, E.F., & Haselkorn, D. (1999). Learning the ropes: Urban teacher induction
programs and practices in the United States. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New
Teachers, Inc.
Fisler, J.L., & Firestone, W.A. (2006). Teacher learning in a school-university
partnership: Exploring the role of social trust and teaching efficacy beliefs.
Teachers College Record. 108(6), 1155-1185.
Floden, R. E., & Meniketti. (2005). Research on the effects of coursework in the arts
and sciences and in the foundations of education. In M. Cochran-Smith, &
K.M. Zeichner (Ed.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA
panel on research and teacher education (pp. 261-308). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Franco, Z., Lowder, S., & Scott-Hendrick, L. (2002). RIMS/BTSA electronic
portfolio for teacher professional development (EPTPD) pilot program initial
report & the transition to the RIMS/BTSA online system: A conceptual
framework. Report. University of California, Riverside. Retrieved June 8,
2006: rimsbtsa.ucr.edu/publications/publication_docs/ Tab_7_E
Port_and_Online_System.doc -
123
Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: a developmental conceptualization.
American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207-226.
Genzuk, M. (1997). Diversifying the teaching force: preparing paraeducators as
teachers. Washington DC: ERIC Digest Document Reproduction Service,
96-2.
Gilbert, L. (2005). What helps beginning teachers? Educational Leadership, 62(5),
36-39.
Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1981). Ethnographic research and the problem of
data reduction. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 12, 51-70.
Goetze, S.K., Brown, D.S., & Schwarz, G. (2006). Teachers need media literacy,
too! Media literacy: Transforming curriculum and teaching. (pp. 161-179.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In
M. Cochran-Smith, & K.M. Zeichner (Ed.), Studying teacher education: The
report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 425-476).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Guarino, C., Santibanez, L., Daley, G., & Brewer, D. (2004). A review of the
research literature on teacher recruitment and retention. RAND Technical
Report. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Halford, J. (1998). Easing the way for new teachers. Educational Leadership, 55(5),
33-36.
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith,
M., McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). How teachers learn and develop.
In L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford (Ed.), Preparing teachers for a
changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 358-
389). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L.
(2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond,
& J. Bransford (Ed.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: what
teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for teaching and
teacher educators. (in press). B. Cato (Ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum.
124
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2000). Mentoring in the new millennium. Theory
into Practice, 39(1), 50-56.
Hobbs, R. (2004). A review of school-based initiatives in media literacy education.
American Behavioral Scientist, 48(1), 42-59.
Horn, P.J., Sterling, H.A., & Subhan, S. (2002). Accountability through “best
practices” induction models. Annual Meeting of the American Association
of Colleges for Teacher Education, New York, NY: (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 464 039).
Hufton, N. R., Elliott, J.G., & Illushin, L. (2003). Teachers’ beliefs about student
motivation: similarities and differences across cultures. Comparative
Education, 39(3), 367-389.
Ingersoll, R.M. (2002). Holes in the teacher supply bucket. The School
Administrator. March, 2002, 42.
Ingersoll, R.M. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? September, 2003 Report:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education and Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy, 1-28.
Ingersoll, R.M. (2004). Why do high-poverty schools have difficulty staffing their
classrooms with qualified teachers? November 2004 Report: Center for
American Progress and the Institute for America’s Future, 1-20.
International Society for Technology Education. (2005). National Educational
Technology Standards for Teachers. Retrieved June 13, 2006:
cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_stands.html.
Jerald, C. (2003). Beyond the rock and the hard place. Educational Leadership,
60(10), 12-16.
Johnson, J., & Strange, M. (2005). Why rural matters 2005: The facts about rural
education in the 50 states. Report, Retrieved August 9, 2006:
http://www.ruraledu.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?content_id={7B52BCB9-
475F-4953-8644-71F0ED475E9E}¬oc=1&c=beJMIZOCIrH&b=669063.
Johnson, S.M., & Birkeland, S.E. (2002). Pursuing ‘a Sense of Success’: New
teachers explain their career decisions. Project on the Next Generation of
Teachers. Report. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
125
Kanuha, V.K. (2000). “Being” native versus “going native”: Conducting social
work research as an insider. Social Work, 45(5), 439-447.
Landsberger, H. A. (1958) Hawthorne Revisited, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Lepage, P., & Robinson, P. (2005). Computer conferencing and the development of
habits of mind associated with effective teacher education. Journal of
Interactive Learning Research, 16(4), 369-393.
Lipton, L., Wellman, B., & Humbard, C. (2003). Mentoring matters: A practical
guide to learning-focused relationships. 2
nd
Ed. Sherman, CT: Miravia.
Little, J.W. (1990). The mentor phenomenon and the social organization of teaching.
Review of Research in Education, 16, 297-351.
Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (Ed.). (1997). Teaching about teaching: Purpose,
passion and pedagogy in teacher education. London: Falmer Press.
Louis, K. S., & Kruse, S.D. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives
on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Louis, K.S., & Marks, H.M. (1998). Does professional community affect the
classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools.
American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532-575.
McCann, T.M., & Johannessen, L.R. (2004). Why do new teachers cry? The
Clearing House, 77(4), 138-145.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Milman, N.B. (2005). Web-based digital teaching portfolios: Fostering reflection
and technology competence in preservice teacher education students.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 373-396.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge:
A new framework for teacher knowledge, Teachers College Record. 108(6),
1017-1054.
Moore, F. (2001). Storage changing so fast it even obsoletes the future. Computer
Technology Review, 21(1), 28.
126
Murrell, P.C. (2000). Community teachers: A conceptual framework for preparing
exemplary urban teachers. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(4), 338-348.
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (1996). What matters most:
Teaching for America’s future. New York, NY: National Commission on
Teaching & America’s Future.
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (2003). No dream denied:
A pledge to america’s children. Washington D.C., National Commission on
Teaching & America’s Future
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. NCATE Unit Standards.
Retrieved July 5, 2006: http://www.ncate.org/public/standards.asp.
Newmann, F. M., King, M.B., & Ridgon M. (1997). Accountability and school
performance: Implications from restructuring schools. Harvard Educational
Review, 67(1), 41-74.
Newmann, F.M., King, M.B., & Youngs, P. (2000). Professional development that
addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools.
American Journal of Education, 108(4), 259-299.
Nikias, M. C. L. Max. (March 20, 2006). Personal communication: University of
Southern California.
O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard
Educational Review, 72(3), 293-329.
Olebe, M. (2001). A decade of policy support for california’s new teachers: The
beginning teacher support and assessment program. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 28(1), 71-84.
The Odyssey of Homer (1999). Translated by Richmond Lattimore. New York, NY:
Harper Collins.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pittinsky, M. (2005). No teacher left behind: Online learning tools provide the
foundation for today's professional development programs. Technological
Horizons in Education, 32(11). Retrieved March 12, 2006: Expanded
Academic ASAP. Thomson Gale.
127
Pohan, C.A., & Dieckmann, J. (2005). Preservice partnerships create classroom
leaders: On-site classes benefit schools and teachers. Learning & Leading
with Technology, October, 22-24.
Popkewitz, T.S. (1998). Struggling for the soul: The politics of school and the
construction of the teacher. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Project Look Sharp. (1999). 12 basic principles for incorporating media literacy
into any curriculum. Ithaca, NY: Project Look Sharp. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 468 414).
Recesso, A., Wiles, D., Venn, M., Campbell, W.A., & Padilla, M. (2002). Teacher
induction and technology integration: Is there a critical element missing in
existing induction models? Presented at American Education Research
Association Annual Meeting 2002. New Orleans, LA: ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 467 502).
Reed, D., Rueben, K.S., & Barbour, E. (2006). Retention of new teachers in
california. San Francisco, CA. Public Policy Institute of California Report
Renard, L. (2003). Setting new teachers up for failure or success. Educational
Leadership, 60(8), 62-64.
Roach, R. (2004). Breaking ground on the school and the future: Philadelphia high
school to offer cutting-edge technology and learning experiences for urban
students. Black Issues in Higher Education, 21(23), 44.
Roberts, S.M. & Pruitt, E.Z. (2003). Schools as professional learning communities:
Collaborative activities and strategies for professional development.
Thousand Oaks, CA Corwin Press.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social
context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Roscigno, V.J., Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Crowley, M. (2006). Education and the
inequalities of place. Social Forces, 84(4), 2121-2145.
Rowan, B., Correntti, R., & Miller, R.J. (2002). What large-scale survey research
tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the
prospects study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104(8),
1525-1568.
128
Sargent, B. (2003). Finding good teachers—and keeping them. Educational
Leadership, 60(8), 44-47.
Schmoker, M.J. (2001). The results fieldbook: Practical strategies for dramatically
improved schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for the Supervision of
Curriculum Development.
Schwarz, G. (2006). Overview: What is media literacy, who cares, and why? In
Schwarz, G., & Brown, P.U. (Eds.), Media literacy: Transforming
curriculum and teaching. (pp. 5-17). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Semali, L. (2006). Why media literacy matters in american schools. In Schwarz, G.,
& Brown, P.U. (Eds.), Media literacy: Transforming curriculum and
teaching. (pp. 35-54). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Semeniuk, A., & Worrall, A. M. (2000). Rereading the dominant narrative of
mentoring. Curriculum Inquiry, 30(4), 405-428.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Shulman, L. (1998). Teacher portfolios: A theoretical activity. In N. Lyons (Ed.),
With portfolio in hand: Validating the new teacher professionalism (pp. 23-
37). New York: Teachers College Press.
Sinclair Research Group. (2003). Beginning teacher support and assessment
program (BTSA): Summative program evaluation report 2002-2003, 1-263.
Smith, T.M., & Ingersoll, R.M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and
mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research
Journal, 41(3), 681-714.
Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience.
Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19-29.
Stringer, E.T. (1999). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Thoman, E., & Jolls, T. (2004). Media literacy—A national priority for a changing
world. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(1), 18-29.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy:
Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research. 68(2), 202-248.
129
Tushnet, N. C., Briggs, D., Elliot, J., Esch, C., Haviland, D., Humphrey, D.C.,
Rayyes, N., Riehl, L.M., & Young, V. (2002). Final Report of the
Independent Evaluation of the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment
Program (BTSA): WestEd and SRI International.
U.S. Department of Education (2000). Retrieved March 12, 2006:
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/TeachersGuide/teach.html. The Teacher's Guide to
the U.S. Department of Education - September 2000.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1992). Thought and language. Sixth Printing. Cambridge, MA:
M.I.T. Press.
Wang, J., & Odell, S.J. (2003). Learning to teach toward standards-based writing
instruction: Experiences of two preservice teachers and two mentors in an
urban multicultural classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 104(2), 147-
174.
Wetzel, K., & Strudler, N. (2005). The diffusion of electronic portfolios in teacher
education: Next steps and recommendations from accomplished users.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 231-243.
Woolfolk, A. E. & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and
beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. 3
rd
edition, volume 5.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
130
APPENDIX A
Population and Sample
131
Purposeful Sampling of
Typical Cases in Southern
California Public
K-12 Schools
Triangulation of
Sources at all Levels
of the BTSA Induction
Program
How the county
office of education
oversees the mentoring and
professional development
delivered through technology
How district administration
facilitate mentoring and professional
development delivered through technology
How support providers are trained in
technology mentoring and professional development
How year two beginning teachers in two different districts perceive the
value of using technology in the BTSA Induction program as well as how
the technology professional development influences their overall
multimedia literacy
County Office
of Education
School district #2:
Rural, Lower
Middle SES
School district #1:
Urban, Upper
Middle SES
132
APPENDIX B
Letters to Participants
133
June 18, 2006
Dear Superintendent:
I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California conducting
qualitative research on the experiences of beginning teachers in the Beginning
Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA). This study is for use in my
dissertation and is in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor
of Education. I am seeking permission to conduct observations and interviews with
willing administrators and teachers who participate in the BTSA Induction program.
In this study I will look at the impact of technology on participating teachers’
experiences within the BTSA program. I am seeking the following participants: one
administrator, two beginning teachers, and their two respective support providers.
This study is significant in that it contributes to an emerging body of knowledge on
the impact of technology on K-12 pedagogy and instructional design in California
teacher induction programs.
This study is scheduled to take place from August, 2006 through January 2007.
Participation is voluntary, and interviews and observations will take place up to four
times over the course of the Fall semester at the school site. Protocols to ensure
anonymity and confidentiality will be used. Participants’ names and that of their
school sites will not be used. Instead, coding of names will be used, e.g., Beginning
Teacher 1, School 1, etc. Participants may withdraw from this study at any time
without consequence. Participants may request the findings of this study upon
completion.
Participation in this study provides your district with an opportunity to contribute the
improvement of beginning teacher induction programs across the state. If this meets
with your approval, please sign the attached “Research Site Permission Letter,” on
district letterhead and return it to me in the self-addressed stamped envelope. Please
do not hesitate to contact me at (310) 754-9801 with additional questions.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Tedford
University of Southern California
Ed.D. Program
134
June 18, 2006
Dear Principal:
I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California conducting
qualitative research on the experiences of beginning teachers in the Beginning
Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA). This study is for use in my
dissertation and is in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor
of Education. I am seeking permission to conduct observations and interviews with
willing administrators and teachers who participate in the BTSA Induction program.
In this study I will look at the impact of technology on participating teachers’
experiences within the BTSA program. I am seeking the following participants: one
administrator, two beginning teachers, and their two respective support providers.
This study is significant in that it contributes to an emerging body of knowledge on
the impact of technology on K-12 pedagogy and instructional design in California
teacher induction programs.
This study is scheduled to take place from August, 2006 through January 2007.
Participation is voluntary, and interviews and observations will take place up to four
times over the course of the Fall semester at the school site. Protocols to ensure
anonymity and confidentiality will be used. Participants’ names and that of their
school sites will not be used. Instead, coding of names will be used, e.g., Beginning
Teacher 1, School 1, etc. Participants may withdraw from this study at any time
without consequence. Participants may request the findings of this study upon
completion.
Participation in this study provides your school with an opportunity to contribute the
improvement of beginning teacher induction programs across the state. If this meets
with your approval, please sign the attached “Research Site Permission Letter,” on
district letterhead and return it to me in the self-addressed stamped envelope. Please
do not hesitate to contact me at (310) 754-9801 with additional questions.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Tedford
University of Southern California
Ed.D. Program
135
June 18, 2006
Dear Teacher:
I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California conducting
qualitative research on the experiences of beginning teachers in the Beginning
Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA). This study is for use in my
dissertation and is in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor
of Education. I am seeking permission to conduct observations and interviews with
willing administrators and teachers who participate in the BTSA Induction program.
In this study I will look at the impact of technology on participating teachers’
experiences within the BTSA program. I am seeking the following participants: one
administrator, two beginning teachers, and their two respective support providers.
This study is significant in that it contributes to an emerging body of knowledge on
the impact of technology on K-12 pedagogy and instructional design in California
teacher induction programs.
This study is scheduled to take place from August, 2006 through January 2007.
Participation is voluntary, and interviews and observations will take place up to four
times over the course of the Fall semester at the school site. Protocols to ensure
anonymity and confidentiality will be used. Participants’ names and that of their
school sites will not be used. Instead, coding of names will be used, e.g., Beginning
Teacher 1, School 1, etc. Participants may withdraw from this study at any time
without consequence. Participants may request the findings of this study upon
completion.
Participation in this study provides your district with an opportunity to contribute the
improvement of beginning teacher induction programs across the state. Please do
not hesitate to contact me at (310) 754-9801 with additional questions.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Tedford
University of Southern California
Ed.D. Program
136
June 18, 2006
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California conducting
qualitative research on the experiences of beginning teachers in the Beginning
Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA). This study is for use in my
dissertation and is in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor
of Education. I am seeking permission to conduct interviews with willing
administrators who have contributed to or currently facilitate the BTSA Induction
program.
In this study I will look at the impact of technology on participating teachers’
experiences within the BTSA program. I am seeking the following participants: one
administrator from the county office of education and one professor from the
collaborating university. This study is significant in that it contributes to an
emerging body of knowledge on the impact of technology on K-12 pedagogy and
instructional design in California teacher induction programs.
This study is scheduled to take place from August, 2006 through January 2007.
Participation is voluntary, and interviews will take place up to four times over the
course of the Fall semester at the participant’s job site. Protocols to ensure
anonymity and confidentiality will be used. Participants’ names and that of their job
sites will not be used. Instead, coding of names will be used, e.g., Administrative
Personnel 1, Site 1, etc. Participants may withdraw from this study at any time
without consequence. Participants may request the findings of this study upon
completion.
Participation in this study provides you with an opportunity to contribute the
improvement of beginning teacher induction programs across the state. If this meets
with your approval, please sign the attached “Research Site Permission Letter,” on
professional site letterhead and return it to me in the self-addressed stamped
envelope. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (310) 754-9801 with additional
questions.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Tedford
University of Southern California
Ed.D. Program
137
APPENDIX C
Interview Protocol
138
Beginning Teacher Interview Protocol
I. Background Information Questions:
a. For how long have you served in your current role?
b. What other positions, if any, have you held in education?
c. What is the nature of your current position as a BTSA Induction beginning
teacher?
d. What constraints do you face in your current position as a BTSA Induction
beginning teacher?
II. Technology Questions:
a. What is your familiarity with the NETS for Teachers in your course on
standard 16? (dependent on standard 16 coursework)
b. Beyond computer technology, in what ways has your BTSA experience
contributed to your implementation of technology? (dependent on standard
16 coursework)
c. Beyond computer technology, in what ways have your induction courses
contributed to your implementation of technology? (dependent on standard
16 coursework)
d. In what ways has the BTSA induction program influenced your use of
technology in student instruction? Instruction involving multimedia
literacy skills?
e. How do you address the social and ethical implications of technology?
f. How has the culminating digital portfolio influenced your understanding of
technology instruction?
g. How has your support provider assisted you with technology
implementation?
III. BTSA Induction Technology Professional Development Questions:
a. In what ways has technology professional development affected your
experience as a developing teacher?
b. In what ways does your SP accommodate your needs in the BTSA
CFASST process and the Induction coursework?
c. What kinds of feedback have you provided to the site administrator about
the effectiveness of technology in the BTSA Induction process?
d. How has the online format of the CFASST program affected your
experience (in completing the paperwork; with the quality of the
paperwork)
e. What kinds of feedback have you provided about the effectiveness of the
online format of the program?
Coding Protocol: Coding of data will occur during note-taking according to the
above categories and questions. For example, a response to question one will result
in the following coding: BTIa (beginning teacher, category one, question 1).
139
Support Provider Interview Protocol
I. Background Information Questions:
a. For how long have you served in your current role?
b. What other positions, if any, have you held in education?
c. What is the nature of your current position as a BTSA Induction support
provider?
d. What constraints do you face in your current position as a BTSA Induction
support provider?
II. Technology Questions:
a. What is your familiarity with the NETS for Teachers in the facilitation of
standard 16?
b. Beyond computer technology, are there other ways in which you facilitate
multimedia literacy?
c. How do your observations and feedback of BTs facilitate technology
integration?
d. How do you address the social and ethical implications of technology?
e. What kind of training did you receive to assist BTs in the implementation of
standard 16?
III. BTSA Induction Technology Professional Development Questions:
a. In what ways has your training in technology influenced how you support
BTs in BTSA professional development? (e.g., monthly meeting topics)
b. In what ways do you accommodate the needs of BTs who are engaging in the
BTSA CFASST process and the Induction coursework?
c. What kinds of feedback have you provided to the site administrator about the
effectiveness of technology in the BTSA Induction process?
d. How has the transfer of the CFASST program to an online format changed
the program from an administrative perspective?
e. What kinds of feedback have you received from BTs and SPs about the
effectiveness of the online format of the program?
Coding Protocol: Coding of data will occur during note-taking according to the
above categories and questions. For example, a response to question one will result
in the following coding: SPIa (support provider, category one, question 1).
140
Administrator Interview Protocol
I. Background Information Questions:
a. For how long have you served in your current role?
b. What other positions, if any, have you held in education?
c. What is the nature of your current position?
d. What constraints do you face in your current position?
II. Technology Curriculum Questions:
a. How closely do you follow the NETS for Teachers in the facilitation of
standard 16?
b. Which NETS do you focus on more than others?
c. Beyond computer technology, are there other ways in which you facilitate
multimedia literacy?
d. How useful do you find in the NETS rubrics?
e. How do you address NETS 6, which focuses on the social and ethical
implications of technology?
f. What kind of training do SPs receive to assist BTs in the implementation
of standard 16?
III. BTSA Induction Technology Professional Development Questions:
a. In what ways has technology influenced how you facilitate BTSA
professional development? (e.g., monthly meeting topics)
b. In what ways do you accommodate the needs of BTs who are engaging in
the BTSA CFASST process and the Induction coursework?
c. In what ways do you build into the program the feedback you receive
from SPs and BTs regarding technology professional development?
d. How has the transfer of the CFASST program to an online format
changed the program from an administrative perspective?
e. What kinds of feedback have you received from BTs and SPs about the
effectiveness of the online format of the program?
f. What variations have you noted in how different districts implement the
BTSA Induction program? What impact do you think variations have on a
beginning teacher’s experience? (exclusive to COE administrator).
Coding Protocol: Coding of data will occur during note-taking according to the
above categories and questions. For example, a response to question one will result
in the following coding: APIa (administrator personnel, category one, question 1).
141
APPENDIX D
Observation Protocol
142
Observation Fieldwork Protocol
Date:
Location:
1. Background Information:
AP
SP#1
BT#1
SP#2
BT#2
2. Technology: NETS and/or BTSA Induction Standard 16
AP
SP#1
BT#1
SP#2
BT#2
143
3. BTSA Induction Professional Development:
AP
SP#1
BT#1
SP#2
BT#2
Additional Observations:
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Although California has experienced an increase in candidates entering the K-12 teaching profession over the last five years, baby-boomer retirements and high turn-over continue to contribute to school staffing problems that exist throughout California's diverse communities. In order to retain highly qualified beginning teachers with formalized mentoring and professional development, California's Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) program was created by the California Department of Education (CDE) and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC). All public school districts receive state funds to administer the mandated BTSA Induction program
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
BTSA mentors: the costs and benefits to mentors and their fidelity to constructivist practice
PDF
No teacher left behind: an examination of beginning teachers' preconceptions and attitudes about induction
PDF
The role of the principal in new teacher development under the California Beginning Teacher Support & Assessment Program
PDF
Beginning teachers' perceptions of effective practices used by their mentor
PDF
Linking theory and practice in teacher education: an analysis of the reflective-inquiry approach to preparing teachers to teach in urban schools
PDF
An analysis of the selection and training of guiding teachers in an urban teacher education program
PDF
Mentoring new teachers of color: how induction mentors characterize their preparation and practices that support new teachers of color
PDF
District implementation of California's induction policy: key elements and challenges of developing a high quality program
PDF
How teacher participation in the identification process impacts the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted programs
PDF
The impact of induction: a study of program designs and teacher quality outcomes
PDF
Preservice teachers' understanding's of how to teach literacy
PDF
Creating conditions for Teacher Flow: supporting student-centered learning through design of optimal P-12 professional development
PDF
A comparative study of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and retention of beginning urban science teachers
PDF
Relationship of teacher's parenting style to instructional strategies and student achievement
PDF
How teacher preparation programs prepare White teachers to teach in urban school settings
PDF
Exploring three outcomes of online teacher preparation: teaching for social justice, critical reflection, and voluntary collaboration
PDF
Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling
PDF
4th space teaching: incorporating teachers' funds of knowledge, students' funds of knowledge, and school knowledge in multi-centric teaching
PDF
Urban teacher persistence: self-efficacy, affect, and values
PDF
How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?
Asset Metadata
Creator
Tedford, Jennifer L.
(author)
Core Title
BTSA and California's beginning teachers: how technology affects California's teacher induction process
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/11/2007
Defense Date
02/15/2007
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
mulitmedia literacy,OAI-PMH Harvest,Teacher education,teacher induction
Place Name
California
(states)
Language
English
Advisor
Genzuk, Michael (
committee chair
), Baca, Reynaldo R. (
committee member
), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jtedford@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m371
Unique identifier
UC1323755
Identifier
etd-Tedford-20070411 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-328244 (legacy record id),usctheses-m371 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Tedford-20070411.pdf
Dmrecord
328244
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Tedford, Jennifer L.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
mulitmedia literacy
teacher induction