Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
reforms designed to change the nature of schools, students, and teachers (Alliance for
Excellent Education, 2004, p. iv). The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
reported that across the nation, 9.3 percent of public school teachers leave the classroom
before they complete their first year of teaching and more than one fifth of public school
teachers leave their position within their first three years of teaching (Rosenow, 2005
cited in Greiner & Smith 2006). With regards to the characteritics of individuals who
leave the teaching profession, the most consistent findings of the empirical research
literature reports that the highest turnover and attrition rates seen for teachers occur in
their first years of teaching and after many years of teaching when individuals are near
retirement (Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin 2004 cited in Guarino, Santibannez & Deley
2006). “The most serious consequence and direct disadvantage of high teacher turnover
is that it erodes teaching quality and student achievemnt” (NCTAF, 2003, p.33). Recently,
the NCTAF (2003) report indicated that “many schools are becoming revolving doors;
losing as many teachers as they hire each year” (p.9). Recent research indicates that
“Teachers with positive perceptions about their working conditions are much more likely
to stay at their current schools than educators who are more negative about their
conditions of work, particularly in the areas of leadership and empowerment” (Hirsch &
The Problem
numbers of qualified job candidates “most commonly do three things: hire less-qualified
teachers, assign teachers trained in another field or grade level to teach in the
understaffed area, and make extensive use of substitute teachers” (1997, p. 42).
teachers, and nationwide, schools of education, with a few exceptions, graduate enough
teachers to meet the vacancies due to teacher retirement” (Ingersoll, 2002; National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future [NCTAF], 2003). Attracting and retaining
highly qualified male and female teachers has gained national attention.
“Arguments have been made that the current demand for teachers is not a result of
a shortage of teachers but rather due to the high attrition rate of existing teachers,
particularly those who leave education within the first 5 years of their career” (Darling-
Hammond & Sykes, 2003). They argue that school staffing problems are caused not so
leaving teaching” (Ingersoll, 1997 p.2). In addition, once schools and districts hire new
teachers, they must expend “enormous energies developing [these] new teachers, who are
likely to leave after only a few years and be replaced by yet another recruit in need of
special resources and support” (NASBE, 1998, p.7). Much attention and research have
been focused on teacher turnover; however, there is a need for new research on retention,
particularly amongst first through fifth year teachers in Texas public schools, especially
in urban schools.
more than 3,000 beginning teachers that those who experienced induction and mentoring
support were less likely to leave the school than were their counterparts who lacked this
support (p. 30). However, very few studies exist that examine new teachers’ perspectives
on effective and ineffective mentoring and self-efficacy scores in relation to gender. Due
to the lack of research, there is a shortage of teachers in Texas. According to the National
Association of State Boards of Education, “Most states do not need to recruit more
candidates into teacher preparation programs. Most states do not even need to attract
higher quality candidates to teaching. What states do need, however, are targeted
programs that attract candidates who are willing and able to meet the needs of the school
The primary purpose of the study was to identify whether teachers’ self-efficacy
level and mentoring experience have a significant impact on those who remain in the
field as opposed to those who leave. Gender was carefully analyzed to see whether there
was a relationship in how males and females view mentoring and their levels of self-
efficacy as they relate to the school setting. Given the lack of current empirical studies
Conceptual Framework
Bandura (1986) advanced the notion that individuals possess beliefs that enable
them toexercise a measure of control over their thoughts, feelings, and actions, that “what
people think, believe, and feel affects how they behave” (p.25). Bandura (1989) contends
4
that when people erroneously believe that they are unable to accomplish a given task,
people will choose not to act despite the promise of a rewarding consequence: “Self-
perceived inefficacy can thus nullify the motivating potential of alluring outcome
expectations”(p.1180). Bandura (1977) argued that because people are able to control
their own actions, and since interpretation should be considered a form of behavior, it
follows that how people represent their conduct is subject to the workings of the mind:
“Behavior control not only allows one to manage the aversive aspects of an environment.
situations that can be controlled are constructed as less life threatening, and such
(1997) contends that nothing that happens in the world is independent of an individual’s
interpretation, but that interpretations are not independent of the actual surroundings in
the external world: “Life is full of reality checks that, in consequential matters, can bear
interpretations of reality have greater explanatory, predictive, and operative power than
do others” (p.475). According to Bandura (1977) “The more believable the source of
information, the more likely are efficacy expectations to change” (p. 202). Bandura
(1977) also believes that, “ In the process of self-regulation, the experiential component
acts when preexisting self-concepts exert selective influence on which aspects of one’s
ongoing behavior are given the most attention, how they are perceived, and how
performance information is organized for memory representation. Mood states also affect
how one’s performances are self-monitored and cognitively processed. For example,
when people are in a despondent mood they interpret events negatively and recall
5
unpleasant events easily, whereas in a positive mood they take a more favorable view of
The conceptual theoretical mode is based on the idea that new teachers who
participate in an effective mentoring and induction program will develop coping behavior
that will help them remain in the teaching field. Those teachers who do not participate in
mentoring and induction programs may not develop those coping behaviors and,
therefore, will exit the field. The social cognitive theory views individuals as both
products and producers of their environments and social system. Bandura (1994) defined
performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives” (p. 71). According
to Bandura (1994),
An individual with a high sense of self-efficacy will more likely face challenges
head-on rather than avoid them. Individuals with high level of assurance attribute
failure to inadequate knowledge and skills or to a lack of effort, both of which can
obstacles to success slacken their efforts, and they often give up (p. 72)
Bandura continued, “Self-efficacy will help determine how a new teacher may or may not
be able to deal with certain situations” (p. 73). “Teacher efficacy beliefs have also been
(Brissie, Hoover-Dempsey, & Bassier, 1988), teacher stress (Bliss & Finneran, 1991), and
Research Questions
Null Hypotheses
“Principals and teachers make decisions each year regarding the retention or
resignation of their careers, which can have a profound affect on students. Beliefs play an
integral role in the decision-making process of teachers” (Bonvin, 2003: Pouliot, 2000).
Recent research indicates that “Teachers with positive perceptions about their working
conditions are much more likely to stay at their current school than educators who are
more negative about their conditions of work, particularly in the areas of leadership and
7
empowerment” (Hirsch & Emerick, 2007, p. 14). “Indeed, research has shown that
approximately one-quarter of all beginning teachers leave teaching within four years”
(Benner 2000; Rowan et al. 2002). If the problem is not corrected, the shortage of
teachers may increase significantly and student achievement will continue to decrease.
Recently, the NCTAF (2003) noted that “Teacher retention is the answer to
staffing all the nation’s classrooms with a highly qualified teacher. Our inability to
support high quality teaching in many of our schools is driven not be too few teachers
entering, but by too many leaving” (NCTAF, 2003, p.8) . The NCTAF (2003) report, No
Dream Denied: A Pledge to America’s Children, concluded that “teacher shortage’ will
never end and that quality teaching will not be achieved for every child until we change
the conditions that are driving teachers out of too many of our schools” (p.3).
This study on teacher retention was significant because administrators have some
insight to how teachers perceived their abilities and mentoring experiences. The study
experiences. In addition, the study provided recommendations for future studies, such as
researching urban teachers and different behaviors that may cause teachers to have high
or low self-perceptions. The collected data could be used within the district to train
Assumptions
1. Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Survey (1977 see Appendix 1) and the Kansas State
2. The teachers in the schools selected for the survey are adequate representatives
3. Because Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Scale (1994) and the Kansas State University
Mentoring Survey are used, it is assumed that there is a range of teachers who will score
Limitations of Study
While the present study has supplied much useful information about leadership
and teacher retention, it has several limitations that must be acknowledged. The study
provided a variety of information for Texas public schools but not for schools outside of
Texas. In addition, the research was focused on first- through 5th-year teachers. With
respect for both groups of teachers it is possible that the more efficacious teachers and
teachers with excellent experiences responded to each of the surveys. On the down side,
teachers with low efficacy levels or ineffective mentors may have failed to answer the
Definitions of Terms
AEIS - The Academic Excellent Indicator System reports provide a large amount
annually. In the fall, the AEIS reports are posted online (Texas Education Agency)
Attrition - For this study, attrition refers to teachers who leave the teaching
Beginning teachers - Beginning teachers are teachers who have been in the field
9
teacher with an experienced staff member or team to provide guidance and assistance
(ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status) and district and staff information (Texas
Education Agency)
certificate to an applicant who has acquired a bachelor’s degree and who is otherwise
eligible to teach in Texas public schools. The Elementary Certificate requires at least 60
students approximately 14 to 18 years of age. Four-year schools are by far the most
common; their grade levels are designated freshman (9th grade), sophomore (10th),
junior (11th), and senior (12th). Comprehensive high schools offer general academic
courses and specialized commercial, trade, and technical subjects. Most U.S. high schools
are tuition-free, supported by state funds. Private high schools are usually classed as
for at least 2 years and include a number of components: high quality mentoring,
10
teachers, and standards-based evaluation (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004; Smith
skilled at providing instructional support and committed to the role of coaching a new
Middle school — Middle schools generally have grades spanning the 3 to 5 years
between elementary school and high school, are focused on the educational needs of
students in these in-between years, and are designed to promote continuous educational
Personal efficacy — Personal efficacy is the belief that the individual teacher
holds in his or her own ability to affect student learning. According to Ashton and Webb
“teachers’ expectations that teaching can influence student learning” (p. 4).
belief held by teachers that all children can learn, regardless of family background or
other environmental or hereditary factors. The construct has two independent strands, a
11
sense of teaching efficacy and a sense of personal efficacy (Ashton & Webb, 1986).
Teacher need to replace more than 2 million teachers over the next decade (Howard,
2003).
Teacher turnover - Teacher turnover refers to teachers exiting the field of teaching
Organization of Study
The study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 contained the introduction,
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, conceptual framework, guiding
key terms, and study organization. Chapter 2 includes the review of the literature.
Chapter 3 describes the design, procedures, analysis, and findings of the study. Chapter 4
reports the analysis of the data. Finally, Chapter 5 includes the summary results and
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This dissertation examined the differences between male and female teachers’
attitudes towards self-efficacy scores and mentoring experiences in school on all levels.
The primary purpose of the study was to identify whether teachers’ mentoring perception
scores and self-efficacy level scores affect teacher retention or departure from education
turnover and retention. Once these variables are recognized, principals will be able to
establish or make changes to the existing mentor programs and increase self-efficacy
levels. The review of literature focused on the following areas of discussion (a) teacher
issues; (b) theoretical background on self-efficacy and mentoring; (c) studies on teachers,
Albert Bandura (1977) first introduced the cognitive social learning theory. He
theorized that the behavior a person exhibits is influenced by his or her beliefs regarding
estimates that “a given behavior will lead to a certain outcome. Efficacy expectation
refers to the belief that a person has regarding his ability actually to perform the
“behavior required to produce the outcome” (p. 193). These two outcomes are distinct,
particularly in the educational setting, because while a teacher may believe that specific
13
teacher behaviors will lead to a better classroom environment, improved student learning,
increased class participation, and so on, that same teacher may not have confidence in his
or her ability to perform those behaviors. These two sets of expectations have been
efficacy” (Gibson & Dembo, 1984, p.573). The concept of teacher efficacy was first
introduced in two RAND Corporation studies that concluded that “teachers’ attitudes
about their own professional competence, in short, appear to have major effects on what
happens to projects and how effective they are” (Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, &
determining factor in influencing student outcomes, there is little consensus about the
relationship between specific teacher credentials (e.g., experience and degree level) and
characteristics (e.g., age, race, and ethnicity) and teacher effectiveness. An example of
certification determing certification would be that teacher attributes commonly used for
degree,and experience levels) are not strongly correlated with student learning gains”
(Goldhaber and Brewer 2000; Hanushek 1986, 1997). “America faces tremendous
challenges as it seeks to reform the nation’s educational system with the goal of leaving
no child behind” (Joftus & Maddox-Dolan, 2002, p.1). “Common sense suffices:
American students are entitled to teachers know their subjects, understand their students
and what they need, and have developed the skills required to make learning come alive”
challenges and reforms to address national shortcomings, “we are still far from having a
caring and competent teacher in every classroom” (U.S. Department of Education, 2000,
p.iii).
graduated form college fully qualified to teach do not enter the teaching profession
immediately after earning their degree” (Feistritzer, 1999, p.2). “Studies of beginning
teachers from a variety of both traditional and alternative teacher preparation programs
showed that many new teachers do not feel adequately prepared to meet the challenges
they face when they first begin teaching in their own classrooms” (Berry, 2004; Public
Education Network,2003). “Across the United States, school and district leaders are
and improving measurable outcomes for student learning” (Berry, 2004; Johnson et al.,
2005). Johnson (2006) in The Workplace Matters: Teacher Quality, Retention, and
Effectiveness states that “Those seeking to improve schooling must understand the
important links between the workplace, effective instruction, and teacher retention,
teacher quality, and effective teaching all tend to point to a set of workplace conditions
that facilitate these goals” (p.17). According to Olson (2003) schools that are more
successful in retaining new teachers have six qualities: (1) safe and orderly environments;
(2) respectful of all; (3) ongoing support for new teachers; (4) timely provision of
15
materials; (5) strong instructional leadership by principals; (6) and the development of
negotiation and trust, to give constructive criticism to support progression and career
advancement of the mentee” (Bush, Coleman, Wall, & West-Burnham, 1996; Clutterbuck
& Sweeney, 2005; Daresh, 1995; Hauling- Austin, 1989; Scandura, Tejeda, Werther, &
Lankau, 1996). “First mentors must be committed to the kind of teaching that performers
expect them to implement and must know how to work with novices as agents of change”
(Cochran-Smith, 1991: Feiman_Nemser & Parker, 1992: Guyton & Hidalgo, 1995: King
& Bev, 1995). “Second, mentors need to develop a deeper understanding of the subject
matter” (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1990: Huling-Austin, 1992). “Third, mentors are
and teaching practice and to help novice teachers develop similar understandings of the
"The first years of teaching are an intense and formative time in learning to teach,
influencing not only whether people remain in teaching but what kind of teacher they
become" (Feiman-Nemser, 2001, p. 1026). Possibly the most critical aspect of effective
mentoring programs is the matching of mentors and protégés. There is no absolute way to
“ensure that matches made are ‘matches made in heaven’ (Playko, 1995, p.91). In
information sharing” (Fullan, 1999, p. 37). Egan (1986) observes that the “availability of
the mentor is an important factor in the success of the relationship” and that
16
(pp. 6-7). Mentors’ support assists mentees to make the transition from “student to
practicing professional” (Upson, Koballa, & Gerber, 2002, p. 4). Although reflection
impacts on thinking, mentees need to be taught the skills of reflection and be provided
with a “multitude of opportunities to practice those skills” (Greene & Campbell, 1993, p.
37), which is guided through the mentor’s personal attributes. Critical self-reflection is
considered “the main catalyst for the development of autonomy and expertise” (Veenman,
de Laat, & Staring, 1998, p. 6). Mentoring involves complex personal interactions
Niles, & Niles, 1992, p. 212). Indeed, if mentors are not supportive then mentees may
have become the norm in many states (Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004). Mentoring was often
equated with induction, although it was becoming more apparent that mentoring was only
one important part of an effective induction process (Alliance for Excellent Education,
2004; Bickmore, Bickmore, & Hart, 2005). Unfortunately, there are schools that
implement programs without considering the factors that create effective mentor-mentee
relationships. A mentoring program benefits the new teacher, the mentor, and, most
important, the students (Bartwell, 2006). Brown (2003) suggested that some believe that,
through the implementation of mentoring programs, the dropout rate can be cut from
roughly 50 percent to 15 percent during the first five years of teaching. Mentors provide a
“Across the United States, school and district leaders are beginning to recognize
measurable outcomes for student learning” (Berry, 2004; Johnson et al., 2005). However,
beyond a one-time orientation and only 1 percent of the new teacher workforce
(Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004; Johnson et al., 2005) The importance of meeting
and Feiman-Nemser (2001), who separately raise the issue of mentoring experiences that,
on the basis of poor and/or outdated models of practice held by some veteran teachers,
actually impede new teacher growth and undermine the intended reform agenda.
Teacher Experiences
the paints a compelling picture of the complexity of what today’s teachers are asked to
know and demonstrate. Often, she asserts, we are asking teachers to practice in ways that
are substantially different from those that have been experienced before. Expecting that
even veteran teachers will possess the knowledge and communication skills to articulate
this new agenda is a concern According to Johnson (2004), “In integrated professional
cultures, mentoring is organized to benefit both the novice and the experienced teachers,
and structures are in place that further facilitate teacher interaction and reinforce
interdependence” (p. 159). Ingersoll and Smith (2004), in an analysis of the 1999-2000
Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) found that almost 9 in 10 new teachers
18
reported that their mentors were helpful (p. 690). In a review entitled, “Who Stays in
Teaching and Why: A Review of the Literature on Teacher Retention,” Johnson et al.
(2005) reports that mentoring was particularly positive for new teachers who “taught the
same grade and subject as their mentor and worked more often with him or her” (p. 88).
Findings from an Education Trust study cited by Johnson et al. (2004) are similarly
troubling: “No matter which study you examine, no matter which measure of teacher
quality you use, the pattern is always the same—poor students, low-performing students,
and students of color are far more likely than other students to have teachers, who are
performing.”
how to recruit, train, and retain teachers for hard to staff schools, and further, that what is
known is not well used Kaplan and Owings (2004) stated that principals have a
of the teacher mentor component depends on how it is designed (Berry, 2004; Darling-
Hammond, 2003; Jensen, 1987). One way to accomplish the goal of mentor design is to
be actively engaged in the development and support of a mentoring program for novice
teachers. Ingersoll (2004) and Feiman-Nemser (2001) separately raised the issue of
mentoring experiences that, on the basis of outdated models of practice held by some
veteran teachers, might actually impede new teacher growth and undermine the intended
reform agenda.
people…" (Papalewis, Jordan, Cuellar, Gaulden, & Smith; 1991, p. 6). Glover and
implemented at the district and school levels. The researchers conducted interviews with
individuals who held diverse perspectives on local mentoring activities. These individuals
included mentor and novice teachers, school administrators, and district staff. This
research began by focusing on the one-on-one mentoring arrangement. It did not take
many visits to schools to see that one-on-one mentoring was only a part of the full picture
understanding of how mentoring for beginning teachers occurs in practice and explained
how schools and districts planned and implemented mentoring programs. Unfortunately,
this study revealed that three sites were only minimally addressing beginning teachers’
needs relative to work with an increasingly diverse student population. The findings of
this study clearly pointed to implications for the continued development of mentoring
A good teacher may not necessarily be a good mentor; there are further
2003). Effective mentoring and development programs include having mentors who are
trained in the same content, common planning periods for teachers in the content area, a
research studies documenting the impact of mentoring on teacher retention (Ingersoll &
Kralik, 2004) concluded that there was empirical support for the claim that assistance for
new teachers and, in particular, mentoring programs for new teachers has a positive
20
impact on teachers and their retention. As Menchaca (2003) warned, a mentor program
“has the potential to affect teacher retention, improve the attitudes and instructional
strategies of novice teachers and provide professional growth opportunities for the
mentor teachers” (p. 26), and it can even be effective in recruitment, but “its success will
training and only limited support for their work. Rowley (1999) asserted that, for a
mentor to demonstrate these abilities, he or she must receive ongoing training and
professional development. In addition, he articulated that there are significant criteria that
need to be present for a good mentoring program to exist. Mentors need to be (a)
committed to the role of mentoring, (b) accepting of the new teacher, (c) skilled at
continuous learners, and (f) able to communicate hope and optimism (pp. 20-21).
According to Hurst and Reding (2002), aside from leading, teaching, and guiding,
a mentor should also serve as an advocate for the novice teacher. The mentoring process
encompasses four concepts: leading through example, leading through guidance, leading
Effective mentoring programs benefit the mentee, the mentor, and the school (Feiman-
Induction
participate in formal induction into the education profession (Lake, 2006). The history of
induction programs in the United States is quite young. In the 19th and most of the 20th
centuries, induction for new teachers did not exist. As a form of professional
involves many people and components, and usually continues as a sustained process for
the first 2 to 5 years of a teacher’s career (Wong, 2005). According to an historical review
of new teacher support (Fulton, Yoon, & Lee, 2005), comprehensive induction programs
support new teachers for at least 2 years and include a number of components: high-
Recent studies have shown that more effective induction programs include
training, guidance, and compensation for mentors; required time for structured interaction
between a new teacher and a mentor teacher; and orientation and training programs for
first-year teachers before the school year begins (Gold, 1996). For instance, a program in
rural Louisiana reduced annual teacher attrition rates by nearly 40 percent by providing a
an experienced teacher to support each new teacher within his or her school, and holding
monthly meetings that specifically addressed new teachers’ concerns (Archer, 2003).
Induction programs undeniably present a valuable experience for beginning teachers, but
the programs that stress constant feedback and collaborative environments remain a rare
experience for most new teachers (Wilson, 2006). Educators do not agree on what
teachers should know or what constitutes the best learning environments. Therefore, new
22
teacher induction programs differ from district to district. Although the nature of
induction programs varies widely, the two strategies on which they focus are assistance
In 2003, 79 percent of new teachers reported that they were involved in some type
of induction program (Ingersoll & Smith, 2004). The primary reason for induction
ongoing support system for new teachers (Dunn, 2006). New teacher induction programs
can provide sound structured opportunities for new teachers to build effective teaching
skills. Moreover, some new-teacher induction programs assign new teachers with a
mentor who plays many roles, such as a counselor to provide support or a challenger to
encourage new teachers to do their best (National Education Association, 2002). Very few
induction programs provide new teachers with all of the components that constitute a
comprehensive induction program. In fact, only one percent of new teachers receive this
type of induction when they enter the teaching profession (Ingersoll & Smith, 2004).
the degree of support they receive varies greatly (Ingersoll, 2003c). In addition, the
Southeast Center for Teaching Quality reported that districts that are developing
components are producing positive retention trends for all teachers (Berry, Hopkins-
strategy set forth to assist novice teachers in the transition from pre-service training to
full-time teaching, a strategy that has the potential to assist in retaining novice teachers
(Bartell, 2005; Brewster & Railsback, 2001; Gold, 1996; Huling-Austin, 1992;
23
From the available research on new educator induction programs, we know that
nearly 50 percent of new teachers leave within their first 5 years of teaching (Ingersoll &
Retaining and Developing High-Quality New Teachers,” strongly suggested that districts
comprehensive induction program begin before teachers get into the classroom to
integrate “beginnings into the [National Partnership for Teaching in At-Risk Schools]
profession by guiding their work, further developing their skills, and evaluating their
performance during the first few years of teaching” (Alliance for Excellent Education,
2006, p. 8).
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a term that is difficult to describe as a single construct, and the
definition of job satisfaction varies between studies (Morice & Murray, 2003; Protheroe,
Lewis & Paik, 2002; Singer, 1995). Rosenholtz (1985) identifies the central problem of
establishing effective schools in poor settings as being that “good teachers are difficult to
recruit and almost impossible to retain because the rewards of teaching do not outweigh
the frustrations.” (p. 354) Bogler (2001) noted job satisfaction is important in terms of
teacher retention, but is also related to teacher empowerment, school culture, quality
work environment, and student achievement. Greater job satisfaction is also a critical
factor to consider in terms of recruitment of new teachers into the profession. It is not
surprising that researchers suggest schools must give more attention to increasing teacher
job satisfaction to recruit and retain quality personnel (Bogler). As the importance of
retaining quality teachers steadily continues to increase, numerous studies have
determined factors contributing to teacher satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Colgan, 2004;
Houchins, Shippen & Cattrett, 2004; Kleinhenz & Ingvarson, 2000; Reyes & Hoyle,
1992).
24
of teacher job satisfaction, for example, sense of success, commitment to the profession,
motivation for coming to work, or self-perception of worth, and the external conditions of
professional development, or administrative support (Butt & Lance, 2005; Davis &
Wilson, 2000; Woods & Weasmer, 2002; Zembylas & Papanastasiou, 2005).
Teacher Turnover
Adding new teachers to replace those who have left is costly (Johnson & Kardos,
students predict teacher turnover, salaries and working conditions—including large class
sizes, facilities problems, multi-track schools, and lack of text-books—are strong and
significant factors in prediction high rates of turnover; when these conditions are taken
(Loeb, Darling-Hammond & Luczak, 2005). Findings from an Education Trust study
cited by Johnson et al. (2004) are similarly troubling: “No matter which study you
examine, no matter which measure of teacher quality you use, the pattern is always the
same—poor students, low-performing students, and students of color are far more likely
than other students to have teachers who are inexperienced, uncertified, poorly educated,
and under-performing. Many of those teachers demonstrate most or all those unfortunate
qualities all at the same time”(Carey in Johnson et al., 2004, p. 2). Acomprehensive
induction program for new teachers becomes critical in hard to staff schools where
teachers need ongoing development in cultural competency, because teachers who are not
prepared or well supported in their work with culturally and economically diverse school
25
children are more likely to become teacher turnover statistics and add to weakened
teaching practices (Johnson et al., 2005, p. 11).Minarik, Thornton, and Perault (2003) and
Kaplan and Owings (2004) reported that administrators will have to hire 200,000 teachers
annually for the next 10 years to meet the educational demands in the United States. In
Texas, Herbert and Ramsey (2004) reported that the number of teachers certified each
year increases, but the attrition rate and teacher shortage continue to grow. We know that
certain kinds of people are more likely to leave their teaching jobs and certain schools are
more likely lose teachers. But do these distinctions matter and, if so, how? Increasingly
researchers, practitioners, and policy makers have focused their attention on retention
(Guarino et al., 2004; Ingersoll, 2001; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; National Commission
on Teaching and America’s Future, 2003). One major reason is that research has
confirmed, with increased methodological rigor, that teacher quality makes a difference
in student learning (Goldhaber & Anthony, 2004; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2002;
Rockoff, 2003; Rowan, Correnti, & Miller, 2002; Sanders& Horn, 1998; Sanders &
Understanding why teachers leave is the first step in getting them to stay.
Teachers leave when they encounter environments that lack essential professional support
systems: (a) support from school leadership,) organizational structures and workforce
conditions that convey respect and value for them, and (c) induction and mentoring
programs for new and experienced teachers (Ingersoll, 2001a; Johnson et al., 2001).
Much attention and research have been focused on teacher turnover; however,
there is a need for new research on retention, particularly in urban schools. Research
shows that the national turnover rate for teachers is over 16 percent and as high as 50
26
percent in urban schools (Ingersoll, 2002). In fact, the National Commission on Teaching
and America’s Future challenged the nation to improve teacher retention by 50 percent by
2006 (NCTAF, 2003). The teachers who leave after their first year are often among the
best and brightest. Several studies have shown a significant correlation between those
who leave and high achievement on examinations such as the SAT (Ingersoll & Smith,
2004).
Cost of Turnover
organization receives from retaining quality employees. It is estimated that the cost of
replacing an employee varies between 70 percent and 200 percent of the departing
employee’s salary (Kaye & Jordan-Evans, 2001). The time and energy invested in each
new hire results in lost opportunity costs because that time is not available for other
organizational needs. Another factor to consider when employees leave is the inherent
loss of explicit and tactic organizational knowledge (Droege & Hoobler, 2003). Explicit
Teachers hold 3.8 million jobs in elementary and secondary U.S. public and
Over three-quarters of the teachers were females, with 18 percent of the teaching
force newly hired (Strizek, Pittsonberger, Riordan, Lyter, & Orlofsky, 2006).
Furthermore, the Alliance for Excellent Education (2004) estimates that the cost of
recruiting, hiring, and training a new teacher is approximately 30 percent of the departing
27
annual state budgetary cost of between $329 million and $2.1 billion based on an annual,
statewide 15.5 percent turnover rate on the model selected for calculation (Berry, 2004;
Johnson, Berg, & Donaldson, 2005). As Sparks (2002) stated, “Retaining teachers is one
of the top educational challenges facing our country today” (p. 323).
annually and is the major factor driving the need for new teachers, compared to about 10
years earlier when there was only a 3 percent turnover rate. Moreover, a recent policy
brief from the Alliance for Excellent Education (2005) estimated that, nationally, costs of
replacing public-school teachers who drop out of the profession prior to retirement were
$2.2 billion a year (using the U.S. Department of Labor’s figure that attrition costs an
percent of new teachers leave within 3 years, and 40 percent to 50 percent leave within 5
there are several steps that districts use to calculate the number of leavers, beginning with
first entering the number of teachers who left the school the previous year. Second, in
order to calculate the cost of each teacher who left, one must enter the estimated cost,
which in Texas is $8,400 for urban schools and $3,600 for non-urban schools. Third,
officials analyze the estimate including the costs of recruiting, hiring, processing, and
training a new teacher. Finally, the average estimate is calculated. The Web site of the
Principal Leadership
The relationship between each teacher and her or his principal is unique. Although
one might anticipate that teacher perceptions of principal leadership are influenced by
peers, each teacher has a unique perspective on principal leadership (Barnett &
McCormick, 2004). In fact, Sparks (2002) indicated that teachers, even those in the most
demanding settings, are far more likely to remain in their positions when they feel
aggressively pursuing a collective vision for student learning about which they feel
passion and commitment. On the other hand, a lack of support from the administration
tends to lead to teachers’ feeling that they do not belong to the learning community,
teachers’ work, which in turn affect school and student outcomes. Positive and supportive
leadership by principals is important to teachers. Leaders also must ensure that teachers
have adequate resources and materials to do their job (Darling-Hammond, 2003; Ingersoll
& Smith, 2003). Furthermore, sufficient common planning time should be built into the
schedules of classroom teachers and specialists so that they can address instructional
needs and classroom concerns (DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003). Research has
indicated that the successful principal is one who can provide guidance, inspiration, and
new vision for contemporary education (Bennis, 2003). Leadership is first and foremost
responsible for the decisions one makes or fails to make (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001; Heifetz
Among the attributes associated with trust were the communication of clear
29
administrative support for teachers, and processes for group decision making and
problem solving (Hirsch & Emerick, 2007). Effective principals teach, they help, they
encourage, but mostly they serve. They provide the steadiness and stability that teachers,
(Drago-Severson, 2004).
common point of dissatisfaction among beginning teachers (Certo & Fox, 2002; Colgan,
2004; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Kelly, 2004). Teacher turnover is particularly high among
new teachers who are most dependent upon principal leadership and support. In a recent
study, Hanushek et al. (2004) found that in Texas, the percentage of teachers leaving low-
performing schools (20 percent) is significantly higher than those leaving high-
performing schools (15 percent). If schools are to succeed in retaining teachers, a proper
infrastructure should be in place that allows teachers to focus most of their time and
energy on teaching. With this in mind, school leaders should give new teachers less of a
workload and fewer responsibilities and duties so that they can concentrate on their
Beginning Teachers
On the face of it, teacher turnover and shortage may appear relatively benign.
Today’s teaching force is the largest in history, and in recent years over 150,000 new
Teaching and America’s Future, 2003; National Education Association, 2003). A growing
body of literature on how teachers develop expertise suggests that novice’s progress
30
Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Berliner, for example, describes
focuses on the cognitive processes of teachers (e.g., how they think and describe their
effective teaching practices as well as increasingly complex ways of thinking about these
inflexible, and [tending] to conform to whatever rules and procedures he or she was told
to follow” (p. 206). As novices move through the various stages of development, they
become more adept at reflecting on experiences and using this knowledge to inform their
“The first years of teaching are typically the most challenging for beginning
teachers. Often novice teachers struggle to survive day to day” (Bartell, 2005). “Novice
teachers quickly find that what they learned in the university does not assist them in the
day-to-day realities within the classroom” (Good & Brophy, 2003). “Further, there is
Texas found that teachers with zero to two years of experience were almost twice as
likely as more experienced teachers (with 11 to 30 years of experience) to exit the Texas
public schools and almost four times as likely to switch school districts” (Hanushek,
2003). “This trend is not necessarily out of character for professional fields as a whole;
researchers disagree on whether attrition rates for new teachers are significantly higher
31
than for recent graduates in other professional fields” (Ingersoll, 2000; Henke & Zahn,
2001). However, as large numbers of the teaching force are now near retirement, more
young and inexperienced teachers will need to be hired to fill these pending vacancies.
influencing factors (Gagnon, 2004; Thompson, 2004). Studies of beginning teachers from
both traditional and alternative teacher preparation programs show that many new
teachers do not feel adequately prepared to meet the challenges they face when they first
begin teaching in their own classrooms (Berry, 2004; Public Education Network, 2003).
Although novice teachers have received pre-service training, “it can’t possibly prepare
them to do all of the things that teachers need to do at once as they teach” (O’Neill,
nearly 400,000 teachers in the state of Texas found that teachers who chose to change
districts were more likely to take a job where there were fewer minorities, lower poverty
rates, and higher student achievement. On average, teachers tended to transfer to districts
that had 2 percent fewer African American students, 4.4 percent fewer Hispanic students,
6 percent fewer low-income students, and slightly higher average student test scores
Within their first five years of teaching, about one-third of new teachers leave
their positions (Darling Hammond, 2003). Historically, as many as half of all beginning
teachers leave the profession within the first 5 years of teaching. Currently, 14 percent of
new teachers exit by the end of the first year, 33 percent are gone within 3 years, and
almost 50 percent leave in 5 years (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004a). As schools constitute
organizations that are highly dependent on the coherence, commitment, and continuity of
32
their staff to produce positive student outcomes, a high degree of teacher turnover can be
Kauffman, Liu, & Donaldson, 2004). Research indicates that “teachers with positive
perceptions about their working conditions are much more likely to stay at their current
school than educators who are more negative about their conditions of work, particularly
in the areas of leadership and empowerment” (Hirsch & Emerick, 2007, p. 14).
Attrition
The cost of extreme teacher attrition to public education beyond the expense of
normal operating costs in districts is a waste of taxpayers’ money, and it does not
affects the sense of school community and weakens the ability of the school to sustain
burden to many school districts. Texas loses between $8,000 and $48,000 for each
Attrition for students and teachers is a complex process that may also contribute
to teachers’ need for increased support and guidance (Kauffman, Johnson, Kardos, Liu, &
Peske, 2002). A contributing factor to teacher attrition is the stress experienced by novice
teachers during their induction years into the teaching profession. Imazeki (2005) pointed
out that few studies of teacher attrition differentiate between teacher exit from the
profession and teacher transfer to another school or district. Her results suggested that
33
failing to differentiate teachers who transfer from those who leave the profession
From a national perspective, 9 percent of U.S. public school teachers are reported
to leave the profession before completing their first year of teaching, and more than 20
percent of new teachers leave their positions within three years (Kaplan & Owings,
2004). Further studies showed that between one-third and one-half of all teachers leave
the profession within the first 5 years (Darling-Hammond, 2003; Ingersoll & Smith,
but they become frustrated with the inner workings of the organization’s internal politics
beginning teachers after the first year of service to the rates of those who did participate
rates of attrition for the latter group (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). Turnover is particularly
problematic among novice teachers. As schools constitute organizations that are highly
positive student outcomes, a high degree of teacher turnover can be a serious and cost-
Self-Efficacy
efficacy affects the personal effectiveness of the teacher and plays a role in teacher
academic achievement and improved student attitudes toward learning (Dunn, Griggs,
Olson, Gorman, & Beasley, 1995). In his foundational treatise “Self-Efficacy: The
Exercise of Control,” Bandura (1997) emphasized that personal efficacy is the key factor
in initiation and execution of intentional actions, also known as agency. He illustrated his
theory with the following statements: “If people believe they have no power to produce
results, they will not attempt to make things happen” (p. 3). “Self-belief does not
necessarily ensure success, but self-disbelief assuredly spawns failure” (Bandura, p. 77).
causation denotes the functional dependence between events that occur as one’s
connection between certain critical factors. In the transactional view of self and society,
internal factors in the form of cognitive, affective, and biological events; behavior; and
environment events all operate as interaction determinants that influence on another bi-
are used interchangeably as though they represented the same phenomenon. In fact, they
judgments of self-worth. There is no actual fixed relationship between beliefs about one’s
motivational behavior, and one’s mood or affect (Bandura, 1997). Based on social
teacher believes he or she has the capacity to affect student performance” or “organize
instruction that motivates student learning” (Bandura, 1996; Brouwers & Tomic, 2003;
Deemer & Minke, 1999; Denzine, Cooney, & McKenzie, 2005; Onafowora, 2004). The
literature shows that teacher efficacy is a potent construct that determines instructional
effectiveness (Deemer & Minke, 1999; Guskfy, 1987). Literature has provided strong
evidence that teacher’s sense of efficacy, which is defined as “teacher’s judgment of his
or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning,
even among those students who maybe difficult or unmotivated” (Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001, p.783),. Bandura (2001) emphasized, in his guide for developing
self-efficacy scales that self-efficacy is a domain and task-specific construct and its items
preparedness and sense of self-efficacy are related to their feelings about teaching and
their plans to stay in the profession. Teacher efficacy has been linked to teachers’
enthusiasm for teaching (Allinder, 1994: Guskey, 1984) and their commitment to
teaching (Coladarci, 1992; Evans & Tribble, 1986). A study conducted by Riggs et al.
(1994) supports evidence that teachers’ sense of efficacy increases when they receive
The relationship between self-efficacy and teacher behavior has been well
established in the research. Clearly, a teacher’s ability to reach students and affect change
36
begins with his or belief that he or she can. As Pajares (1996) stated, “Efficacy beliefs
help determine how much effort people will expend on an activity, how long they will
persevere when confronting obstacles, and how resilient they will prove in the face of
adverse situations—the higher the sense of efficacy, the greater the effort, persistence,
Gender
teacher turnover. In Krieg’s (2006) study of teacher quality and attrition, a large disparity
in turnover rates was found when the results were sorted by the variable of gender.
Krieg’s study found that, contrary to popular perception; high-quality female teachers
were more likely to stay in the profession but that retention among males was not related
to teacher quality. Krieg also found that more females left for family reasons and males
with higher degrees in the technical sciences were more likely to leave (pp. 13-27). If in
fact, more women stay in the field than men, why are the percentages of male and female
Furthermore, women are more likely than men to enter teaching. Henke, Chen,
Geis, and Knepper (2000), in a longitudinal study of more than 11,000 college graduates
who received degrees between July1992 and June 1993, found that women were more
likely than men to enter the teacher pipeline (i.e., to have taught in a school, to have
teaching).
37
Summary
Previously, Chapter I indicated that there was a problem with teacher retention.
Because teachers leave within their first 3 years of teaching, little or no data have been
collected to find out why. Chapter II has identified the purpose of the study. Many factors
teachers’ perspectives. Chapter III seeks to address the phenomenon of teacher retention
methodology, and designs will be created to prepare for the research study.
38
CHAPTER III
METHOD OF PROCEDURE
The primary purpose of the study was to identify whether teachers’ self-efficacy
level and mentoring experience have a significant impact on those who remain in the
field as opposed to those who leave. This study used descriptive statistics and T-test to
determine if teachers have high or low self-efficacy levels and experiences in mentoring.
middle and highs school teachers. Gender was used as a base to determine the difference
between a male and female teacher’s perception of his or her self-efficacy levels or
relates to mentoring and self-efficacy scores. A teacher was able to participate in the
survey if they were Texas certified in a public school, currently teaching and a first
Arguments have been made that the current demand for teachers is not a result of
a shortage of teachers but rather due to the high attrition rate of existing teachers,
particularly those who leave education within the first 5 years of their career (Darling-
Hammond & Sykes, 2003). Much attention and research have been focused on teacher
39
turnover; however, there is a need for new research on retention, particularly amongst
first through fifth year teachers. Due to the research and turnover rates, teachers’
The primary purpose of the study was to identify whether teachers’ self-efficacy
level and mentoring experience has a significant impact on those who remain in the field
and those who leave. Gender was carefully analyzed to see whether there is a relationship
in how males and females view mentoring and their levels of self-efficacy as they relate
to the school setting. Given the lack of current empirical studies using efficacy, teacher
Research Questions
Null Hypotheses
Research Site
information, the research site was online. Participants were allowed to complete the
survey online in the comfort of their home or school. Individuals who participated in the
School Characteristics
Due to the research status, 20 Texas schools participated in the research study.
School campuses with enrollments of over 500 pupils were considered high enrollments
schools. Schools with less than 500 pupils were considered low enrollment schools.
Moreover, campuses with more than fifty percent minority enrollment were considered
high minority campuses and those campuses with less than fifty percent minority
enrollment were considered low minority campuses. Two elementary schools had less
than 500 pupils enrolled at the time of the survey. Of the twenty schools selected, 10 of
Research Methodology
Data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS) for Windows software (standard) version 16. Within the study, Descriptive
statistics, T-Test were utilized in the quantitative study. Coefficient alpha (also called
41
Cronbach’s alpha or the reliability coefficient) was used in the scale reliability analysis.
The predictor variables in the study are the following: self-efficacy level scores, and
mentoring perception level scores. In the study, gender will be the criterion variable. The
results from the surveys were reported in tabular form. Responses obtained in the study
were compared not only by years of teaching, but also by gender frequencies. Nominal
categories were created from the survey response. Each response is an indicator of
teacher attitude. In addition, the researcher will group each of the groups by gender to
Research Design
of Self-Efficacy for Teachers, which measures the self-efficacy level of each teacher in
the study. The second survey entitled, “Induction Mentoring Program for Novice
Teachers,” adopted from Kansas State University, is also utilized in the survey. The study
uses multiple sources of data: surveys, district Websites, the Texas Public Education
First, each teacher had the opportunity to answer the self-efficacy survey.
Upon completion, each first-year teacher, second-year teacher, and so on was given a
survey entitled the Induction Mentoring Program for Novice Teachers. When completed,
the researcher took the first surveys and grouped each one by gender and teaching level.
Next, the researcher retrieved the second survey and groups each year teacher by gender.
Charts for tallying the prescribed structured responses were created. After all the
42
responses were tallied, tables were constructed with the totals needed to compute simple
Table 1
The participants in the study included elementary, middle, and high school
teachers in Texas with one to five years of teaching experience who are certified in Texas
as of spring 2008. The study includes 20 of 7,870 Texas schools. The Texas Education
Agency provided the names of different schools in Texas .The total sample for the study
was 150 teachers. Using the sample size calculator with a 95 percent confidence level and
the desired population. The researcher’s school was not included in the study.
The anticipated 106 first through fifth year teachers were given an informed
consent letter and asked to participate in the research study by responding to a teacher
survey and a teacher efficacy scale. The investigation was implemented online with the
approval of the principal and teacher of each perspective school. Teachers were asked to
rank their perceived general self-efficacy perception scores, as well as their mentoring
43
experience scores. Teachers were asked to rank other independent item measures relevant
relationship with their mentor, community involvement and create a positive school
climate.
Instrumentation
Two questionnaires were used in the study. The first questionnaire that
was used is entitled, “Bandura’s Instrument Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale, which consists
of 31 items. The survey includes the following headings: Efficacy to Influence Decision
Development School Project was used in this study. The survey includes 12 statements
regarding the teachers mentoring experiences. Each question centers on the teacher’s
experience with his or her mentor. All teachers were asked to respond to each of the
statements. Permission has been verbally granted to use this model. The multiple-choice
Validity
The author’s bias was addressed by using triangulation, which included the use of
two surveys. The approach supported the validity of the collected quantitative data
perceptions of each teacher’s experience with mentoring and understand the feelings of
44
the teachers. Each participant was able to form his or her perception without any
coaching or promoting from the researcher. This study employed different strategies that
may promote validity. The use in the survey of multiple questions creates unbiased
questioning techniques.
Reliability
Joppe (2000) defines reliability as, “The extent to which results are
consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total population under the study
is referred to as reliability and if the results of a study can be reproduced under a similar
methodology, then the research instrument is considered to be reliable” (p. 1). The study
used the Test-Retest Reliability method on each survey to confirm consistency among the
different administrations. The first administration was given in the months of February
and March. The same test was administered in June of 2008 to determine if the test is
reliable and if each respondent answered the same or felt the same way about a particular
issue. In addition Dr. Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Test and the Kansas State University
Mentoring survey have been used in numerous studies and developed by groups of
mentoring
Dr. Bandura
rehabilitation setting.
Chesney, Torsten Neilands, Donald Chambers, Jonelle Taylor and Susan Folkman.
KSU Survey
• The survey was conducted and tested by a group of professors from Kansas State
University. The survey is new and have not been utilized in many studies, but was
Each survey has multiple questions, which reduces bias. Second, individuals who
participated in the study were not familiar with the researcher; therefore, the answers will
be more accurate. Reliability of the survey instruments and the data analysis consisted of
instruments (Airasian & Gay, 2003, p. 101). Question responses may be interpreted once,
and then the researcher may follow up on the questions. When looking for reliability, the
researcher will test the instrument numerals and then retest. Due to the fact that the
survey utilized in the research is research based, the above means may be unnecessary. In
ensuring reliability, the researcher will conduct field-testing at a local elementary, middle,
and high school in Texas. Data will be taken back to the participant in the study.
Participants will be able to form their own perceptions without any coaching or
prompting from the researcher. Approval was appropriate in allowing the perspective
schools to participate in the teacher questionnaire. The researcher followed the necessary
district approval and obtained the IRB approvals prior to the collection of data.
46
The teacher retention study was quantitative in design. Copies of Bandura’s Self-
Efficacy Measurement and Kansas State University Mentoring Project were sent to all
certified teachers who had also taught up to five total years. A cover letter consisting of a
description of the study and informed consent information were included. Upon
completing the survey online, the teacher was suggesting that he or she wanted to
researcher and asked to distribute the materials to all participants. All principals had extra
hard copies of the survey for teachers who did not feel comfortable using the internet.
Participants were asked to complete the surveys online within 10 days from the date of
receipt. A follow-up phone call was sent five days after the initial phone call was made.
through fifth-year teachers. Responses from each of the participants on self-efficacy and
mentoring perceptions were analyzed. Important data will be extracted, coded, and
categorized according to gender. Both of the surveys were summarized and analyzed. The
statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS statistical analysis program to
compute the results gather from Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Measurement and Kansas State
University Survey. An alpha level of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.
Frequencies and percentages were generated for the variables of age, level teachers
Analysis of Data
the total score of Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Measurement and Kansas State University
47
Survey. A T-test was used to view the relationship between male and female perceptions
concerning mentoring and self-efficacy. The total scores for both instruments were
differences in the relationship between Bandura’s instrument and Kansas State University
Instrument, depending on two predictors: gender and teaching assignment grade level.
Descriptive statistics and a T-Test were used where appropriate. Relevant themes and
patterns were identified. The perceptions of each participant were complied into a big
picture explanation of the topic. Analysis and conclusions was based on individual
experiences shared by the participants and experiences and observations of the researcher.
Table1
T-Test
Summary of Methodology
the data values were added up and divided for each one of the survey questions for Dr.
Albert Bandura and the Kansas State University Mentoring Group to obtain the average
for each particular question. Once the average was provided for each question, the
average of each question was then added to the average the other questions and a total
was provided. Once the total was provided, the mean was then divided by the number of
48
responses and a mean score was provided separately for elementary, middle and high
school males who participated in the survey and all elementary, middle and high females
who participated in the survey. SPSS was utilized to obtain the mean and standard
deviation. The standard deviation was derived from finding the average sets o of
numbers. Next, the average was subtracted from the numbers on the original survey. The
new values from the subtracted numbers are the deviations form the average. All of the
deviations were squared individually. After each value was squared, all the new values
were added together. After adding all the numbers together, the sum was divided by the
amount of numbers on the original list. Upon obtaining the sum that was divided, the
square root was taken, which provided the standard deviation. Chapter III presented
research questions, research methodology, and the research design for the study. Variables
were described in the study. Population and sample selection were also discussed.
collection and components of how the data would be collected were discussed. Different
tests were described in order to allow the researcher to obtain information relevant to the
study. Data collection and result findings in the study will be included in Chapter IV.
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA
The purpose of the chapter is to present the analysis of data collected in the study
of factors that prevent or keep teachers in the education field. This section describes
findings as they relate to each research question. Each question will be followed by a
A total of 106 surveys were taken on line by Texas public teachers who had taught
for 1 to 5 years. After making phone calls to the superintendent in the districts and
principals, a total of 106 surveys were received for a response rate of 84 percent. The
responses are recorded online and have been used to help compare means among male
and female respondents in each teaching level throughout the chapter. The results were
used to address the research questions and hypotheses developed for the study.
Descriptive data of the participants’ gender and level of teacher are included.
Descriptions of the research site and the population and sample are included in this
chapter. Statistical analysis of each research question is reviewed, and the results of data
analyses are presented in tables to illustrate statistical significance. Tables were also used
Research has linked teachers with positive mentoring experiences and high self-
50
efficacy levels to teacher retention. Information on teacher retention which deals with
efficacy as well as mentoring experiences in the Texas school setting. The more positive a
Upon identifying all first through fifth year teachers in Texas, it was determined
that the elementary teachers participated more in the survey as compared to middle and
high school teachers as indicated in Table 1. It was further determined that more females
participated in the research study overall than male teachers as indicated in Tables 2,3,4,
and 5. Finally, it was determined that further research on gender inequalities in schools
may be appropriate.
K-12 completed the two surveys. Of those surveyed, 107 completed enough of the survey
for data analysis. Among the 106 participants, 87 were females which equated to 81.1
percent and 19 were males which equated to 16.9 percent. All data collected on the
Kansas State University survey on mentoring and Albert Bandura’s Self-Efficacy survey
means and standard deviations and t-test analysis. The results were used to address the
research questions and hypotheses developed for the study. As illustrated in Table 1, 48
Descriptive data of the participants’ gender and teaching levels are included.
Descriptions of the research site and the population and sample are included in this
chapter. Statistical analysis of each research question is reviewed, and results of data
analyses are presented in tables to illustrate statistical significance. Tables were also used
to delineate correlations between elementary, middle and high school teachers mentoring
experiences and self-efficacy levels. Statistical analyses of the hypotheses are also
presented.
TABLE 2
LEVELS
Elementary 45.3
Middle 27.4
High 27.4
Table 3
PARTICPANT'S GENDER
Table 4
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
MIDDLE SCHOOL
Table 5
HIGH SCHOOL
Table 6
Female 18 62.1
Male 11 37.9
in Table 4. The participants’ responses provided answers and insight into how teachers
feel about their self-efficacy levels. In addition, the top 5 responses were selected
according to the survey in each category and level of teaching. One question asked, “How
much can you influence the decisions that are made in the school? Fifty seven percent of
the elementary male teachers believed that they could have some influence over the
school, which also allows these teachers to feel empowered. On the other hand, forty-
eight female teachers believed that they had some influence over the decisions that are
53
A second question which had a high percentage was, “How much can you do to
get the instructional materials and equipment you need? Seventy one percent of the males
believed that they had some influence over resources as compared to thirty-four females.
A third question which generated a high percentage rate was, “How much can you do to
keep students on task on difficult assignments?” Fourteen males believed that they could
fourth question which had a high efficacy rate was, “How much can you do to get parents
to become involved in school activities?” Only twenty-eight percent of the male teachers’
believed that they had some influence over parental involvement as compared to sixty-
one female elementary teachers. Finally, the question that generated a high response was
“How much can you do to increase student’s memory of what they have been taught in
previous lessons?” Seventy-one percent of the males believe that they have quite a bit of
In the self-efficacy survey, there were questions that yielded low levels of self-
efficacy levels. The first question was “How much can you help other teachers with their
teaching skills?” Twenty eight of the males believed that they would be of little help,
while twelve females believed that they could assist very little. Secondly, when teachers
were asked, “How much can you do to enhance collaboration between teachers and the
administration to make the school run effectively, fifty-seven of the males believed that
they could do very little to enhance the collaboration between teachers and
administrators, while twenty-two of the teachers believed that they could do very little to
54
allow the school to run effectively. Another question that was asked in the survey was,
“How much can you do to reduce school drop out?” Of the elementary males surveyed on
the question of school drop out, forty two percent believed that they would be of little
help, with reducing the levels while twenty two of the females believed that they would
be of little help. When teachers were asked, “How much can you do to get business
involved with working in the school, forty-two males believed that they could do very
little to get these businesses involved, while 29.3 percent of females believed that they
could do very little to get businesses involved. The final question which generated a sense
of low-self-efficacy was the question of, “How much can you do to reduce school
absenteeism?” Fifty-one percent of the males indicated that they could do very little to
reduce school absenteeism, while thirty one percent of the females indicated that they
Quantitative Data
Question number one for elementary males was based on different decisions
discipline, new programs, community involvement and how to assist students were a
factor in the number of teachers who believed they had some influence. The continuum
for the response of answers for the male teacher was considered very low or in the
middle. Forty two percent of the male teachers believed that they had very little influence
on making decisions, while fifty seven percent of the male teachers believed that they had
some influence. When comparing the male teachers to the female teacher’s response, the
female teachers had a slight lower rate in believing that they could make decisions
concerning the school. Twenty nine percent of the female teachers believed they had very
55
little influence on making decisions in the school, while forty eight percent of the female
teachers believed that they had some influence. Within the group, a small percentage of
the females believed that they could do quite a bit when decisions were made in the
school. While analyzing this question, several factors must be considered such as each
teacher’s personality and the relationship in which the teacher had formed with the
principal.
scores and mentoring scores in relation to gender was charted using descriptive statistics.
The problem was stated in the null form for analysis. The null hypothesis was expressed
as follows: There is not a significant difference between genders when observing self-
The data regarding a teacher's self-efficacy level and mentoring score were
collected by means of a Liker scale. The respondents' scores of expectation could range
from a low of 0 to a high of 100.00. The mean and standard deviation for the data of the
average teacher satisfaction score for self-efficacy and mentoring were calculated. These
gains were obtained from teacher who has taught 1-5 years. A t-test was calculated for the
self-efficacy score and mentoring score to determine if the means of the two samples
were or at least significantly, different. The p has to be less than.005, which indicates that
there were not significant differences in the teachers’ scores according to gender as
the null hypothesis suggest that there is no significant difference between a male and
56
female's self efficacy scores and mentoring scores in relation to teacher retention is not
rejected. The mean for males and females were calculated and significant figures were
tested.
The analysis of determine the relationship between a male and female middle
school teacher's self-efficacy scores and mentoring scores in relation to teacher retention.
The problem was expressed in the null form for analysis. The null hypothesis was stated
as follows: There is no relationship between a male and female middle school teacher's
As illustrated in Table 9, the mean and standard deviation for the data of the
average teacher satisfaction score for self-efficacy and mentoring were calculated. These
gains were obtained from teachers who have taught 1-5 years. A t-test was calculated for
the self-efficacy score and mentoring score to determine if the means of the two samples
were or at least significantly, different. The p value for the calculation was set at p<.005,
which indicates that there were not significant differences in the teacher’s scores
according to gender. The t-test performed on the means of the self-efficacy scores and
mentoring scores did not have a significant relationship amongst male and females. The
null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between a male and female's self
efficacy scores and mentoring scores in relation to teacher retention is not rejected. .
The analysis to determine the relationship between a male and female high
school teacher's self-efficacy scores and mentoring scores in relation to teacher retention
was completed through descriptive statistics and the t-test. The problem was expressed in
57
the null form for analysis. The null hypothesis was stated as follows: There is no
relationship between a male and female middle school teacher's attitude concerning self-
efficacy Levels and mentoring experiences. The mean and standard deviation for the data
of the average teacher satisfaction score for self-efficacy and mentoring were calculated.
These gains were obtained from teachers who have taught 1-5 years. A t-test was
calculated for the self-efficacy score and mentoring score to determine if the means of the
two samples were or at least significantly, different. The p value for the calculation was
set at p<.005 which indicates that there were not significant differences in the teacher’s
scores according to gender as indicated in Table 10. The t-test performed on the means of
the self-efficacy scores and mentoring scores did not have a significant difference
between the two variables, indicating that there is a linear relationship between middle
school male and female teacher's perceptions of their self-efficacy levels and mentoring
between a male and female's self -efficacy scores and mentoring scores in relation to
This chapter presented the results centered on four research questions. Descriptive
and survey data provided information helpful in determining the degree of the
inferential statistics provided insight to gauge the degree of differences in the relationship
between teacher efficacy levels and mentoring experiences in relation to gender. Chapter
Summary
58
This chapter presented the results centered on four research questions. Descriptive
and T-Test Analysis and survey data provided information helpful in determining the
degree of the relationship between self-efficacy scores and mentoring scores in relation to
differences in the relationship between teacher evaluation practices and teacher job
and a summary of findings. Conclusions and recommendations for future studies are also
discussed in Chapter 5.
CHAPTER V
Summary
59
The teacher retention problem has been an ongoing process for many
years. In order to fix the teacher retention problem, researchers and educators must began
to plan support programs for new teachers. According to Ingersoll, “This nation is facing
a teacher turnover rate of over 16.5 percent and as high as 50 percent in hard to fill urban
schools” (2001).
The data that identified the factors that influence a teacher’s decision to remain in
education or leave was performed using two surveys. Several themes emerged from the
analysis. The data analysis taken from the research answered all three research questions.
The first research question that was answered was: Is there a significant difference
gender? The data analysis revealed that first through fifth year teachers attributed the
following percentages for self-efficacy and mentoring experiences while serving in the
Self-Efficacy (Female)
• 48 percent of the Texas female teachers surveyed believed that they could
• 43 percent of the Texas female teachers surveyed believed that they had
Self-Efficacy (Males)
• 14.3 percent of the male teachers surveyed believed they can do quite
Group Statistics
Gende Std. Std. Error
r N Mean Deviation Mean
Efficacy 1 7 91.4286 15.74650 5.95162
2 41 102.2927 12.70481 1.98416
62
F Sig. t df
Efficacy Equal variances assumed .629 .432 -2.021 46
Equal variances not
-1.732 7.394
assumed
Mentor Equal variances assumed .440 .510 -.318 46
Equal variances not
-.343 8.734
assumed
A total of 106 Texas teachers participated in the study. There were 47 elementary
female teachers and 7 elementary male teachers who participated in the elementary
section of the survey. The mean for elementary male teachers was 91.4 and the mean for
female elementary teachers was 102.2. The significant value for males was is Due to the
interpretation that the p<.05, so there is not a statistically significant difference in female
and male self-efficacy scores in relation to gender and the hypothesis 1 is rejected.
• 41 percent of the Texas elementary female teachers surveyed believe that having a
• 24 percent of the Texas elementary female teachers surveyed believe they meet
• 24 percent of the Texas elementary female teachers surveyed believe the mentor
• 14 percent of elementary Texas male teachers believe that they meet with the
mentor sometimes.
• 42 percent of elementary Texas male teachers believe that the mentor always
The mean of the Kansas State University Mentoring Survey for males was 20.015
and the mean for females was 19.752. There were 47 elementary female teachers and 7
elementary male teachers who participated in the survey. The mean difference of the male
and female scores are 0.263, which is make p<.05, so there is not a statistically
elementary teachers’ self-efficacy scores and mentoring scores in relation to gender? This
study reveals that middle school teachers and elementary teachers have some view points
that are similar and some that are quite different. The self-efficacy scores for middle
Self-Efficacy (Females)
• 17 percent of the Texas middle school female teachers surveyed believe they can
64
• 42 percent of Texas middle school female teachers surveyed believe they can do
• 32 percent of Texas middle school female teachers surveyed believe they can do
• 21 percent of Texas middle school female teachers surveyed believe they can do
• 60 percent of Texas middle school female teachers surveyed believe they have
• 60 percent of Texas middle school female teachers surveyed believe they can do
• 35 percent of Texas middle school female teachers believe they can do quite a bit
• 28 percent of Texas middle school female teachers surveyed believe they can do
• 50 percent of Texas middle school female teachers surveyed believe they can do
Self-Efficacy (Males)
• The one Texas middle school male surveyed believe he has some
• The one Texas middle school male surveyed believe he has very little
• The one Texas middle school male surveyed believe he has some
65
• The one Texas middle school male surveyed believe he has some
• The one Texas middle school male surveyed believe he has very little
• The one Texas middle school male surveyed believe he could do many
• The one Texas middle school male surveyed believe he has some
• The one Texas middle school male surveyed believe he has some
• The one Texas middle school male surveyed believe he could do quite
Group Statistics
Gende Std. Std. Error
r N Mean Deviation Mean
Efficacy 1 1 99.0000 . .
2 28 98.5357 12.47659 2.35785
Mentoring 1 1 43.0000 . .
2 28 35.5000 12.20049 2.30568
66
The mean for Texas middle school male teachers is 20.000 and the mean for
Texas middle school female teachers is 20.001. There were 28 female middle school
Texas teachers who participated in the study and one male teacher. The mean difference
of the male and female scores is .008, which makes p<.05, so there is no statistically
significant difference between middle school male and female scores which means that
HO2 is accepted.
67
• The one middle school Texas male teacher who participated in the middle
• The one middle school Texas male teacher who participated in the middle
school survey believe that most of the time he and his mentor have an
opportunity to meet.
• The one middle school Texas male teacher who participated in the middle
school survey believe that the mentor apply best practices sometime.
• The one middle school Texas male teacher who participated in the middle
school survey believe that the principal understand the mentoring process.
• 17 percent of the middle school Texas female teachers who participated in the
middle school survey believe that having a mentor was a very positive
experience.
• 17 percent of the middle school Texas female teachers who participated in the
middle school survey believe that they meet regularly most of the time.
• 10 percent of the middle school Texas female teachers who participated in the
middle school survey believe that their mentor apply the best practices most of
the time.
• 32 percent of the middle school Texas female teacher who participated in the
middle school survey believe that the principal fully understand the mentoring
68
process.
The mean of the Kansas State University survey for males is 20.000 and the mean
for the female participants is 20.0002 The difference between the two means is .098,
which makes p<.05, therefore, there is not a statistically significant difference between
the male and female mentoring scores in the middles school level.
The third research question was: Is there a significant difference in Texas high-
school teachers’ self-efficacy scores and mentoring scores in relation to gender? This
study revealed that Texas high school teachers self-efficacy levels are similar and
different when compared to elementary and middle school teachers. High school
teachers’ self-efficacy levels are important especially in the area of keeping students
motivated to learn.
• 11 percent of Texas female high school teachers surveyed believe they can
• 72 percent of Texas female high school teachers surveyed believe they can do
• 33 percent of the Texas female high school teachers surveyed believe they can do
• 27 percent of the Texas female high school teachers believe they can do quite a bit
• 44 percent of the Texas female high school teachers surveyed believe they had
• 33 percent of the Texas female high school teachers surveyed believe they can do
• 22 percent of the Texas female high school teachers surveyed believe they can
• 16 percent of the Texas female high school teachers surveyed believe they can do
• 55 percent of the Texas female high school teachers believe they can do quite a bit
they can do very little to influence the decisions that are made in the
school.
they can do quite a bit to get through to the most difficult students.
can do quite a bit to help other teachers with their teaching skills.
70
Group Statistics
Gende Std. Std. Error
r N Mean Deviation Mean
Efficacy 1 11 93.8182 8.28032 2.49661
2 18 87.2778 20.25370 4.77384
Mentoring 1 11 36.4545 8.43046 2.54188
2 18 32.7222 13.19004 3.10892
The mean for the Texas high school male teachers was 20.005 and the female
mean was 20.004. There were 11 Texas high school male teachers who participated in the
high school study and 18 Texas high school female teachers who participated. The
71
difference in the mean was .001, which makes p<.05, so therefore; there is no significant
difference in the male and female self-efficacy score and H03 is rejected.
• 45 percent of the Texas male high school teachers surveyed believe that
• 54 percent of Texas male high school teachers surveyed believe that they
• 18 percent of the Texas male high school teachers surveyed believe that
• 9 percent of the Texas male high school teachers surveyed believe the
• 38 percent of the Texas female high school female teachers surveyed believe that
• 16 percent of the Texas female high school female teachers surveyed believe that
• 27 percent of the Texas high school female teachers believe the mentor apply the
• 11 percent of the Texas high school female teachers surveyed believe that the
The mean of the mentoring survey for Texas high school male teachers was
20.012 and the mean for Texas high school female teachers was 20.005. There was a total
of 18 high school female teachers who participated in the study and 11 high school
female teachers who participated in the study. The mean difference for male and female
The primary purpose of the study was to identify whether teachers’ self-efficacy
level and mentoring experience have a significant impact on those who remain in the
field as opposed to those who leave. The major factors that the dissertation reviewed
were:
This study began with the participants’ perceptions toward each of the
abilities and the mentoring experiences that they had in school. The majority of
the stories had common themes, which suggest that teachers need to have a voice
in decisions affecting the classroom and that mentors and teachers need time to
meet. In general, the teachers who participated in the survey appear to be satisfied
with their abilities and mentoring experiences in the past and present because
most believe that they do have a voice. All of the teachers did not feel that they
had voice in selection of pupils and aspects dealing with classroom structure and
others believed that their mentoring relationships could be stronger if the principal
understood the process and if their was consistent communication. It is very clear
that the communication skills of the administration and others on campus are vital
73
which teachers are recruited, it is evident if the teacher will remain or leave the district. In
several schools in Texas, there are job fairs in which candidates are able to attend and
submit resumes. Many times, due to the need of teachers, many teachers are hired at the
that the teacher is the right personality for the job, three initiatives should take place.
In order to determine if the teacher is the right fit, administrators must conduct
research. In researching the applicant, one must first review the applicant’s attendance
record with permission. In doing so, the administrator will know if this applicant is
committed to the task or get burned out easily. In addition to reviewing the attendance
record, it would also be wise to check the amount of discipline referrals to the office this
teacher has had for the semester or year. If administrators check discipline referrals, this
will provide the administrator with information containing classroom management, which
through the process of interviewing the applicant and also try to see the teacher in action
to see what type of creative learning strategies the teacher have for students.
Second, look for potential teachers who already serve in the district. When
administrators hire those already in the district, the district save money on training and
other areas which can be utilized for instruction. By selecting someone in your district,
the administrator will be able to receive accurate information concerning the skills of the
74
teacher, as well as seek outside references that the teacher has provided. Finally, the
teacher will know and understand how to serve the students and this may prevent
Conclusions
• The results of this study concurred with current research findings on the beliefs of
• Teachers believed that they have a voice in certain situations in school decision
making, but feel that more needs to be done with the mentoring programs such as
communication, planning time and most of all, the mentor applying best practices.
teachers believe that principals have some basic understanding of the mentoring
properly.
• Teachers do not feel empowered to speak up concerning class sizes. Later in the
different personalities have an impact on how the student learns in the classroom.
• Urban schools are in trouble due to the constant flow of teachers leaving. It is
challenging schools.
• Principals and teachers rely on their own back ground experiences for making
classroom.
75
• Elementary, middle and high school teachers possess differences in beliefs and
Recommendations
As suggested earlier in the research, the state of Texas allowing many initiatives to
take place in order to help education. An example of some of the initiatives for education
is the newly elected President. Barak Obama who proposed some billion dollars in funds
for Texas public schools, the highly qualified teacher clause which was set in place and
alternative certification. All of the initiatives that are set in place provide resources for the
students and the teachers. Some of the recommendations to assist principals with the
with self efficacy. Gardner, Simpson, Craftwood and other researchers should be
studied to identify different behaviors and cycles that a teacher goes through when
place correctly.
teaching a lesson to motivate students. Many times, students become bored with
the same curriculum piece and some teachers may feel that they cannot motivate
the students to want to learn, so therefore; if the teacher is able to bring the
students to the application level, then the students can be engaged in the lesson.
relationships through innovation and team work. This training is a 21 hour course
and the district can pay for the training. As a participant, the teacher can earn so
for students. In addition, the administrator should have resources available for
• District officials must have training in recruitment and retention. Three main
1. A support system in which the teacher have several outlets to turn to for
assistance.
3. A teacher must have a flexible mind and heart in order to ensure that each
In dealing with teachers and schools being culturally responsive, the conceptual map
in multicultural research and teaching proposed by Bennett (2001, 175), includes four
genre clusters: curriculum, reform, equity pedagogy, multicultural competence and social
equity. “Research suggests that when teachers have had the benefit of multicultural
teacher education preparation, they are less likely to embrace cultural deficit views
77
develop intellectual, social emotional, and political learning by “using cultural referents
to impart knowledge, skills and attitudes” (p.382). Hollins, (1996) adds that education
Districts in Texas have adopted many procedures such as alternative certification and
highly qualified teachers and other initiatives to improve the Texas schools. The
following recommendations are based on the research and what is needed in Texas public
schools:
• “The research on urban schools suggests that the turnover rate for teachers is over
• A qualitative study should follow this quantitative study to see if teachers have
support bases which build confidence levels. In addition, the teachers’ voice
programs in Texas are effectively run and what recommendations the researcher
find that will be helpful in promoting a successful program on the school campus.
Taxonomy, (which was tailored to the cognitive frame of reference and developed
(which was tailored to the affective frame of reference and developed under the
the each of the taxonomies affect behavior and relates to how teachers view their
Findings
Overall findings of this study offer many implications for professional educational
each individual teacher. The study addressed Self –Efficacy survey, consisting of 30
items, Self-efficacy Survey (SES) subscale Decision making, consisting of 2 items, (SES)
Climate, consisting of 8 items. Each item has a scale of one through five and the range is
2. Gender was not a factor in the difference of scores between a teacher’s self-efficacy
scores and mentoring scores. The largest proportion (45.3 percent) of the participants
3. Teaching assignment grade level was not a factor in the differences between self-
“Evidence shows that large school districts experience less turnover than small
districts, and wealthier and rural districts have less turnover than poorer and urban
districts. There is evidence that middle schools experience more turnover than other
schools, reportedly due to more discipline problems (Guarino et al., 2006). Retention of
teachers generally is higher in public schools than in private schools, albeit there are
The data from this study indicated that the self-efficacy scores and mentoring
scores in relation to gender did not statistically have an effect on a teacher’s perceptions.
School principals and districts can use the results from this study to promote positive
dialogue with teachers and other district personnel. The manner in which an administrator
perceives the significance of the scores by all teacher’s determine if one can find the right
key that will fit in the door of teacher dedication. Teachers can accurately reflect and
personally critique their professional teaching skills when they are aware of research and
best practices. A principal who conveys the importance of teacher perceptions establishes
We have more then enough teachers with degrees and certifications. What we
don’t have is the academic preparation of teachers. Only a minority, 39 percent, have a
80
bachelors or graduate degree in any content area. The majority of teachers today have a
degree in education and even their masters may be in pedagogy. There is a mismatch
between teachers’ academic preparation and the increasingly rigorous demands of the
levels of self-efficacy and mentoring so that teacher candidates are aware of the
teacher’s stories typically reflect themes of reality shock, lonely struggles to survive, and
the loss of idealism. Teachers who are in colleges need to be placed in a traditional school
where there are behavioral problems. Many times internship teachers are placed in
schools where there are little or no discipline issues, which cause a problem when hiring
time approaches. As research suggest, the most need for teachers is in the challenging
schools.
Summary
Recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers has become a focus for school
district administrators since the codification of the No Child Left Behind Act (2002). As a
federal mandate, schools must place highly qualified teachers in the classroom. With the
increase of teacher retention, and the expense of recruitment, it is imperative that districts
teachers. This study enhances the knowledge base that addresses the question of how to
keep teachers satisfied with the profession and keep them from leaving. By giving
administrators access to information such as this research study, teachers will have a
spoken voice and mentoring programs and self-efficacy standards may be enhanced. to
81
APPENDIX A
You have our permission to use the survey, as long as you credit it to the
APPENDIX B
Alfreda,
Thanks,
Dr. Bandura
Albert Bandura
David Starr Jordan Professor of Social Science in Psychology
Jordan Hall, Bldg 420
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305-2130
650/725-2409
bandura@psych.stanford.edu
APPENDIX C
BANDURA’S INSTRUMENT
TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY SCALE
1. How much can you influence the decisions that are made in the school?
84
1. Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
2. How much can you express your views freely on important school matters?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
3. How much can you do to get the instructional materials and equipment you need?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
Instructional Self-Efficacy
4. How much can you do to influence the class sizes in your school?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
5. How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
6. How much can you do to promote learning when there is lack of support from the
home?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
8. How much can you do to increase students’ memory of what they have been taught in
previous lessons?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
9. How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
10.How much can you do to get students to work together?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
11.How much can you do to overcome the influence of adverse community conditions on
students’learning?
85
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
Disciplinary Self-Efficacy
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
15.How much can you do to prevent problem behavior on the school grounds?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
16.How much can you do to get parents to become involved in school activities?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
17.How much can you assist parents in helping their children do well in school?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
18.How much can you do to make parents feel comfortable coming to school?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
Efficacy to Enlist Community Involvement
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
20.How much can you do to get churches involved in working with the school?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
21.How much can you do to get businesses involved in working with the school?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
86
22.How much can you do to get local colleges and universities involved in working with
the school?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
26.How much can you help other teachers with their teaching skills?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
27. How much can you do to enhance collaboration between teachers and the
administration to make the school run effectively?
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
1.Nothing 2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
30.How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork?
1.Nothing .2.Very Little 3.Some Influence 4.Quite a Bit 5.A Great Deal
87
APPENDIX D
Mentoring Survey
New Teachers
Please record the degree of your agreement to each of the following statements
by circling one number on the scale below allowing 1 to represent total disagreement and
5 to represent complete agreement.
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
89
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
APPENDIX E
Alfreda Love
Waco, Texas
emonya_love@yahoo.com
I have been asked to participate in a research study concerning teacher retention. The
purpose of the study is to obtain information concerning my views of self-efficacy and
mentoring as it relates to my personal experiences. I also understand that there 150
90
Each participant will be selected because of their first through fifth year teaching
experience. The researcher will contact each school district and ask to speak to the
principal or assistant principal. Permission will be obtained from one of the
administrators or designees. Once the principal provides gives the researcher permission
to conduct the survey, the researcher will provide the link as well as contact information.
All participants will be aware that a follow-up call or email will be provided to make sure
the answers selected is accurate. Each participant will be asked to read the form and ask
any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study.
Teacher retention has become a national crisis. Research suggests that teachers are
leaving the field in record numbers, especially between the first and fifth year of
teaching. The information obtained in the research will give you a voice and will be read
by many administrators and teachers. Your selection in the survey is a way to ensure that
your continued satisfaction in the school workplace.
By participating in the survey, there are several benefits. First, administrators are in tune
to how a diverse group of first through fifth year male and female teachers’ feels about
mentoring and self-efficacy. Secondly, teachers will be able to reflect on his or her
experiences as well as understand how to grow professionally. Finally, as a participant,
you will have a voice in a research study concerning your area of expertise.
Before the researcher asks for volunteers, the IRB committee from Prairie View will have
approved the study. I understand that I must complete all the questions on the survey to
ensure valid results. Finally, I understand that all of my information will be kept
confidential at all times. If I have any questions, I may contact Alfreda Love
alove@wacoisd.org or emonya_love@yahoo.com.
Date_____________________________
Signature___________________________
APPENDIX F
Letter to Participants
Alfreda Love
Waco, Texas
76705
Emonya_love@yahoo.com
First through Fifth Year Teacher’s Self-Efficacy Level and Mentoring Experience Based
on Gender. The survey is on the following web link will be provided upon approval. Each
participant will have one survey. The first survey will ask questions concerning the
teacher’s level of confidence when dealing with various situations. The second survey
contains questions based on your first year mentoring experience.
The questionnaire will include questions about your self efficacy levels as well as
mentoring experiences. Confidentiality will be maintained at all times. . Should you have
any questions, please contact Alfreda Love at emonya_love@yahoo. If you would like to
speak to someone other than the researchers, you are encouraged to contact Marcia
Shelton (mcshelton@pvamu.edu) in the Compliance Office for Research and
Development P.O. Box 519; MS 1200 Prairie View, Texas 77446. I look forward to your
response and will keep you posted on the research. I will send you various emails to
remind you of deadlines and times.
Sincerely,
Alfreda Love
Researcher at PVAMU
Statement of Consent________________________________
Participant in the study
_________________________
REFERENCES
Airasin, P., & Gay, L. R. (2003). Educational research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education ,101-102.
Alexander, W. M. & George, P. S. (1981). The exemplary middle school. Fort Worth,
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2004). Tapping the potential: Retaining and
developing highqualitynew teachers. (Report). Washington, DC. Retrieved June
92
16,2008,fromhttp://www.all4ed.org/publications/TappingThePotential/TappingTh
ePotential.pdf.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2006). Tapping the potential: Retaining and
developing high-quality new teachers. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent
Education. Retrieved May 21, 2007, from
http://www.all4ed.org/publications/TappingThePotential/TappingThePotential.pd
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2005). Teacher attrition. A costly loss to the nation and
to the states. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved May
21, 2007, from http://www.all4ed.org/publications/TeacherAttrition.pdf
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2006). Tapping the potential: Retaining and
developing high-quality new teachers. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent
Education. Retrieved May 21, 2007, from
http://www.all4ed.org/publications/TappingThePotential/TappingThePotential.pd
Allinder, R.M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices
of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 17, 86-95.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, (2002, September 9). NCTAF
shifts focus from supply to retention. Symposium paves way for new report
AACTE Briefs, 23 (11), 1,3.
Anderman, L.H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Motivation and middle school students [ERIC
digest]. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 421 281)
Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L, Pascal, A., Pauly, E.,
& Zellman,G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in
selected Los Angelesminority schools (Report No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa
Monica, CA: Rand Corporation
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and
student achievement. New York: Longman.
Baker, Bruce Fuller, Edward J., &. Young, Michelle D (2007, April). The relationship
between principal characteristics, principal turnover, teacher quality and student
Achievement.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association. Chicago, IL.
Therapy, 1, 237-268.
93
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.:
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bartwell, C. A. (2006). Shaping teacher induction policy. Teacher Education, 22(4), 27-
43.
Benner, A. D. 2000. "The Cost of Teacher Turnover." Austin, Texas: Texas Center for
Educational Research. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from
http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECOnline/txbess/turnoverrpt.pdf
Bennis, W. (2003). On becoming a leader (revised ed.). New York, NY: Perseus.
Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal
programs supporting educational change (Vol. 3): Factors affecting
implementation and continuation (Report no R-1589/8-Hew). Santa Monica, CA:
Rand. (ERIC Document reproduction service no: ED 140 432).
Bernshausen, D., & Cunningham, C. (2001, March). The role of resiliency in teacher
preparation and retention. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Dallas, TX.
Berry, B. (2004). Recruiting and retaining “highly qualified teachers” for hard-to staff
schools. Kappan, 85 (9), 684-689.
Berry, B., Hopkins-Thompson, P., & Hoke, M. (2002). Assessing and supporting new
teachers: Lessons from the Southeast. Chapel Hill, NC: The Southeast Center for
Teaching Quality, University of North Carolina.
Bickmore, D., Bickmore, S., & Hart, L. (2005, September). Interdisciplinary teaming as
an induction practice. NASSP Bulletin, 89, 30-53.
Blank, W. (1997). Authentic instruction. In W.E. Blank & S. Harwell (Eds.), Promising
practices for connecting high school to the real world (pp. 15-21). Tampa, FL:
University of South Florida. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 407
586)
Bliss, J., & Finneran, R. (1991). Effects of school climate and teacher efficacy on teacher
stress. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago.
Brewster, C., & Railsback, J. (2001). Supporting beginning teachers: How administrators,
teachers and policymakers can help new teachers succeed. Retrieved April 13,
2007, from http://www.nwrel.org/request/may01/textonly.html.
Brissie, J.S., Hoover-Dempsy & Bassler, O.C. (1998). Individual, situational contributors
to teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Research, 82(2), 106-112.
Brooks, N., Bruno, E., & Burns, T. (1997). Reinforcing students’ motivation through
parentInteraction. (Report No. PS-025753). Master’s thesis, Saint Xavier University
&IRI/Skylight, 1997. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED411074)
Brophy, J. E., & Everston, C. M. (1974). Appendix to First Year Data of Texas Teacher
Effectiveness Project: Complex Relationships Between Teacher Process Variables
and Student Outcome Measures: Texas Univ , Austin Research and Development
Center for Teacher Education.
Brown, S. (2003). Working: Why mentoring programs may be the key to teacher
95
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2003). A test of the factorial validity of the Teacher Efficacy
Scale. Research in Education, 69, 67-79.
Butt, G., & Lance, A. (2005). Secondary teacher workload and job satisfaction: Do
successful strategies for change exist? Educational Management Administration and
Leadership, 33(4), 401-422.
Certo, J. L., & Fox, J. E. (2002). Retaining quality teachers. High School Journal, 86(1),
57-76.
Choy, S. P., Chen, X., Bugarin, R., & Broughman, S. P. (2006). Teacher professional
development in 1999-2000: What teachers, principals, and district staff report
(NCES 2006-305). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Colgan, C. (2004). Is there a teacher retention crisis? American School Board Journal,
(August), 22-25.
Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., and Wilson, S. (2001, February). A case of successful
teaching policy: Connecticut’s long-term efforts to improve teaching and learning.
University of Washington: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing
96
world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sclan, E. (1996). Who teaches and why. In J. Sikula, T.
Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research teacher education: a project of
the Association of Teacher Educators (second ed., pp. 67-101). New York, NY:
Author.
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation:
how well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher
Education, 53(4).
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: why it matters, what leaders can
do? Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6-13.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: a national teacher supply policy for
education: the right way to meet the “highly qualified” teacher challenge
[Electronic Version]. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11. Retrieved March
15, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n33/.
Davis, J., & Wilson, S. M. (2000). Principals’ effort to empower teachers: Effects on
teacher motivation and job satisfaction and stress. The Clearing House, 73(6),
349-353.
Dev, P.C. (1997). Intrinsic motivation and academic achievement: What does their
relationship imply for the classroom teacher? Remedial and Special Education,
18(1), 12-19.
Droege, S.B., & Hoobler, J.M> (2003). Employee turnover and tacit knowledge
disfussion: A network perspective: Journal of Managerial Issues 15 (1), 50-66.
Deemer, S., & Minke, K. (1999). an investigation of the factor structure of the Teacher
Efficacy Scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 1-10.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York,
NY: New Press.
Den Brok, P. Darrell, F. Rickards, T., Bull, E.. (2006). Californian science students’
perceptions of their classroom learning environments. Educational Research and
Evaluation, 12(1), 3- 25.
Denzine, G., Cooney, J., & McKenzie R. (2005). Confirmatory factor analysis of the
Teacher Efficacy Scale for prospective teachers. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 75, 689-708.
DiPaola, M. F., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2003). Principals and special education: The
critical role of school leaders (COPPSE Document No. 1B-7). Gainesville, FL:
University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.
97
Drago-Severson, E. (2004). Helping teachers learn principal leadership for adult growth
and development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Droege, S.B., & Hoobler, J.M. (2003). Employee turnover and tacit knowledge
disfussion: A network perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15 (1), 50-66.
Dunn, R., Griggs, S. A., Olson, J., Gorman, B., & Beasley, M. (1995). A meta-analytic
validation of the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model. Journal of Educational
Research, 88(6), 353-362.
Dunn, K. (2006). Teacher mentoring and induction. Educational Leadership, 43(8), 249-
254.
Egan, J. B. (1986). Induction the natural way: Informal mentoring. Paper presented at the
Annual Conference of the National Council of Inservice Education. Nashville.
Epstein, J.L., Coates, L., Salinas, K.C., Sanders, M.G., & Simon, B.S. (1997). School,
family,and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Epstein, J.L., & Sheldon, S.B. (in press). Present and accounted for: Improvingstudent
attendance through family and community involvement. Journal of Educational
Research.
Evans, E.D., & Tribble, M.N. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy and
commitment to teaching among pre-service teachers. Journal of Educational
Research, 80(2), 81-85.
Feiman-Nemser S., & Parker, M.B. (1990). Making subject matter part of the
conversation on helping beginning teachers learn to teach (Research Report No.
90-3). East Lansing: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.
98
60(8), 25-29.
Feistritzer, C.E. (1999). Teacher quality and alternative certification program. Testimony
before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Washington, DC.
Ferguson, R., & Ladd, H. (1996). Additional evidence on how and why money matters.
In H. Ladd (Ed.),Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in
education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Fraenkel, J. & Wallen, N.E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research ineducation.
(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc
Fuller, F. (2003). Beginning teacher retention rates for TXBESS and Non-TxBESS
teachers: Texas State Board for Educator Certification.
Fulton, K., Yoon, I., & Lee, C. (2005). Induction into learning communities. National
Commission on Teaching and America's Future. Retrieved August 2005, from
http://www.nctaf.org/documents/nctaf/NCTAF_Induction_Paper_2005.pdf.
Gagnon, D.L. (2004). Influencing factors that foster first-year teacher success.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education and Leadership, Cardinal
Stritch University, Milwaukee, WI.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: an introduction (7th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Ganser, T. (1995, April). A road map for designing quality mentoring programs for
beginning teachers.Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Wisconsin
Association for Middle Level Education, Stevens Point, WI.
Good, T., & Brophy, J. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th ed.). New York, NY:
Longman.
Greene, M. L., & Campbell, C. (1993). Becoming a teacher: The contribution of teacher
education.Lethbridge: University of Lethbridge, Alberta.
99
Gritz, R. M. and N.D. Theobald (1996). “The Effects of School District Spending
Priorities on Lengthof Stay in Teaching.” Journal of Human Resources 31:3:477–
512.
Guskfy, T. (1987). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy. Journal of
Educational Research, 81, 41-47.
Guarino, C. M., Santibañez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and
retention: A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational
Research, 76(2), 173-208.
Guskey, T.R (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the
affective characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21,
245-259.
Guarino, Cassandra, Lucrecia Santibanez, Glenn Daley, and Dominic Brewer (2004). “A
Reviewof the Research Literature on Teacher Recruitment and Retention.” Santa
Monica, CA: RANDCorporation. TR-164-EDU.
Theobald, Neil D. (1990). “An Examination of the Infl uence of Personal, Professional,
and SchoolDistrict Characteristics on Public School Teacher Retention.”
Economics of Education Review 9:3:241–250.
Haack, P.A. (2006). Mentoring and professional development programs: Possibilities and
pitfalls. Music Educators Journal, 92(4), 60-64 W
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness:
A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly,
32(1), 5-44.
Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal
of Human Resources, 39, 326-354.
Harrell, P., Leavell, A., Van Tassel, F., and McKee, K. (2004). No teacher left behind:
Results of a five year study of teacher attrition. Action in Teacher Education,
26(2), 47-59.
Harvard Management Update. (April, 2000). Employee retention: What managers can do.
Boston: Harvard Business School.
Heifetz, R., & Laurie, D. (2001). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review
(December), 131-140.
Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leading with an open heart [Electronic Version].
Leader to Leader, 26, 28-33, from
http://leadertoleader.org/leaderbooks/L2L/fall2002/heifetz.html.
Heller, D. A. (2004). Teachers wanted: Attracting and retaining new teachers. Alexandria,
VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Henke, R., Chen, X., Geis, S., & Knepper, P. (2000). Progress through the
teacherpipeline: 1992–93 college graduates and elementary/secondary teaching as
of 1997.Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Henke, R., Zahn, L., and Carroll, C., (2001). Attrition of New Teachers Among Recent
College Graduates: Comparing Occupational Stability Among 1992-93 Graduates
Who Taught and Those Who Worked in Other Occupations (NCES 2001-189).
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Washington DC.
Herbert, K., & Ramsay, M. (2004). Teacher turnover and shortages of qualified teachers
in Texas public school districts. Austin, TX: Texas State Board for Educator
Certification.
Herman, J.L., & Yeh, J.P. (1980). Some effects of parent involvement in schools.(Report
No. CSE-R-138). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
AmericanEducational Research Association, Boston, MA. (ERIC Document
Reproduction ServiceNo. ED206963)
Hirsch, E., & Emerick, S. (with Church, K., & Fuller, E.). (2007). Teacher working
conditions are student learning conditions: A report on the 2006 North Carolina
teacher working conditions survey. Hillsborough, NC: Center for Teaching
Quality. Retrieved June 22, 2007, from http://www.teachingquality
.org/pdfs/twcnc2006.pdf
Hollins, E.R. (1996). Culture in School Learning: Revealing the Deep Meaning.
Mahwah, NJ: ErIbaum.
Houchins, D., Shippen, M. & Cattret, J. (2004). The retention and attrition of juvenile
justice teachers. (2004). Education and Treatment of Children, 27(4), 374-393.
Howard, T.C. (2003). Who receives the short end of the shortage? Implications of the U.S
teacher shortage on urban schools. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(2),
pp.142-160.
Hoy, W. K. (2001). Wayne K. Hoy’s web site: Instruments. Retrived July 14, 2007, from
http://www.coe.ohio-state.edu/whoy.
Hudson, M.J. (1998). Linking school and community to build national recruitment and
preparation programs for teachers of color: Emerging leadership qualities.
Education and Urban Society, 31, 62-72.
Hull, J. W. (2004). Filling in the gaps: understanding the root causes of the teacher
shortage can lead to solutions that work. Threshold (Spring), 8-15.
Hurst, B. & Reding, G. (2002). Teachers mentoring teachers. Phi Delta Kappan Fastback.
Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Imants, J. and Van Zoelen, A., 1995. Teachers’ Sickness Absence in Primary Schools,
School Climate and Teachers’ Sense of Efficiency. School Organization 15, 77-87.
Ingersoll, R. (2002a). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong
prescription. NASSP Bulletin, 86(June), 16-31.
Ingersoll, R. (2003a). Is there really a teacher shortage? (Research Report No. R-03-4).
102
Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of
Washington.
Ingersoll, R.M (2003b). The Teacher Shortage: Myth or Reality? Educational Horizons,
81(3), 146-152
Ingersoll, R., & Kralik, J. (2004). The impact of mentoring on teacher retention: What the
research says. Education Commission of the States Retrieved on December 15,
2007: from http://www.ecs.org/clearninghouse/50/36/5036.htm
Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational
Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.
Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2004). Do teacher induction and mentoring matter?
Educational Leadership, 87(March), 28-40.
Irvin, J.J. (2003). Educating teachers for a diverse society. Seeing with the cultural eye.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
James, W. (1985). Psychology: The briefer course. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press. (Original work published 1892)
Jensen, M. C. (1987). Induction programs support new teachers and strengthen their
schools. Eugene, OR: Oregon School Study Council.
Johnson, B. (2003). Teacher collaboration: good for some, not so good for others.
Educational Studies, 29(4), 337-350.
Johnson, S. (2006). The workplace matters: Teacher quality, retention, and effectiveness.
Johnson, S. M., Birkeland, S., Kardos, S. M., Kauffman, D., Liu, E., & Peske, H. G.
(2001). Retaining the next generation of teachers: The importance of school-based
support. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Letter Research Online. Retrieved
May 14, 2008, from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/.
Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Kauffman, D., Liu, E., & Donaldson, M. (2004). The
support gap: New teachers’ early experiences in high-income and low-income
103
Johnson, S. M. (2004). Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in
our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, S. M., Berg., J. H., & Donaldson, M. L. (2005, February). Who stays in teaching
and why: A review of the literature on teacher retention. Cambridge, MA: The
Project of the Next Generation of Teachers, Harvard Graduate School of
Education.
Johnson, S.M., & Kardos, S.M. (2005). Bridging the Generation Gap. Educational
Leadership, 62(8), 8-14.
Johnson, S. M. (2006, summer). Why new teachers stay. American Educator, 7-21.
Joppe, M. (2000). The Research Process. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from
http://www.nova.edu/sss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf
Kauffman, D., Johnson, S., Kardos, S., Liu, E., & Peske, H. (2002). “Lost at sea”: New
teachers’ experiences with curriculum and assessment. Teachers College Record,
104(2), 273-300.
Kaye, B., & Jordan-Evans, S. (2001). Retaining key employees. Public Management, 83,
6-12.
Kelly, S. (2004). An event history analysis of teacher attrition: Salary, teacher tracking,
and socially disadvantaged schools. The Journal of Experimental Education,
72(3), 195-220.
Krieg, J.M. (2006). Teacher quality and attrition. Economics of Education Review, 25,
13-27.
Kushman, J.W., Sieber, C., & Heariold-Kinney, P. (2000). This isn't the place for me:
School dropout. In D. Capuzzi & D.R. Gross (Eds.), Youth at risk: A prevention
resource for counselors, teachers, and parents (3rd ed., pp. 471-507). Alexandria,
VA: American Counseling Association.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A
culturally relevant approach to literacy teaching. Theory Into Practice, 31(4), 312-
104
320.
Lake, W. (2006). Why teachers deserve the money. The Tribune, 5(6), 5-10.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning. Toronto, Canada: Center for Applied Research and
Educational Improvement and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: The Education Schools
Project. Retrieved July 15, 2007, from www. edschools.org/teacher_report.htm.
Levy, Abigail, Fields, Erica & Jablonski, Erica. (2006). Overview of research. What we
know and don’t know about the consequences of science and math teacher
turnover. Paper presented at the NCTAF Symposium on the Scope and
Consequences of K-12 Science and Mathematics Teacher Turnover.
Loehr, J., & Schwartz, T. (2003). The power of full engagement. NY: Free Press.
Lopez, A., Lash, A., Schaffner, M., Shields, P., & Wagner, M. (2004). Review of research
on the impact of beginning teacher induction on teacher quality and retention.
Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved May 30, 2006,
fromhttp://policyweb.sri.com/cep/publications/publications.jsp.
Lumsden, L.S. (1994). Student motivation to learn (ERIC Digest No. 92). Eugene, OR:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 370 200)
Mark, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Menchaca, V. (2003). A wake-up call for principals: Are your novice teachers leaving?
Catalyst for Change, 33(1), 25-27.
Minarik, M., Thornton, G., & Perrault, G. (2003). Systems thinking can improve teacher
retention. The Clearing House, 76(5), 230-235.
Morice, L. & Murray, J. (2003). Compensation and teacher retention: A success story.
Educational Leadership, 60(8), 40-43.
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (1996). What Matters Most:
105
National Partnership for Teaching in At-Risk Schools. (2005). Qualified teachers for at-
risk schools: a national imperative. Washington, DC. Retrieved May 14, 2008,
from http://www.ncrel.org/quality/partnership.htm.
Odell, S., & Huling, L. (2000). Quality mentoring for novice teachers. Reston, VA:
Kappa Delta Pi International Honor Society.
Olson, L. (2003). Swimming upstream. Education Week on the web: Editorial Projects in
Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational
inequality. The Civil Rights Project. Harvard University.
Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and self-efficacy. Retrieved May
14, 2008, from http://www.emory.edueducation/mfp/eff.htm].
Papalewis, R., Jordan, M., Cuellar, A., Gaulden, J., & Smith, A. (1991). School
administrators for the culturally and linguistically diverse: A formal mentor
training program in progress. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on
Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 333 094)
106
Pong, S., Pallas, A. (2001). Class size and math achievement in the United States and
abroad. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(3), 251-273.
Protheroe, N., Lewis, A., & Paik, S. (2002). Promoting teacher quality. Retrieved January
18, 2003 from www.ers.org/spectrum/win02a/htm.
Public Education Network. (2003). The voices of the new teacher. Washington, DC:
Public Education Network.
Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2000). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement.Unpublished manuscript.
Rosenow, D. (2005). Stress, burnout and self-esteem among educators. Journal of Border
Educational Research, 4, 87-90.
Rowland, Cortney and Coble, Charles (2005) Targeting Teacher Recruitment and
Retention Policies for At-Risk Schools North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory , Naperville, Sargent, B. (2003). Finding good teachers and keeping
them. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 44-47.
Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. (2002). What large-scale survey research tells
usabout teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects Study
ofElementary Schools. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525–1567
Rowley, J.B. (1999). The good mentor. Educational Leadership, 56(8), 20-22.
Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future
student academic achievement: Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System
(TVAAS).
Sargent, B. (2003). Finding good teachers and keeping them. Educational Leadership,
107
Sheldon, S.B., & Epstein, J.L. (2001a, August). Focus on math achievement: Effects of
familyand community involvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
AmericanSociological Association, Anaheim, CA. Retrieved July 5, 2002, from
National Networkof Partnership Schools Website:
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/type2/issue11/ ttype2k4.htm
Sheldon, S.B., & Epstein, J.L. (2001b). Improving student behavior and discipline with
familyand community involvement. Retrieved July 5, 2002, from Johns Hopkins
University,National Network of Partnership Schools Web
site:http://www.csos.jhu.edu/ p2000/type2/issue12/ttype215.htm
Shockley, R., Guglielmino, P., & Watlinton, E. (2006). The costs of teacher attrition. A
paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and
Improvement. Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Simon, B.S. (2000). Predictors of high school and family partnerships and the influence
of partnerships on student success. Doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins
University, 2000.Retrieved July 5, 2002, from National Network of Partnership
Schools Web site:http://www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/type2/issue10/ttype2j4.htm12
Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004a). Reducing teacher turnover. What are the components
of effective induction? American Education Research Journal, 41, 687-714.
Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004b). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on
beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681-
714.
Stedman, J.B. (2004 June 16). K-12 Teacher quality: Issues and legislative action.
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. (CRS Report No. RL30834).
Southeast Center for Teaching Quality (2002). Recruitment and retention strategies in a
regional and national context. Retreived March 03, 2003 from
http://www.teachingquality.org/resources /pdfs.
Strizek, G. A., Pittsonberger, J. L., Riordan, K. E., Lyter, D. M., & Orlofsky, G. F. (2006).
Characteristics of schools, districts, teachers, principals, and school libraries in the
United States: 2003-04 schools and staffing survey. Retrieved December 16,
2007.fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubinfo.asp?pubid=200631
Strong, M., & St.John, I. (2001). A study of teacher retention: The effects of mentoring
108
Texas Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). The Cost of Teacher Turnover. Austin
TX: Texas State Board of Educator Certification.
Theobald, N. D., & Laine, S. W. M. (2003). The impact of teacher turnover on teacher
quality: Findings from four states. In M. L. Plecki & D. H. Monk (Eds.), School
finance and teacher quality: Exploring the connections (pp. 33-54). Larchmont,
NY: Eye on Education.
Thompson, S. (2004). Developing teacher leaders: The principal’s role. Reston, VA:
National Middle School Principal Association.
Trubowitz. S. (2004). The why, how, and what of mentoring. Phi Delta Kappan 86(1),
pp.59-62.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-785
Upson, L., Koballa, T., & Gerber, B. (2002). Preparing science specific mentors: A look
at onesuccessful Georgia program. In Proceedings of the Annual International
Conference of theAssociation for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte,
NC.
Van Voorhis, F.L. (2001). Interactive science homework: An experiment in home and
schoolconnections. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin,
85(627),20-32.
109
Veenman, S., & Denessen, E. (2001). The coaching of teachers: Results of five training
studies. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7 (4), 385-417.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement [Electronic
Version] from www.mcrel.org.
Wheatley, M. (2002). Turning to one another: Simple conversations to return hope to the
future. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Wildman, T. M., Maggliaro, S. G., Niles, R. A., & Niles, J. A. (1992). Teacher mentoring:
An analysis of roles, activities, and conditions. Journal of Teacher Education,
43(3), 205-213.
Williams, J. S. (2003). Why great teachers stay. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 71-74.
Wilson, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (2001). A case of successful teaching
policy: Connecticut’s long-term effects to improve teaching and learning.
Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Woods, E.G. (1995). Reducing the dropout rate. In School Improvement Research Series
(SIRS): Research you can use (Close-up No. 17). Portland, OR: Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved October 2, 2000, from the World
Wide Web: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/9/c017.html
Wong, H.K. (2005). What the World Can Teach US About New Teacher Induction. Phi
Delta Kappan, 86(5), 379-384.
Wright, S., Horn, S., & Sanders, W. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects
onstudent achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of
PersonnelEvaluation in Education, 11, 57–67.
Zellman, G.L., & Waterman, J.M. (1998). Understanding the impact of parent
schoolinvolvement on children’s educational outcomes. The Journal of
Educational Research,91(6), 370-380.
VITA
Alfreda Love
emonya_love@yahoo.com
EDUCATION
.
2006-2007- Principal Certification-Texas A and M University
2005-Present- Pending Ph.D. Prairie View and Texas A and M University (Educational
111
Administration
2002-2005 Masters in Educational Leadership. Prairie View A and M University
PERTINENT EMPLOYMENT
Topic Researched
An Analysis of First through Fifth Year Teacher’s Self –Efficacy Scores and Mentoring
Scores in Relation to Gender.
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
NAACP
African American Chamber of Commerce
Higher Ground Productions
Southern Leadership Society
Team in Training
Waco Striders Club
Who’s Who among Athletes?
Who’s Who Among Professionals
National Congress for Women
American Federation for Teachers
African American Administrators
HONORARY SOCIETIES
Upcoming-
2008 Florida ISD-Involving Parents and the Communities in School Business
Professional Meetings
Texas A and M Symposium on Education
Prairie View A & M Symposium on Education
San Antonio Symposium
Love, Alfreda and Kritsonis, William. (2007). A Principals Role in Teacher Retention.
Love, Alfreda, and Kritsonis, William (2006). Change Agents Understand Direction
Love, Alfreda. (2005). A National Perspective of Special Education Through the Eyes of
an Administrator