10.1177/0014402914532231
Article
Mentoring in Action: The Interplay Among Professional Assistance, Emotional Support, and Evaluation
Exceptional Children 2014, Vol. 81(1) 45–63 © 2014 The Author(s) DOI: 10.1177/0014402914532231 ec.sagepub.com
Maya Israel1, Margaret L. Kamman2, Erica D. McCray2, and Paul T. Sindelar2
Abstract The growing emphasis on teacher accountability has led to increased integration of teacher evaluation and new teacher mentoring. This study examined professional and emotional mentoring supports within an urban school district that centered its induction program on structured teacher evaluation. Five mentors and 16 new special educators participated in this study. Data included evaluation reports for the 2009–2010 school year, mentor time allocation charts, and new teacher interviews. Results indicated the following: (a) Evaluation provided guidance for mentors’ feedback; (b) emotional supports and professional supports were interrelated, wherein emotional supports occurred within the context of professional supports; and (c) the majority of the new teachers did not indicate that the evaluation adversely affected their mentoring experience.
Teacher attrition in special education is often attributed to the professional struggles of new special educators (Billingsley, 2010; Griffin, Winn, Otis-Wilborn, & Kilgore, 2003). To remedy some of these struggles, districts institute induction programs to address new teachers’ professional challenges (Billingsley, Carlson, & Klein, 2004; Glazerman et al., 2010; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Ingersoll and Strong (2011) explained that the goal of induction programs is to “both enhance and prevent the loss of teachers’ human capital, with the ultimate aim of improving the growth and learning of students” (p. 203). Although induction programs vary greatly, most include a mentoring component (Billingsley, Griffin, Smith, Kamman, & Israel, 2009). In fact, the terms mentoring and induction are often used synonymously as mentors manage the induction supports offered through the school districts. Of the various roles of mentors, the most prominently cited functions involve emotional support, such as strategies for handling job-related stress of the first years (Algozzine, Gretes,
Queen, & Cowan-Hathcock, 2007; FeimanNemser, 2003; Gold, 1996; Whitaker, 2000), and specific professional supports. Such supports include assistance with instruction, aligning instruction to the content standards, behavior management, compliance processes, and understanding schoolwide policies (Algozzine et al., 2007; White & Mason, 2006). In addition to the emotional and pro fessional supports provided by mentors, mentoring programs may include evaluative components because of the high-stakes academic accountability pressures increasing within K–12 settings (Griffin, 2010; Sindelar, Heretick, Hirsch, Rorrer, & Dawson, 2010). Despite this trend, research is sparse
1
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign University of Florida
2
Corresponding Author: Maya Israel, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 276B Education Building, 1310 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820. E-mail:
[email protected]
46 and inconsistent about how to best combine mentoring and evaluation of new special education teachers (SETs). Some literature reports negative effects of evaluation within mentoring practices (Gehrke & McCoy, 2007; White & Mason, 2006). These studies point to new teachers’ discomfort with reporting concerns to the mentors who may also evaluate them. In fact, some state policies—including those of Indiana, Washington, and Oregon—prohibit the use of mentors as formal evaluators (Sindelar et al., 2010). Other studies point to the usefulness of credible teacher evaluation, as it provides useful feedback that supports ongoing teacher development (Tyler, Taylor, Kane, & Wooten, 2010). Darling-Hammond (2012) asserts that teaching and learning be viewed as part of a coherent system of teacher development, teaching quality, and evaluation along a continuum for licensure. She suggests that local standards and evaluation be aligned to state standards. Further, evaluations should be a tool for promoting quality, linked to supports and professional learning opportunities. The continuum of teaching quality and licensure would allow for teachers to demonstrate growth over time and not only highlight practice in need of improvement but also recognize exemplary educators who can become effective mentors and coaches. Emerging research about induction programs with evaluation components and the current accountability climate suggests that more information is needed about mentors’ roles as evaluators (Griffin, 2010). The purpose of this study was therefore to investigate how one urban district that includes structured evaluation as part of its mentoring program addressed the emotional and professional development (PD) of beginning SETs. The research questions were as follows: (a) Within the context of a mentoring program with a strong evaluation component, what types of professional and emotional supports are provided to the new SETs? and (b) What is the relationship between professional and emotional supports within this mentoring program?
Exceptional Children 81(1)
A Theoretical Framework for Mentoring: Kram’s View of Psychosocial and Career Supports Although mentoring research is fairly new in the context of SET support, it has been well established in other fields, such as business and medicine. In these fields, mentoring programs often rest on the theoretical framework developed by Kram (1985; Ragins & Kram, 2007), as it considers the roles of mentoring in supporting professional growth (Bozeman & Feeney, 2007). Kram (1985) described mentoring in the context of inducting professionals into business environments. In 2007, Ragins and Kram revisited this widely accepted mentoring framework for business mentoring relationships and expanded this work to include current contextual factors (e.g., workplace diversity, technology) in further development of this theoretical framework. Although not yet applied within educational contexts, Kram’s framework provides a helpful lens through which we can consider mentoring practices for SET induction. This is particularly true as beginning SETs might need mentoring support from multiple sources to meet the varied demands of their complex roles (Higgins & Kram, 2001; Jones, Youngs, & Frank, 2013).
Career and Psychosocial Functions of Mentoring Kram differentiated between two functions of mentoring: career support and psychosocial support. She described career support functions as assisting new professionals to “learn the ropes” (p. 5) of the profession. These career functions involve help in navigating the steps of organizational advancement and protections against disadvantageous assignments. Kram described psychosocial functions as helping the novice professional’s self-efficacy and emotional well-being. These psychosocial supports included role modeling, offering acceptance, and counseling through the various dilemmas that occur during enculturation.
47
Israel et al. In special education mentoring, Kram’s career supports can be interpreted as addressing the professional and instructional needs of new SETs, such as scheduling, complying with individualized education programs, managing behavior, facilitating instructional strategies, and collaborating with paraeducators, parents, and colleagues (Algozzine et al., 2007; Griffin et al., 2003; White & Mason, 2006). Psychosocial mentoring supports, however, could address the emotional needs of new SETs and may include providing new SETs with understanding about being a new teacher and working through job-related anxieties (Billingsley et al., 2009). In addition to considering the various career and psychosocial functions of special education mentoring and induction, it is helpful to consider how Kram considers the career and psychosocial functions of mentoring and how these roles apply within the context of SET induction. Kram examined the mentoring literature over the past 20 years and developed insights into mentoring as including four constructs: (a) Career and psychosocial supports have different roots and outcomes and are independent constructs; (b) there is great variability among the degree of career and psychosocial supports across mentoring relationships; (c) mentoring relationships continually evolve through the four phases of initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition; and (d) individuals may provide either career or psychosocial supports without a formal designation as a mentor. Considering these four areas as they apply within special education helps us to clarify commonalities between Kram’s model and the special education mentoring frameworks and to highlight gaps in our understanding of mentoring within an educational context. First, in Kram’s model, career and psychosocial mentoring functions are parallel constructs with distinct functions. The SET induction literature has similarly addressed these functions separately; however, no studies have yet examined if these functions are interrelated. Second, Kram and colleagues recognized the variability among mentoring relationships. Similarly, literature reviews of special educa-
tion induction and mentoring programs highlight this variability (Bartlett & Johnson, 2010; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). Variability is often attributed to funding levels of mentoring and induction programs (Bartlett & Johnson, 2010; Stanulis & Floden, 2009) and includes differences related to mentoring programs’ length of time, level of administrative advocacy for job-embedded supports (e.g., shared planning time), and the length and intensity of PD for mentors to support new teachers. Kram’s third assertion is that mentoring relationships evolve over time and eventually result in either separation or a more collegial relationship between mentor and mentee. The special education induction and mentoring literature does not yet address how mentoring relationships evolve over time. Formal mentoring programs typically have a set time frame, which are often restricted by funding (Bartlett & Johnson, 2010). Last, Kram highlighted the phenomenon in which new professionals received mentoring from colleagues without formal role designations. In the special education literature, the distinction between formal and informal mentors exists as well. Whitaker (2000) found that new special educators often preferred mentoring provided through informal relationships to formal mentoring structures. In applying Kram’s theoretical framework within SET mentoring, examining the relationship between career and psychosocial supports is warranted, and in light of the emerging trend of combining mentoring and evaluation it is necessary to examine how teacher evaluation influences the applicability of Kram’s model. This investigation consequently considers the interplay between career and psychosocial supports within the context of new SET evaluation.
Method The intent of this study was to understand how new SET mentoring occurred within a program with a well-structured new teacher evaluation component. Data collection and analysis took place after approval by the institutional review board. Qualitative data
48 were collected from evaluation and correspondence documents as well as participant interviews. Document data were then numerically coded through a transformation data analysis design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Creswell, Fetters, and Ivankova (2004) explained this process as a means to “gather qualitative data, analyze it for codes and themes according to a predetermined codebook or conceptual framework, and (typically) numerically count the codes and themes” (p. 11). By doing so, the researchers could ascertain the frequency of each theme within the analyzed documents.
Background of the Study Findings of this study are part of a larger research effort examining how school districts in general can offer mentoring support to early career SETs. Data were collected by a large national technical assistance and dissemination center as part of a larger study. The center’s efforts focused on examining the induction and mentoring practices of three districts, identified for successfully providing induction for beginning SETs. This study took place in a large urban district located in the Midwestern United States. It serves approximately 35,000 students from preschool through 12th grade and is largely African American (68.8%) and Caucasian (23.7%). The district currently provides special education services to approximately 7,800 students, or 22% of the total student population.
The School District Mentoring and Structured Evaluation Program In 1985, this school district developed a mentoring program that focuses supports through a structured teacher evaluation based on Danielson’s (1996) professional practice framework. The overarching goal of the evaluation program is to reduce new teacher attrition and increase teacher competence and effectiveness. The Danielson framework includes four domains:
Exceptional Children 81(1) Domain 1: Planning and preparation for student learning Domain 2: Creating an environment for learning Domain 3: Teaching and learning Domain 4: Professionalism The school district adapted this framework in minor ways to reflect district policies and initiatives. Table 1 provides a matrix between these four domains and criteria that the new teachers must attain. For example, Criterion 1.2 falls within Danielson’s first domain (planning and preparing for student learning) and states, “The teacher uses a variety of assessments that align with standards.” Each domain aligns with multiple standards on which the new teachers are evaluated across four levels: unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, and distinguished. New teachers need to receive basic scores across all standards, while teachers new to the school district with 4 or more years of prior teaching experience must demonstrate proficient scores. The coordinator of the mentoring and induction program assigned each new special educator a mentor who also served as the instructional evaluator. Mentors had a thorough working knowledge of the Danielson framework and its application within the district evaluation system. If a teacher therefore had difficulty with, for example, Criterion 1.2, the mentor provided support directly aligned to that criteria. New SETs were observed both formally and informally, with increased expectations for teachers to move beyond basic proficiency across all four domains of the evaluation. At a minimum, the mentors observed the mentees twice informally and twice formally. If a new teacher struggled, the mentor increased the frequency of interactions and observations to facilitate the new special educator’s progress within the structured evaluation.
Participants After receiving institutional review board approval, 16 new SETs and five districtassigned mentors were recruited and agreed to
49
Israel et al. Table 1. Criteria in District’s Comprehensive Evaluation Summary. Domains 1: Planning and preparing for student learning 2: Creating an environment for learning
3: Teaching and learning
4: Professionalism
Criteria 1.1. The teacher acquires and uses knowledge about individual students as learners in preparing lessons, which consider the students’ academic needs 1.2. The teacher uses a variety of assessments that align with standards 1.3. The teacher reflects on the lesson’s effectiveness and student engagement and uses that reflection in planning future instruction 2.1. The teacher creates an inclusive and caring environment in which each individual is respected and valued 2.2. The teacher establishes effective routines and procedures, maintains a safe and orderly environment, and manages transitions to maximize instructional time 2.3. The teacher manages and monitors student behavior to maximize instructional time 3.1. The teacher communicates standards-based instructional objectives, high expectations, instructive directions, procedures, and assessment criteria 3.2. The teacher demonstrates content knowledge by using content-specific instructional strategies 3.3. The teacher uses standards-based instructional activities that promote conceptual understanding, extend student thinking, and monitors/adjusts instruction to meet individual needs 3.4. The teacher engages students in discourse and uses thought-provoking questions aligned with the lesson objectives to explore and extend content knowledge 3.5. The teacher provides timely, constructive feedback to students about their progress toward the learning objectives using a variety of methods and corrects student errors/misconceptions 4.1. The teacher tracks student progress toward meeting the standards, (including indicators and benchmarks) and maintains instructional records that show the basis for grade assignment 4.2. The teacher informs the family about the academic/social progress of the student and the instructional program and encourages family involvement in the student’s education 4.3. The teacher establishes and maintains professional relationships by engaging in discourse about professional issues with peers/teams, functioning as a member of an instructional team/department/level, and participating in school events and district initiatives 4.4. The teacher improves content knowledge and pedagogical skills by participating in professional development activities
participate in this study. The school district’s induction coordinator purposefully selected 16 new SETs out of a total of 29 potential participants to provide a range of perspectives, specifically having representatives from different grade levels and service delivery models, serving students with a varying range of needs, and working at schools identified by the district as high or low need. Mentors. The five special education mentors in this study were highly skilled SETs designated by their school districts as lead
teachers—the highest professional rank. To be designated at this level, teachers had to complete a lengthy application process that included classroom observations, written essays, and an interview. Once they achieved lead teacher status, to participate as districtassigned mentors, the teachers were vetted through an application process, including an interview and evaluation by the district’s peer review board. After being selected, mentors received a 10-day PD on mentoring, with the focus on the evaluation system as it applied to SETs. This PD included thorough work in
50 scoring new teachers based on the evaluation system, including a great deal of work on interrater reliability with the evaluation instrument. This was done through viewing videos of new teachers and jointly scoring them, discussions of the specific benchmarks within the evaluation guide, and shadowing or observing experienced mentors. To begin their work, mentors had to pass several scoring assessments demonstrating their proficiency in observing teacher practice and providing feedback with fidelity. In addition to this initial preparation, the mentors met regularly to problem-solve complex mentoring challenges and improve evaluation consistency and interrater reliability. Although the mentoring program was designed for new general education teachers and new SETs, the new SETs were assigned only mentors with a special education background. In addition, mentors and mentees were matched on the basis of specific mentor expertise (e.g., literacy, significant disabilities, autism, mathematics) and the new SETs’ instructional contexts (e.g., inclusive content instruction, self-contained settings with students with significant disabilities). New special educators. All SET participants were new in the school district and were expected to participate in the mentoring program as part of their induction into it. Of these new SETs, 16 were purposefully selected to provide a diverse participant sample: 10 were Caucasian and 6 were African American; eight held bachelor’s degrees and eight held master’s degrees. Eight new SETs were teaching in schools identified as low performing by the district, and eight were at schools considering high performing. Six new teachers were located at elementary schools and 10 at secondary locations. Five new SETs taught in self-contained classrooms and the remaining 11 in inclusive or resource room settings.
Data Collection Data were collected during the 2009–2010 school year. Sources included all new teacher evaluation records for the 16 participating new SETs, mentor time allocation charts, and
Exceptional Children 81(1) new SET interviews. The research team that worked on this study consisted of special education faculty members and graduate students studying in the areas of special education and school psychology from two universities. Evaluation document collection. To understand how the mentors evaluated the new SETs, documents pertinent to the mentoring and evaluation program were gathered. Mentors observed their assigned new special educators at least twice informally and twice formally. During each observation session, mentors took detailed notes of observed instructional practices. After each observation, mentors aligned the observations with the evaluation criteria and gauged the observed instructional practices for adherence. The resulting evaluation documents included detailed observation notes, recommendations to improve practice based on the evaluation criteria, communication logs, and all e-mail communications. New teacher interviews. To gain the perspectives of the new SETs, semistructured interviews (Merriam, 1998) were conducted with the new SETs in the spring of 2010, near the end of their first year of teaching. The main focus of these interviews was to understand the new SETs’ views regarding their mentoring and evaluation experiences. Questions focused on the following areas: types of mentoring activities and supports, expectations for mentoring relationships, comfort with mentors, and the role of evaluation within their mentoring experiences. All interviews were audio recorded and later transcribed for analysis. Mentor time allocation charts. To triangulate the information from the evaluation documents and interviews with the new SETs, the mentors were asked to estimate the average time that they spend in various mentoring roles. They were provided with a list of mentoring activities and then asked to self-report how much time that they spend on each activity in a given week. Mentoring activities included the following: providing emotional support, modeling, lesson planning, providing
51
Israel et al. instructional advice, discussing instructional issues, observing lessons, providing feedback on observations, and seeking resources for their mentees.
Data Analysis Qualitative data analysis. Interviews were conducted and transcribed. Document data and interview transcripts were concurrently analyzed through a constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). During the open coding phase of data analysis, with both transcribed interviews and review documents, data were first organized into discrete units by three coders. The researchers conducted interrater reliability checks in both interview and document analysis data analysis. After each coder completed two interviews, interrater reliability ranged from 65% to 80%. As researchers debriefed and discussed their coding rationale, the team was able to more clearly define codes. After the revised definitions were used, interrater reliability increased to 90% or higher. Each interview in the data set was coded by two people, and interrated reliability checks took place across 100% of the interview data. The document analysis coding instrument consisted of a spreadsheet with the themes, theme definitions, and examples. To establish interrater reliability in coding the evaluation documents, two coders independently coded 15% of the documents: a researcher on this project and an independent coder with document analysis experience. To increase interrater reliability, the coding instrument was refined to include more explicit definitions and examples. The coders met regularly to discuss coding processes until an interrater reliability above 80% was reached. Codes were developed for mentoring as well as evaluation processes. This process occurred through multiple iterations as the researchers discussed the coding structures and cross-validated the emerging themes. When all data were organized in this fashion, all interview transcripts and documents were reexamined to ensure that all data were represented.
Data transformation analysis. Qualitative themes that emerged from evaluation document analysis were then transformed into quantitative data for descriptive statistical analysis. To do so, the qualitative codes were converted into numerical units (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003), and the frequency of each code was computed. These theme frequencies were then used to determine the prevalence of each theme within the mentee evaluation documentation reports. Data analysis credibility. To address issues of trustworthiness and credibility, the research team made use of several sources of data that represented the perspectives both new special educators and mentors. Specifically, mentor and new teacher interviews, formal evaluations, and time allocation charts were used as different sources of data for triangulation. In addition, the research team repeatedly checked its codes and compared interpretations. Last, member checks were conducted with study participants to corroborate themes.
Results The two research questions guiding this study were as follows: (a) Within the context of a mentoring program with a strong evaluation component, what types of professional and emotional supports are provided to the new SETs? and (b) What is the relationship between professional and emotional supports within this mentoring program? To answer these questions, the results are organized into three sections: analysis of evaluation documents, analysis of mentor time allocation data, and analysis of new teacher interview data.
Analysis of Evaluation Documents The document analysis was driven by the first research question: Within the context of a mentoring program with a strong evaluation component, what types of professional and emotional supports are provided to the new SETs? To answer this question, all documentation that mentors were required to maintain
52
Exceptional Children 81(1)
Table 2. Evaluation Report Themes, Descriptions, and Examples. Theme/frequency Observation feedback n = 416 (38.1%)
Theme description
Examples of mentoring activities
Feedback directly tied to informal and formal observations
• • • • • • • • •
Collaborative supports Activities associated with n = 252 (23%) collective professional development opportunities Evaluation strategies Activities intended to support n = 212 (19.4%) new teachers on improving within the structured evaluation Instructional supports n = 158 (14.5%)
Activities intended to improve instructional practices (not related to observation feedback)
Resource supports n = 54 (5%)
Activities associated with finding instructional and other resources
was analyzed (i.e., observation notes, feedback notes, written records of verbal conversations, and e-mail communications). Once these data were coded, they were quantified to ascertain the frequency of each theme within the evaluation records. A total of 1,093 pieces of data were flat coded and then categorized into the five themes that emerged (see Table 2). By order of prevalence, these included observation feedback (38.1%), collaborative supports (23%), evaluation strategies (19.4%), instructional supports (14.5%), and resource support (5%). Across all themes, the data revealed that the mentors provided extensive professional supports, with main emphases given to providing postobservation feedback, assisting with program expectations, and providing feedback specifically tied to the structured evaluation system. These data revealed that the mentors provided both professional and emotional supports, although there was disproportionally more professional support documented than
• • • • • • •
Feedback on instructional strategies Providing praise Feedback on systems and procedures Feedback on instructional planning Suggestions for workshops Opportunities for peer observations Witnessing demonstration lessons General feedback on induction Suggestions to improve in Domain 1, 2, 3, or 4 through either professional development or other specific actions, such as following journaling expectations and addressing standards Behavior management support Instructional strategy support Individualized education program support Instructional material support Co-teaching support Providing building, district, or community resources, such as accessing grant funding Providing instructional resources, such as finding curricular materials and technologies
emotional support. In examining these data in relationship to Kram’s mentoring model, it seems that the evaluation structure of the mentoring program focuses the mentors’ attention on the professional needs of the SETs rather than on their emotional needs. Each of the following five categories illustrates that mentors observed the new SETs’ instructional practices, isolated areas of professional weakness, and provided professional assistance to them so that they could better address their evaluation goals. Observation feedback. Mentors observed the new SETs at least twice informally and twice formally; the majority (38.1%) of evaluation documentation related to the specific feedback tied to these observations. Records of mentors’ observation feedback revealed that the mentors primarily provided detailed, concrete feedback designed to improve the new SETs’ instructional practices to improve performance on new teacher evaluation indicators (see Figure 1). This feedback occurred in
53
Israel et al.
Co-teaching 3%
Planning 5%
Accommodations & modiications 7%
Paraeducators 0% Praise 12%
Classroom procedures 11%
Induction procedures 17%
Materials 5% Instructional strategies 19% Assessment 6%
Building rapport 5% Higher order thinking Behavior 3% 7%
Figure 1. Areas of observation feedback.
direct response to the challenges that the mentors exhibited during informal and formal observations; the mentors provided feedback that specifically addressed the observed weaknesses of the mentees (as reflected on the evaluation rubric) so that the new SETs could address those areas by demonstrating improvements on subsequent observations. Several subthemes of mentor feedback emerged, with 19% addressing recommendations for implementing instructional strategies that support students with disabilities. The evaluation reports indicated, for example, that the new teachers struggled in the areas of providing explicit instructions about learning expectations, modeling, creating opportunities for content-related discourse, and providing instructionally relevant feedback to students. In an e-mail to a new teacher, one mentor wrote, “When doing a group activity, it is important to give directions before you break into groups. . . . .” In another example, the mentor provided feedback to support the new special educator in effectively giving directions to a group of students: “You might have wanted to have a chart that explained the tasks each group was to complete. . . . This would have reduced the amount of time spent on giving and clarifying directions.” In both these examples, the mentors provided specific feedback that tied directly to the observation, which was typical of the mentoring conversations.
The second-largest subtheme, accounting for 17% of the observation feedback, related to mentors urging the new SETs to adhere to the induction program expectations. These data revealed that the new SETs required a great deal of support in understanding the expectations of the mentoring/evaluation program. The mentors offered clarification about the required components of the program to ensure that the new SETs fulfilled the required program expectations. For example, the mentors would reiterate that the new SETs needed to provide detailed written postobservation reflections. One mentor commented, Make sure to incorporate achievement data or other assessment results [in the postobserva tion reflection]. This could mean including something like, “I considered the needs of two of my students as outlined in the [individualized education programs] when creating a small group.”
In this way, the mentor clarified the content expected within the postobservation reflection and modeled how that reflection language could be presented. Other mentoring/evaluation components that the mentors stressed included attending district-required practicum meetings, observing other classroom teachers, and collecting student assessments and other artifacts to share with the mentors. Another subtheme, feedback on the new teachers’ classroom systems and procedures, accounted for 11% of the observation feedback data. The teachers struggled in developing classroom procedures for organizing learning and transitions between activities. After observing the new SETs, the mentors offered ways in which the new teachers could better structure their classrooms and lessons so that their students would understand academic and behavioral expectations as well as instructional goals. For example, mentors provided suggestions for improving instructional practices, such as structuring the classrooms for station teaching and creating procedures for transitioning students between activities in a smooth manner. In another example, a men-
54
Exceptional Children 81(1) Domain 4 suggestions 2% Domain 4 PD 7%
General suggestions 19% Domain 1 PD 5%
Domain 3 suggestions 25%
Domain 3 PD Domain 2 11% suggestions
Domain 1 suggestions 23%
6%
Domain 2 PD 2%
Figure 2. Frequencies of evaluation feedback subthemes.
tor suggested that the new SET “develop hallway rules and procedures. Students ran ahead of [the new SET] during transition from homeroom to pullout session.” Collaborative supports. The next theme, collaborative supports (23%), pertained to mentoring activities that facilitated interactions between the new SETs and other professionals to improve the new SETs’ instructional practice. The most common activities within this theme included mentors’ suggestions for PD opportunities (called practicum) offered within the district, with a major focus on increasing the new SETs’ performance on the teacher evaluation. For example, if a new SET displayed difficulties with using data to inform instructional practice, the mentor would suggest a practicum offered through the district that related to data-based decision making. The mentors would often run the practicum sessions themselves, and could structure these sessions in a manner consistent with the new SETs’ needs. Other less common supports included checking in to make sure that the new SETs did not have concerns, setting up opportunities for them to observe other teachers, modeling demonstration lessons, and providing supports with school procedures (e.g., completing required forms). The mentors provided at least one opportunity
for the new SETs to observe other teachers. A typical documentation of these observations was “arranged a Visiting Day for [new SET] and emailed appropriate suggestions and questions to consider while observing.” Thus, the mentors created opportunities for the new SETs to observe other teachers and facilitated further reflection by helping them brainstorm questions to consider while observing other special educators. Evaluation performance strategies. A theme closely tied to observation feedback was evaluation performance strategies. Whereas items in the observation feedback category strictly related to the observed lessons, evaluation performance strategies accounted for general suggestions aimed at improving proficiency on the evaluation. For example, in giving feedback related to written reflections, one of the mentors e-mailed the following message, “ALWAYS use your [evaluation form] as a guide as you complete each and every reflection. It is very easy to miss part of what the [form] calls you to respond to if you complete the reflection without referring to it.” In reporting on a conversation with a new SET, another mentor reviewed the evaluation form and “provided suggestions as to how to ‘bump up’ 3 level language to 4 level language.” These two examples provide specific suggestions that would allow the new SETs to better perform on the structured evaluation. The majority of the mentors’ strategies aimed at improving new teachers’ performance on the structured evaluation provided targeted suggestions related to the four Danielson evaluative domains (1996) and the included benchmarks. Figure 2 provides the categories in which the mentors provided feedback specific to supporting the new SETs in meeting evaluation requirements. This figure is divided into three categories: general instructional suggestions, instructional suggestions related to Danielson domains (i.e., domain suggestions), and recommendations for practicum sessions addressing those domains (i.e., domain PD). As Figure 2 highlights, whereas 19% of the mentors’ sugges-
55
Israel et al. Instructional Working materials w/paraeducators 5% 5%
Working w/parents 3% Co-teaching 5%
Student behaviors 21%
Accommodations & modiications 7%
Assessment 7% Classroom systems/procedur es 24%
IEPs 5% Instructional strategies 18%
Figure 3. Frequencies of instructional support subthemes.
tions offered general instructional advice, the other 81% either recommended PD experiences or offered specific suggestions for improving the new teachers’ instructional practice in areas of noted weakness. The domain accounting for the largest percentage of data was Domain 3 (teaching and learning), which accounted for 36% of the evaluationspecific data. A typical Domain 3 communication was “[New SET] should attend and participate in a practicum on discourse “ or “gave [new SET] a flier on Differentiated Instruction workshop. Teacher attended.” Domain 1 (planning) accounted for 28% of all the evaluation-specific data. A typical Domain 1 evaluation suggestions included “Be sure to discuss EACH of the asterisks labeled 1.1b. As we discussed, please feel free to simply bullet out each point such as, flexible grouping.” The other two domains together accounted for the other 36% of the evaluation data. An example of Domain 2 (creating a positive learning environment) communication was “[Mentee] attended practicum on discipline and procedures” or “emailed [new SET] about classroom management class that will be offered.” Domain 4 (professionalism) communication included “[New SET] attended the practicum session reviewing Collection of Evidence. She participated in a small group activity that had teachers brainstorming what kinds of evidence fit different elements of collection.”
Mentee-requested instructional supports. Mentee-requested instructional supports were those specifically aimed at improving teachers’ instructional practices but not specifically tied to an aspect of the evaluation system. These supports were offered in response to specific needs that the SETs communicated with their mentors, including help with creating effective classroom systems and procedures or addressing specific student behaviors, as well as assistance with instructional strategies and lesson planning. Figure 3 provides the frequencies of instructional support practices provided by the mentors. As illustrated, the largest categories of mentee-requested instructional supports were help with setting up effective classroom systems and procedures (e.g., procedures for transitioning students from one activity to another, keeping student data organized), specific student behaviors (e.g., managing disruptive behavior), and instructional strategies (e.g., strategies for reading expository texts, writing letters). For example, one mentor’s evaluation notes described supporting a new special educator in teaching The Diary of Anne Frank: “We talked about her upcoming unit on The Diary of Anne Frank. . . . We talked about having students do a series of journal entries based on the idea of being unfairly discriminated against. . . . She will further develop ideas as she plans.” This theme, by its nature, revealed suggestions, resources, and modeling requested by the new SETs to improve their professional capacity. Resource supports. Resource support acco unted for the smallest percentage of document data (5%). Within this theme, predominant support involved directing the new SETs toward resources with which they were unfamiliar. For example, the mentors exposed the new SETs to grant opportunities that could be used to purchase classroom materials, as well as coupons offered by local restaurants that could be used as classroom rewards. Mentors often provided the new SETs with resources to improve their instructional practices. For example, one mentor reported, “[New SET] set as a goal to learn more about the diverse
56
Exceptional Children 81(1) Emotional support, 6.60% Seeking resources, 9%
Modeling, 11%
Observation and feedback, 23.40%
Lesson planning, 8%
Providing instructional support, 24%
Discussing instructional issues, 18%
Figure 4. Mentors’ time allocation.
cultures that make up the learning community at [school]. I loaned her several books and other resources for assessing student performance and using data to plan instruction.” In another example, the mentor stated, “[New SET] asked for assistance locating [math curriculum] for both kindergarten and first grade. I e-mailed various teachers and administrators and was able to locate materials for [new SET]. She picked up materials at practicum.” In other instances, the mentors helped the new SETs with attaining classroom furniture, classroom supplies (e.g., binders for alternate assessment records), classroom games, online instructional resources, lesson planning templates, and a variety of other materials, supplies, or resources to support the new special educators. Several helped the new SETs acquire grant funds for class projects or for student awards. For example, one mentor wrote, “Suggested [new SET] use available grant monies for students to visit the aquarium. Offered to assist [new SET] with writing of grant.” Emotional support qualities of mentoring across themes within the evaluation reports. The document data, by nature of their function within the evaluation process, heavily leaned toward professional mentoring roles instead of providing a detailed description of the emotional supports. The mentors were charged with keeping detailed records of the new SETs’
progress toward meeting evaluation criteria and thus typically focused on aspects of the new SETs’ professional practices. Nonetheless, analyzing the data for emotional supports proved helpful, as they provide context for how Kram’s mentoring model fits within an evaluation-driven mentoring program. The new SET interview data provided further detail regarding the specific emotional support structures within this mentoring and induction program. Of the evaluation documents data, approximately 7% related to the mentors’ description of emotional support. Across the five themes, two provided the types of emotional supports that Kram described: induction supports and observation feedback. Within induction supports, evidence of emotional support was noted as the mentors documented periodically “checking in” on the new SETs to make sure that things were going well. The mentors checked in with the new SETs to gauge their needs and well-being. For example, when one principal noticed that a new SET had stressful days, she called the mentor, who then visited the new SET to debrief and provide support. This type of emotional support (23 reported instances) accounted for only 9% of the induction supports data source. Within the observation feedback theme, the mentors documented providing praise and encouragement specific to the new teachers’ instructional practices. Offering acceptance and building professional selfesteem was evident 50 times within this theme (approximately 12% of the data source). As evidenced in Table 2, the majority of feedback that the mentors provided the new SETs focused on specific instructional feedback and suggestions.
Analysis of Mentor Time Allocation Data The five special education mentors provided fairly consistent accounts for how they allocated their time in various mentoring capacities. Figure 4 provides the average percentages reported in various mentoring tasks. Mentors
Israel et al. consistently designated limited time for emotional support. In fact, the average amount of time that they reported on emotional support ranged between 3% and 15%. These data mirror document analysis data, in which only 7% of the data refer to emotional supports. The mentors indicated that the majority of their time involved providing professional mentoring supports, including modeling instruction (5%–20% range), assistance with lesson planning (15%–40% range), discussing instructional issues (10%–40% range), and providing observation feedback (5%–42%). Data across both the evaluation reports and the mentors’ time allocation charts revealed that the mentors primarily focused on the evaluation rubrics to provide feedback, so the prevalence of professional to emotional supports was greatly skewed toward professional feedback.
Analysis of New Teacher Interview Data In addition to reviewing evaluation documentation provided by the school district and the mentors’ time allocation charts (which provide the mentors’ perspectives), it was critical to gain the perspectives of the new SETs regarding the types of mentoring supports provided by the mentors. Specifically, these interviews provided insights into the professional and emotional supports offered by the mentors as well as perceptions of the role of evaluation within the mentoring and induction program. Additionally, these interviews sought to answer the second research question: What is the relationship between professional and emotional supports within this mentoring program? In this way, a more complete evaluation of Kram’s mentoring model could take place to ascertain whether this theoretical framework is supported within a mentoring system with a major evaluation component. The new SETs were asked about their mentoring experiences, their comfort with their mentors, and the role of evaluation within their mentoring experiences to gain further insight into how mentoring that occurs within the context of evaluation influences both
57 professional and emotional supports. Four themes emerged from the new teacher interview data related to the professional and emotional supports offered in the mentoring relationships. These themes contextualized Kram’s model within mentoring that included an evaluative component. New SETs valued the professional and emotional supports provided by the mentors. The new SETs indicated that they valued the mentoring provided by their mentors, regardless of their evaluative roles, although they did acknowledge the fact that the mentors were required to evaluate their performance. One new teacher explained, “I could call her at any time. . . . She would come in and work with the kids with me. She came in and watched in different settings. She watched science, math, pullout. She pretty much hit every area.” The new teachers also indicated gratitude for the availability of the mentors, their willingness to share resources, and their expertise. A common sentiment expressed by one SET was “She gave me a lot of support, a lot of time, she took time to explain things to me if I wasn’t sure how things were going to go.” The new SETs indicated that these supports were intended to increase their performance on the teacher evaluation and support their day-today classroom needs. In this way, the mentors addressed essential professional requirements from the teacher evaluation rubric while, at the same time, the new SETs expressed that they felt emotionally supported. The types of instructional supports that the new SETS cited included (a) providing explicit supports related to specific teaching strategies, co-teaching, and modeling effective practices; (b) professional goal setting; (c) assistance in navigating district-specific paperwork requirements; (d) PD and resources that would help in improving instructional practices; (e) assistance in navigating professional collaboration with colleagues at the school; and (f) supports related to behavior and classroom management. One teacher explained, “She gave me tons of model lesson plans . . . and she modeled a lesson for me. . . . She was really good about sitting back and listening and then she
58 would come in and say, ‘well, maybe this will work.’” As this statement illustrated, the new SETs highlighted both the emotional support (e.g., being generally accessible and listening to the new special educators) and the specific professional assistance (e.g., modeling instructional best practices). They did not speak of support as isolated professional or emotional supports; rather, they spoke of both types of mentoring roles. Focus on professional supports: Explicit feedback on instructional practices was critical for addressing areas of weakness exposed through the teacher evaluation rubric. The new teachers discussed the many difficulties inherent in the first year of teaching and the directed assistance that their mentors provided during this critical time. The teacher evaluation rubric exposed areas for improvement, and the new SETs expressed that the professional supports offered by their mentors helped them succeed on the teacher evaluation. One new educator explained how the specific strategies provided during PD seminars initially seemed overwhelming but proved their worth because of the instructional knowledge that she received: I thought it would be a lot of extra work and a lot of extra stress. . . . We would have all this paperwork to fill out and I was like, “Oh my gosh. I don’t even know what I am doing at school, let along after school.” But then I realized it helped me a lot. . . . So we could talk about problems and not feel like we should know something.
Thus, the new SETs shifted their thinking about the PD—from an excessive time burden to a valuable opportunity to grow professionally in a collaborative and supportive environment. The new SETs stated that in addition to the PD seminars, individual mentoring provided by their district-assigned mentors helped them grow professionally. One new SET expressed sentiments of receiving “just in time” support from her mentor during a difficult teaching situation. She stated that after a difficult day, her mentor called:
Exceptional Children 81(1) She called me that evening and was like don’t worry about today. I’ll be in there tomorrow to help you out. And she did and modeled my circle time for me. . . . When she left, I was kind of freaking out and was like, “oh my god. I am by myself.” Then she came back that afternoon. . . . If [mentor] hadn’t come in there, I don’t know. I would have been lost.
This combination of PD seminars with direct mentoring support provided the new SETs with critical skills needed during their first year of teaching. Last, the participants discussed a broad array of instructional supports provided by their mentors, including help with instructional strategies, co-teaching, modeling, goal setting, paperwork demands, differentiated instruction, various resources to support instruction, working with support staff, and addressing challenging student behaviors. Relationship between professional and emotional supports: Emotional support was embedded within the professional supports. When the new teachers discussed the emotional supports provided by their mentors, they almost always tied those supports to instructional and professional assistance. These two distinct functions appeared to be melded into one construct. One SET, for example, explained how her mentor rooted emotional supports within professional assistance: “At times, I think I may panic about something with my lessons and she’ll say, ‘No. Calm down. You can do it like this.’ And she’ll walk and talk me through it to help me be a little calm.” The mentor recognized the new SET’s struggles and provided her with specific steps to alleviate the immediate crisis. Another teacher explained that her mentor understood how much feedback and professional advice to give, based on her comfort level and understanding: “I always had one or two things to focus on, but never felt overwhelmed and never thought there were a lot of problems.” Thus, emotional supports did not come without targeted accompanying professional supports. Influence of evaluation on emotional and professional supports: Evaluation was intimidating, but the mentors provided support throughout the
59
Israel et al. evaluation process. Generally, the new SETs reported that although evaluation was a major focus, it did not usurp mentoring and other supports. One new SET explained, “I didn’t feel like, ‘okay, here’s your scores and you are done.’” She stated that the mentor created an environment that encouraged dialogue about the evaluation process and about general issues faced by the new special educators. Although new SETs indicated that their mentors devoted time to easing their concerns about the evaluation process, the new teachers initially had mixed feelings about being evaluated and about the roles that their mentors took within the evaluation process. One teacher described, “It was kind of intimidating because it is your first year and you think on top of all that I have to do is this . . . but [the mentor] provided feedback and it can only help you.” The new SETs talked about the balance between their mentors’ mentoring and evaluative roles. They indicated although they were aware of the evaluative roles, the evaluation became secondary due to the strong support that the mentors provided. One new teacher explained, I knew she was going to be my evaluator, but you know, you still have that nervousness . . . but when she was a mentor, you were able to just talk to her. . . . She was a mentor, and she was also my evaluator.
This new teacher expressed some ambivalence about the role of her mentor as her evaluator but explained that she still received effective support despite the evaluative element in their relationship. Although all the new SETs stated that their mentors provided supports and resources, there was variability in the level of comfort that the new SETs had with their mentors’ evaluative roles. Three SETs in particular had a more difficult time reconciling their mentors’ roles in the evaluation process and expressed that these evaluative roles significantly influenced their relationships. One SET explained, “She’s, you know, not judging. Judging is too hard a word, but she’s, you know, evaluating me the whole time she’s
with me.” Another teacher explained, “It’s an evaluation procedure too. Not just a mentoring program . . . you know you’re being evaluated and you don’t want to be as completely open as you would if you weren’t being evaluated.” These new special educators felt that their mentors’ evaluative roles inhibited their ability to freely communicate with their mentors. The other 13 new SETs acknowledged the evaluative function of the mentoring relationships but stated that the evaluation did not play a major role in their relationships with the mentors. One teacher explained, She [the mentor] was a very neutral person that I could go to that I knew wouldn’t judge and I didn’t have to worry about her saying something behind my back because I was still getting to know all the people in my building. So, I went to [the mentor] quite a bit. Phone calls, text messages. She was very open to me in any way. She came out for the low points in my year and the high points in my year . . . so she has been there to see the good and the bad.
Despite this difference in comfort level, all new SETs acknowledged that, ultimately, the mentoring provided by the district-assigned mentors helped improve their instructional practices. Those who expressed trepidation with the evaluation would have preferred for their evaluation to be conducted by others rather than their mentors.
Discussion The purpose of this study was to investigate the types of emotional and professional supports provided in a new-teacher mentoring program that included a well-structured teacher evaluation component. It was conducted primarily due to inconsistent findings in the literature regarding the role of evaluation within the mentoring and induction of new special educators and to determine induction and mentoring practices that lead to improved SET performance and potentially reduced attrition. For effective mentoring to occur, mentors need to have demonstrated knowledge and skills (Darling-Hammond, 2012) and proper PD and support for their
60 roles, which should include the ability to lead constructive mentoring conversations about mentee performance, well-developed interpersonal skills, opportunities to work with other mentors (Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, & Tomlinson, 2009), and training to conduct evaluation (Darling-Hammond, 2012), if required. This study resulted in three primary findings. First, the structured evaluation process provided guidance for the mentors as they provided feedback to the new special educators about their instructional practices. Second, the emotional and professional supports provided by the mentors were interrelated; emotional supports were embedded within the mentors’ professional assistance. In this way, the mentors provided holistic supports to assist the new SETs in improving their instructional practices and “surviving” the potentially turbulent first year. Last, the majority of the new SETs did not indicate that the mentors’ evaluative roles hindered the mentoring experience. These findings are noteworthy in light of the literature that points toward mentees’ concerns regarding the evaluative roles of mentors.
Research Question 1 Within the context of a mentoring program with a strong evaluation component, what types of professional and emotional supports are provided to the new SETs? Results of this study indicate that although the main focus of this mentoring program centered on structured evaluation, mentors provided both professional and emotional supports. Of interest, evidence of emotional support was not consistent across all data sources; that is, all data sources provided rich description of professional mentoring supports, but only the new SET interviews provided rich description of emotional supports. Evaluation documents and mentors’ time allocation charts provided a great deal of evidence regarding the professional supports targeting needs identified through the structured evaluation. This finding was consistent with recommendations to link evaluation to professional learning
Exceptional Children 81(1) opportunities (Darling-Hammond, 2012). Nevertheless, when the new special educators’ interviews were examined, it became apparent that the new SETs saw these professional supports as meeting their emotional needs. Professional supports. Of particular intrigue, the evaluation document analysis revealed that mentors provided feedback in areas consistent with needs that new SETs reported in the literature (White & Mason, 2006). For example, the largest areas of supports within the evaluation documents involved creating an efficient and effective classroom, solving specific behavioral concerns, and using instructional strategies. Through observations of the new SETs, the mentors focused on the areas in which the new special educators exhibited the greatest need. Through data analysis, another notable trend emerged. Structured evaluation provided mentors with data to inform their supports (Darling-Hammond, 2012). The structured evaluation, based on Danielson’s (1996) framework, allowed the mentors to assess how the new SETs performed within each of the four domains. Mentor feedback and support could then target the specific needs of the new SETs. This finding is consistent with scholars who cite the use of formative evaluation as beneficial for targeting areas of improvement for new SETs (Tyler et al., 2010). Furthermore, the evaluation tool provided a third-point focus for the mentor and mentee to work from in providing feedback and reflection. In this way, the support is career-specific (Kram, 1985) but could lead to improved sense of self-efficacy and minimize the need for emotional supports. Emotional supports. When the data for evidence of emotional supports were examined, the only source that revealed this information was the new teacher interviews. In their time allocation charts, mentors clearly delineated their primary mentoring functions as providing professional supports (Kram, 1985). However, when the new SETs discussed emotional supports, they all described several offered by their mentors, including
61
Israel et al. availability for debriefing and support, providing praise, and understanding difficulties of being a new teacher. Although three new teachers indicated that the evaluation influenced their relationships with their mentors, all stated that their mentors provided strong emotional support. This finding is somewhat inconsistent with previous studies that point toward new teachers’ discomfort with the mentors’ evaluative roles (Gehrke & McCoy, 2007; White & Mason, 2006). For these three teachers, however, the evaluative aspect of their professional growth might have been detrimental to their development, making them unwilling to ask questions or for additional assistance. In this instance, having informal mentors was essential (Higgins & Kram, 2001).
Research Question 2 What is the relationship between professional and emotional supports? This study highlighted that mentors within this program provided both professional and emotional supports to the new SETs. However, emotional supports described by the new SETs did not occur as distinct mentoring functions. Rather, emotional supports existed within the context of the professional supports, which differs from Kram’s depiction of parallel systems of support. Mentors embedded emotional supports within comprehensive, explicit, and targeted professional supports focused on the specific needs of the new SETs. The new teacher interview data revealed that when SETs were “in crisis,” the mentors immediately provided explicit and detailed suggestions for improving their practices. The new SETs interpreted mentors’ availability, willingness to assist, and these professional supports as part of the emotional supports that they received (Gehrke & McCoy, 2007). This potentially explains why the mentors did not place a great deal of emphasis on emotional support in the evaluation documents or their time allocation charts. Mentors viewed this support as professional assistance, while the new SETs saw this support as also meeting their emotional needs. Perhaps by providing
the instructional support that the new SETs needed, the mentors were meeting the SETs’ emotional needs as well (Stanulis & Floden, 2009). The new teachers were then able to tackle their instructional challenges and not be left emotionally distraught. Revisiting Kram’s model. The idea of emotional supports embedded within professional supports diverges from Kram’s model of career and psychosocial mentoring functions. To begin understanding the difference between the distinct functions of career and psychosocial functions in Kram’s model and the interrelated functions within special education mentoring, it is helpful to consider the needs of new SETs. Because new SETs do not gradually phase into their professional duties but are expected to assume full teaching responsibilities from their first day, they are often in need of rapid deployment of professional assistance. The special education literature provides a great deal of evidence that this immediate need for professional expertise often results in anxiety and fear for new SETs (Billingsley et al., 2009). Thus, as mentors provide professional supports to the new SETs, they alleviate many of the anxieties and fears that the new SETs have about their new teaching responsibilities. Moreover, collegial support will facilitate beginning SETs’ development and increase their level of commitment (Jones et al., 2013).
Limitations and Implications for Future Research This study provided foundational understanding into the professional and emotional supports offered within one mentoring program. Specifically, the finding that intensive instructional support can naturally ameliorate new teachers’ emotional concerns has implications for considering the roles of mentors of new SETs. It is widely cited that new SETs long for emotional support and value it when mentors provide it (Algozzine et al., 2007; FeimanNemser, 2003; Gold, 1996; Whitaker, 2000). This study sheds light on the indirect effects
62 of mentors’ focused instructional support on emotional needs. A limitation of this study that should be addressed in future study is the lack of comparison mentoring sites. Because this study examined mentoring and evaluation within only one program, it is difficult to know whether Kram’s model can be used as a theoretical framework for understanding the roles of both professional and emotional functions of mentoring within other mentoring and induction programs. Clearly, further research is needed to examine whether comparable functions of emotional and professional functions occur across different mentoring programs. Although this study included mentees from a variety of experiences and school placements, this study did not investigate variables associated with mentee or mentor characteristics. Future research should investigate how emotional and professional supports influence SETs from different backgrounds, with different levels of expertise, and in different instructional settings. For example, mentoring and evaluation might be different between a new SET with a master’s degree working in a highperforming school and a new SET prepared through an alternate assessment working in a low-performing school. In addition, given the controversy of integrating evaluation into mentoring programs, it would be important to consider new teachers’ emotional well-being in programs with and without an evaluation component. Mentors are critical to the induction of beginning teachers, and having a clear understanding of how they can support beginners in a holistic way is critical to mentor training and the development and retention of novices. Lastly, given the push to tie teacher evaluation to student outcome data, researchers should consider ways of associating mentoring variables with student measures.
References Algozzine, B., Gretes, J., Queen, A. J., & CowanHathcock, M. (2007). Beginning teachers’
Exceptional Children 81(1) perceptions of their induction program experiences. The Clearing House, 80, 137– 143. doi:10.3200/TCHS.80.3.137-143 Bartlett., L., & Johnson, L. S. (2010). The evolution of new teacher induction policy: Support, specificity, and autonomy. Educational Policy, 24, 847-871. doi: 10.1177/0895904809341466 Billingsley, B. S. (2010). Work contexts matter: Practical considerations for improving new special educators’ experiences in school. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23, 41–49. Billingsley, B. S., Carlson, E., & Klein, S. (2004). The working conditions and induction support of early career special educators, Exceptional Children, 70, 333–347. Billingsley, B., Griffin, C., Smith, S. J., Kamman, M., & Israel, M. (2009). A review of teacher induction in special education: Research, practice, and technology solutions (NCIPP Document No. RS-1). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Bozeman, B., & Feeney, M. K. (2007). Towards a useful theory of mentoring: A conceptual analysis and critique. Adminis tration & Society, 39, 719–739. doi:10.1177/0095399707304119 Creswell, J. W., Fetters, M. D., & Ivankova, N. V. (2004). Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. Annals of Family Medicine, 2, 7–12. doi:10.1370/afm.104 Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. doi:10.1017/S0959774311000308 Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Creating a comprehensive system for evaluating and supporting effective teaching. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2003). What new teachers need to know. Educational Leadership, 60, 25–29. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013-1055. Gehrke, R. S., & McCoy, K. (2007). Sustaining and retaining beginning special educators: It takes a village. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 490–500. doi:10.1016/j. tate.2006.12.001
63
Israel et al. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Glazerman, S. E., Isenberg, S., Dolfin, M., Bleeker, A., Johnson, M., Grider, M., & Jacobus, M. (2010). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Final results from a randomized controlled study (NCEE Document No. 2010-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Gold, Y. (1996). Beginning teacher support: Attrition, mentoring, and induction. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 548–594). New York, NY: Macmillan. Griffin, C. C. (2010). A summary of research for education leaders on the induction of beginning special educators. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23, 14–20. Griffin, C. C., Winn, J. A., Otis-Wilborn, A., & Kilgore, K. L. (2003). New teacher induction in special education (COPSSE Document No. RS-5). Gainesville: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education. doi:10.1080/01626620.2003.1046 3291 Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Mentoring at work: A developmental network perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26, 264–288. Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring beginning teachers: What we know and what we don’t. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 207–216. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.001 Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of research. Review of Educational Research, 81, 201–233. doi:10.3102/0034654311403323 Jones, N. D., Youngs, P., & Frank, K. A. (2013). The role of school-based colleagues in shaping the commitment of novice special and general education teachers. Exceptional Children, 79, 365–383. Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work. Boston, MA: Scott, Foresman. doi:10.2307/256064 Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori &
C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351–383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.1080/13645570305055 Ragins, B. R., & Kram, K. E. (Eds.) (2007). The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sindelar, P. T., Heretick, J., Hirsch, E., Rorrer, A., & Dawson, S. A. (2010). What district administrators need to know about state induction policy. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23, 5–13. Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41, 681–714. doi:10.3102/00028312041003681 Stanulis, R. N., & Floden, R. E. (2009). Intensive mentoring as a way to help beginning teachers develop balanced instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 112–122. doi:10.1177/0022487108330553 Tyler, J. H., Taylor, E. S., Kane, T. J., & Wooten, A. L. (2010). Using student performance data to identify effective classroom practices. American Economic Review, 100, 256–260. doi:10.1257/aer.100.2.256 Whitaker, S. D. (2000). Mentoring beginning special education teachers and the relationship to attrition. Exceptional Children, 6, 546–566. White, M., & Mason, C. Y. (2006). Components of a successful mentoring program for beginning special education teachers: Perspectives from new teachers and mentors. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 191– 201. doi:10.1177/088840640602900305
About the Authors Maya Israel, Assistant Professor, Department of Special Education, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign; Margaret L. Kamman, Assistant Scholar, School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville; Erica D. McCray, Associate Professor, School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville; and Paul T. Sindelar, Professor, School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville. Manuscript submitted October 2012; accepted July 2013.
