University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

BTSA mentors: the costs and benefits to mentors and their fidelity to constructivist practice

(USC Thesis Other)

BTSA mentors: the costs and benefits to mentors and their fidelity to constructivist practice

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content BTSA MENTORS: THE COSTS AND BENEFITS TO MENTORS AND THEIR
FIDELITY TO CONSTRUCTIVIST PRACTICE

by

Jorge Alberto Márquez

____________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment to the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Jorge Alberto Márquez

ii

DEDICATION
The
completion
of
this
dissertation
is
dedicated
to
my
parents,
my
dad

José
Catarino
Márquez
and
my
mom
María
de
los
Ángeles
Romero,
who

consistently
supported
my
brother
José
Catarino,
my
sister
Maricela
Borja,
and

me
in
acquiring
an
education.

Even
though
our
parents
had
limited
formal

education,
they
encouraged
us
to
listen
to
“las
maestras”
(the
teachers).

Our

parents
dream
was
that
we
become
like
“las
maestras”
by
making
something
of

ourselves
in
this
country.

I
further
dedicate
this
dissertation
to
my
brother
who

is
an
accomplished
school
administrator
and
my
sister
who
just
earned
her

master’s
degree
and
has
just
entered
the
world
of
administration.

In
full
recognition
of
our
“family
academic
equity,”
who
were
our
role

models,
all
educators
in
México:
our
grandmother,
Maria
Patrociño
Márquez;

great
grandaunt,
Manuela
de
Jesús
Rodríguez-‐Beaña
(Tía
Mela);
and
my
aunt,

Hermelinda
Romero.

They
were
always
proud
of
their
careers
despite
the

countless
hardships
they
experienced
teaching
in
desolate
areas
of
México.

Their
nobility
impressed
us
as
they
recounted
their
“teacher
stories”
filled
with

adventures
and
sacrifices.

Also
to
my
wife
Luann
and
daughter
Jessica
for
their
support
and

willingness
to
sacrifice
time
to
make
this
effort
possible.

Finally,
to
the
two

supportive
people
who
were
there
from
the
beginning,
Michael
Gibson
and

Martín
Olvera.

Michael
Gibson
who
with
his
encouragement
and
perseverance

helped
me
re-‐embarked
on
this
journey.

Also
Martín
Olvera
who
provided

valuable
expertise
and
many
hours
as
a
critical
reader
of
this
dissertation.

His

iii

input
was
crucial
and
highly
valued
throughout
the
revising
and
editing
of
this

dissertation
-‐
from
the
first
pages
to
the
final
document.

¡Mil
gracias
caballeros!

iv

DEDICACIÓN

Se dedica la finalización de esta tesis doctoral a mis padres, mi papá José
Catarino Márquez - Dorado y mi mamá María de los Ángeles Romero, quienes
apoyaron consistentemente a mi hermano, José Catarino, mi hermana Maricela
Borja, y a mí en adquirir una educación. Aunque nuestros padres tuvieron una
educación formal limitada, siempre nos animaron a escuchar a las maestras. Los
sueños de nuestros padres era de ser como las maestras, formándonos con excelencia
en este país. También dedico esta tesis doctoral a mi hermano quien es un
administrador escolar destacado y a mi hermana quien logró su licenciatura de
administración y quien ha entrado al mundo de la administración escolar en este año
académico.
Reconociendo así el “capital neto académico” de nuestra familia, quienes
fueron nuestros ejemplos, todos educadoras en México: nuestra abuela, María
Patrociño Márquez, mi tía bisabuela, Manuela de Jesús Rodríguez-Beana (Tía Mela),
y mi tía, Hermelinda Romero. Siempre estaban orgullosas de sus profesiones a pesar
de todas las privaciones que pasaron educando en áreas desoladas de México. Su
nobleza nos impresionaron mientras que recontaban sus historoias como maestras ⎯
unas historias llenas de aventuras y sacrificios.
También a mi esposa Luann e hija Jessica por su apoyo y disponibilidad a
sacrificar su tiempo para hacer posible este esfuerzo. Finalmente, a las dos personas
apoyantes quienes estuvieron allí desde el principio, Michael Gibson y Martín
Olvera. A Michael Gibson que con su apoyo y perseverancia, me ayudó a
reembarcar sobre esta jornada. También a Martín Olvera quien me dio su valiosa

v

pericia y muchas horas como lector crítico de esta tesis doctoral. Su contribución fue
crucial y altamente valorizada a lo largo de la revisión y editación de esta tesis
doctoral – desde las primeras páginas hasta el document final. ¡Mil gracias
caballeros!

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
would
like
to
thank
the
members
of
my
dissertation
committee:
Dr.

Reynaldo
Baca,
Dr.
Gocke
Gokalp
and
Dr.
Pedro
García.

First
I
would
like
to

thank
my
dissertation
chairperson,
Dr.
Reynaldo
Baca,
for
his
encouragement

and
support
throughout
this
process.

After
changing
topics,
his
guidance
and

patience
helped
me
attain
my
goal
and
build
my
vision.

Also
my
deepest

gratitude
goes
to
Dr.
Gokce
Gokalp
for
her
feedback
and
valuable
assistance
in

statistics.

Dr.
Pedro
García,
thank
you
for
your
supervision
and
participation
in

this
process.

This
dissertation
would
not
have
been
possible
without
the
support
of

the
Doctoral
Support
Center.

Thank
you
Dr.
Ilda
Jiménez
y
West
and
Dr.
Linda

Fischer,
the
leaders
of
the
Doctoral
Support
Center,
for
providing
haven
at
the

university
that
imparted
valuable
feedback
and
support.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ⎯ Dedicación ii
Acknowledgements vi
List of Tables ix
Abstract xi
Chapter One 1
Introduction to the Problem 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 6
Importance of the Study 7
Limitations 7
Delimitations 8
Assumptions 8
Definition of Terms 8

Chapter Two 13
Review of the Literature 13
The Development of the Constructivist Educational Environment 14
Principles of Constructivism 16
Constructivist and Traditional Classroom Environment 21
Theoretical Framework of the Beginning Teacher Induction Program 24
California BTSA Induction Program 28
Components and Characteristics of a Quality Induction Program 37
Research Based Studies on Induction Programs Mentors 43
Mentoring: More Research is Needed 48
Conclusion 52

Chapter Three 54
Methodology 54
Sample and Population 54
Instrumentation 59
Data Collection 61
Data Analysis 62

viii

Chapter Four 67
Findings 67
Descriptive Analysis 68
Frequency Data Analysis 73
Statistical Data Analysis 75
Findings for Research Question One 79
Findings for Research Question Two 81

Chapter Five 83
Conclusions 83
Overview of Study 83
Summary of Findings for Research Question One 85
Summary of Findings for Research Question Two 86
Additional Survey Findings Outside Benefits/Costs and Constructivism 88
Implications 89
Limitations 90
Areas for Future Research 91
Final Conclusion 93

References 96
Appendices:
Appendix A: Survey Cover Letter 103
Appendix B: Survey 104

ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Guided Principles of Constructivism Based on Three Researchers 21
Table 2: Comparison of the Traditional Classroom Environment and the 23
Constructivist Classroom Environment
Table 3: Essential Components of a Quality Induction Program and the 40
Characteristics of Effective Induction Program
Table 4: Presently Serving as BTSA Support Providers 68
Table 5 Present Teaching/Education Positions 68
Table 6: Type of Credentials Held by Respondents 69
Table 7: Years in Teaching/Education Profession 69
Table 8: Years as a Support Provider 70
Table 9: Previous Participation in the BTSA Program 70
Table 10: Number of Beginning Teachers 71
Table 11: Average Cost Scores 71
Table 12: Average Benefit Scores 71
Table 13: Average Traditionalist Scores 72
Table 14: Average Constructivist Scores 72
Table 15: Philosophy Statements Scores 73
Table 16: Traditionalist vs. Constructivist 73
Table 17: Frequency Analyses of the Cost Factors 74
Table 18: Frequency Analyses of the Benefit Factors 75
Table 19: Group Statistics 76
Table 20: Independent Sample Group T-Test on Validation of Mentoring 76
for Constructivists and Traditionalist Based on Benefit Scores

x

Table 21: Group Statistics 77
Table 22: Independent Sample Group T-Test on Validation of Mentoring 77
for Constructivists and Traditionalist Based on Cost Scores

Table 23: Part 1: Bivariate Correlation Between Average Benefit and 78
Constructivist Beliefs

Table 24: Part 2: Coefficients of Average Benefit and Constructivist Beliefs 78
Table 25: Part 1: Bivariate Correlation Between Average Cost and 79
Traditionalist Beliefs

Table 26: Part 2: Coefficients of Average Cost and Traditionalist Beliefs 79

xi

ABSTRACT
This study explored the perspectives of current and former California
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) mentors with respect to the
benefits and costs of mentoring as well as identifying their pedagogical orientation
(constructivist or traditionalist). By implementing a quantitative methodology
utilizing selected surveys, mentors were offered opportunities to view themselves in
the BTSA induction process. From this perspective, the study analyzed how mentors
constructed meaning within the BTSA program and the role they played as
participants in the BTSA program. The following research questions guided this
study:
1. What are the costs and benefits of mentoring as reported by mentors
in the BTSA program?
2. What impact do instructional beliefs have on BTSA mentors’
perceptions as to the costs and benefits of being a mentor?
A
70-‐item
online
survey
was
developed
based
on
two
field-‐tested

surveys
designed
by
Ragins
and
Scadura
(1994,
1999)
and
Ravitz, Becker, and
Wong (2000). Ragins
and
Scadura
(1994,
1999)
examined
the
mentoring

relationship
found
in
a
business
context.

Ravitz, Becker, and Wong (2000)
structured the survey tool to identify both the teacher’s pedagogical orientation
(constructivist or traditionalist) and the teacher’s practiced learning environment.
The surveys were randomly e-mailed to various BTSA mentors across California,
resulting in 143 completed online surveys.

xii

Frequency data and linear regression analyses were conducted to answer the
research questions. Frequency data analyses of cost and benefit factors demonstrated
that mentors saw the BTSA Induction program and their role within the program as
beneficial. The findings from this survey demonstrated that a large majority of
support providers identify themselves strongly with constructivist practices. The
findings from the linear regression analyses also clearly indicated that a high average
benefit score was a significant predictor of mentors who identified themselves as
constructivist.
The focus of this study was on the mentor’s role in the California
BTSA Induction program. This study provided credence in supporting and
continuing the local and regional BTSA Induction programs across California.
However, efforts must be taken to continue research in the mentoring and induction
programs, as a way to retain and support effective mentors. This study is only one
perspective but it recognizes the continuing labors of mentors in the California
BTSA program.

1

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM
The teacher shortage and challenges to teacher retention are not new issues.
Usually teacher shortages are cyclical and pose a threat to high poverty school
districts trying to close the achievement gap. Two recent studies, one national and
the other on California, address these issues. The national study, “Learning Teams:
Creating What’s Next by the National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future” (Carroll, 2008), reports the impending shortage of teachers as the baby
boomer generation retires in the next four years. The reports state that the wave of
departures will peak in the 2010 – 11 school year and in less than a decade more than
half of today’s teachers could be gone (NCTAF, 2008). The number does not
include teachers who leave the profession within five years because of stress, better
opportunities and/or health issues. Another report on the California teacher shortage,
“A Possible Dream, Retaining California Teachers So All Students Learn”
(Futernick, 2007) predicts that the annual shortage of teachers in California will
increase from 20,000 to 33,000 by 2015. The report further states that 22 percent of
California teachers leave the profession after the first four years and 10 percent of
teachers in high poverty schools transfer away to other schools each year.
To ease the exodus of teachers, some states, including California, have set up
beginning teacher preparation (induction) programs to increase classroom teacher
retention (Portner, 2005). The national study (Carroll, 2008) recommends a team
model program that uses retired veteran teachers to mentor beginning teachers. In
California, the state has implemented and continues to support the Beginning

2

Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) program that involves a two-year
induction program for beginning teachers that leads to a fully certified clear teaching
credential. The goal and challenge of the BTSA program is to help lower the
attrition of quality novice teachers leaving the profession (Olebe 2001, Wong, 2005,
& Futernick, 2007).
This research will focus on the BTSA program that the state designed to
ensure the effective practice of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession
(CSTP). Constructivism serves as the foundation for these teaching standards and
the BTSA program. Utilizing mentor perceptions of their classroom instructional
practice, this research will explore BTSA mentors’ fidelity to constructivism. Also,
this research will investigate mentor perceptions of the costs and benefits of being a
mentor.
Background of the Problem
Most teacher induction programs were unknown three decades ago with
novice teachers entering the teaching profession receiving little assistance.
Regardless of how well universities or colleges trained and prepared teachers, the
trail-by-fire method of entering the classroom and meeting its pre-standards based
curriculum expectations often overwhelmed novice teachers. This coupled with the
complexity of the school and educational community demands (participation in
parent, school or district committees) added frustration to a teacher’s first year in the
classroom. Such demands, of course, increased the attrition rate (that ranges from 35
to 50 percent) of teachers leaving the profession nationwide during the first five
years of their careers (Moir & Gless, 2001). Teacher induction programs across the

3

country had replaced the traditional path of finishing a college teacher credential
program and entering the classroom without guidance of an apprenticeship.
Research indicates that teachers in induction programs have a more positive
attitude toward teaching and plan to stay in the profession longer than those who
have not participated in such a program (Abell, Dillon, Hopkins, McInerney, &
O’Brien, 1995). Novice teachers in induction programs suggest a sense of self-
confidence, improved classroom management, and more effective lesson planning
after their participation in induction programs (Abell et al., 1995). Also the early
years set the tone of professional norms, attitudes and standards the beginning
teacher acquires over the course of his or her professional teaching career.
According to Moir and Gless (2001), there is research evidence that upholds the
crucial link between student achievement and the quality of a teacher’s instruction.
Most induction programs across the nation typically assist and usually assess
the novice teachers within the first and second year of their teaching career. Most
induction programs share similar features (usually a two-year program, involvement
of university educators, a professional development plan to assist beginning teachers,
and certification.). The use of experienced teachers as mentors is typical in most
induction programs (Abell et al., 1995). Most studies view mentoring as an
important part of an induction program and training (Bartell, 2005; Moir & Gless,
2001; Olebe, 2001). There is empirical evidence that mentoring has had a positive
impact on teachers and classroom teacher retention (Feiman-Nemser, 1996; Ingersoll
& Kralik, 2004).

4

The California BTSA program is a two-year induction program. It enables a
novice teacher to enter the program with a preliminary credential teacher (obtained at
a university or college). The teacher will earn a clear teaching credential at the end
of the induction program. Part of the BTSA program includes the mentoring of the
beginning teacher by an experienced teacher. Mentoring is an important part of the
BTSA induction program and builds a contractual like apprenticeship between the
beginning teacher and the experienced teacher. The relationship between the mentor
and the novice teacher is the crux of the BTSA program.
This study will focus on the BTSA trained mentor. Research has shown that
high quality mentoring must be in place to have an effective induction program
(Wong, 2004; Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009).
For the BTSA program to be effective, the mentor must be fully cognizant and
practiced in the philosophical tenets embedded throughout the many BTSA
mentor/mentee tasks (Formative Assessment System). Mentor adherence to model,
coach, and evaluate a constructivist instructional environment has its costs and
benefits in time and energy. Therefore, this study will also research the mentor’s
costs and benefits within the BTSA program.
Statement of the Problem
Mentoring is the prominent characteristic of an induction program. The
relationship of the mentor and beginning teacher form the foundation of an induction
program. As the mentor and beginning teacher progress through their planned
observations and conversations, he or she develops tools for continuous

5

improvement in teaching. The beginning teacher increases their level of
instructional expertise and self-confidence, which aid in teacher retention.
There are outcome based studies for maintaining teacher induction programs
and ensuring its continuous financial support (Abell et al., 1995). Educational
literature demonstrates a positive association between a quality teacher induction
program and its effectiveness in retaining teachers (Abell, Dillon, Hopkins,
McInerney & O’Brien, 1995; Feiman-Nemser, 1996; Perez, Swain & Harsough,
1997; Riggs, 1998; Moir & Gless, 2001; Bartell, 2004; Wong, Sterling & Rowland,
2004; Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Nonetheless, educators
and researchers need to find out more about the mentor and how they view
themselves in an induction program.
In one phenomenological study (Abell et al., 1995), after a series of extensive
interviews, the researchers found that mentors valued their role as an “instructional
coach” and new teachers saw the mentors as emotional support. In another study,
(Riggs, 1998) the researcher found BTSA mentor perceptions of their efficacy level
were high. In empirical studies (Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004) of induction programs
and mentors, researchers concluded that mentors have a positive impact on
beginning teachers regardless of the induction program. A recent study (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2009) demonstrated the need of high quality intensive mentoring as
one characteristic of an effective induction program. All these studies showed
mentors have a positive impact on the beginning teachers. These studies also state a
need for further research with respect to the mentors’ role in an induction program.
Hence, this study will provide a glimpse of the mentoring process, the mentor’s self-

6

reflection with respect to costs/benefits of mentoring, and the mentor’s perception of
their own instructional practice.
Since the focus is on the BTSA program and its underlying tenets of
constructivism, this study will discuss its evolution to the present-day statewide
induction program. It will also expound on the California Standards for the
Teaching Profession (CSTP), which is the pedagogical constructivist core of the
BTSA program. This study will assess the mentor’s pedagogical beliefs and
practices as they relate to constructivism and will provide evaluation data with
respect to the BTSA program and CSTP standards.
Purpose of the Study
This study will explore the mentor’s role, efficacy, level of satisfaction as a
mentor, and pedagogical orientation in the California BTSA program. Using a
quantitative methodology will facilitate the understanding of the BTSA program and
offer the mentors opportunities to view themselves in the induction process. From
this perspective, the study will analyze how mentors construct meaning within the
BTSA program and the role they play as participants in the BTSA program.
The following research questions guide this study:
3. What are the costs and benefits of mentoring as reported by mentors
in the BTSA program?
4. What impact do instructional beliefs have on BTSA mentors’
perceptions as to the costs and benefits of being a mentor?

7

Importance of the Study
Clearly mentoring is a powerful element of induction programs (Wong et al.,
2004). This study will help educators understand the various roles of the mentors
who most likely sustain and shape the BTSA program. It will clarify and define the
role of the mentors, as they see themselves in the BTSA program. It will provide a
clear perspective for district administrators who question the role of the mentors in
the BTSA program.
This study will also yield insights for the policymakers evaluating the BTSA
program. Such information will help policymakers developed a more evaluative
method of improving the BTSA program. For example, directors of the BTSA
program will be selective in identifying effective mentors and assigning them
productively to beginning teachers. By doing this, directors will be able to provide a
core group of effective mentors that is consistent with the tenets of the induction
program. After all it is the “guidance and support” offered by mentor teachers that
make it such a successful induction process for beginning teachers (Wong et al,
2004).
Limitations
California requires all beginning teachers to participate in the BTSA
induction process. Most beginning teachers are temporary contract teachers who
were the first ones to receive termination notices due to recent budget constraints
weathered by the state and its school districts. Therefore the mentors’ morale due to
these issues could have influenced their responses to specific survey questions or
statements.

8

Delimitations
I collected the data for this study over a four-month period from active and
inactive mentors who were willing to participate in the BTSA Mentor Survey (see
Appendix A). The shortened time frame could have affected the data collected. The
inactive mentor was able reflect upon their past experiences as BTSA mentors. The
active mentor, on the other hand, was able to provide a more current perspective on
his or her experience in the BTSA program. Another delimitation is the data from
this study cannot be generalized to school districts or specific BTSA programs.
Assumptions
This study assumes that the district implemented the BTSA program
according to state of California induction standards and regulations. It assumes that
all participants in the BTSA program followed all guidelines and policies. It is also
an assumption that all respondents were honest in their answers.
Definitions of Terms
The following are terms that will be used throughout this study.
Beginning Teacher – In this study, the beginning teacher refers to the first two years
of a teacher’s career experience. Also in this study, the terms beginning teacher,
mentee, intern, new teacher, participating teacher, and novice teacher will be used
interchangeably.
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA) – The California
BTSA induction program began statewide in 1992 and is designed to support first
and second year teachers. It was designed to retain teachers and improve student

9

achievement (Montebello Unified School District, 2004).
BTSA Induction Program Cluster or Region Directors – The cluster or region
directors are the state leadership team that provide support and offer technical
assistance to the 169 SB 2042-approved local BTSA induction program. The 169
BTSA Induction local programs are organized into six regions or clusters.
BTSA Induction Local Program Leaders – The BTSA Induction program local
leaders are the personnel in charge of their school district or local area BTSA
program. They provide the guidance in implementing the local BTSA program
according to state guidelines and procedures.
California Formative Assessment and Support System for Teachers (CFASST)
– The California Formative Assessment and Support System for Teachers (CFASST)
“provides a system of standardized procedures, based on a common set of forms and
instructions, to enable all local BTSA support providers and beginning teachers to
see how each of the key elements – Individual Learning Program (ILP), mentoring,
and assessment driven support services – are to be implemented” (California
Educational Research Cooperative, University of California, Riverside, 1999).
California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) – The BTSA design is
embedded in two core documents: the California Standards for the Teaching
Profession (CSTP) and the Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional
Teacher Induction Program. The CSTP are standards for the teaching profession.
The CSTP are based on research and expert advice pertaining to best teaching
practices. They are organized around six categories of teaching practice: 1)

10

engaging and supporting all students in learning; 2) creating and maintaining
effective environments for student learning; 3) understanding and organizing subject
matter for student learning; 4) planning instruction and designing learning
experiences for all students; 5) assessing student learning; and 6) developing as a
professional educator (California Commission for the Teaching Profession,
1997).
Formative Assessment System (FAS) – The work of the new teacher collected over
a period of time. It is a series of collaborative processes that includes 1) reflecting
upon their practice in relation to the CSTP; 2) assisting teachers in improving their
teaching practice; 3) multiple measures of classroom practice; and 4) reflecting and
collaborating with their mentor (Montebello Unified School District, 2004).
Individual Learning Plan (ILP) – The ILP serves as a catalyst for focus and
accountability. The ILP is a series of professional growth activities based on the
CSTP and are completed collaboratively with the mentor (Montebello Unified
School District, 2004).
Induction – It is usually a two-year comprehensive process of support and
continuous training for new teachers under the guidance of an experienced educator
(Portner, 2005).
Mentee - The mentee refers to the new teacher who works collaboratively with the
mentor. The term mentee is use interchangeably with beginning teacher,
participating teacher, novice teacher, and/or intern (Portner, 2001).
Mentor – The mentor is an experience educator, whose basic function is to help the

11

new teacher complete the BTSA program through collaborative FAS tasks (Portner,
2001).
Mentoring – According to Wong (2005), “mentoring is most commonly used as a
verb or adjective, because it describes what mentors do. Mentoring is not induction;
it is a component of the induction process.”
Novice Teacher - In this study, the novice teacher refers to the first two years of a
teacher’s career experience. Throughout this study, the terms beginning teacher,
new teacher, intern, mentee, participating teacher, and novice teacher will be used
interchangeably.
Preliminary Teaching Credential – After completing a Commission-approved
teacher preparation program, the teacher is granted a Preliminary Teaching
Credential for five years. Within those five years, the novice teacher either
participates in three types of commission approved induction programs: 1) a school
district Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) program; 2) a fifth year
of study completed at a California college or university, or 3) certification by the
National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (California Department of
Education, 2009).
Professional Clear Teaching Credential – A teacher who completes one of the
following is granted a Professional Clear Teaching Credential: 1) a school district
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) program; 2) a fifth year of
study completed at a California college or university; or 3) certification by the

12

National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (California Department of
Education, 2009).
Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction
Program – The BTSA design is embedded in two core documents: the California
Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP); and the Standards of Quality and
Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction Program. The Standards of Quality
and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction Program provides standards
and organizational guidelines for school districts to implement the BTSA program
(California Educational Research Cooperative, University of California,
Riverside, 1999).
Support Provider – The support provider is the mentor in the BTSA program.
He/she usually is an experienced educator who collaborates with the beginning
teachers in implementing FAS tasks (Montebello Unified School District, 2004).
Support Provider Liaison – The support provider liaison is the district BTSA
representative between the school and the school district. They provide support to
the beginning teacher and the support provider. They are also responsible for the
proper implementation of the BTSA program guidelines and standards in the school
district (Montebello Unified School District, 2004).

13

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
A review of literature on mentoring and the Beginning Teacher Support and
Assessment (BTSA) induction program is presented in this chapter. Mentoring is an
integral process of the overall BTSA induction program - it is the personal
relationship that is built between the beginning teacher and the mentor. The research
on the mentor/beginning teacher relationship is limited and often based on outcome
based research and survey-based evaluations (Abell et al., 1995). This literature
review will provide an overview on research regarding mentors and beginning
teacher induction programs.
The literature review is divided into eight sections. The first section traces
the development of the constructivist educational environment, which is at the core
of the BTSA induction program. The second section reviews the principles of
constructivism. The third section contrasts the constructivist and traditionalist
classroom environments. These first three sections demonstrate strong correlations
that exist between a constructivist educational practice and the California Standards
for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). These teaching standards (CSTP) are
continually referred to and applied throughout the beginning teacher induction
program per the BTSA standards (Montebello Unified School District, 2004). The
fourth section presents the theoretical framework that serves as the foundation of the
mentoring leadership collaborative process and the beginning teacher induction
program. The fifth section describes: 1) the BTSA induction program from its
historical beginnings to its current state; 2) the California teaching standards (CSTP);

14

and 3) the BTSA standards (foundational, design, and teaching curriculum).
Particular emphasis is dedicated to BTSA Standards 15 through 20 that delineate the
collaborative processes to be practiced between the beginning teacher and mentor.
The sixth section discusses the components and characteristics of a quality induction
program. The seventh section reviews the research-based studies on induction
program mentors. The last section of the literature review concludes by identifying
areas of needed research in mentoring within the induction process.
The Development of the Constructivist Educational Environment

The first writings of constructivism theory can be traced to an Italian
philosopher, Giambattista Vico, in the early 18
th
century (von Glaserfeld, 1989). In
Vico’s 1720 treatise De antiquissima Italorum sapienia, one of his “basic ideas was
that epistemic agents can know nothing but the cognitive structures they themselves
have put together” (Vico, 1720 as cited in von Glaserfeld, 1989, p.123). He stresses
over and over in his treatise that “to ‘know’ means to know how to make” (Vico,
1720 as cited in von Glaserfeld, 1989, p.123). The current foundation of
constructivism can be attributed to Dewey (1929), Piaget (1952), Bruner (1966) and
Vygotsky (1978).
Dewey theorized that building background knowledge through collaborative
experiences and self-directive inquiry was essential to education. According to
Dewey, through “learning by doing” the learner makes sense of the new knowledge
rather than the discrete acquisition of factual or conceptual elements. Even though
he did not mention the constructivist theory, most of his writings provided a
philosophical approach to constructivism. For example, in Democracy and

15

Education (Lambert, Walker, Zimmerman, Cooper, Lambert, Gardner, & Szabo,
2002), Dewey saw traditionalism at the opposite end of the learning-leading
continuum that extends to constructivism (Lambert et al., 2002).
Piaget (1971), being the most influential of the constructivist school of
thought, expanded Dewey’s theory by viewing learning as a process. According to
Piaget (1971), the learner develops and proceeds through various cognitive levels -
from the concrete to the abstract - as he or she matures and gains new knowledge.
He states, “scientific thought, then, is not momentary; it is not a static instance; it is a
process. More specifically, it is [a process of] continual construction and
reorganization” (Piaget, 1971 as cited in Brooks & Brooks, 1993, p. 25).
Bruner (1966) added to Piaget’s theory of cognitive development by
emphasizing prior experience, context, and the complexity of language used. Bruner
states, that the child is seen “as a social being,” who is committed to a social process
of “making sense” with respect to their cognitive development. Essentially, learning
is a natural process that is placed within a cultural and historical context (Bruner &
Haste, 1978 as cited in Lambert et al., 2002, p. 30). Like his constructivist
predecessors which included Dewey, Piaget, and Bruner, Lev Vygotsky became the
most recent proponent of the constructivist school of thought.
Lev Vygotsky (1978), the contemporary theorist of the constructivist school
of thought, developed the theory of “zone of proximal development” (ZPD). The
ZPD is the space or field among learners and teachers in which individuals negotiate
meaning to create knowledge and intelligence (Walker, 2002). Vygotsky, like

16

Bruner, also emphasized how the learner’s cumulative, cultural, and historical
experiences impact the student’s cognitive development.
These theorists provided the foundation of constructivist learning which
formulated the tenets of the BTSA program and the CSTP standards. The next
section will briefly describe the principles of constructivism based on three research
studies.
Principles of Constructivism
There are three researchers that provide principles that can be used to
distinguish constructivist instruction that are based on the theoretical frameworks of
Dewey, Piaget, Bruner, and Vygotsky. They are the Brooks & Brooks study (1993),
the Ravitz, Becket and Wong study (2000), and the Walker study (Lambert et al.,
2002). These principles can be used as guidelines in implementing a constructivist
based program of instruction.
The five constructivist principles that Brooks and Brooks developed (1993)
are: 1) posing problems of emerging relevance to students; 2) structuring learning
around primary concepts; 3) seeking and valuing student’s points of view; 4)
adapting curriculum to address students’ suppositions; and 5) assessing student
learning in the context of teaching. The first principle, posing problems of emerging
relevance to students, is the guiding aspect of constructivist teaching ideology
(Brooks & Brooks, 1993). The questions or problems posed to students must be
relevant for students, whereby they construct their own meanings in their search for
answers. The second principle, structuring learning around primary concepts, is the
analytical characteristic of the constructivist pedagogy. The teacher develops and

17

organizes a holistic curriculum rather than isolated topics or concepts. The third
principle, seeking and valuing student’s point of view, is the critical feature of
constructivist education. The teacher acknowledges a student’s viewpoint as a
launching point from which to personally develop his/her instructional delivery. The
fourth principle, adapting curriculum to address students’ suppositions, is the
connectivity aspect of the constructivist teaching ideology. The teacher adapts the
curriculum to address or connect to students’ prior knowledge thereby making
learning meaningful and challenging. The last principle, assessing student learning
in the context of teaching, is the evaluative attribute of the constructivist pedagogy.
The teacher assesses students’ learning through multiple authentic assessments.
According to Ravitz et al. (2000), to create a constructivist environment, we
must implement the following principles to ensure a student centered learning
setting: 1) students must identify their own issues and problems to be solved rather
than having questions defined for them; 2) students decide how to explore an issue or
solve a problem rather than having these procedures defined by the teacher; 3)
students reflect further and make sense of what they have learned; and 4) students
interact with peers by presenting their solutions, describing how solutions were
reached, and receiving feedback. We must couple these principles with the
following five activities to provide a “constructivist learning environment” (p. 4): 1)
projects; 2) group work; 3) problem-solving tasks; 4) reflective thought through
writing; and 5) meaningful thinking tasks. For the first activity (project), the teacher
assigns a diverse set of engaging tasks to students to develop an understanding of the
curriculum content. The second activity (group work) involves students working

18

together and discussing tactics for a task under the guidance of the teacher. This
becomes the period of intense and engaging discourse among students, whereby the
teacher is the facilitator. The third activity (problem-solving tasks) involves students
applying higher level thinking skills toward problem solving. For the fourth activity
(reflective thought through writing), students produce written expository pieces that
support their arguments. During the last activity (meaningful thinking tasks), the
students apply their own experiences and synthesize new meanings for their
arguments.
According to Walker as cited in Lambert et al. (2002), the following
principles can be used to define and delineate the theoretical constructivist school of
thought: 1) knowledge and beliefs are formed within the learner; 2) learners
personally imbue experiences with meaning; 3) learning activities should cause
learners to gain access to their experiences, knowledge, and beliefs; 4) culture, race,
and economic status affect student learning individually and collectively; 5) learning
is a social activity that is enhanced by shared inquiry; 6) reflection and meta-
cognition [as] essential aspects of constructing knowledge and meaning; 7) learners
play a critical role in assessing their own learning; and 8) the outcomes of the
learning process are varied and often unpredictable.
For the first principle (knowledge and beliefs are formed within the learner),
the student applies prior knowledge and past experiences to new concepts. The
student learns contextually and applies his/her own experiences to reframe the new
information. In the second principle (learners personally imbue experiences with
meaning), student construct their learning from their own prior experience. The

19

students’ background, values, and beliefs are celebrated and applied to the newly
constructed meanings. In the third principle (learning activities should cause
learners to gain access to their experiences, knowledge, and beliefs), students make
and apply connections from their own beliefs to their newly studied or revised
concepts that effectively utilizes newly acquired information. The teacher creates
lesson plans that incorporate student experiences and beliefs to connect with what
the students already know. This will provide new or different viewpoints to the
lesson. In the fourth principle (culture, race, and economic status affect student
learning individually and collectively), the student’s culture, race, and economic
status are included in the teacher’s lessons. The teacher provides and incorporates
the essential tools for empowering students to construct meaning. These tools for
constructing meanings, enable access to the dominant curriculum, which ultimately
increases rates of success for these students. As these same students successfully
create new meanings that reach beyond the confines of school and home, they more
readily become life-long learners (Lambert et al., 2002). The fifth principle (learning
is a social activity that is enhanced by shared inquiry) requires that learning be a
shared endeavor. The student’s social engagement widens a student’s perspective by
considering other viewpoints and opinions. The sixth principle (reflection and meta-
cognition [as] essential aspects of constructing knowledge and meaning)
encompasses analyzing and clarifying concepts to increase student learning. The
teacher applies higher-level order thinking skills to enhance and create meanings for
newly acquired concepts. In the seventh principle (learners play a critical role in
assessing their own learning), the student can guide their learning by self-evaluating

20

their progress. The teacher develops multiple authentic assessments that provide
opportunities for students to self evaluate their mastery of newly acquired concepts.
For the last principle (the outcomes of the learning process are varied and often
unpredictable), students revise their conceptual knowledge, discover further
applications of those concepts, and formulate connections to other newly acquired
concepts. The teacher guides conceptual mastery as a facilitator, whereby students
secure and practice ownership of their ability to effectively revise and apply their
conceptual knowledge (Lambert et al., 2002).
The above-mentioned principles share many commonalities (i.e., reflective
learning, students assessing their learning, student background, prior knowledge,
etc.) and are viewed as an incompatible perspective when contrasted with the
traditionalist educational school of thought. Table 1 summarizes these constructivist
principles.

21

Table 1

Guided Principles of Constructivism Based on Three Researchers

Brooks & Brooks
(1993)
Ravitz et al.
(2000)
Walker
(Lambert et al., 2002)
1) Posing problems of emerging
relevance to students

2) Structuring learning around
primary concepts

3) Seeking and valuing the
students’ points of view

4) Adapting curriculum to
address students’
suppositions

5) Assessing students’ learning
in the context of teaching

1) Students must identify their
own issues and problems to
be solved rather than having
questions defined for them

2) Students decide how to
explore an issue or solve a
problem rather than having
these procedures defined by
the teacher

3) Students reflect further and
make sense of what they
have learned

4) Students interact with peers
by presenting their
solutions, describing how
solutions were reached, and
receiving feedback.

The above must be coupled
with the five activities:
a) Projects
b) Group Work
c) Problem-Solving Tasks
d) Reflective Thought
Through Writing
e) Meaningful Thinking
Tasks

1) Knowledge and beliefs are
formed within the learner

2) Learners personally imbue
experiences with meaning

3) Learning activities should
cause learners to gain access
to their experiences,
knowledge, and beliefs

4) Culture, race, and economic
status affect student learning
individually and collectively

5) Learning is a social activity
that is enhanced by shared
inquiry

6) Reflection and meta-
cognition are essential
aspects of constructing
knowledge and meaning

7) Learners play a critical role
in assessing their own
learning;

8) The outcomes of the learning
process are varied and often
unpredictable.

The following section compares the constructivist classroom environment to the
traditionalist classroom environment.
Constructivist and Traditional Classroom Environments
Ravitz et al. (2000) describes the traditional classroom based on a theory of
recalling facts and concepts from the teacher’s scripted explanations or information
from a school adopted text. The students are required to answer content and skill

22

questions utilizing repetitive recitations of facts or through the continuous practice of
isolated skills. The new knowledge is mastered through highly systematic
prescriptive instructional activities whereby little or no interaction takes place
between the learner and the teacher. In a constructivist classroom, the new
knowledge is learned through a collaborative experience of prolonged engagement
among the learners and with the teacher. The learners utilize their prior experiences
when working with a concrete problem, welcoming diverse discussions that are
essential for problem solving (Ravitz et al., 2000).
Brooks and Brooks (1993) provide a delineation of the differences between
these two distinct learning environments. Generally, in the traditional classroom
environment, the curriculum is: 1) skilled based and introduces concepts from part to
whole; 2) highly prescribed and systemically sequenced; and 3) the textbook drives
the curriculum. In this same environment, the teacher’s role is seen as a
disseminator of information with little or no discussion opportunities from the
students. The students, in this environment, work alone and there is no collaborative
activities or projects. Assessments in this environment are cumulative and evaluate
the student’s acquisition of concepts and facts.
Generally, in the constructivist classroom environment, the curriculum is
based on an overall concept that is introduced. The students and the teacher are
more actively involved in the learning process. The teacher’s role, in this
environment, is seen as a facilitator of information and learning activities. Thus, the
teacher’s interaction with students provides guidance as they build and acquire
conceptual knowledge. The learning process is supported by student led discussions,

23

manipulative materials, technology, collaborative groups, and acceptance of different
points of view from students in understanding a concept. The assessment, in this
environment, is evaluated through multiple authentic assessments such as teacher’s
observation, portfolios, investigations, and projects (Brook & Brooks, 1993). Table
2 summarizes these two distinct learning environments.
Table 2

Comparison of the Traditional Classroom Environment and the Constructivist
Classroom Environment (Brook & Brooks, 1993)

Traditional Classroom
Environment
Constructivist Classroom
Environment

The curriculum is skill based and is introduced from
part to whole

The curriculum is based on an overall concept and
is introduced from whole to part

The curriculum is highly prescribed and
systematically sequenced

Student led discussions about the curriculum are
strongly valued

Textbooks and workbooks drive the curriculum

Learning activities are supported by: multiple
primary sources; technology; and manipulative
materials

Information is provided by the teacher with little or
no discussion opportunity for student input

Students discuss and develop theories about their
activity and test their hypothesis

Teacher monotonously disseminates information to
students

The students interact and the teacher becomes the
mediator and the guide to learning a concept

The teacher validates student learning by
confirming correct responses

The teacher seeks different points of view from
students in understanding a concept

Cumulative testing is utilized for evaluating student
acquisition of concepts.

Student understanding of a concept or demonstrated
mastery of a skill is evaluated through multiple
authentic assessments (teacher’s observations,
portfolios, projects, etc.)

Students work alone

Students work collaboratively in groups

24

These above perspectives provide a much clearer view of the specific
differences between the traditionalist and the constructivist theories when put into
practice. The constructivist perspective closely follows the guided principles of
constructivism. These include: introducing the curriculum from whole to part,
facilitating student led discussions, conducting inquiry based instruction,
incorporating prior knowledge, affirming the student’s constant revision of their
conceptual knowledge or viewpoints of a concept, providing opportunities for
student group collaboration, and administering authentic assessments. As stated
previously, the BTSA and the CSTP standards are based on the constructivist school
of thought. The following section shall delineate how these two theoretical
frameworks, constructivism and social interaction, have influenced the beginning
teacher induction program.
Theoretical Framework of the Beginning Teacher Induction Program
The underlying philosophical tenets of mentoring are indebted to
contemporary constructivist theory – knowledge of best practice is best learned
through social construction. This constructivist thought is evident in the current
BTSA program, through the role of the service provider (BTSA language for
mentor) and the participating teacher (BTSA language for beginning teacher). The
service provider negotiates (coaches, mentors) meaning that strengthens the
participating teacher’s practice through multiple opportunities for self-reflection.
The service provider provides “constructivist” feedback to the beginning teacher so
that he or she could better reflect on the teaching skills required to improve student
achievement.

25

Within this same realm of thought of constructivism, the mentor can be
developed into a constructivist leader. Leading constructivist theorists (Lambert et
al., 2002) describe constructivist leadership as “the reciprocal processes that enable
participants in an educational community to construct meaning that lead toward a
common purpose of schooling” (p. 43). The mentor in his/her relationship with the
new teacher constructs meaning via constructive feedback to the beginning teacher.
The mentor emerges as the person with prior experience that is able to provide
reflection opportunities for the beginning teacher to generate meanings. Therefore,
the mentor applies his/her social context values toward interactions with the
beginning teacher. The mentor and the beginning teacher build a common purpose
of not only becoming an effective teacher but also improving student achievement.
Two other theoretical frameworks that fall under the umbrella of
constructivism are Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs (1968) and Carl Rogers
(1969, 1983) humanistic learning principles. Of Maslow’s list of seven categories of
need, five are relevant in this discussion of mentoring (Porter, 2001) and are listed as
follows:
• Social needs (affiliation, belonging, feeling part of something)
• Esteem needs (recognition, respect, feeling of worth)
• Need for self-actualization (putting abilities to work, using talents)
• Need to know and understand (intellectual curiosity, thirst for knowledge)
• Aesthetic needs (order and balance, satisfying relationship)
According to Maslow, our decisions and behaviors are determined by our need to
succeed and exemplify a sense of accomplishment (Porter, 2001). A mentoring

26

program aims by design to demonstrate the success of the beginning teacher in a
variety of ways. For example, the beginning teacher – mentor relationship provides
personal and effective guidance throughout the induction program (aesthetic need).
The beginning teacher has the desire to succeed (need to know and understand) and
the mentor provides the necessary feedback (esteem needs) for the beginning teacher
to find success in his/her ability to teach (self – actualization). The beginning
teacher through his/her success is able to participate more effectively with his/her
colleagues in professional development opportunities that further enhance skills to
become an effective teacher (social needs). The end product of mentoring is the
reward of sharing the experience in becoming a successful teacher.
Another similar perspective is that of Carl Rogers (1969, 1983). His
educational philosophy is geared toward a more humanistic set of principles for
learning and teaching. His principles for learning and teaching can easily be
recognized through the learning process between the mentor and the beginning
teacher. In his philosophical framework, he identifies three personal qualities or
attitudes that enhance the teacher’s role as a facilitator of learning in the classroom.
They are realness or genuineness, trust, and, empathic learning (Dembo, 1991). For
example, in realness or genuineness in the classroom, the teacher must be real and
honest in his/her relationship to his/her students. According to Rogers (1983), in
order for the classroom teacher to be effective, the teacher must be open and
communicative in regards to the feelings and beliefs of his/her students. By
becoming more communicative, the teacher becomes connected with his/her
students. In Dembo (1991), Rogers identifies trust to be a basic quality of

27

“confidence or faith in the student’s potentiality for self-actualization” (p. 330). In
empathic learning, Rogers identifies learning through the eyes of a student. In this
attribute, the teacher personally understands the learning process of a student. These
three attributes can easily be applied to the mentor and beginning teacher. In relation
to realness or genuineness, the mentor must be real in order to become effective in
his/her relationship to the beginning teacher. This means an open form of
communication that is not a façade but a secure, honest, and receptive space to
exchange ideas and perceptions between mentor and the beginning teacher. In
relation to trust, the mentor’s role is enhanced in the relationship between the
beginning teacher and the mentor. As trust is gained, the new teacher becomes more
receptive to receiving self-confidence building encouragement, which is essential
prior to taking risks in his/her development as a new teacher. In relation to the last
attribute, empathic learning, the mentor’s role is to view the beginning teacher’s
process of learning and what it means to them in an environment free of evaluation
or judgment.
Upon reviewing these theoretical frameworks, it becomes apparent that the
constructivist theoretical frameworks of Dewey (1929), Piaget (1971), Bruner
(1966), and Lev Vygotsky (1978) and the humanistic psychology perspectives of
Maslow (1968) and Rogers (1969, 1983) are embedded within the mentoring
protocols of the BTSA induction program. In the next section, the overall BTSA
program is described and the specific standards (Standards 15 – 20) that directly
relate to the roles of the mentor and beginning teachers are presented. Included in

28

this description are the California Teaching Standards and the research on what
constitutes a quality induction program within the context of mentoring.
California BTSA Induction Program
In this next section, a historical perspective of the California BTSA Induction
Program is presented, from the early days of a pilot program (California New
Teacher Project) to the present day BTSA program. The section continues with the
description of the BTSA standards and the California Standards for the Teaching
Profession. The section concludes with the research that supports the BTSA
program and its underpinnings in the constructivist school of thought.
The Evolution of the California BTSA Induction Program
The original Senate Bill 1442 (1992) was the driving force of the current
California BTSA Induction program. Its original intent was to address the retention
of beginning teachers by providing support in their first two years of the teaching
profession. The initial development came under The California New Teacher Project
(CNTP) in 1988. The basis of the CNTP, was a project designed to examine
alternative models of assisting new teachers and assessing competencies of new
teacher classroom performance from a research perspective, encouraging
“experimentation” with a variety of designs (Olebe, 2001).
The results of the CNTP subsequently led to legislation SB 1422 (Bergson,
Chapter 1245, Statues of 1992), which created the Beginning Teacher Support and
Assessment Program. The original legislation was to provide an effective transition
into teaching for first and second year teachers in California by improving the
educational performance of students through: 1) improving teacher training; 2)

29

providing information and assistance for new teachers; 3) enabling the professional
success and retention of new teachers who show promise of becoming highly
effective professionals; 4) identifying beginning teachers who need additional
feedback, assistance and training to realize their potential to become excellent
teachers; 5) improving the rigor and consistency of individual teacher performance
assessments as well as the usefulness of assessment results to teachers and decision
makers; 6) establishing an effective, coherent system of performance assessments
that are based on a broad framework of common expectations regarding the skills,
abilities, and knowledge needed by new teachers; and 7) examining alternative ways
in which the general public and the general education profession may be assured that
new teachers who remain in teaching have attained acceptable levels of professional
competence (Education Code 44279.2).
From 1992 to 1998, BTSA was gaining momentum among the local school
agencies and the California Department of Education (CDE). Frameworks were
being developed and implemented to reflect the need for new teacher support, such
as the Framework of Knowledge; Skills and Abilities for Beginning Teachers; the
Standards of Quality and Effectiveness of New Teacher Support and Assessment
Programs; and the new formative performance assessment of teaching (Olebe, 2001).
By 1997, two sets of policies were developed and adopted by the California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) and California Department of
Education: California Teaching Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) and
the Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for the BTSA Programs. These two

30

policies established the foundation of what constitutes good teaching practices and a
quality induction program (Olebe, 2001).
As the BTSA program evolved in the late 1990’s, policies were added to
include further coaching professional development; new performance-based
formative assessments (classroom observations and portfolios); administrative
support training; diversity and linguistic staff development; collaboration and
development of partnerships between school districts and universities; and
implementation of peer to peer assessment rather than formal evaluation for
employment purposes. The California Formative Assessment and Support System
for Teachers (CFASST), was developed by the researchers and experts from the
Educational Testing Service, West Ed and University of Santa Cruz. The CFASST
further developed the performance-based formative assessment by combining
observations and inquiry. The CFASST is used as an instrument to guide teacher
induction stakeholders in the goals and objectives of the BTSA program. All these
policies and frameworks were developed and designed collaboratively by educators
and researchers adhering to the best practices of effective teaching (Olebe, 2001).
By 1998, the era of accountability came into place and SB 2042 was passed
which required: 1) the creation of multiple standards-based approaches to teaching;
2) alignment of teacher preparation standards with state adopted student academic
and content performance standards; 3) evidence demonstrating new teacher mastery
of teaching performance standards prior to earning a preliminary teaching credential;
and 4) provision for an effective transition into the teaching career for first and
second year teachers in California. These mandates reflected the field-based

31

outcomes on effective teacher induction practices ([NCTAF], 1996; Olebe, 2001). In
the following section below are the BTSA standards and the California Standards for
the Teaching Profession that evolved since 1988. These standards are now part of
the California BTSA Induction program.
BTSA Standards
There are twenty BTSA standards and they are divided into three parts. They
are the foundational standards, the design standards, and the teaching curriculum
standards. The first part encompasses the foundational standards (Standards 1-9) and
is the basis for the BTSA program. The foundation standards are: 1) sponsorship,
administration and leadership; 2) resources; 3) professional development providers;
4) evaluation; 5) articulation with the professional teacher preparation program; 6)
advice and assistance; 7) coordination and communication; 8) mentor selection and
assignment; and 9) mentor professional development (Montebello Unified School
District, 2004). The foundation standards are the local educational agency’s
responsibilities for implementing an induction program at the district level. These
are standards that the district must follow in order to fully implement the BTSA
program.
Standard 1 prescribes the administration and the leadership models for the
BTSA program at the school district level. The school district in essence is the sole
organizer of the BTSA program but must follow the California Standards for the
Teaching Profession continuum. Standard 2 allocates the resources that are needed
to implement the BTSA program. The district has agreed to allocate all the resources
in order to meet all program requirements and components to all participating

32

teachers. Standard 3 defines the role and responsibility of the professional providers
for implementing the BTSA program. The district defines the roles of the leaders
that will be responsible for implementing the induction program. Standard 4
provides opportunities for stakeholders to evaluate the BTSA program. The school
district involves administrators, teacher’s association, and parents in the development
of the induction plan. Standard 5 establishes linkages within BTSA for assigning
and preparing teachers in the teacher preparation programs. The district and
university teacher preparation programs will collaborate in establishing courses
leading to a professional teaching credential. The district articulates with university
teacher education departments to meet the program needs of their new hires.
Standard 6 develops processes and procedures for assisting teachers in the BTSA
program. The district human resources office and district’s induction director work
collaboratively, to inform new teachers about their professional development and
credential completion requirements. Standard 7 coordinates and communicates with
other educational entities about implementing a sound BTSA program. The district’s
induction director develops an ongoing relationship with the university’s teacher
education programs ensuring an effective and efficient program for new teachers.
Standard 8 implements a process for selecting and assigning support providers for
the participating teacher. The district’s induction director, the superintendent’s
advisory group, the human resource department, and the teacher’s association
develop criteria collaboratively for selecting and assigning mentors in the induction
program. The last foundation standard (Standard 9) provides professional
development for the mentor to support the beginning teacher. The district’s

33

induction program invests extensive amounts of time and direct instruction for
training mentors.
The second part consists of the program design standards (Standards 10 –
14). These standards are the structural part of the BTSA program. They are: 10)
program design; 11) roles and responsibilities of K -12 schools; 12) professional
development based on an individual induction plan; 13) formative assessment
systems; and 14) completion of the professional teacher induction program
(Montebello Unified School District, 2004). The program design standards are the
structural blocks that build the induction program.
The program design standards are still geared at the district level and focus
on the overall structure of the BTSA program. Standard 10 develops a program that
will lead to a professional credential and incorporates the California Standards for
the Teaching Profession in the BTSA program. The induction program must provide
sequential and logical steps that lead to a professional credential within the confines
of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, the academic content
standards, student performance level, and the state-adopted curriculum (Montebello
Unified School District, 2004). Standard 11 defines the roles and responsibilities of
school administrators in the BTSA program. The administrators provide the
structure and offer support for implementing the formative assessment collaborative
processes of the BTSA program. Standard 12 requires comprehensive professional
development opportunities for participating teachers, preparing them to demonstrate
proficiency of the CSTP (Montebello Unified School District, 2004). The district
induction program offers formal staff development opportunities to support the

34

CSTP, state curriculum standards, and district-implemented goals. Standard 13
implements the Formative Assessment System (FAS), a series of collaborative
processes. With the mentor’s support, these collaborative processes utilize a variety
of tools that guide, assess, and inform teachers of their professional growth in the
BTSA program. The last design standard (Standard 14) establishes the requirements
for completing the professional teacher induction program. This standard sets the
process in recommending the participating teacher for obtaining the professional
credential.
The third part of the BTSA standards (Standards 15 – 20) pertains to the
teaching of curriculum standards and are geared toward the participating teacher.
These standards include: 15) implementing a K-12 core academic content and
subject specific pedagogy; 16) using technology to support student learning; 17)
supporting, equity, diversity, and access to the core curriculum; 18) creating a
supportive and healthy curriculum; 19) teaching English learners; and 20) teaching
special education populations (Montebello Unified School District, 2004). These
standards focus on the participating teacher’s growth in the induction program with
the guidance of the mentor.
The participating teacher must keep a FAS (Formative Assessment System)
working portfolio (assessment logs) as evidence of these standards. In Standard 15,
the teacher must develop knowledge and skills that will improve his/her ability to
teach the core curriculum. The teacher must apply and reflect on the California
Standards for the Teaching Profession to demonstrate growth in the classroom. As
evidence for practicing these standards, the teacher must maintain a FAS portfolio

35

that validates his/her growth in the standards. The evidence may include: analysis of
student work; the beginning teacher’s individual learning plan (ILP); lesson plans;
assessment logs; observations; and parent communication logs. In Standard 16, the
teacher must build knowledge to use computer-based technology to facilitate the
teaching and learning process. In the FAS portfolio, the teacher must show evidence
of synthesizing student data; register for staff development on line; teach technology-
enhanced lessons; and use a data management system. In Standard 17, the teacher
must create an environment that supports learning for diverse students by providing
equal access to the core curriculum. The FAS portfolio requires that the teacher
show evidence of: training on equity; training on promotion and retention policies;
training for completing academic progress reports; and participation at school site
orientations. In Standard 18, the participating teacher builds on the delivery of
comprehensive support for the emotional well being of students. To ensure
proficient teacher preparation for achieving this standard, the mentee’s FAS portfolio
must show evidence of: drug, alcohol and tobacco awareness; health and safety
awareness; and safety committee participation. In Standard 19, the teacher must
have professional development preparation for the instruction of English Learners. In
the FAS portfolio, the teacher must show evidence of English Language
Development certification, training in equity, and training for administering English
Language Learner assessments. The last standard (Standard 20) requires teacher
acquisition of strategies for teaching students with disabilities, at risk students, and
students who are gifted and talented. In this FAS portfolio, the teacher must show

36

evidence of training in the state mandated special education identification process
and available services.
The above BTSA standards coupled with the California Standards for the
Teaching Profession (CSTP) form the foundation of the BTSA program. The FAS
collaborative processes in the above standards provide frequent reflection
opportunities of the CSTP through practice and performance activities that meet both
the BTSA standards and the CSTP goals. In the next section, a brief description of
the CSTP is presented.
The California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP)
The California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) are more
aligned to student learning but are embedded in the BTSA curriculum standards.
They are: 1) engaging and supporting all student learning; 2) creating and
maintaining effective environments for student learning; 3) understanding and
organizing subject matter for student learning; 4) planning instruction and designing
learning experiences for all students; 5) assessing student learning; and 6) developing
as a professional educator (Montebello Unified School District, 2004).
The first standard, engaging and supporting all students in learning, requires
that the student’s prior knowledge remain connected to learning goals. Tasks in this
standard include problem solving, critical thinking, and reflective learning for all
students. The second standard, creating and maintaining effective environments for
student learning, is creating a physical environment that engages all students. In this
standard the teacher maintains and establishes standards for student behavior and
uses instructional time effectively. The third standard requires the understanding and

37

organizing of subject matter for student learning whereby the teacher sequences and
presents the curriculum to support student understanding of the subject matter. Here
the teacher uses resources, strategies and technologies to make subject matter
accessible to the student. The fourth standard, planning instruction and designing
learning experiences for all students, is drawing on the students’ backgrounds
interests and developmental needs. In this standard, the teacher designs and modifies
long and short term plans to foster student learning. The fifth standard, assessing
student learning, requires establishing and communicating learning goals for all
students. The teacher involves and guides all students in assessing their own
learning. The teacher uses results from assessments to guide his/her instruction. The
last standard, developing as a professional educator, requires teachers to
continuously reflect on their teaching practice and plan for their professional
development. The teacher uses the educational community to improve his/her
professional practice (Montebello Unified School District, 2004). All six CSTP
standards are part of the FAS collaborative processes in Standards 15 through 20 of
the BTSA program. In the following section are research studies that support the
BTSA induction components.
Components and Characteristics of a Quality Induction Program
There are several studies that examine the components of a quality teacher
induction program and the role of the mentor (Moir & Gless, 2001; Bartell, 2005;
Porter, 2005; Wong, Sterling and Rowland, 2004; Perez, Swain, & Hartsough, 1997).
In this section, there will be a comparison of two main studies: the Moir and Gless
study (2001) and the Bartell (2005) study. The first part of the section will describe

38

the Moir and Gless (2001) components of a quality induction program. The next
section will proceed to briefly describe the Bartell’s (2005) characteristics of an
effective induction program within the confines Moir and Gless’ (2001) components.
These two studies provide an overall view of essential components of a quality
induction program.
Moir and Gless (2001) listed five quality components as key factors of a
quality induction programs. They are program vision, instructional commitment and
support, quality mentoring, professional standards, and classroom-based teacher
learning. According to Moir and Gless (2001), these essential components must be
in place to effectively help new teachers achieve success in the classroom and
improve student achievement.
The first component of a quality induction program is program vision (Moir
& Gless, 2001). In this component, the vision or stated goals must be concise and
clearly stated in order to build high quality instructional programs. The second
component is institutional commitment and support. In this component, the school
district must be committed and supportive by implementing policies to guide the new
teachers in the induction program. The school district must provide resources, time
and professional development within the induction program (Moir & Gless, 2001).
The third component is the focal point of the induction program, quality mentoring.
In this component, the mentors must be highly qualified and trained because they are
the centerpieces of the induction program. Mentors should have interpersonal
communicative skills in order to provide constructive supportive feedback. They
must be cognizant of the content standards, knowledgeable of research-based

39

strategies, and practiced in the effective use of assessment tools results (Moir &
Gless, 2001).
The fourth component is implementing professional standards. Professional
standards must reflect high quality teaching, high expectations of student
achievement, a safe learning environment, and recognizing diversity. The new
teacher should accept that the induction program is a two to three years learning
process (Moir & Gless, 2001). The fifth component is a partnership agreement
between the mentor teacher and the beginning teacher for acquiring classroom-based
teacher learning. In this component, mentors must meet the individual needs of their
beginning teachers thorough staff development. They should collaborate and agree
to meet the instructional needs of the student. The beginning teacher understands
that he/she is a life long learner in order to implement the various content standards
(Moir & Gless, 2001).
Bartell (2005) listed twelve characteristics of an effective induction program.
The twelve characteristics are: 1) program purpose; 2) induction program leadership;
3) collaboration in induction services; 4) support site administrators; 5) university
linkages; 6) attention to context; 7) experienced teachers as support providers; 8)
time to work together; 9) follow –up by experienced educators; 10) feedback to
beginning teachers; 11) evaluation of the program; and 12) professional development
for new teachers. These characteristics will be grouped together and described under
the Moir and Gless’ (2001) quality induction components that share similarities.
Table 3 provides a clear synopsis of shared components and characteristics.

40

Table 3

Essential Components of a Quality Induction Program (Moir & Gless, 1993) and the
Characteristics of Effective Induction Program (Bartell, 2005)

Essential Components of a Quality Induction
Program (Moir & Gless, 2001)
Characteristics of Effective Induction Program
(Bartell, 2005)

1. Program Vision

2. Institutional Commitment and Support

3. Quality Mentoring

4. Classroom Based Teacher Learning

5. Implementing Professional Standards

Program Vision (Moir & Gless, 2001)
1. Program Purpose

Institutional Commitment and Support
(Moir & Gless, 2001)
2. Induction Program Leadership

3. Collaboration for Induction Services

4. Support Site Administrators

5. University Linkages

6. Attention to Context

Quality Mentoring (Moir & Gless, 2001)
7. Experience Teachers as Support
Providers

8. Time to Work Together

9. Follow – Up By Experienced Educators

10. Feedback to Beginning Teachers

11. Evaluation of the Program

Classroom Based Teacher Learning
(Moir & Gless, 2001)
12. Professional Development for New
Teachers

The first characteristic is program purpose. The program purpose sets goals
and objectives that drive the induction program. Bartell (2005) states that the
California BTSA purpose is codified in the state legislature and serves as an
induction program model throughout the country. The program purpose clearly

41

defines the induction program and establishes role expectations for all those involved
in supporting the program. This characteristic is similar to Moir and Gless’ (2001)
component, program vision.
The second group of characteristics (induction program leadership,
collaboration for induction services, support site administrators, university linkages,
and attention to context) can be grouped under Moir and Gless’ (2001) component of
institutional commitment and support. These characteristics are more detailed and
descriptive of the required institutional commitment and support component. The
second characteristic is program induction leadership. There must be administrative
structure and leadership in order to establish roles and responsibilities within the
induction program. The leadership support goes from the district level all the way to
the site level. The third characteristic, collaboration in induction services, draws
upon existing personnel to provide the expertise in implementing a successful
induction program. This leads to the fourth characteristic, the support of the site
administrator. This characteristic requires that the site administrator have a role in
supporting the new teacher and the mentor teacher in the induction process. The site
administrator must also create a positive school climate of support not only for the
overall school program but also for the mentor and new teacher within the induction
program. The fifth characteristic, university linkages, is the partnership between the
university and the school district. According to Bartell (2005), the school-university
partnership brings “something different to the induction program. It is important for
the partners to recognize and make use of the strengths that each brings” (p. 51). In
the sixth characteristic, attention to context, new teachers must be aware of a school

42

contextual culture (i.e. administration, procedures, resources, parents, community,
collegial relations, etc) as they are assimilating to the profession.
The next group of characteristics (experienced teachers as support providers;
time to work together; follow-up by experienced educators; feedback to beginning
teachers; and, evaluation of the program) can be grouped under Moir and Gless’
(2001) component of quality mentoring. Again, Bartell (2005) offers a more detailed
and descriptive approach to mentoring. The seventh characteristic is the use of
experienced teachers as support providers or mentors for the induction program. The
mentors are the center of the induction program. The mentor’s role needs to be
clarified and the mentor must be selected for their ability to work collaboratively
with the beginning teacher. This leads to the eighth characteristic of time to work.
The mentor and new teacher must schedule a time and a place to work
collaboratively. The ninth and tenth characteristics consist of the follow-up
procedures conducted by experienced teachers to generate feedback (tenth
characteristic) for the beginning teachers. This in essence is the reflection piece of
the induction program. These characteristics generate opportunities for new teacher
self-assessment within the induction program. In the eleventh characteristic, the
effectiveness of the induction program is assessed. In the last characteristic,
professional development for new teachers, professional development plays a major
role in this part of the induction program for both the mentor teacher and the new
teacher.
Overall, Bartell (2004) presents characteristics that are similar to the
components of a quality induction program as identified by Moir and Gless (2001).

43

In summary, some of these same characteristics are program vision (program
purpose), institutional commitment and support (leadership, collaboration), quality
mentoring (veteran teacher support), professional standards (professional
development, assessment), and the partnership between the mentor teacher and
beginning teacher (collaboration, administrative support, follow-up training).
According to Bartell (2004), as in the case of Moir and Gless (2001), mentoring is
the centerpiece of an effective induction program (Bartell, 2004). The following
section is a review of the research-based studies on induction program mentors.
Research-Based Studies on Induction Program Mentors
In this section, three research studies (Wong, Sterling and Rowland, 2004;
Abell, Dillon, Hopkins, McInerney, and O’Brien, 1995; Riggs, 1998) on mentoring
induction programs will be analyzed. These three research studies are significant
because they focused on the mentor’s essential role that has continued to ensure a
greater success rate for the beginning teachers.
In the first study by Wong et al. (2004), the researchers conducted a
qualitative evaluation study on induction practices based on the perspectives of
fifteen experienced teachers in the state of Arizona. Their research was framed
around five key areas of the induction process. The five key areas were: 1)
professional development activities they experienced during their induction; 2) what
sorts of induction practices they feel now would be useful for beginning teachers; 3)
what professional developmental activities they would find the most useful if they
were the beginning teachers; 4) what professional developmental activities they
would find the most useful if they were the beginning teachers and had to meet

44

Arizona Department of Education certification standards: and 5) focus on the
induction experiences of science and math teachers. Overall, the researchers
concluded that mentoring provided the beginning teacher a better chance of survival
in their first year of teaching.
Wong et al. reinforced that mentors and mentoring are an effective
component of any induction program as prescribed by the previous studies (Moir &
Gless, 2001; Bartell, 2005). This was evidenced when the researchers (Wong et al.,
2004) identified mentoring as the element that stands out in the induction program.
Mentors played a crucial role in lives of participants in their first year of teaching.
Mentoring can be interpreted as beginning teacher support from a structural
induction program to informal grade level peer support or departmental team
support. Some participants echoed the same sentiments, that teacher support helped
them survive their first year. Others felt positive and lucky to have had mentoring
during their first year. These experiences should not be rare or unusual but
commonplace in an induction program. A more extensive research study supports
the conclusion of Wong et al. (2004) in the next subsection.
A similar extensive research study on mentors was conducted by Abell,
Dillon, Hopkins, McInerney and O’Brien (1995). The researchers conducted a
phenomenological qualitative study of mentors and beginning teachers in a state
mandated induction program. Through extensive interviews, the relationship of the
mentors and interns were analyzed to show how mentors and interns interact. The
interviews were then organized into three overall findings and divided into two
categories. The cross case analysis of participants included 29 mentors and interns,

45

46 teachers from 11 school sites, 12 principals, and 4 central office administrators.
In this research study, mentors and interns from 11 Indiana state-mandated induction
program school sites were interviewed. The study’s purpose was to gain a
perspective for learning the relationship between the mentor and the beginning
teacher. This study sought to secure findings via interviews that went beyond the
outcome based data studies that have been carried out in previous studies of mentor-
beginning teacher experiences. This enabled the researchers to gain insights for
policymakers charged with evaluating the induction program. A structured interview
was written and conducted that addressed gaps in the outcome based evaluation of
the program. As interviews responses were analyzed, three overall findings
emerged: 1) mentors believe that it is their responsibility as professionals to work
with interns and mentoring is very important work; 2) mentors assume a helper role
as opposed to an evaluator role while working with interns; and 3) the respect and
trust, developed during interactions between mentors and interns, were crucial to
successful relationships (Abell et al., 1995). Within these three findings, two
categories of mentor support protocols became apparent as supported by the
researchers’ overall findings: 1) the nature of the roles assumed by mentors, and 2)
the nature of the interactions between mentors and interns. In the first category, the
roles assumed by the mentor, were based on the interrelationship between the mentor
and the intern. The nature of the role assumed by mentors is that of a parent figure
and colleague providing both a support system for troubleshooting problems and
appropriate scaffolding for mastering induction program standards. In the second
category, the nature of interactions between mentors and interns consisted of the

46

bond that they mutually build and cultivate. These interactions included: the close
physical proximity of mentor/intern pairs; the frequency and format of meetings; and
the planned topics discussed during meetings (Abell et al., 1995).
The researchers (Abell et al., 1995) concluded that the mentors valued their
role experience irrespective of the formal guidelines set forth by the induction
program. For the mentors and the interns it was an intrinsically rewarding
experience. The mentors valued the new teachers and offered their support in
becoming successful teachers. The interaction patterns between the mentor and
intern evolved with the mentor as an “instructional coach” providing moral and
emotional support for the beginning teacher. Other important factors included the
appropriate levels of trust and respect that are essential for building a productive
mentor/intern bond.
As an Indiana state initiated investigation, the importance of the Abell et al.
(1995) study is that it provided the evidence of efficacy to maintain and continue the
state mandated induction program. This investigation began as an outcome based
quantitative exploration and ended as a phenomenological study on mentors. The
researchers (Abell et al., 1995) felt that out-come based findings lacked the data on
how the induction program functions for people directly involved in the induction
process. They further extended their findings to include how mentors interpret their
role and responsibilities in the induction program. The significance of the study is
how it represents the perspectives of the “lived experiences” of those directly
involved in the induction program as told through their own voices (Abell et al.,
1995). Again, this study from a phenomenological theoretical perspective, confirms

47

that mentors are essential components of an induction program. In the final
subsection research, conducted within the specific context of the BTSA program,
continues to provide evidence that mentors are vital to the induction process (Moir &
Gless, 2001; Bartell, 2005).
In the third research study, Riggs (1998) analyzes the impact of a mentor-
training program on mentors involved in the Inland Empire BTSA induction
program. The participants included 95 mentors from the Inland Empire BTSA
program who completed a year-long intensive program to support the new teachers.
In this study, mentors were asked to answer 30 questions on the Mentor Efficacy
Scale (MES) in order to measure the mentors’ beliefs in mentoring. The purpose of
the study was to analyze the impact of intensive mentor training in the induction
program. The MES measured four mentoring areas of activity: 1) personal; 2)
instructional; 3) professionalism; and, 4) assessment. In the first area, the effective
mentor’s personal behaviors demonstrate trusting relationships that offer emotional
support to the new teacher. In the second area instructional behaviors are defined as
the mentor’s ability to plan, implement, and analyze instruction while promoting
these same abilities to others (colleagues, mentees, district personnel, etc.). The third
area, professional abilities, refers to the mentor’s ability to promote the
understanding of policies and procedures. The final area, assessment, refers to the
mentor’s feedback in assessing a new teacher’s strengths and weaknesses.
The results demonstrated that highly trained mentors were significantly more
likely to have high self-efficacy with their regard to mentoring (mean=77.21; t=5.50;
p<. 00). Overall, the findings of this study (Riggs, 1998) support the claim that the

48

mentor plays a significant role in the professional lives of the first year teacher. This
study is consistent with research, which indicates “the most effective perceived
practices for induction into teaching favor interactive activities and a tradition of
apprenticeship and mentoring” (Pérez, Swain & Harsough, 1997).
The findings of the above three research studies (Wong, Sterling and
Rowland, 2004; Abell, Dillon, Hopkins, McInerney, and O’Brien, 1995; Riggs,
1998) interlock with each other and support the findings that mentors are an essential
component of an induction program as defined by the researchers, Moir and Gless
(2001) and Bartell (2005). These researchers (Wong, Sterling and Rowland, 2004;
Abell, Dillon, Hopkins, McInerney, and O’Brien, 1995; Riggs, 1998) see that
mentors are the foundation for the induction process regardless of the guidelines set
forth in an induction program. New teachers need a support mechanism (mentors) to
be effective and successful educators as evidenced by the research. In the next
section, the literature will focus on the critical viewpoint of mentoring. One
researcher (Feiman-Nemser, 1996) argues that mentoring should function as a
strategy of reform and needed research.
Mentoring: More Research is Needed
This section will focus on three studies that are critical of teacher mentoring.
The first study is by Feiman-Nemser (1996), the second publication is a review of
150 empirical studies on mentoring (Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004), and the last study is a
report from the Alliance for Excellence Education (2004) and focuses on retaining
high quality teachers. These studies show that more research and reform is needed
on the mentoring aspect of an induction process.

49

Feiman-Nemser (1996) agues that mentoring needs to go beyond the new
teacher’s first year of teaching and serve as a strategy for reform. Mentoring should
reflect good teaching, teacher learning, and a learner-centered curriculum. By
promoting observation and conversation about teaching, mentoring can help teachers
develop tools for continuous improvement. Mentors need to be reformers in order to
practice learner-centered curriculum (constructivism). Feiman-Nemser (1996)
maintains that there is needed research in the direct study of mentoring and its affect
on teachers and teacher retention. The induction program needs to implement a
mentor program that works in the broader framework of professional development
and accountability. Feiman-Nemser (1996) concludes the study by addressing three
issues: 1) make the mentor accountable to assess the new teacher rather than solely
provide assistance; 2) developers need to focus on creating optimal conditions rather
than trying to make optimal matches; and 3) mentors need time to learn how to
mentor. Overall, the researcher (Feiman-Nemser, 1996) wants the mentor to be more
proactive in the overall induction program by: requiring the mentors to add mentee
evaluations as part of their feedback; securing additional mentor involvement for
improving the induction curriculum; and demanding additional training for mentors.
Ingersoll and Kralik (2004) examined 150 empirical studies of induction and
mentoring programs. Of the 150 empirical studies that were identified, only 10
studies were chosen because they satisfy the authors’ three criteria. The criteria were
chosen to provide added value to the effectiveness of teacher induction programs.
The criteria are: 1) securing numerical/quantitative data – for quantifying effects of
mentoring; 2) providing evaluation tools and opportunities to measure the outcomes

50

of mentoring; and 3) contrasting beginning teacher experiences of those who were
mentored to those who were not mentored. The findings in the ten studies
demonstrated that teacher-mentoring programs had a positive effect on teacher
retention. The authors recognized that these studies had serious limitations. Most of
these studies were not able to control other factors that can also have an impact on
the outcomes of their investigations. For example, was the assigned school location
of a new teacher a factor in the retention of the new teacher, regardless of an
induction or mentoring program? These studies did not clarify the criteria and
selection of participants. For example, those new teachers who volunteered in the
mentoring program, were they most likely more committed to teaching? There were
many other unanswered questions that could only be answered directly by the mentor
and intern. All these studies were out-come based studies of the overall induction
programs in various states. These studies did not look at the relationship of the
mentor and intern, which is actually the focal point of the mentoring program. The
authors concluded that there should be further research with respect to the value of
mentoring programs in the retention of new teachers.
In the Alliance for Excellent Education report Tapping the Potential:
Retaining and Developing High-Quality New Teachers (2004) a comprehensive
report on the induction program to reduce teacher retention is provided. The
Alliance for Excellent Education is a national research organization whose goal is to
make children life-long learners and help them prepare to enter college. The
organization is based in Washington D.C. and produces educational reports on
national educational policy offering federal policy recommendations. This particular

51

report is an in-depth analysis of induction programs that retain quality teachers in the
teaching profession. Contributors to the report were from all across the United
States that included educators involved in teacher colleges or state mandated
induction programs. The report is divided into six major parts and ends with four
case studies of an induction program. The first part describes the problem of
retaining teachers and the cost of attrition. The second part offers the solution of a
comprehensive induction program. The third part presents the components of a
comprehensive induction program. The fourth part focuses on induction programs at
the high school level. The fifth part delineates how to make induction programs
work. The sixth part explains the role of federal education policy. At the end of the
report are the four case studies that describe exemplary induction programs, which
included Connecticut, The Santa Cruz New Teacher Center (California), Tangipahoa
Parish (Louisiana), and Toledo, Ohio.
The Alliance for Excellent Education Report (2004) states that mentoring is a
component of an induction program but it is not enough to retain and develop
teachers. Their findings demonstrate that mentors often check in with new teachers a
few times per year to chat. Often there was little classroom observation and rarely a
chance to evaluate the new teacher. There was emotional support from the mentor
but the new teacher must have more “rigorous guidance” from the mentor. The
report continued that apart from mentoring, a comprehensive induction program
must provide the new teacher with opportunities for needed grade level
communication and training in the standards based curriculum. The report
concluded that mentoring must be of sufficient high quality to improve student

52

achievement and meet teaching standards. The report recommended that the mentor
supports the new teacher by regularly conducting observations, offering feedback,
demonstrating effective standard based lessons, assisting with long and short term
planning, organizing and implementing an instructional pacing plan, and
analyzing/assessing student work for student improvement. The characteristics of a
quality mentor are: a good teacher of students; a good teacher of teachers; and
appropriate assignment with teachers in the same subject area and training. This
document was a comprehensive study that reflected on most induction programs
across the country. It offered insight on various aspects of mentoring and the need
for more research on the induction program mentoring process.
Conclusion
Most of the research is limited and often based on outcome based findings.
The research has proven that mentoring is beneficial to the retention of teachers and
further research is needed. There is little research with the exception of Abell et al.
(1995) on the interactions of the mentor and beginning teacher. The research often
refers to the mentor as an instructional coach, as well as moral and emotional
supporter (Abell et al., 1995). Yet other research refers to the mentor as not rigorous
enough to be critical of the new teacher in implementing an instructional program
(Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004). This study will explore the mentor’s role,
level of satisfaction as a mentor, and pedagogical orientation in the various BTSA
Induction programs throughout California. If a BTSA mentor is trained in the BTSA
and CSTP standards, then the mentor must be able to implement a rigorous program
based on pedagogical constructivist practices. This study will examine a mentor’s

53

pedagogical constructivist beliefs within the context of the costs and benefits of
being a mentor.

54

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Chapter three presents the research questions with a description of the
research design, identifying the sample population, instrumentation, data collection,
and data analysis for this study. The purpose of this quantitative study is to examine
the mentor’s role in the California Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment
(BTSA) Induction Program and the mentor’s pedagogical beliefs and practices
within the BTSA program of various school districts in California. This
investigation used surveys covering mentors’ perspectives and how they perceived
themselves with respect to their understanding of constructivist pedagogical
practices. As mentioned in chapters one and two, the California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing (CTC) requires all beginning teachers to participate in the
BTSA induction program. A group of active and inactive mentors in various
selected school districts in California were solicited to answer the following research
questions:
1. What are the costs and benefits of mentoring as reported by mentors
in the BTSA program?
2. What impact do instructional beliefs have on BTSA mentors’
perceptions as to the costs and benefits of being a mentor?
Sample and Population
California BTSA Induction Program

The California BTSA Induction Program provides the newly credentialed and
beginning teachers with: formative assessment; individualized support; advanced

55

content; and is the preferred pathway toward securing a California Clear Teaching
Credential. The BTSA Induction program is co-administered by the California
Department of Education (CDE) and the Commission on Teacher Credentialing
(CTC). The BTSA Induction Task Force and State Leadership Team provide
support and technical assistance to local BTSA Induction Program leaders. There
are currently over 169 SB 2042-approved BTSA Induction Programs across
California currently organized into six regions or "clusters”
(http://www.btsa.ca.gov/BTSA_basics.html).

Cluster one is the Northern California region, which begins at the Marin,
Solano, Sacramento, El Dorado and Alpine Counties and ends at the California and
Oregon border. Cluster two is the Bay Area Coastal region, which begins in San
Francisco County and ends with Ventura County. Cluster three is the Central
California region, which begins with the San Joaquin and Amador counties and ends
with Kern County. Cluster four is the Los Angeles County region, with the
exception of the Westside Union, Lancaster, Antelope Valley, Keppel Union and
Palmdale school districts. These five school districts are located in cluster six.
Cluster five consists of the Orange, San Diego and Imperial counties. The last and
the sixth cluster, the Inland Empire and High Desert region, consists of Mono, Inyo,
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. Each cluster has one or two region
directors, which assist their region in improving or initiating the BTSA Induction
program.

In the 2005 – 2006 school year, over 26,000 beginning teachers participate in
the 169 BTSA Induction program. These beginning teachers participated in the

56

California Formative Assessment and Support System for Teachers (CFASST)
which assists teachers in: evaluating their teaching practices; providing professional
development opportunities for effective teaching practices to promote student
learning; and ensuring acquisition of the advanced content for the California Clear
Teaching Credential. The trained support providers (mentors) assisted the beginning
teachers in: collecting and interpreting evidence of teaching performance; reflecting
on their teaching; and identifying meaningful professional development activities
that are targeted to their individual needs, as provided through the structured
activities of the CFASST or other approved assessment systems
(http://www.btsa.ca.gov/BTSA_basics.html).

For each of the 169 BTSA Induction programs, the local BTSA Induction
Program leaders are responsible for their school district’s BTSA Induction Program
and directly communicating with the region directors for implementing the BTSA
Induction requirements. The majority of the school districts’ BTSA Induction
programs work collaboratively with the New Teacher Center at the University of
California, Santa Cruz for implementing BTSA guidelines and regulations. In
various school districts the local BTSA coordinator could be a full time out of
classroom position, a teacher on special assignment (TOSA), or a part time teaching
staff member. The local BTSA coordinator usually functions as the liaison between
the school district and the individual school sites. They visit the school site to
consult with the participating teacher and the support provider. They are also
responsible for providing beginning teachers professional development throughout
the school year based on the Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional

57

Teacher Induction Programs. The participating teacher, the support provider, and the
site administrator usually sign a Memorandum of Understanding on the benefits
provided by the BTSA program. The Memorandum of Understanding delineates the
agreement that all three parties abide with the local district BTSA program. The
following section describes the Memorandum of Understanding for each of the three
parties and their agreement in participating in the local BTSA program.
Participating Teacher Memorandum of Understanding Agreement
The participating teacher agrees to use the Formative Assessment System
(FAS) collaborative processes, observe veteran teachers, and attend forums
throughout the year. The participating teachers also agree to redefine instructional
practices based on the California Standards for the Teaching Professional (CSTP),
regularly meet with their assigned support provider, and fulfill the requirements of
the California BTSA Induction Standards.
Support Provider Memorandum of Understanding Agreement
The support provider agrees to guide the professional growth of the
participating teacher by using Formative Assessment System collaborative processes
and organizing veteran teacher observation/debrief sessions with the participating
teacher. The support provider also agrees to attend forums with the participating
teacher. These meetings are to assist the participating teacher’s pedagogical
development through increased application of the CSTP in their instructional
delivery. The beginning teachers’ uses of the CSTP are reflected in their Individual
Learning (ILP) Plan. Lastly, the support provider agrees to meet regularly with the
participating teacher, and assist the beginning teachers with the professional pacing

58

for showing mastery of the Induction Standard requirements (Montebello Unified
School District, 2004).
Site Administrator Memorandum of Understanding Agreement
The site administrator agrees to attend the “Roles and responsibilities of K-12
School Organizations” training (BTSA Program Standard 11). Also, the
administrator provides an orientation for the participating teacher at the school site,
assures district wide resources, supports beginning teacher professional
development, and secures a structure for the participating teacher and support
provider to meet on a regular basis. Lastly, the administrator agrees to evaluate the
participating teacher through application of CSTP, ILP, and Formative Assessment
System collaborative processes for identifying areas of strength and need
(Montebello Unified School District, 2004).
Support Provider Selection Process
In the majority of school districts, the support provider must have three years
of successful teaching experience with at least one year in the school district.
Approval and recommendation must come from the support provider’s site principal.
A support provider must hold a clear credential. The training for the support
provider includes a five-day FAS training interspersed throughout the year and three
more days of training in the second year. He or she must have continued training
and support at forums throughout the school year. Usually, the BTSA program
assigns service providers to participating teachers who are in similar content areas
and/or grade levels (Montebello Unified School District, 2004).

59

Instrumentation
I used two field-tested surveys in this study. Ragins and Scandura (1994,
1999) conducted the first survey twice. The first time they used the survey was in
their study entitled “Gender Differences in Expected Outcomes of Mentoring
Relationships”. In 1999, they conducted the same survey in their study entitled
“Burden or Blessing? Expected Costs and Benefits of Being a Mentor”. They
designed both studies to examine the mentoring relationship found in a business
context. The second survey is based on the report entitled “Constructivist –
Compatible Beliefs and Practices Among U.S. Teachers. Teaching, Learning and
Computing: 1998 National Survey Report #4” (Ravitz, Becker & Wong, 2000). The
researchers designed the report to identify both the teacher’s pedagogical orientation
(constructivist and traditionalist) and the teacher’s practiced learning environment.
Both surveys were field-tested and I selected them because they align themselves to
this present study’s research questions.
The first study by Ragins and Scandura (1994) examines the gender
differences in expected outcomes of mentoring relationships in the private sector.
The survey items were measured on a Likert-type scale with responses measuring
from 1, “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”. As survey items were revised and
developed among a selected pilot group of 110 business mangers, the researchers
selected 17 cost (α = .81) survey items and 24-item benefits survey items (α = .89).
These survey items were put through a content validity procedure developed by
Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) in which the items were presented to a group of 100
business administration candidates. The business administration candidates

60

categorized each survey item by allocating 1 or 2 points, to determine whether the
item was a cost or benefit survey question. Items with less than seventy percent of
the total points were eliminated from the survey and as a result, the final survey
consisted of 13-item cost (α = .76) and 20-item benefit (α = .91) survey.
In the “Burden or Blessing? Expected Costs and Benefits of Being a Mentor”
study by Ragins and Scandura (1999), the original 17 and 24 items survey were
obtained and utilized in a cost and benefit mentor survey. The researchers performed
a factor analyses (varimax rotation) on these survey items. Acceptable survey items
that loaded 0.30 or more on a given factor and communalities of at least 0.50
(Comrey, 1973) were further merged into factor subscales. They subscales revealed
five cost factor analyses of mentoring [factor 1) more trouble than worth; factor 2)
dysfunctional relationship; factor 3) nepotism; factor 4) bad reflection; and factor 5)
energy drain] and five benefit factor analyses of mentoring [factor 1) rewarding
experience; factor 2) improved job performance; factor 3) loyal base of support;
factor 4) recognition by others; and factor 5) generativity-“mentors relive their lives
and gain a sense of immortality from their protégés” (p. 497)]. These subscales
directly relate to the research questions in this study. In the following section is the
description of the other instrumentation that will be utilized in this study to survey
the constructivist and traditionalist beliefs and practices among mentors.
In the “Constructivist – Compatible Beliefs and Practices Among U.S.
Teachers. Teaching, Learning and Computing: 1998 National Survey Report #4”
(Ravitz, Becker & Wong, 2000) study, the research was based on the Teaching,
Learning, and Computing (TLC) questionnaire survey that focused on the

61

relationship found between a teacher’s pedagogical practice and their use of
computers in teaching. The data on teachers’ beliefs and practices were gathered
from this survey. In validating items for teacher beliefs and practices, the authors
conducted a correlation validity study (Becker & Anderson, 1998) to select items
that were similar in belief and practice. Items that were selected for their national
study had a “constructivist-transmission-orientation distinction”. The validation
factor score of 21 items that measured meaningful learning tasks attained a
correlation of 0.54; the validation score of 26 items that measured cognitively
demanding tasks attained a correlation of 0.70, and the validation factor of 11 items
that measured social learning attained a correlation of 0.67. Ravitz et al. (2000) were
confident of the validity of their survey items in measuring pedagogy philosophies.
There were two main survey parts to this study. The first part of the survey
was the original 17 cost and 24 benefit survey items from the Ragins and Scandura’s
(1994 & 1998) survey. This survey measured the cost and benefit of a being a
mentor. The second part of the survey measured how mentors perceive their own
instructional delivery as either a constructivist (BTSA and CSTP) or traditional
pedagogical practice.
Data Collection
Surveys were e-mailed to the six cluster region directors and they in turn sent
them to their local BTSA Induction program leaders. Surveys were also directly e-
mailed to local BTSA program leaders in various selected school districts in
California. The local BTSA Induction program leaders were asked to voluntarily
send the surveys to BTSA trained support providers (mentors). The e-mailed cover

62

letter for the survey was linked to the online survey via the Qualtrics Survey
software (Appendix A). My goal was to secure a sample of at least 100 completed
surveys from BTSA mentors throughout California. The survey window began late
April and closed late June. A five-dollar gift card was made available upon request
to respondents in appreciation for their time in completing the online survey.
At the beginning of the survey window, some local BTSA leaders found the
online survey too negative and not reflective of their BTSA program. The e-mailed
cover letter for the online survey was therefore rewritten in the early part of the
survey window to allay local BTSA leader concerns. The rewritten letter added
another paragraph to explain that the survey questions derived from the business
context and changing the survey or excluding questions would invalidate the
psychometrical measurement of the survey. In the revised cover letter, I also
reassured the local BTSA program leaders that the survey was voluntary and
confidential. I further stated in the e-mailed cover letter: “individual results will not
be shared with anyone. The analysis of data will be based on the total group of
mentors who complete the survey. The results of this survey will neither reflect on a
particular person, nor will they reflect on any specific district’s or school’s BTSA
program”. As a result of this process, I received 143 completed surveys from trained
BTSA mentors throughout California.
Data Analysis
The survey (Appendix B) consisted of five parts. The first part of the survey
requested for the mentors’ demographics. The second part was the 13-item cost and
21-item benefit survey. The third part of the survey described two constructivists

63

and eight traditionalist pedagogical statements. The fourth part continued with five
constructivists and five traditionalist belief statements. The last part consisted of a
vignette, which describes two contrasting instructional practices.
In the first part, the mentors were asked seven demographic questions about:
1) if they are presently serving as support providers; 2) their present teaching
position; 3), the type of credential they hold; 4) the number of years in the
teaching/education profession; 5) the number of years as support providers; 6)
previous participation in the BTSA program; and 7) the number of beginning of
teachers they mentor.
The second part was the 17-item cost and 21-item benefit survey based on the
field-tested surveys created by Ragins and Scandura (1994, 1999). The word protégé
was replaced with the term mentee, since the original surveys were created for a
business context. The survey questions were divided into five cost and five benefit
factor analyses subscales of mentoring as identified by Ragins and Scandura (1999).
The five cost factor analyses subscales of mentoring are: factor 1) more
trouble than worth; factor 2) dysfunctional relationship; factor 3) nepotism; factor 4)
bad reflection; and factor 5) energy drain. Factor 1 (more trouble than worth)
reflected the concern that there are drawbacks and disadvantages to being a mentor.
Factor 2 (dysfunctional relationship) represented the fear that the mentor and mentee
relationship may become unhealthy or exploitative and the mentor may be
backstabbed by an opportunistic mentee. Factor 3 (nepotism) addressed the concerns
that the mentor might be playing favorites and giving unfair advantage to their
mentee. Factor 4 (bad reflection) represented the concern that the mentee who is not

64

meeting standards can be a negative reflection on the mentor’s competency. Finally,
factor 5 (energy drain) addressed the concerns of the time commitment and the
energy demands of being a mentor.
The five benefit factor analyses subscales of mentoring are: factor 1)
rewarding experience; factor 2) improved job performance; factor 3) loyal base of
support; factor 4) recognition by others; and factor 5) generativity. Factor 1
(rewarding) demonstrated to support providers that mentoring is a rewarding
experience associated with a feeling of self-fulfillment generating high levels of
satisfaction. Factor 2 (improved job performance) offered support providers an
opportunity for self-reflection possibly permitting them to see how mentoring has a
renewing impact on their career or job performance. Factor 3 (loyal base of support)
represented the benefit of the mentees becoming the trusted allies of the mentors.
Factor 4 (recognition by others) provided validation to support providers through
positive recognition and status from their superiors or peers by mentoring others.
The final factor (generativity) was based on Eriksons’s (1963) concept that “mentors
relive their lives and gain a sense of immortality from their mentees” (Ragins &
Scandura, 1999). The survey’s subscale factor analyses of mentoring statements
were presented in a mixed format (statements were neither grouped nor presented
regarding a specific factor).
The third and fourth parts of the survey asked the respondents to identify
statements that demonstrate their pedagogical beliefs in terms of a constructivist or
traditional classroom environment. The survey questions were based on the report
“Constructivist – Compatible Beliefs and Practices Among U.S. Teachers.

65

Teaching, Learning and Computing: 1998 National Survey Report #4” (Ravitz,
Becker & Wong, 2000). The third part of the survey described two constructivists
and eight traditionalist pedagogical statements. The fourth part continued with five
constructivists and five traditionalist belief statements.
The fifth part of the survey was also from the same report “Constructivist –
Compatible Beliefs and Practices Among U.S. Teachers. Teaching, Learning and
Computing: 1998 National Survey Report #4” (Ravitz, Becker & Wong, 2000). In
this section of the survey, the respondents read a vignette that described two
contrasting instructional practices (Ms. Hill’s and Mr. Jones’ classrooms). The
respondents were directed to answer four questions based on the vignette. The
answers were on a six-point scale six-point orientation tendency scale (1 “definitely
Ms. Hill”, 2 “tendency toward Ms. Hill”, 3 “slight tendency toward Ms. Hill”, 4
“slight tendency toward Mr. Jones”, 5 “tendency toward Mr. Jones”, and 6
“definitely Mr. Jones”). The mentor selected the statement that most closely
described: 1) his/her instructional practice; and 2) their own pedagogical orientation
by identifying images of his/her learning environment that range from constructivist
to traditionalist.
All survey items were measured on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 “strongly
disagree”, 2 “moderately disagree”, 3 “slightly disagree”, 4 “slightly agree”, 5
“moderately agree” and 6 “strongly agree”. All items offered no potential of a
middle ground in order to force the participant to rate a cost and benefit item and
choose a pedagogical belief statement. The results provided a more accurate

66

correlation assessment of the costs and benefits of being a mentor as framed through
his/her constructivist or traditionalist pedagogical practice.

67

CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
The purpose of this study is to measure the costs and benefits of being a
mentor as well as determine the mentor’s fidelity to constructivist practices. This
chapter will provide a description and summary of survey results from various
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA) mentors across
California. There were 143 completed valid surveys utilized to quantitatively
analyze the following research questions listed below.
1. What are the costs and benefits of mentoring as reported by mentors
in the BTSA program?
2. What impact do instructional beliefs have on BTSA mentors’
perceptions as to the cost and benefits of being a mentor?
This chapter presents the survey results with respect to demographic data (part one of
the survey) and statistical measures (parts two, three, four, and five of the survey)
pertinent to the two research questions listed above. The statistical measures
demonstrate the predominate trends with respect to the cost/benefit factor analyses
subscales of mentoring. The statistical measures will also demonstrate the
predominate trends with respect to mentor instructional beliefs (traditionalist or
constructivist). At the end of the chapter, there will be a report of findings for
research question one and two.

68

Descriptive Analysis
The survey results demonstrated that 86% (N = 123) of the respondents are
presently serving as support providers and 14% (N = 20) are not presently serving as
mentors.
Table 4
Presently Serving as BTSA Support Providers
Frequency Percent
Yes 123 86.0
No 20 14.0
Total 143 100.0

There were a variety of support providers from all grade levels that answered the
survey. The survey demonstrated that the largest percentage of respondents (42.8%,
N = 61) were from the elementary and intermediate levels.
Table 5
Present Teaching/Education Positions

Grade Level Frequency Percent
K – 5
th
34 23.8
6
th
– 8
th
27 18.9
9
th
– 12
th
29 20.0
SDC/RSP
6 4.2
TOSA 20 14.0
Adult Education 6 4.2
Retired 4 2.8
Administrator 5 3.5
Other 12 8.4
Total 143 100.0

The survey results demonstrated that: 84.6% (N = 121) respondents reported to have
one credential; 12.6% (N = 18) respondents reported to have two credentials; and

69

2.8% (N = 4) respondents reported to have three credentials. Table 6 shows the total
number for each type of credential held by the respondents.
Table 6
Type of Credentials Held by Respondents
Multiple Subject
Credential
Single Subject
Credential
Special Education
Credential
Other
86 60 8 15

Table 7 illustrates the support providers’ years of experience. The majority of
respondents (42.7%, N = 64) demonstrated a range from six to 15 years of
experience in the teaching/education profession.
Table 7
Years in Teaching/Education Profession
Years in the
Teaching/Education
Profession

Frequency

Percent
1 – 5 Years 5 3.5
6 – 10 Years 27 18.9
11 – 15 Years 34 23.8
15 – 20 Years 17 11.9
21 – 25 Years 16 11.2
26 – 30 Years 22 15.4
31 – 34 Years 16 11.2
35 Years or More 6 4.2
Total 143 100.0

Table 8 demonstrates the number of years respondents served as a support provider
to beginning teachers. Notice that 70.7% (N = 101) of the respondents have served
less than 5 years as a support provider.

70

Table 8
Years as a Support Provider
Years as a Support
Provider
Frequency Percent
1 Year 19 13.3
2 Years 21 14.7
3 Years 30 21.0
4 Years 15 10.5
5 Years 16 11.2
6 Years 7 4.9
7 Years 6 4.2
8 Years 3 2.1
9 Years 4 2.8
10 + Years 22 15.4
Total 143 100.0

The survey results demonstrated that 32.2% (N = 46) of the respondents participated
in the BTSA program as beginning teachers and 67.8% (N =97) did not participate in
the BTSA program as novice teachers.
Table 9
Previous Participation in the BTSA Program
N Frequency Percent
Yes 46 32.2
No 97 67.8
Total 143 100.0

Table 10 illustrates the number of beginning teachers that the support providers
mentor. The survey results also demonstrated that 60.9% (N = 87) of the
respondents mentored one to two beginning teachers.

71

Table 10
Number of Beginning Teachers
Number of
Beginning
Teachers
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
0 4 2.8 2.8 2.8
1 48 33.6 33.6 36.4
2 39 27.3 27.3 63.6
3 19 13.3 13.3 76.9
4 11 7.7 7.7 84.6
5 4 2.8 2.8 87.4
6 10 7.0 7.0 94.4
7 or more 8 5.6 5.6 100.0
Total 143.0 100.0 100.0

Because the survey presented more benefit than cost items, an average score of the
cost/benefit items was used to measure trends. The tables below represent the
average cost and benefit scores based on the mentor’s responses to the cost and
benefit statements. Considering the basic results below, the mentors view the BTSA
program as more a benefit rather than a cost. This is demonstrated by the low mean
results of the cost items (M = 1.850) versus the high mean results of the benefit items
(M = 4.538).
Table 11
Average Cost Scores
N Mean Median Standard Deviation
93 1.850 1.837 .587

Table 12
Average Benefit Scores
N Mean Median Standard Deviation
93 4.538 4.560 .570

72

Since the survey presented more traditional statements than constructive items, an
average score of the traditional/constructive statements was used to measure trends.
The tables below represent the average traditionalist and constructivist scores based
on the mentors’ responses to the constructivist and traditional statements.
Considering the basic results below, most mentors tend to identify themselves with
the constructivist philosophy. This is demonstrated by the low mean results of
survey respondents who identified with the traditional statement items (M = 2.571)
versus the high mean results of survey respondents who identified with the
constructivist statement items (M = 3.631).
Table 13
Average Traditionalist Scores
N Mean Median Standard Deviation
143 2.571 2.556 .578

Table 14
Average Constructivist Scores
N Mean Median Standard Deviation
143 3.631 3.674 .573

The respondents read a vignette of Ms. Hill’s and Mr. Jones’ classrooms. In order to
obtain statistical data that would clearly demonstrate how mentor teachers identify
themselves (i.e. constructivist or traditionalist), it was necessary to convert the six-
point scale above into a two-point scale. If the respondent selected any of the
following traditionalist weighted answers: 1 “definitely Ms. Hill”; 2 “tendency
toward Ms. Hill”; and 3 “slight tendency toward Ms. Hill”, that respondent was

73

assigned a score of 1 to secure the statistical data for tables 15 and 16 below. If the
respondent selected any of the following constructivist weighted answers: 4 “slight
tendency toward Mr. Jones”; 5 “tendency toward Mr. Jones”; and 6 “definitely Mr.
Jones”, that respondent was assigned a score of 2 to secure the statistical data for
tables 15 and 16 below.
Table 15
Philosophy Statements Scores
N Mean Median Standard Deviation
143 1.685 2.000 .466

Based on the survey results of the vignette, 31.5% (N = 45) of mentors identified
themselves as traditionalist and 68.5% (N = 98) of mentors identified themselves as
constructivist.
Table 16
Traditionalist vs. Constructivist
Frequency Percent
Traditionalist 45 31.5
Constructivist 98 68.5
Total 143 100.0

Frequency Data Analysis
Frequency Analysis of Cost Factors
Overwhelmingly, the BTSA mentors do not see the demands of a mentoring
program as a set of cost factors. The generated data demonstrate that four of the five
cost factors had a substantially low mean score of two or below: factor 1) more
trouble than worth (M = 1.867); factor 2) dysfunctional relationship (M = 1.721);

74

factor 3) nepotism (M = 1.676); and factor 4) bad reflection (M = 1.897). The only
factor that the support providers considered a cost was energy drain, which had a
mean score of 3.178 and a standard deviation of 1.212. Energy drain involves the
support providers viewing mentoring as a time commitment and energy demands in
providing assistance to their mentee.
Table 17
Frequency Analyses of the Cost Factors
Cost Factors N Mean Standard
Deviation
Variance
More Trouble
than Worth
141 1.867 .883 .781
Dysfunctional
Relationship
143 1.722 .711 .506
Nepotism

143 1.676 .755 .571
Bad Reflection

143 1.897 .917 .841
Energy Drain

143 3.178 1.212 1.470

Frequency Analysis of Benefit Factors
The data demonstrated that there were two highly prominent benefit factors,
as evidenced by the high mean scores shown below. These two prominent benefit
factors are in the areas of Rewarding and Improved Job Performance, which
respectively had mean scores of 5.117 and 5.072 and standard deviations of .607 and
.686. The data further demonstrate that the other two prominent benefit factors were
Loyal Base Support and Recognition by Others, which respectively had mean scores
of 4.010 and 4.205 and standard deviations of 1.014 and .908. The only factor that

75

the support providers did not consider a benefit was generativity with a mean score
of 2.445 and a standard deviation of 1.096.
Table 18
Frequency Analyses of the Benefit Factors
Benefit Factors N Mean Standard
Deviation
Variance
Rewarding

141 5.117 .607 .369
Improved Job
Performance
143 5.072 .686 .470
Loyal Base of
Support
143 4.010 1.014 1.030
Recognition by
Others
143 4.205 .908 .825
Generativity

143 2.445 1.096 1.202

Statistical Data Analysis
This section will present data on a mentor’s philosophical beliefs and the
impact of their perceptions in terms of costs and benefits. The data are presented in
two parts. The first part presents independent t-tests on constructivist and traditional
beliefs based on the benefit and cost score of the survey results. The second part
presents the results of the linear regression analysis.
The First Independent T-Test: Constructivists and Traditional Beliefs Based on the
Benefit Score
The first independent t-test [t(139) = -2.253, p< .05] indicated that those
mentors identifying themselves as constructivists (N=98, M= 63.519, SD=18.331)
found mentoring significantly more beneficial than those mentors identifying
themselves as traditionalists (N=43, M= 56.301, SD=15.478).

76

Table 19
Group Statistics
Philosophy:
Benefit Score
N Mean SD
Traditional 43 56.301 15.477
Constructivist 98 63.519 18.330

Table 20
Independent Sample Group T-Test on Validation of Mentoring for Constructivists
and Traditionalist Based on Benefit Scores

Lavene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F p t df p MD SED
Equal
variances
assumed
.625 .430 -2.253 139 .026* -7.218 3.20
Equal
variances
not
assumed
-2.406 94.164 .018 -7.218 2.99
* - Significance detected at p < .05
MD = Mean Difference
SED = Standard Error Difference
CI-95% = 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

The Second Independent T-Test: Constructivists and Traditional Beliefs Based on
the Benefit Score
The second independent t-test [t (139) = -2.253, p< .05] was conducted based
on the cost score. The independent t-tests indicated those mentors who identified
themselves as traditionalists, were significantly more likely to find mentoring costly
than constructivists (N=43, M= -63.519, SD=15.478). The independent t-test data
have the same numerical values as the above-generated data, with the exception of
the means (M= -56.301 and M= -63.519), which are negative.

77

Table 21
Group Statistics
Philosophy: Cost Score N Mean SD
Traditional 43 -56.301 15.478
Constructivist 98 -63.519 18.331

Table 22
Independent Sample Group T-Test on Validation of Mentoring for Constructivists
and Traditionalist Based on Cost Scores

Lavene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F p t df p MD SED
Equal
variances
assumed
.625 .430 -2.253 139 .026* -7.218 3.20
Equal
variances
not
assumed
-2.406 94.164 .018 -7.218 2.99
* - Significance detected at p< .05
MD = Mean Difference
SED = Standard Error Difference
CI-95% = 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Linear Regression Analysis
There were four linear regression analyses conducted based on the cost and
benefits of mentoring and the mentor’s philosophical beliefs. The first linear
regression conducted was an analysis of benefit and constructivist beliefs. The
second linear regression conducted was an analysis of cost and constructivist beliefs.
The third linear regression conducted was an analysis of benefit and traditionalist
beliefs. The fourth and final linear regression conducted was an analysis of cost and
traditionalist beliefs. The statistical linear regression data demonstrated that two of
the analyses, the analysis of benefit and constructivist beliefs and analysis of cost

78

and traditionalist beliefs, had a significant linear relationship (p < .05). The other
two linear analyses did not demonstrate a significant linear relationship (p > .05), the
analysis of cost and constructivist beliefs and analysis of benefit and traditionalist
beliefs. The following is a summary of the significant statistical linear regression
analyses.
Linear Regression Analysis of Benefit and Constructivist Beliefs
The linear regression analysis conducted was on constructivist beliefs
explaining variances in average benefit scores. This linear regression analysis
revealed that average benefit score was a significant predictor of constructivist
beliefs [β = .348, t(4.14), p = .000], accounting for 12.1% of the variance.
Table 23
Part 1: Bivariate Correlation Between Average Benefit and Constructivist Beliefs
R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error of the
Estimate
.348 .121 .115 .564

Table 24
Part 2: Coefficients of Average Benefit and Constructivist Beliefs
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients

B Standard Error Beta t p
(Constant) 3.276 .303 10.805 .000
Constructivist .052 .012 .348 4.414 .000
• - Significance detected at p < .05

Linear Regression Analysis of Cost and Traditionalist Beliefs
The linear regression analysis conducted was on traditionalist beliefs
explaining variances in average cost score. This linear regression analysis revealed

79

that average cost scores was a small significant predictor of traditionalist beliefs [β =
.257, t(3.140), p = .002], accounting for 6.6% of the variance.
Table 25
Part 1: Bivariate Correlation Between Average Cost and Traditionalist Beliefs
R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error of the
Estimate
.257 .066 .060 .586

Table 26
Part 2: Coefficients of Average Cost and Traditionalist Beliefs
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients

B Standard Error Beta t p
(Constant) 1.110 .226 4.910 .000
Traditionalist .021 .007 .257 3.140 .002
• - Significance detected at p < .05

In the following section, the results of the statistical analysis will be presented in
relation to the two research questions.
Findings for Research Question One
Research question one asks: What are the costs and benefits of mentoring as
reported by mentors in the BTSA program?
This question was asked of support providers to explore their level of
satisfaction as a mentor. The section that follows will present statistical
measurements as to the cost and benefit of being a mentor in relation to the subscale
factor analysis of mentoring as identified by Ragins and Scandura (1999). As
mentioned before, the rudimentary overall results demonstrated that mentors find the
BTSA program a benefit rather that a cost. This is evidenced by the mean of the cost

80

items (M = 1.850) versus the mean of the benefit items (M = 4.538). It also shows
that support providers tend to lean toward the constructivist philosophy. Again, this
is evidenced by the mean of the traditional statements (M = 2.572) as opposed to
mean of the constructivist statements (M = 3.631). This was also supported by the
results of the last section of the survey, whereby 98 respondents identified
themselves as constructivist and 45 respondents identified themselves as
traditionalist.
Cost Item Findings
Overall, the data show that the support providers did not see the BTSA
program as a cost. This was evidenced by a mean score of two or below in the
following factors: factor 1) more trouble than worth (M = 1.867); factor 2)
dysfunctional relationship (M = 1.722); factor 3) nepotism (M = 1.676); and factor 4)
bad reflection (M = 1.897). The only factor that the support providers considered a
cost was energy (factor 5), which had a mean score of 3.178 and a standard deviation
of 1.212. For this factor, the support providers view mentoring as a time
commitment and energy drain in providing assistance to their mentee.
Benefit Item Findings
Overall, the data showed evidence that the support providers did see the
BTSA program as a benefit. This was clearly demonstrated within the areas of
Rewarding and Improved Job Performance, which respectively had mean scores of
5.117 and 5.072, and standard deviations of .607 and .686. The other two areas that
show benefit were Loyal Base Support and Recognition by Others, which
respectively had mean scores of 4.010 and 4.205 and standard deviations of 1.015

81

and .90808. The only factor that the support providers did not consider a benefit was
generativity with a mean score of 2.445 and a standard deviation of 1.096.
Findings for Research Question Two
Research question two asks: What impact do instructional beliefs have on
BTSA mentors’ perceptions as to the cost and benefits of being a mentor?
This question was asked of mentors to identify their pedagogical philosophy.
By analyzing the rudimentary data, the majority of mentors identify themselves as
constructivist (N= 143, m= 1.685, SD= .466). As stated previously in the literature
review, the BTSA standards and the California Standards for the Teaching
Profession (CSTP) are based on constructivist educational practices.
The independent t-test measures demonstrated that mentoring is a benefit to
the overall BTSA program. As stated earlier, the first independent t-test [t(139) = -
2.253, p< .05] demonstrated that those mentors identifying themselves as
constructivists (N=98, M= 63.5194, SD=18.331) found mentoring more beneficial
than those mentors identifying themselves as traditionalist (N=43, M= 56.301,
SD=15.478). In contrast, the second independent t-test [t (139) = -2.253, p< .05] was
conducted on the cost score and showed the opposite of the first independent t-test.
The second independent t-tests indicated that those mentors who identified
themselves, as constructivists (N=98, M= -63.519, SD=18.331) did not find
mentoring to be a cost. The second independent t-tests also reinforced that mentors
who identified themselves as traditionalists (N=43, M= -56.30, SD=15.478), were
significantly more likely to find mentoring costly.

82

In the linear regression analysis of benefit and constructivist beliefs, the data
demonstrate that there is a significant linear relationship (p < .05) between average
benefit scores and constructivist belief. Those mentors who identified themselves
more highly as constructivist generated higher average benefit scores. The
constructivists’ belief score accounted for 12.1% of the variance in the benefit score.
The results of the regression analysis show that constructivists’ belief score is a
significant predictor of the benefit score. In the standardized regression coefficients,
the beta (β = .348, ±1.0) value shows a moderate relationship for average benefit
scores and the variable constructivist belief.
In the linear regression analysis of cost and traditionalist beliefs, the output
shows that there is a small significant linear relationship (p = .002) between average
cost scores and traditional belief. Those mentors who identified themselves as more
highly traditionalist generated higher average cost scores. The traditionalists’ belief
score accounted for 6.6 of the variance in the cost score. The results of the
regression analysis show that the traditionalist belief score is a significant predictor
of the cost score. In the standardized regression coefficients, the beta (β = .257, ±1.0)
value shows a weak relationship for average cost scores and the variable traditional
belief.

83

CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS
Chapter five presents an overview of this study, a summary of findings for
research question one, a summary of findings for research question two, and an
explanation of the study’s limitations. The findings generated from this study
indentify implications with respect to current research and practice, as well as,
opportunities for future research. A final conclusion is presented at the end of the
chapter.
Overview of Study
The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the mentor’s role in the
California Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) Induction Program
and the mentor’s pedagogical beliefs and practices. The BTSA program shared
many components and characteristics of a highly effective quality induction program
as described by Moir and Gless (2001) and Bartell (2005). One major component of
an effective induction program is that of quality mentoring. The role of the mentor is
further supported in the research of Wong, Sterling, and Rowland (2004); Abell,
Dillon, Hopkins, McInerney and O’Brien (1995); and Riggs (1998). These research
studies support the mentor’s role in an induction program, which are critical for
ensuring greater success for the beginning teacher. Thus the centerpiece of this
research was from the perspective of the mentors or support providers in the BTSA
Induction program.
The 143 support providers of the various local school districts’ BTSA
Induction programs across California were valuable in cooperating and responding to

84

the survey. This study provided a local perspective reaffirming the valuable role
mentors play in supporting new teachers as they enter the teaching profession in
California’s many local school districts. Chapter one began with the discussion of
the impending teacher shortages at the federal and state level and thus even a greater
need to provide an induction program coupled with mentoring to a new generation of
teachers (NCTAF, 2000 & Futernick, 2007). In developing this study, there was a
need to provide justification to continue the BTSA program at the local and state
levels. As a result of the BTSA components and its historical pedagogical evolution
described within the research literature section of this study, two guiding questions
were developed to focus this research and secure supportive data for the continuation
of the BTSA Induction program:
1. What are the costs and benefits of mentoring as reported by mentors
in the BTSA program?
2. What impact do instructional beliefs have on BTSA mentors’
perceptions as to the costs and benefits of being a mentor?
This study employed a quantitative method to address the above research
questions. The key purpose in utilizing a quantitative study was to provide a
streamlined support providers’ perspective in the BTSA Induction program. A
Likert scale was used to measure the mentors’ perspectives in: 1) the costs and
benefits of being a mentor; and 2) their personal pedagogical beliefs (constructivism
vs. traditionalist). In order to measure costs and benefits, a frequency analysis of
cost and benefit factors was performed. In addition, independent t-tests were
conducted to measure the mentor’s philosophical beliefs and the impact of those

85

beliefs upon the mentor in terms of costs and benefits. The focus of this study was
on the mentor within the context of the BTSA Induction program.
Summary of Findings for Research Question One
Research question one asks: What are the costs and benefits of mentoring as
reported by mentors in the BTSA program?
The findings generated from this survey indicated that mentors saw the
BTSA Induction program and their role within the program as beneficial. This was
evident in average cost scores and the average benefit scores respectively (M =
1.850, M = 4.538). This was also evident in the frequency analyses of the cost and
benefit factors data, whereby 4 out of 5 benefit factors also reflected high mean
scores [rewarding, (M = 5.116), improved job performance (M = 5.072), loyal base
of support (M = 4.011), and recognition by others (M = 4.205)].
The findings generated from this survey are supported by the studies of
Wong, P., Sterling, H., & Rowland, P. (2004); Abell, S. K., Dillon, D. R., Hopkins
C. J., McInerney W. D., & O’Brien D. G (1995) and Riggs (1998). The benefits
identified by Wong et al. (2004) are increased teacher retention and providing a
support system for troubleshooting problems with appropriate scaffolding for
mastering the teaching standards. Abell et al. (1995) identified the intrinsically
rewarding experience of mentoring. Riggs (1998) identified three benefits: 1)
developing a trusting relationship that offer emotional support to the new teacher; 2)
empowering new teachers to plan, analyze, and implement effective instruction; and
3) ensuring the new teacher’s understanding of policies and procedures.

86

Summary of Findings for Research Question Two
Prior to delineating the findings regarding Question Two, it is essential that
we frame the institutionalization of constructivist learning theory in California public
schools. All California public school teacher evaluations derive directly from the
California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). These evaluations are
referred to as “Stull” evaluations and are commonly accepted and utilized by
administrators throughout California for evaluating their professional staff. The
“Stull” evaluation derives directly from the CSTP. As mentioned in the literature,
the CSTP and BTSA standards developed directly from constructivist learning tenets
(Brooks & Brooks, 1993, Ravitz et al., 2000, & Lambert et al., 2002). Recall that
state adopted textbooks series are mandated to enable teachers to provide students
cyclical opportunities for reciprocal teaching, exploration, and imbuing meaning
though guided instructional activities or procedures. Therefore all teachers in
California must practice some level of constructivism in the classroom per the CSTP,
the Stull evaluation, state adopted textbook series, and professional development
(both mandated and optional). As the data demonstrated, mentors as teachers can
still be in a process of putting constructivism into practice in the classroom.
Ongoing professional development continually reinforces the implementation of
constructivist practices in the classroom through cognitive coaching models and
reciprocal learning opportunities (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, Ravitz et al., 2000, &
Lambert et al., 2002).
Research question two asks: What impact do instructional beliefs have on
BTSA mentors’ perceptions as to the cost and benefits of being a mentor?

87

In light of the theoretical framework concerning hierarchy of needs (Maslow,
1968 & Rogers, 1969, 1983), the data clearly show that mentors feel they reached a
sense of self-actualization and accomplishment. This was demonstrated by the high
mean benefit factors of Rewarding (M = 5.117) and Improved Job Performance (M =
5.072). In essence, four of the five benefit factors demonstrated evidence
[rewarding, (M = 5.116), improved job performance (M = 5.072), loyal base of
support (M = 4.011), and recognition by others (M = 4.205)] of the benefits derived
from a mentoring experience.
The findings generated from this survey also demonstrate that most support
providers follow the pedagogical belief of constructivism. This was made apparent
from the data generated from the final vignette section of the survey, whereby 68%
of the support providers regarded themselves as constructivists and 31% regarded
themselves as traditionalists. In addition, the linear regression analysis clearly
demonstrates that the average benefit score was a significant predictor of
constructivist beliefs [β = .348, t(4.14), p = .000], accounting for 12.1% of the
variance.
The findings generated from this survey from the vignette are overwhelming
supported by the guiding principles of constructivism based on the studies by Brooks
& Brooks, (1993), Ravitz et al., (2000), & Lambert et al., (2002). As stated in the
literature section of this study, these principles are also incorporated in the CSTP and
BTSA standards.

88

Additional Survey Findings Outside Benefits/Costs and Constructivism
Even though the cost/benefit survey (Ragins & Scandura, 1994) was derived
from a business perspective and at times the questions appeared unsympathetic to the
mentor - mentee relationship, the data demonstrated that mentoring in an education
setting is beneficial to the success of the BTSA program. There were two areas that
seemed to be out of sync as made evident by the data. The first one is the cost item
Factor 5) Energy Drain and the second is the benefit item Factor 5) Generativity.
Cost Item Factor 5) Energy Drain
In the cost item Factor 5) Energy Drain, the support providers clearly
indicated that mentoring is a time commitment that requires a tremendous amount of
energy. This should not be seen solely as a negative cost item but rather as an
acknowledgement of the altruistic nature of teaching and especially mentoring. For
the bulk of the collected survey benefit data [Rewarding (M = 5.117); Improved Job
Performance (M = 5.072); Loyal Base of Support (M = 4.011); and Recognition by
Others (M = 4.205)] clearly indicated that support providers are devoted to their
assistance to new teachers.
Benefit Item Factor 5) Generativity
The benefit item Factor 5) Generativity, is more aligned to a business
perspective and therefore the mentors did not respond favorably to this benefit item,
as demonstrated by the data (M = 2.445, SD = 1.096). In the generativity section of
the survey, the wording used in the survey were as follows:
1. mentors are able to relive their lives through mentees;
2. by mentoring others, mentors gain a sense of immortality; and

89

3. mentors view mentees as younger version of themselves.
Phrases such as “relive their lives,” “gain a sense of immortality,” and “younger
versions of themselves,” are possibly an aspect of self-actualization within a business
context, but it is fundamentally foreign to the context of education and mentoring.
As stated in the cover letter of the survey, the inclusions of these items were more
essential since “removing them (i.e., generativity survey items) would invalidate the
psychometrical measurement of the study”.
Implications
Based on this research, the following implications were noted.
1. There is a need to support, expand, and continue the California BTSA
program. One of the components of an effective induction program
(such as the BTSA program) according to Moir and Gless (2001),
Wong, Sterling and Rowland (2004), and Bartell (2005), is a high
quality-mentoring program. This study’s research supports the
literature cited above as demonstrated in the benefit average mean
scores (M = 4.538) .
2. Identify new mentors who have practiced constructivism in their
classrooms for placement in the BTSA program. The BTSA and
CSTP standards are constructivist based and therefore the mentor
must have practiced or taught in a constructivist classroom
environment as defined by Brooks and Brooks (1993), Ravitz et al.
(2002), and Walker (Lambert et al., 2002). This will help the mentor
as they reinforce the BTSA and CSTP standards in his/her guidance to

90

the new teacher. The data clearly demonstrate that these
constructivist mentors will have a higher level of self-actualization
based on Maslow’s theory of need (Porter, 2001). This would make
for a more satisfied and productive mentor.
3. Match or pair mentors and beginning teachers within the same subject
area, grade level, and school site. In this study, the dysfunctional cost
factor item had a mean score of 1.722. This will help alleviate or
reduce the dysfunctional relationship score as mentioned in the cost
factor item. Possible solutions include further collaboration whereby
mentors serve multiple campuses and/or districts to avoid this
weakness (e.g., chemistry teacher mentored by a chemistry teacher).
Limitations
Based on the research the following limitations were identified.
1. There was a need to add a qualitative perspective to this research,
which could only occur through the collection of anecdotal data. As
mentioned in the research section of this study (Wong et al., 2004 &
Abell et al., 1995), there is quantitative out-come based research but
what is lacking is a qualitative aspect in investigating the mentor’s
role in an induction program. Based on the time constraints, a
quantitative approach was selected in conducting this study.
2. The dissemination of the survey occurred toward the end of the year.
Usually the end of the year seems to be the busiest time for educators,
in terms of report cards, end of year testing, graduation, closing

91

activities, as educators look forward to a well-earned summer
vacation. It was highly anticipated that mentors would answer the
surveys honestly and to the best of their ability despite the end of the
year demands.
3. Some of the mentors were retired. At the beginning of the survey
window there was not a survey answer choice in the demographic
section for retired educators. By the fifth survey taken, a retired
choice was added to the demographic section of survey under
“present education position”. Their responses would have been a
reflection of their overall experience in the BTSA program.
Essentially, only 2.8% of the respondents were retirees.
4. At the end of the school year, the BTSA program disseminates its
own survey. The quantitative survey for this research was another
survey for the mentor to take. The 143 mentors who responded to this
survey presupposed they were not overburden with end of the year
surveys.
Areas for Future Research
As mentioned in the literature, there is a need to listen to the voices of the
mentors (Abell et al., 1995). The goal of this research was not only to answer the
research questions but also to add another piece to the limited amount of research in
the area of mentoring. Recall that 143 mentors completed the survey from all parts
of the state of California and this was significant for conducting the research. Based
on this research, the following recommendations for future research were identified.

92

1. Conduct a phenomenological study on mentors. This research
presented a quantitative outcome based aspect, but a
phenomenological study on mentors, could offer an opportunity for
finding a more authentic mentor voice. The phenomenological study
by Abell et al. (1995) started as a quantitative outcome based data
funded by the state of Indiana in researching the fiscal feasibility of
continuing the state mandated induction program. The researchers
decided to expand their research study to a phenomenological study
and include how mentors interpret their role and responsibilities in the
program. This approach helped the researchers construct
mentor/mentee relationship meaning as the interns and mentors
described their “lived experiences”. This enabled the researchers to
gain insights for policymakers in evaluating Indiana’s induction
program. This is a future research opportunity that can be replicated
and conducted among the California BTSA mentors.
2. Conduct a philosophical study on new teachers before entering the
BTSA program and at the end of BTSA program. What are their
preconceived teaching methods? Do they uphold traditionalist or
constructivist pedagogical beliefs prior to entering the BTSA
program? What are their pedagogical beliefs at the end of the BTSA
program?
3. Expand the study to include the mentees regarding their perceptions
as to the costs and benefits of the BTSA program as determined by

93

their pedagogical and philosophical beliefs of constructivism and
traditionalism. A future research opportunity exists to compare and
contrast perceptions of costs, benefits, and their philosophical beliefs
(constructivism and traditionalism).
4. Redefine quality mentoring. Research the meaning of quality
mentoring. Should mentors be more rigorous in their guidance or
provide emotional support? Should they provide both a rigorous
guidance and emotional support?
Final Conclusion
As further research was conducted, the importance and the value of the
mentor’s role in any induction state program became apparent. The research
literature supports the concept that quality mentoring is the foundation of any
induction program (Wong, Sterling and Rowland, 2004; Abell, Dillon, Hopkins,
McInerney, and O’Brien, 1995; Riggs, 1998). As a result, the focus of this study
was on the mentor’s role in the California BTSA Induction program. This study
provided credence in supporting and continuing the local and regional BTSA
Induction programs across California.
It is essential to recall that the BTSA program is not an evaluative process for
receiving a teaching credential. The role of the mentor is to promote a culture of
bonding, cultivating, and supporting the beginning teacher’s process of self-
evaluation (Wong et al., 2004; Abell, Dillon, Hopkins, McInerney, and O’Brien,
1995; Riggs, 1998). This non-external evaluating structure is essential for
establishing the trusting environment of a mentor program. The BTSA support

94

provides guidance for mentees to successfully complete their FAS (Formative
Assessment System) tasks, which ultimately lead toward completion of the credential
process in collaboration with a participating university. The evaluation process is
completed by the administration as part of the rehiring process.
The role of the mentor is vital to the success of a beginning teacher. In
today’s tumultuous educational environment, there is a need to support the new
teacher entering the profession for the first time. As we enter the new decade of
unknown fiscal policies in California’s education program, it is vital to support and
retain new teachers within the BTSA program. The state, being an economic leader
in the Pacific Rim, must uphold a first class University to Pre-Kinder education
system (as opposed to a Kinder to 12 education system), in order to be globally
competitive. The mentor component of the BTSA Induction program is key in
supporting new teachers and thereby assisting California in regaining its status at
providing a world-class educational system.
This study achieved its goal of answering two research questions. The
mentors do see the BTSA Induction program as generating far more benefits than
costs. Additionally, the mentors do practice and support the underlying education
tenets of constructivism. Many BTSA mentors find their experience rewarding,
generating a strong sense of satisfaction and self-actualization. These mentoring
experiences provided numerous opportunities for mentors to acquire new knowledge
from their mentees, essentially building extant learning communities (professional
development through reciprocal teaching). This was validated in the average benefit
scores and frequency analysis of benefit factors. Efforts must be taken to continue

95

research in the mentoring and induction programs, as a way to retain and support
effective mentors. This study is only one perspective but it recognizes the
continuing labors of mentors in the California BTSA program.

96

REFERENCES
Abell, S. K., Dillon, D. R., Hopkins C. J., McInerney W. D., & O’Brien D. G (1995).
"Somebody to count on": Mentor/intern relationships in a beginning teacher
internship program. Teacher and Teacher Education. 11(2), 173-188.

Bartell, C. A. (2005). Cultivating high-quality teaching through induction and
mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Becker, H.J. & Anderson, R.E. (1998). Validating self-reports measures of the
‘constructivist’ of teacher’s beliefs and practices. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 1998 meetings of the American Educational Research
Association. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology
and Organizations.

Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (n.d.). Retrieved June 1, 2009, from
http://www.btsa.ca.gov/BTSA_basics.html

Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (n.d.). Retrieved June 1, 2009, from
http://www.btsa.ca.gov/ba/pubs/html/btsa_standards.html#Introduction

Blase, J. & Blase, J.J., (2006). Teachers bringing out the best in teachers: A guide to
peer consultation for administrators and teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

Brewster, C. & Railsback, J. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, (2001).
Supporting beginning teachers: How administrators, teachers, and
policymakers can help new teachers succeed. Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory.

Brock, B L. & Grady, M.L. (2001). From first-year to first-rate: Principals guiding
beginning teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Brooks J.G. & Brooks, M.G., (1993). In search of understanding: The case for
constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

97

Bruner, J. & Haste, H. (1987). Making sense: The child’s construction of the world.
New York, NY: Methuen.

California Commission for the Teaching Profession. (1997). California Standards
for the Teaching Profession: A Description of Professional Practice for
California Teachers (1st ed.) [Brochure]. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Education (2009).
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/glossary08i.asp

California Department of Education (2009).
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl561c.pdf

California Department of Education. (2009). 2008-09 Academic Performance Index
Reports (1st ed.) [Brochure]. Sacramento, CA.

California Educational Research Cooperative, University of California, Riverside.
(1999). The California Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program
1999 Statewide Evaluation Study (1st ed.) [Brochure]. Riverside, CA:
Mitchell, Douglas E.

California Standards for the Teaching Profession (1997). Retrieved May 25, 2005,
from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/cstpreport.pdf

Carroll, T. G. (2008). Learning Teams: Creating What’s Next. Report by the
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

Corey, A.L. (1973). A first course in factor analysis. New York, N.Y.: Academic
Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N. & Orphanos, S.
(2009). Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report
on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. National Staff
Development Council.

98

Dembo, M. H. (1991). Applying educational psychology in the classroom. White
Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.

Doerger, D.W. (2003). The importance of beginning teacher induction in your
school. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 7(21),
Retrieved from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Are mentor teachers teacher educators? Proceedings of
the American Educational Research Association (pp. 1-19). Boston:
American Educational Research Association.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (July 1996). Teacher mentoring: A critical review. Peer
Resources, Retrieved July 28, 2008, from
http://www.peer.ca/teachermentors.html

Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.). (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspective and practice. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Futernick, K. (2007). A Possible Dream: Retaining California Teachers. California
State University Center for Teacher Quality, Executive Summary Report.
The Center for Teacher Quality, California State University, Sacramento.

Ingersoll, R. & Kralik, J. M. (2004). The impact of mentoring on teacher retention:
What the research says. Research Review Teaching Quality, 1-24.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Is There Really a Teacher Shortage? A Research Report
Co-sponsored by Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy and the
Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.

Lambert, L. (2002). Toward a Deepened theory of constructivism leadership. In L.
Lambert, D. Walker, D.P. Zimmerman, J.E. Cooper, M.D. Lambert, M.E.
Gardner & M. Szabo (Eds.), The constructivist leader (pp. 34- 62). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.

99

Lambert, L., Walker, D., Zimmerman, D. P., Copper, J. E., Lambert, M.D., Gardner,
M.E., et al. (2002). The Constructivist Leader. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.

Moir, E. (2005). Launching the next generation of teachers: The new teacher center’s
model for quality induction and mentoring. In H. Portner (Ed.), Teacher
mentoring and induction: The state of the art and beyond (pp. 59 - 74).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Moir, E. & Gless, J. (2001). Quality induction: An investment in teachers. Teacher
Education Quarterly, Winter (2001), 109-114.

Montebello Unified School District. (2004). BTSA Induction Handbook (1st ed.)
[Brochure]. Montebello, CA.

Moore-Johnson, S. (2004). Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive and
thrive in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Education Series.

National commission on teaching and america, (2008). Learning teams: Creating
what’s next. Washington D.C.: National Commission on Teaching and
America's Future.

National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (2002). Unraveling the
"teacher shortage" problem: Teacher retention is the key. Proceedings of the
national commission on teaching and america's future and NCTAF partners
(pp. 1-17). Washington D.C.: The National Commission on Teaching and
America's Future.

Olebe, M. (2001). A decade of policy support for California's new teachers: The
beginning teacher support and assessment program. Teacher Education
Quarterly, Winter (2001), 71-84.

Perez, K., Swain, C. & Hartsough C.S. (1997). An analysis of practices used to
support new teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, Spring (1997), 41 - 52.

100

Portner, H. (2001). Training mentors is not enough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.

Portner, H. (2005). Embedding induction and mentoring into the school’s culture. In
H. Portner (Ed.), Teacher mentoring and induction: The state of the art and
beyond (pp. 74 - 92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Portner, H. (2005). Teacher mentoring and induction: The state of the art and
beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Ragins, B. R. & Scandura, T. A. (1999). Burden or blessing? Expected costs and
benefits of being a mentor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(4), 493-
509.

Ragins, B. R. & Scandura, T. A. (1999). Gender differences in expected outcomes of
mentoring relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(4), 957-971.

Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: the effects of
type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and
career attitudes. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1177-1194.

Ravitz, J. L., Becker, H. J. & Wong, Y. (2000). Constructivist-Compatible Beliefs
and Practices among U.S. Teachers. Teaching, Learning, and Computing:
1998 National Survey, Report #4. Center for Research on Information
Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine and
University of Minnesota.

Riggs, I. (1998). The impact of training and induction activities upon mentors as
indicated through measurement of mentor self-efficacy. Proceedings of the
1998 Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education
of Teachers in Science. Rubba P.A, Pennsylvania State University & Rye
J.A., West Virginia University (Ed.) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 421 363)

Russell, A. (2005). The facts and fictions about teacher shortages. American
Association of State Colleges and Universities, 2 (5)

101

Schriesheim, C.A. & Hinkin, T.R. (1990). Influences tactics used by subordinates: A
theoretical and empirical analysis and refinement of Kipnis, Schmidt, and
Wilkinson subscales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 246-257.

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.

Steffe, L.P. & Gale, J., (1995). Constructivism in education. Hilllsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Tobias, S. & Duffy, T.M. (2009). The success or failure of constructivist instruction.
In S. Tobias & T.M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivism instruction: Success or
failure (pp. 3- 10). New York, NY: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group
Tobias, S. & Duffy, T.M., (2009). Constructivism instruction: Success or failure?
New York, NY: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

Triple Creek Associates. (2007). Benefits of Mentoring (2nd ed.) [Brochure].
Greenwood Village, CO: Author.

Villar, A. & Strong, M. (2007). Is mentoring worth the money? A benefit-cost
analysis and five year rate of return of a comprehensive mentoring program
for beginning teachers. ERS Spectrum, 25(3), 1-17.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching.
Syntheses, 80, 121-140.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivist approach to teaching. In L.P. Steffe & J.
Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 3- 15). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers

von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In C.T. Fosnot
(Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice (pp. 3- 7). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press

102

von Glasersfeld, E. (2003, August 4). An exposition of constructivism: Why some
like it radical. Ecology of Mind, Mind-ing Ecology, Retrieved August 8,
2009, from http://www.oikos.org/constructivism.htm

Walker, D. (2002). Constructivist leadership: standards, equity, and learning –
weaving whole cloth from multiple strands. In L. Lambert, D. Walker, D.P.
Zimmerman, J.E. Cooper, M.D. Lambert, M.E. Gardner & M. Szabo (Eds.),
The constructivist leader (pp. 1- 33). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Wong, H.K. (2005). New teacher induction: The foundation for comprehensive,
coherent, and sustained professional development. In H. Portner (Ed.),
Teacher mentoring and induction: The state of the art and beyond (pp. 41-
58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Wong, P., Sterling, H., & Rowland, P. (2004). Effective Induction Practices for
Beginning Teachers: A Qualitative Research Evaluation Study. Northern
Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

103

APPENDIX A
SURVEY COVER LETTER

June 15, 2010

Dear Participant,

I am a doctoral candidate from the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. I
am in the process of completing my dissertation, which requires securing approximately 100-120
completed surveys on the mentor’s role in the BTSA program. The results generated from this survey
will provide the necessary quantitative data for successfully completing my dissertation. The study
itself hopes to provide valuable information and insights that will allow the BTSA program to run
more effectively from the mentor’s perspective.

Your participation is voluntary. The survey is strictly confidential and no individual mentors or
schools will be named in the narrative of the dissertation. There will be no identifiable information
obtained in connection with this study. Please be advised that Part 2 of the survey derives from a
business perspective and at times the questions may seem unsympathetic to the mentor - mentee
relationship. Please answer all items and try to overlook any perceptions of the “negativity” of
specific items that adhere to a business model of framing questions as a cost or benefit. My advisor,
Dr. Reynaldo Baca of USC, and I decided to include these cost/benefit items because removing them
from the survey would invalidate the psychometrical measurement of the study. Your individual
results will not be shared with anyone. The analysis of data will be based on the total group of
mentors who complete the survey. The results of this survey will neither reflect on a particular
person, nor will they reflect on any specific district’s or school’s BTSA program.

As a full time educator at an elementary school site, I understand the demands on your time. I
appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedule to assist me with my research. If you have
any questions regarding the survey please feel free to call me or e-mail. An Informed Consent form
from the University of Southern California approving the survey is available upon request.

To access the survey on-line, please follow the links below. The survey should take approximately 30
minutes to complete. It consists of 62 questions regarding your perceptions of mentoring.

For Mac users, click on the following link to begin the survey: Click here to take the BTSA mentor
survey.

For PC users, to begin the survey press the Ctrl key and click on the following link: Click here to
take the BTSA mentor survey.

Should neither of the above links open, click on this additional link:
http://usceducation.qualtrics.com/SE?SID=SV_5cDxJ6URmtcbG16&SVID=Prod

Thank you,

Jorge Márquez
(626) 484 – 6467
gmarquez@usc.edu

104

APPENDIX B
SURVEY
Part One

Part One: Please respond to the following demographic questions. All answers will
be confidential and will be used as part of a study about new teacher training.
Thank you.

1. Are you presently serving as a BTSA mentor?
Yes No

2. What grade level are you presently teaching?

K

6th

12th

Adult Education

1st

7th

SDC Elementary

TOSA

2nd

8th

SDC Intermediate

Retired

3rd

9th

SDC High School

School
Administrator

4th

10th

RSP

Other

5th

11th

Alternative
Education

3. What type of credential (s) do you hold?
Multiple Subject Single Subject Special Education Other

4. How long have you been in teacher?

1 - 5 Years

11 - 15 Years

21-25 Years

31 - 34 Years

6 - 10 Years

15 - 20 Years

26-30 Years

35 Years

5. How long have you been a BTSA mentor teacher?

1 Year

3 Years

5 Years

7 Years

9 Years

2 Years

4 Years

6 Years

8 Years

10+ Years

105

6. Were you yourself once a participating teacher in the BTSA program?
Yes No

7. How many participating teachers do you presently mentor?

1

3

5

2

4

6

8. How many participating teachers do you presently mentor?

0

2

4

6

1

3

5

7 or more

106

Part Two

Part Two: Reflecting on your experience as a mentor, please respond to the
following statements using a rating scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

1. Being a mentor is more trouble than it’s worth.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

2. Mentoring takes more time than it’s worth.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

3. There are more drawbacks to being a mentor than advantages.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

4. Mentoring takes too much time away from one’s own instructional tasks.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

5. The mentor-mentee relationship can become unhealthy.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

6. The mentees can end up taking the mentor’s job.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

107

7. Mentors run the risk of being displaced by successful mentees.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

8. Mentors can be back stabbed by opportunistic mentees.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

9. The mentor-mentee relationship is often exploitative.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

10. Members of the organization often view mentors as playing favorites with their mentees.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

11. Mentors are often viewed by others as giving unfair advantages to their mentees.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

12. Mentors run the risk of being viewed as developing a political cadre with their mentees.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

13. Choosing a poor mentee is a negative reflection on the mentor’s judgment.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

14. A poor mentee can ruin a mentor’s reputation.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

108

15. Mentees can be a negative reflection on the mentor’s competency.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

16. The major drawback of being a mentor is the time commitment.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

17. Mentoring is an energy drain.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

18. Mentors get a sense of fulfillment by passing their wisdom on to others.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

19. Serving as a mentor can be one of the most positive experiences of one’s career.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

20. Mentoring makes one feel better about oneself.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

21. The rewards that come from being a mentor more than compensate for the costs.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

22. Mentors gain a sense of satisfaction by passing their insights on to others.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

109

23. The advantages to being a mentor far outweigh the drawbacks.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

24. One’s creativity increases when mentoring others.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

25. One’s job performance is likely to improve when one becomes a mentor.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

26. Mentoring has a positive impact on the mentor’s job.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

27. The mentor’s job is usually rejuvenated by the relationship.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

28. Mentoring is a catalyst for innovation.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

29. Mentoring has a positive impact on the mentor’s job performance.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

30. Mentees can be a positive reflection of the mentor’s competency.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

110

31. Mentors can count on their mentees to be loyal supporters.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

32. Mentees are trusted allies for their mentors.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

33. Mentors obtain positive recognition in their organization for assuming a mentoring role.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

34. Mentors achieve recognition from their superiors for developing the talent of their mentees.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

35. Mentors gain status amongst their peers for their mentoring activities.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

36. Mentors are able to relive their lives through their mentees.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

37. By mentoring others, mentors gain a sense of immortality.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

38. Mentors view mentees as a younger version of themselves.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

111

Part Three

Part Three: Reflecting on your experience as a mentor, please respond to the
following statements about teaching and learning using a rating scale from
strongly disagree to strongly agree.

1. Teachers know a lot more than students; they shouldn't let students muddle around when they can
just explain the answers directly.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

2. A quiet classroom is generally needed for effective learning.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

3. Students are not ready for "meaningful" learning until they have acquired basic reading and math
skills.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

4. It is better when the teacher - not the students - decides what activities are to be done.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

5. Student projects often result in students learning all sorts of wrong "knowledge."
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

112

6. Homework is a good setting for having students answer questions posed in their textbooks.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

7. Students will take more initiative to learn when they feel free to move around the room during
class.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

8. Students should help establish criteria on which their work will be assessed.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

9. Instruction should be built around problems with clear, correct answers, and around ideas that most
students can grasp quickly.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

10. How much students learn depends on how much background knowledge they have – that is why
teaching facts is so necessary.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

113

Part Four

Part Four Teaching Philosophies:
Different teachers have described very different teaching philosophies to
researchers. Reflecting on your experience as a mentor, please respond to the
following philosophical statements using a rating scale from strongly disagree to
strongly agree.

1. “I mainly see my role as a facilitator. I try to provide opportunities and resources for my students to
discover or construct concepts for themselves."
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

2. "That's all nice, but students really won't learn the subject unless you go over the material in a
structured way. It's my job to explain, to show students how to do the work, and to assign specific
practice."
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

3. "The most important part of instruction is that it encourages “sense-making” or thinking among
students. Content is secondary."
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

4. "The most important part of instruction is the content of the curriculum. That content is the
community’s judgment about what children need to be able to know and do."
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

114

5. "It is better for students to master a few complex ideas and skills well, and to learn what deep
understanding is all about, even if the breadth of their knowledge is limited until they are older."
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

6. "It is useful for students to become familiar with many different ideas and skills even if their
understanding, for now, is limited. Later, in college, perhaps, they will learn these things in more
detail."
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

7. "It is critical for students to become interested in doing academic work — interest and effort are
more important than the particular subject matter they are working on."
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

8. "While student motivation is certainly useful, it should not drive what students study. It is more
important that students learn the history, science, math and language skills in their textbooks.”
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

9. "It is a good idea to have all sorts of activities going on in the classroom. Some students might
produce a scene from a play they read. Others might create a miniature version of the set. It's hard to
get the logistics right, but the successes are so much more important than the failures."
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

10. "It's more practical to give the whole class the same assignment, one that has clear directions, and
one that can be done in short intervals that match students' attention spans and the daily class
schedule."
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree

115

Part Five

Part Five: Ms. Hill’s & Mr. Jones' Classes
The following describe observations of two classes, Ms. Hill's and Mr. Jones'.
Answer each question below by checking the box that best answers the question for
you.

Ms. Hill was leading her class in an animated way, asking questions that the students could answer
quickly; based on the reading they had done the day before. After this review, Ms. Hill taught the
class new material, again using simple questions to keep students attentive and listening to what she
said.

Mr. Jones’ class was also having a discussion, but many of the questions came from the students
themselves. Though Mr. Jones could clarify students’ questions and suggest where the students could
find relevant information, he couldn't really answer most of the questions himself.

1. Which type of class discussion are you more comfortable having in class?
Definitely Ms.
Hill
Tendency
Toward Ms. Hill
Slight Tendency
Toward Ms. Hill
Slight Tendency
Toward Mr.
Jones
Tendency
Toward Mr.
Jones
Definitely Mr.
Jones

2. Which type of discussion do you think most students prefer to have?
Definitely Ms.
Hill
Tendency
Toward Ms. Hill
Slight Tendency
Toward Ms. Hill
Slight Tendency
Toward Mr.
Jones
Tendency
Toward Mr.
Jones
Definitely Mr.
Jones

3. From which type of class discussion do you think students gain more knowledge?
Definitely Ms.
Hill
Tendency
Toward Ms. Hill
Slight Tendency
Toward Ms. Hill
Slight Tendency
Toward Mr.
Jones
Tendency
Toward Mr.
Jones
Definitely Mr.
Jones

4. From which type of discussion do you think students gain more useful skills?
Definitely Ms.
Hill
Tendency
Toward Ms. Hill
Slight Tendency
Toward Ms. Hill
Slight Tendency
Toward Mr.
Jones
Tendency
Toward Mr.
Jones
Definitely Mr.
Jones

Survey Powered By Qualtrics

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study explored the perspectives of current and former California Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) mentors with respect to the benefits and costs of mentoring as well as identifying their pedagogical orientation (constructivist or traditionalist). By implementing a quantitative methodology utilizing selected surveys, mentors were offered opportunities to view themselves in the BTSA induction process. From this perspective, the study analyzed how mentors constructed meaning within the BTSA program and the role they played as participants in the BTSA program. The following research questions guided this study:1.What are the costs and benefits of mentoring as reported by mentors in the BTSA program?2.What impact do instructional beliefs have on BTSA mentors’ perceptions as to the costs and benefits of being a mentor?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

BTSA and California's beginning teachers: how technology affects California's teacher induction process

PDF

Mentoring outcomes in education: the perceived impact for mentors in induction programs

PDF

Mentoring new teachers of color: how induction mentors characterize their preparation and practices that support new teachers of color

PDF

Beginning teachers' perceptions of effective practices used by their mentor

PDF

The role of the principal in new teacher development under the California Beginning Teacher Support & Assessment Program

PDF

Female superintendents in California and the role that mentoring and networking have played in their sucess

PDF

The benefits and costs of accreditation of undergraduate medical education programs leading to the MD degree in the United States and its territories

PDF

Beginning teachers’ perceptions of induction program support

PDF

An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices

PDF

I love you, too: interventions for secondary teachers to critically self-reflect on, create, and solidify a loving and culturally relevant classroom culture

PDF

Identification of barriers to mentoring and their impact on retention and advancement of underrepresented populations in the federal government

PDF

The benefits of mentorship to new high school assistant principals and principals

PDF

Simulation modeling to evaluate cost-benefit of multi-level screening strategies involving behavioral components to improve compliance: the example of diabetic retinopathy

PDF

Developing longevity in the K-12 principal position: strategies for preparation, recruitment, and retention

PDF

Homework beliefs and practices of middle school teachers in relation to structure-based standards for the English language development content area

PDF

Leading the way: the effective implementation of reform strategies and best practices to improve student achievement in math

Asset Metadata

Creator Márquez, Jorge Alberto (author)

Core Title BTSA mentors: the costs and benefits to mentors and their fidelity to constructivist practice

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 02/09/2011

Defense Date 12/07/2010

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag beginning teacher,BTSA mentor,induction teacher,mentoring,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Baca, Reynaldo R. (committee chair), García, Pedro E. (committee member), Gokalp, Gokce (committee member)

Creator Email gmarquez@usc.edu,marquez_jorge@montebello.k12.ca.us

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3652

Unique identifier UC1304550

Identifier etd-Marquez-4304 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-431156 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3652 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Marquez-4304.pdf

Dmrecord 431156

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Márquez, Jorge Alberto

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