Virginia Commonwealth University

VCU Scholars Compass

Theses and Dissertations Graduate School

2011

The content of electronic mentoring: A study of

special educators participating in an online
mentoring program
Roberta Gentry
Virginia Commonwealth University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd

Part of the Education Commons

© The Author

Downloaded from
https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/2537

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at VCU Scholars Compass. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of VCU Scholars Compass. For more information, please contact [email protected].
©Roberta Gentry 2011
All Rights Reserved
 THE CONTENT OF ELECTRONIC MENTORING: A STUDY OF SPECIAL EDUCATORS

PARTICIPATING IN AN ONLINE MENTORING PROGRAM

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

by

Roberta Gentry
Bachelor of Psychology, Mary Baldwin College, 1991
Master of Teaching, University of Virginia, 1997

Director: Evelyn Reed, Ph.D., Associate Professor

Chair, Department of Special Education and Disability Policy
School of Education

Virginia Commonwealth University

Richmond, Virginia
August, 2011
 ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The members of my dissertation committee have guided me, challenged me,

encouraged me, and supported me. Dr. Evelyn Reed, beyond being my advisor and
dissertation chair, you are an inspiration. Your professionalism, character, and devotion are
unmatched. Thanks for helping me pick up the pieces, offering guidance and direction, and
always remaining positive and supportive along the way. Dr. Wehman, who not only offered
his classroom for my first teaching attempts at the university level, but also has been a guide
and supporter both personally and professionally. Dr. Xu, another epitome of true
professionalism, offered guidance and support and was always a cheerleader. Dr. Dozier whose
knowledge and expertise in the field of mentoring, as well as editing and revisions, I drew upon.

I would also like to acknowledge other supporters. Jeanette, my best friend and
confidant, who encouraged, supported, listened, and who I always knew was there for me.
Special thanks also goes to my Aunt Bobbie, for the emailed encouragement, checking in,
phone calls, and cards along the way . To my friend, Margaret, thanks for understanding and
supporting. Dr. Beth Bader, my “number one cheerleader”, thanks for everything! Finally to
the “gang in Charlottesville” …thanks for being my safe haven and my get away. While I would
say no to local friends, I rarely said no to coming to Charlottesville and each time after being
around you, I returned rejuvenated and recharged and ready to conquer the next hurdle.
Thanks for being who you are individually and collectively.

I would also like to thank my fellow doctoral students. Specifically, I would like to
acknowledge Abigail, Laura, and Jane. Thanks for the lunches, the dinners, the drinks, the
encouragement and understanding. Sam and Stephen, thanks for the Monday meetings and
the Friday Happy Hours! Thanks to Kim for all the talks along the way. Thanks to Karren and
Laura for doing the coding for me.

Most of all, thanks to Dr. Alyson Mike, Dr. Phoebe Gillespie, the New Teacher Center
and all the participants in the eMSS pilot program.
 iii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to the people that have remained by my side as I experienced
my trials and tribulations along the way as I progressed from GED to Ph.D.

To my parents, Joyce and Bobby Gentry, who have been by my side through all the twist
and turns my life and educational journey, have taken. Thanks for your support and
encouragement and for truly believing in me….even during those times that I did not believe in
myself. I am eternally grateful.

To my son, Nicholas Gentry, you are my inspiration. Wanting to be an example and

provide for the two of us kept me going throughout this process. You were my reason for
beginning college as well as continuing.

To my husband, Chuck Goetz, the only person who really knows the time requirements,
sacrifices made, and the pain and agony of this journey; thanks for always being a supporter, a
friend, and most of all an encourager.
 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... ix

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. xi

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1

Conceptual Framework: How People Learn .................................................................. 6

Adaptive Expertise ................................................................................................. 9
Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................... 10
Statement of the Purpose .......................................................................................... 12
Developmental Needs of Beginning Teachers ............................................................. 15
Rationale for the Study of the Problem ...................................................................... 17
Literature and Research Background .......................................................................... 19
Electronic Mentoring ............................................................................................. 22
Electronic Mentoring for Student Success Program........................................... 23
Research Questions .................................................................................................... 25
Methodology ............................................................................................................. 26
Summary.................................................................................................................... 27
Definition of Key Terms .............................................................................................. 27

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................................................... 30

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 30
Needs of Beginning Special Educators ........................................................................ 32
Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 35
Face-to-Face Mentoring ........................................................................................ 35
The Role of the Mentor ......................................................................................... 49
Conceptual Framework: How People Learn ................................................................ 55
Teachers Standards ............................................................................................... 60
Summary and Limitations of Literature ...................................................................... 63
Electronic Mentoring (E-Mentoring) ........................................................................... 66
 v

Page

Advantages of E-Mentoring ................................................................................... 67

Disadvantages of E-Mentoring ............................................................................... 70
Interactivity ........................................................................................................... 72
E-Mentoring With Teachers ................................................................................... 73
Studies of eMSS Program ...................................................................................... 75
Summary and Limitations of Existing E-Mentoring Research ...................................... 78
The Current Study ...................................................................................................... 80

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 82

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 82
Context of the Study .................................................................................................. 82
Expected Data and Actual Data .................................................................................. 85
Research Design ......................................................................................................... 86
Participants ................................................................................................................ 90
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................... 92
Survey ................................................................................................................... 92
Interaction Measures ............................................................................................ 92
Procedures ................................................................................................................. 93
Quantitative Research Procedures......................................................................... 93
Quantitative Data Analysis..................................................................................... 96
In-Depth Qualitative Analysis................................................................................. 97
Reflectivity ............................................................................................................... 104
Summary.................................................................................................................. 107
Limitations of Study ................................................................................................. 108

4. FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 113

Survey Results .......................................................................................................... 114

Participants’ Education Background and Experience ............................................ 115
Mentors .......................................................................................................... 115
Mentee Responses.......................................................................................... 115
Previous Computer Usage and Experience ........................................................... 120
Perceived Outcomes ............................................................................................ 123
Participants Across the eMSS Site ........................................................................ 128
Frequency of Interactions .................................................................................... 128
Our Place ........................................................................................................ 130
Topic of the Month ......................................................................................... 135
Cyber Café ...................................................................................................... 137
Dilemmas ........................................................................................................ 137
Early Childhood/Elementary K-5 ..................................................................... 138
Middle/High School ........................................................................................ 139
 vi

Page

The Content of Discourse .................................................................................... 141

Postings Related to HPL Framework .................................................................... 141
Learner Centered ............................................................................................ 143
Knowledge Centered....................................................................................... 145
Assessment Centered ..................................................................................... 146
Community Centered ...................................................................................... 147
Posts Related to InTASC Standards ...................................................................... 148
Learner Development ..................................................................................... 149
Learner Differences......................................................................................... 151
Learning Environments ................................................................................... 151
Content Knowledge ........................................................................................ 153
Application of Content .................................................................................... 154
Assessment ..................................................................................................... 155
Plan for Instruction ......................................................................................... 155
Instructional Strategies ................................................................................... 156
Professional Learning and Ethical Practices ..................................................... 158
Leadership and Collaboration ......................................................................... 159
Posts Related to Beginning Teachers Needs and Concerns .................................. 160
Inclusion, Collaboration, and Interaction With Adults ..................................... 160
Pedagogical Concerns ..................................................................................... 162
Managing Roles .............................................................................................. 163
Emotional and Psychological Concerns ........................................................... 163
Other Themes That Occurred .............................................................................. 164
Summary of Results ................................................................................................. 165

5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................ 167

Research Problem and Methodology ....................................................................... 167

Significance of the Study .......................................................................................... 169
Interpretation of Results .......................................................................................... 172
Participants ......................................................................................................... 172
Perceived Outcomes ............................................................................................ 173
Mentees’ End of Year Reflections.................................................................... 175
Mentors’ End of Year Reflections .................................................................... 176
Frequency of Interactions .................................................................................... 179
Content Related to Beginning Teachers Needs and Concerns .............................. 182
Content Based on How People Learn ................................................................... 185
Learning Centered Environments .................................................................... 186
Knowledge ...................................................................................................... 186
Assessment ..................................................................................................... 187
Community-Based Environments .................................................................... 187
 vii

Page

InTASC Standards ..................................................................................................... 189

Study Limitations ..................................................................................................... 190
Implications for Practice ........................................................................................... 194
Future Studies .......................................................................................................... 196
Summary.................................................................................................................. 198

LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 200

APPENDIXES:

A. Coding for How People Learn Framework ............................................................ 264

B. Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Model Core
Teaching Standards .............................................................................................. 268
C. eMSS Special Education Mentee Presurvey 2009-2010 ........................................ 270
D Coding Protocol for Beginning Special Educators’ Needs and Concerns ................. 276
E. eMSS Home Page ................................................................................................. 279
F. Common Threads Posted in Our Place by Mentors ............................................... 284
G. Postings Made by Mentors and Mentees ............................................................. 289
H. Probes for Topics of the Month............................................................................ 294
I. Discussion Dilemma Threads ............................................................................... 306

VITA ....................................................................................................................... 315

 viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Summary of Data Sources and Analyses............................................................. 88

2. Frequency Distribution of eMSS Mentors’ Preparation (N = 24) ....................... 116

3. Frequency Distribution of eMSS Mentees’ Preparation (N = 45) ...................... 118

4. Grade Level and Area of Exceptionality Taught (Mentees) ............................... 119

5. Frequency Distribution of Previous Online Experience for Mentors ................. 120

6. Reported Participation in Asynchronous and Synchronous Discussion

Boards by Mentors and Mentees .................................................................... 122

7. Mentees’ Perceptions of Qualification to Teach Students by Exceptionality .... 124

8. Mentees’ Reported Levels of Preparation ........................................................ 126

9. Mentees’ Reported Levels of Experience ......................................................... 127

10. Mentees’ Reported Gains From Participation in the eMSS Site ........................ 129

11. Frequency of Posts in the eMSS Site ................................................................. 131

12. Range by Number of Mentees Assigned ........................................................... 133

13. Frequency of Mentor and Mentee Posts in Our Place ...................................... 134

14. Total Mentor and Mentee Postings by Topic of the Month .............................. 136

15. Frequency of Participant Postings in Dilemmas ................................................ 138

16. Frequency of Participant Postings in Early Childhood Discussion Areas ............ 140
 ix

Table Page

17. Frequency of Participant Postings in Middle/High School Discussion Areas ...... 140

18. Frequency of Postings by HPL Framework ........................................................ 142

19. Posts by InTASC Standards ............................................................................... 149

 x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Learning in Community ..................................................................................... 57

2. The HPL Dimension of Learning Environments .................................................. 59

3. Topical Areas Within eMSS Website.................................................................. 84

4. Mentors’ and Mentees’ Postings in Our Place Versus All Other Sections of
the eMSS Site ................................................................................................. 135
 ABSTRACT

THE CONTENT OF ELECTRONIC MENTORING: A STUDY OF SPECIAL EDUCATORS PARTICIPATING

IN AN ONLINE MENTORING PROGRAM

By Roberta Gentry, Ph.D.

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Virginia Commonwealth University, 2011

Major Director: Evelyn Reed, Ph.D., Associate Professor

Chair, Department of Special Education and Disability Policy
School of Education

The purpose of this study was to describe the content and frequency of interactions that

occurred in an electronic mentoring program involving beginning special educators and their

mentors. In addition, the characteristics of mentors’ and mentees’ and perceived outcomes of

mentees’ were provided. This study sought to address questions about the types of support

that new special educators seek and receive. A mixed method research design was utilized to

explore the archived transcripts of mentors’ and mentees’ discourse as well as mentees’ and

mentors’ post-surveys. Data were analyzed through the use of quantitative and qualitative

methods and interpreted through the use of Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support

Consortium standards, How People Learn framework, and documented needs and concerns of

beginning special educators based on a review of literature. Surveys responses included

descriptive information and perceptions of beginning teachers concerning their levels of

preparedness at the completion of the pilot program. This study provides an understanding of

electronic mentoring within one program in order to inform efforts for mentoring and induction

of beginning special educators.

Keywords: mentoring, induction, electronic mentoring, special education teachers

 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

The goal of public school systems is to provide high quality education to students; and

parents send their children to school fully expecting that well-trained, dedicated teachers will

provide a quality educational experience. In many sectors of our society these expectations are

not being met (Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2001). Anticipated retirements, increasing student

enrollments, and teacher attrition have converged to create a national demand for thousands

of new special educators (Kelly, 2004). The quantity, quality, and stability of special educators

are essential to ensure appropriate educational services for students with disabilities, but this

has been a critical concern for decades (Guarino, Santibanez, & Daley, 2004). Although there

are numerous factors that contribute to this problem, a primary concern is teacher attrition.

The Teacher Attrition and Mobility results from the 2008-2009 Teacher Follow-up Study

revealed that total special educator attrition was 20.3%, with 10.5% leaving the profession

altogether, while 9.8% moved to another school or to general education (Keigher, 2010).

To reduce attrition of all teachers, mentoring and induction programs have been

implemented and increased support is correlated with intent to stay in teaching (Gersten,

Keating, Yavanoff, & Harniss, 2001) and retention (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Keigher (2010),

based on the Teacher Follow-up study results from 2008-2009, that 74% of beginning teachers

reported participating in an induction program and 80% reported having a mentor; both figures

reflect substantial increases from the previous year (Keigher, 2010). Despite increased

1
induction and mentoring programs for new teachers, attrition continues at higher rates for

special education teachers, which results in increased numbers of first-year special education

teachers (Carroll & Foster, 2010; Goldrick, 2011). A contributing factor may be that mentoring

and induction programs vary widely (Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004) “from no support to access to

well-developed mentoring and induction programs” (Bay & Parker-Katz, 2009, p. 22). To

address this critical need, factors that reduce attrition and contribute to special educator

retention need to be examined.

Within the field of special education, teacher attrition is the major contributing factor to

the inadequate supply of special education teachers with estimates of 30% leaving within their

first 3 years and 50% leaving within 5 years (Brill & McCartney, 2008; Darling-Hammond, 1997;

Ingersoll, 2001; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). Butler (2008) reported that special education

teachers were two and a half times more likely to leave their positions than teachers in other

disciplines. Retaining a stable special education teaching force is critical to the quality of

student learning, especially in light of persistent achievement gaps between students with

disabilities and their peers (Pugach, Blanton, Correa, McLeskey, & Langley, 2009).

Boe, Cook, and Sunderland (2008) concluded that teacher retention is unlikely to

increase without dramatic improvements in the organization and management of public

schools; until this occurs, an increased supply of qualified teachers is needed to reduce teacher

shortages. In addition, the quality of our nation’s schools depends on the quality of the

nation’s teachers. Darling-Hammond (1995) declared that the knowledge, skills, abilities, and

commitments of teachers today will shape and inform what is possible for the future

generation of students. Rivikin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005) stated that the most important

2
school-based factor determining how much a child learns is based on the quality of the teacher,

and Saunders and Rivers (1996) provided convincing evidence that students taught by effective

teachers perform significantly better than those assigned to ineffective teachers.

“Assisting beginning teachers in their development towards becoming competent

professionals is critically important” to strengthen the educational system (Reynolds, 1990, p.

ii). Darling-Hammond states, “If there is anything that we could do and should do to improve

the quality of teaching and ensure the stability of the workforce, it is to provide better, more

substantive support for our newest teachers” (Darling-Hammond, Berry, Haselkorn, & Fideler,

1999, p. 185). Providing responsive support systems during the beginning years will not only

reduce teacher attrition, but also support the quality of services that students receive

(Athanases et al., 2008; Billingsley, Carlson, & Klein, 2004).

New teacher support is a critical component of a comprehensive solution to achieving

excellence in teaching quality, but there is variability in the focus of support programs for

beginning teachers. Currently, they range from buddy systems which provide social support to

comprehensive, systematic induction programs with trained mentors providing structured

support focused on improving new teachers’ instructional skills (New Teacher Center *NTC+,

2007). Many induction programs are based on improvised models of support focused on

psychological well-being and providing district and school level information to beginning

teachers. However increased emphasis on student achievement requires induction programs

that focus on improving teaching practice and raising student achievement.

Strong and colleagues conducted two studies to examine student achievement gains in

classrooms where teachers had participated in a comprehensive induction and mentoring

3
program focused on standards-based formative assessments during novice’s first 2 years of

teaching. In the first study, Strong (2006) found that students of beginning teachers who

received comprehensive, multiyear induction support achieved reading gains at rates not

significantly different than those of more experienced teachers in the same district. In the

second study, Villar and Strong (2007) demonstrated induction’s potential for improving

student learning, and “performed a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether comprehensive

mentoring for beginning teachers makes financial sense” (p. 1). Using reading achievement

data collected over a 4-year period, benefits were estimated by measuring teacher

effectiveness in terms of the gains their students made in annual achievement tests scores as a

class. Aggregated class achievement of new teachers in the mentoring program was compared

to students’ achievement of more experienced teachers.

Classes taught by the new teachers in the comprehensive mentoring program realized

reading gains that were equivalent to the gains of classes taught by more experienced

teachers despite being assigned to classrooms that had lower initial achievement and

higher representation of English Language learners (Villar & Strong, 2007, p. 10).

The first year of teaching influences teachers’ development and their decisions about

continuing to teach (Borko, 1996; McDonald, 1980; Nemser, 1983). The transition from the

familiar and comfortable role as a student and learner to a teacher working in a classroom can

result in a re-evaluation of expectations, changes in belief systems, and disillusionment about

teaching (Blasé, 1985; Lortie, 1975; Veeman, 1984). Beginning teachers need support if they

are to become competent professionals (Reynolds, 1990); however, working conditions are

frequently not conducive to their professional development or success. Promoting the

4
continuity of the learning process and the developmental stages in becoming a professional

teacher, induction programs are the critical link between theory learned at the university and

application of theory in the school setting. Transition into teaching has been described as

sudden, particularly without systematic induction programs. While beginning teachers are still

learning to teach, they are also expected to fulfill the roles for which they were hired (Wildman,

Niles, Magliaro, & McLaughlin, 1989). The beginning teacher, with limited practical knowledge

and experience (Feiman-Nemser, Schwille, Carver, Yusko, 1999), must demonstrate skills and

abilities that are still developing (Schon, 1987). Wildman et al. (1989) pointed out that, “We

often ignore the fact that beginners have much to learn about teaching and little knowledge

related to this new role” (p. 472). This transition is difficult for beginning teachers because

much of what they need to know is learned in their current positions, however, their

coworkers and administrators may expect that new teachers are already knowledgeable. New

teachers may be afraid to ask substantive questions about pedagogy, and often rely on their

mentors for emotional support and district level information (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a).

Research on teacher development and induction purports that beginning teachers need

frequent opportunities to share their pedagogical concerns and solve problems with

experienced teachers (Hammerness et al., 2005).

The primary purpose of this study was to examine a pilot mentoring project which links

novice and experienced special educators through an electronic platform. Although this

approach may have obvious limitations (e.g., lack of onsite observation and feedback which is a

key component in systematic mentoring programs), it is being tested as a method to increase

support for new special educators who lack access to experienced teachers in their specific

5
disciplines. Computer mediated communication (CMC), offers a unique advantage for studying

the actual content of the dialogues between new special educators and their mentors, because

it provides a written record of their communications. Specifically, these electronic transcripts

can be analyzed to examine the nature of the issues which dyads address, including new special

educators’ concerns, professional competencies, and key factors identified in teacher

development and special educator development research.

Conceptual Framework: How People Learn

Effective teaching requires specialized knowledge of the learners, the learning process,

curriculum, and pedagogy. The goal of effective teacher development and mentoring is the

improvement of teachers’ knowledge and skills to ultimately impact student achievement

(Garet, Porter, Desimore, Biram, & Yoon, 2001; Weiss & Weiss, 1999). One of the greatest

challenges for new teachers is the need to be proficient from the moment they enter the

classroom (Kealy, 2010); however, they need ongoing developmental support to build their

knowledge, skills, and dispositions for teaching. From a social constructivist perspective,

knowledge is generated by groups and is based on shared perceptions and understandings

mediated by social tools, such as language, social protocols, and cultural practices (Vygotsky,

1978). With an emphasis on teacher development within a professional community, the

Learning to Teach in Community framework provides a “set of lenses on any teaching situation

that teachers can use to reflect on and improve their practice” (Darling-Hammond, 2005, p. 10).

Darling-Hammond (1995) declared that transforming teaching and learning is based on

an understanding of students – not only what they know, but also how they think. In order to

build these understandings, teachers must develop tools for assessing students’ thinking,

6
understanding students’ prior knowledge, and connecting with students’ families and

communities because these connections are central to the learning process. Students construct

knowledge based on their previous understandings and experiences (Brown, Collins & Duguid,

1989; Resnick, 1987) and learning is best facilitated through a strengths-based approach; thus

teachers must understand how students think as well as what they know (Gardner & Hatch,

1989; Kornhaber & Gardner, 1993). This requires knowledge of subject matter and a repertoire

of teaching strategies, but Darling-Hammond (1995) states that teachers need to learn these

skills on the job. “Like students, teachers must construct their own understandings by doing, by

collaborating, by inquiring into problems, trying and testing ideas, evaluating and reflecting on

the outcomes of their work” (Darling-Hammond, 1995, p. 24).

Schlechty (1985) recommended that beginning teachers have opportunities to meet to

develop the sense of being members of a group that share an ordeal and to understand that

others are experiencing the same stress. Electronic mentoring (e-mentoring) might provide this

opportunity while reducing isolation and fostering professional growth. Carter and Richardson

(1988) suggested that networking among beginning teachers would allow beginning teachers to

develop understandings of teaching. E-mentoring provides an ideal format for bringing

together groups of teachers from multiple schools, thereby reducing isolation that leads to

attrition. Gareis and Nussbaum-Beach (2007) found that e-mentoring allowed novices to (a)

interact with mentors by asking questions on pertinent issues, (b) seek others who are

experiencing similar problems, and (c) simply vent.

Strong professional communities are built on teachers who regularly engage in

discussions with colleagues about their work. By engaging in extended conversations that

7
scrutinize beliefs about teaching, learning, and instructional practice, teachers can examine the

assumptions basic to quality practice (Newman, 1992). Reflection upon practice leads to

deepened understandings of the process of instruction and of the products created within the

teaching and learning process. The opening up of one’s practice to scrutiny also encourages

teachers to ask questions about their practice and to view it in a more analytical fashion. In this

way, teachers also come to know each other’s strengths and can therefore more easily find

“expert advice” from colleagues. Researchers speculate that responses may be more reflective

in online discourse due to having time to think about and reflect on the response prior to

sending it (Gareis & Nussbaum-Beach, 2007; Single & Single, 2005).

Discourse is a tool to socially construct knowledge because it enables the expression of

ideas; individual understanding derived from collective knowledge; and is dependent on the

identity of the community that practices it (Grimberg, 2006). Discursive practices, which are a

combination of language, actions and culture (Gee, 1996), are associated with the process of

knowledge construction and constitute a link between collective and individual knowledge

(Grimberg, 2006). Reflective communication has been shown to have positive effects on the

growth of teacher practice (Raizen, Huntley, & Britton, 2003; Stansbury & Zimmerman, 2000)

and the professional development literature frequently recommends the use of reflection to fill

the gap between professional knowledge and the changing situations of practice in which

professions find themselves. Zeichner (1992) explains that reflection is considered one of the

primary tools for facilitating the development of competence and ultimately expertise in novice

teachers. However, Hussein (2006) cautions that it is inappropriate to expect beginning

teachers to be reflective simply because they have been asked to reflect on a topic; rather

8
beginning teachers need to be provided a support structure in which a variety of formats and

opportunities for reflection are made available. CMC provides the opportunity to understand

communication patterns, forms, functions, conventions, and subtexts, which can in turn

engender an understanding of how people derive meaning within such contexts (Naidu &

Jarvela, 2006). An e-mentoring environment may be the support structure needed to assist

beginning teachers with the use of reflective practices.

Adaptive Expertise

To be effective teachers, Darling-Hammond, Bransford, and LePage (2005) argue that

teachers must be adaptive experts, modifying and adjusting instructional strategies and

methods, and continually innovating to meet the needs of diverse student populations.

Adaptive expertise entails developing decision making and problem-solving strategies while

simultaneously acquiring a solid foundation in content knowledge that they teach. This

combination of knowledge and abilities promotes effective innovation when teachers

encounter dilemmas and new situations in their teaching practice (Bransford, Darling-

Hammond, & LePage, 2005). Adaptive experts possess metacognitive strategies to recognize

the limitations of their current knowledge as well as the ability to apply knowledge effectively

to novel problems. This flexible application of knowledge underlies adaptive experts’ greater

tendency to enrich and refine their knowledge structures on the basis of continuing experience

or to learn from problem solving (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking,

2000; Hatano & Inagaki, 1986). While routine experts typically assume that their current

knowledge is correct, adaptive experts draw on their knowledge in light of situational factors to

formulate possible explanations, so that their knowledge is expanded through problem solving.

9
Bransford, Derry, Berliner, Hammerness, and Beckett (2005) state that “adaptive experts are

able to approach a new situation with flexibility and learn throughout their lifetimes” (p. 48).

These skills can be fostered by mentors who view mentoring as a teacher development process

rather than a process focused on providing district and school procedural information and

emotional support.

Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993) state that the processes of adaptive expertise can be

used in all learning experiences through examining practice and progressive problem solving.

Research has shown that instructional decision making, lesson planning, and other aspects of

teachers’ everyday practice can be important loci for the development of expertise (Ball &

Cohen, 1999; Shulman, 1987). Adaptive expertise is viewed as a balance of mastered skills,

knowledge, and abilities, and the ability to let go of routines in applying knowledge to new

contexts—or the ability to approach familiar problems in new ways. Social interaction can

assist individuals to recognize the need to change while learning from others and is often the

key to change (Crawford & Brophy, 2005). Adaptiveness entails actively seeking feedback from

those who are not likeminded and involves the willingness to take risks and make mistakes in

attempting innovation. To foster innovation, cyclical problem solving in which learners have an

opportunity to try something out, obtain feedback, and try again can be used (Crawford &

Brophy, 2005); thus, interactions with mentors can provide a catalyst for reflections, problem

solving, and innovation to address the challenges of learning to teach.

Statement of the Problem

Providing a high-quality education for all students is a major challenge that increases in

difficulty when poorly prepared teachers assume this responsibility. No Child Left Behind

10
(NCLB, 2001) clearly delineates the critical role of teachers in promoting higher and more

equitable achievement for students in the United States by requiring “highly qualified”

teachers. Furthermore, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA, 2004) guarantees a free

appropriate public education to students with disabilities that is also dependent on

well-prepared educators. Research also supports a clear link between the quality of teaching

and its impact on student achievement finding that students with comparable initial

achievement levels have significantly different academic outcomes based on the sequence of

teachers to whom they are assigned (Darling-Hammond, 1997, 1999; Saunders & Rivers, 1996).

Without teachers who have sophisticated skills for teaching challenging content to diverse

learners, children from all racial and ethnic, language and socioeconomic backgrounds will not

reach the high academic standards envisioned by the law (Darling-Hammond, 2007).

Developing a qualified workforce and creating work environments that sustain special

education teachers are important to prevent inadequate educational experiences, reduced

achievement levels, and insufficient competence of graduates for the workplace (Billingsley,

2004a). The severe, chronic, and pervasive shortage of fully certified special education teachers

(Billingsley & McLeskey, 2004) exists in every region of the United States, however, few

teaching positions are left unfilled. Vacancies are filled with less-qualified teachers, such as

substitute teachers, uncertified personnel, and teachers trained in another subject or grade

level (Ingersoll, 2001). McLeskey, Tyler, and Saunders Flippin (2004) found that nationally 11%

of special education teachers were not fully certified; this means that approximately 800,000

students were taught by teachers who were not fully certified and some students were never

taught by a fully licensed special education teacher (Esposito & Lal, 2005). Retaining and

11
supporting new teachers is an important goal because new teachers show significant growth in

their first few years (Wynn, Carboni, & Patall, 2007), especially when that support focuses on

their effectiveness in promoting student achievement and meeting professional standards

(Berry, Hoke, Hirsch, 2004; Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999; Fletcher, Strong & Villar, 2008;

Huling-Austin, 1990).

Statement of the Purpose

The study contributes to the development and assessment of mentoring programs for

new special education teachers. In order to address questions about the types of support

which new special educators seek and receive, this study analyzed the online discourse

between mentors and mentees through the application of teacher development models,

professional standards, and unique concerns of special educators.

Many reasons have been used to explain the disparity between the increase in induction

programs and the continued attrition rates for special educators. Fox and Singletary (1986)

reported that the concerns of beginning teachers and attrition outcomes are well known,

however, little is known about programs that assist them during the crucial induction period.

Carver and Feiman-Nemser (2009) stated that prescriptions about induction and mentoring

abound, but information about the characteristics, quality, and effects of induction programs

and policies remains limited at both the research and policy levels. The field has examined

mentoring and induction programs by comparing formal and informal programs, providing

detailed descriptions of individual programs, and relying on programs in general education to

inform practice in special education (Griffin et al., 2009). These studies rely on case studies

involving a few teachers, surveys soliciting opinions and perceptions about mentoring, and

12
evaluations of existing programs. The literature base has been described as “fragmented,

lacking a cohesive conceptual framework, and containing numerous methodological limitations

that are liable to compromise the implications one is able to draw from the literature” (Griffin,

2010, p. 14). While induction programs have the potential to address beginning teacher quality

and retention (Kamman & Long, 2010) and have increased in number, and many scholars agree

that induction is an important support for beginning teachers (Billingsley et al., 2004;

Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Feiman-Nemser, 2001b; Wang, Odell & Schwille, 2008); the

research is less conclusive (Kamman & Long, 2010).

Most existing research has focused on the emotional needs of beginning teachers, the

levels and frequency of support, and the characteristics of the mentors. Novice special

educators have expressed a multitude of challenges (Billingsley, Griffin, Smith, Kamman, &

Israel, 2009) including curriculum planning and instructional delivery, (Gareis, 2005); classroom

management (Bullough & Draper, 2004; Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1990; Griffin, Winn,

Otis-Wilborn & Kilgore, 2003; Wang & Odell, 2002; White & Mason, 2006); inclusion,

collaboration, and interactions with adults (Billingsley et al., 2009); and difficulty managing

multiple roles (Billingsley & McLeskey, 2004). Studies have documented that working with a

mentor can reduce new special educators’ stress and anxiety (Whitaker, 2000a; White &

Mason, 2006), enhance their satisfaction and confidence (Boyer & Gillespie, 2000), and is

associated with better teacher retention (Billingsley, 2004; Miller, Brownell, & Smith, 1999). In

addition, studies of beginning teachers documented their preference for informal forms of

support over formal programs (Billingsley et al., 2004); preference for observations by mentors

(White, 1995); and beginning teachers avoid seeking help especially if their mentor has an

13
evaluative role (Feiman-Nemser, 2001b; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). New special educators

also face unique challenges such as teaching across a variety of grade levels, meeting the legal

requirements of special education, and managing multiple roles (Billingsley et al., 2009).

Thus far, many teacher induction programs have primarily focused on the personal

comfort levels of novices (Feiman-Nemser et al., 1999; Gold, 1996) and easing the transition

into teaching (Huling-Austin, 1992). Induction programs need to be examined for the extent to

which they focus on curriculum and teaching standards (Interstate New Teacher Assessment

and Support Teaching Consortium, 1992). Current empirical evidence does not “shed light on

how induction activities can advance teacher learning” (Bay & Parker-Katz, 2009, p. 27). New

special educators often feel inadequately prepared to meet the complex needs of students

across a range of curriculum areas (Mastropieri, 2001) and indicated they needed assistance

with finding materials and learning the curriculum (White & Mason, 2006).

Induction programs focused on situational and psychological support do not take into

account that even the best teacher training programs do not fully prepare new professionals for

full-time teaching responsibilities. The entry into teaching is sudden and beginning teachers are

expected to complete the same tasks as experienced teachers. Additionally, new teachers are

often assigned the most difficult classes. These factors lead many teachers to revert to survival

tactics such as clinging to the first strategy that works without reflecting on practice

(Feiman-Nemser, 2001a). Special educators have indicated that they were more likely to stay in

teaching when their workload was manageable, their school supportive, and paperwork did not

interfere with their teaching (Westat, 2002). Johnson et al. (2001) found that new teachers

make their decisions to stay in schools based on the level of support and acceptance they

14
receive at the building level. Special educators reported that fellow teachers can make their

jobs manageable (Gersten et al., 2001). Therefore, the climate within a school and support act

as either a support or deterrent in teacher retention (Ingersoll, 2001; Johnson et al., 2001;

Westat, 2002).

Developmental Needs of Beginning Teachers

Teacher development is dependent on both preservice education and ongoing support

during induction into the profession. Recognition of what preservice education does and does

not accomplish is necessary to understand beginning teachers’ concerns and needs for ongoing

support. Kagan (1992) states, “Preservice students enter programs of teacher education with

personal beliefs about teaching, good teachers, images of self as a teacher, and memories of

themselves in classrooms” (p. 142), which act as filters for their learning. These prior beliefs

and images must be modified and reconstructed for professional learning to occur. Sindelar,

Brownell, and Billingsley (2010) found similar issues with special educators, noting that school

contexts and “district-sponsored professional development shape what and how beginning

teachers teach far more than initial preparation does” (p. 10).

Kagan (1992) also found that teachers enter the classroom with a lack of knowledge

about students and acquire this knowledge through direct experience. This process is

facilitated by seasoned teachers who provide models by questioning and reflecting on

pedagogical beliefs with the beginning teacher. Preconceived images of themselves as teachers

rarely conform to their visions and expectations; instead, they are confronted with students

with little academic motivation, little interest in learning, and a tendency to misbehave

(Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). The disparity between preconceived images and reality

15
initially inhibits the growth process because beginning teachers lack procedural knowledge and

quickly become consumed with managing behaviors in the classroom (Darling-Hammond,

1999). This may cause the novice to quickly become disillusioned and obsessed with planning

lessons based on control of the classroom rather than student learning. During this time, the

novice focuses on his/her own behavior rather than the students. It is not until the novice is

able to step back from his/her personal beliefs and images that he/she can begin to acquire

knowledge of pupils which they use to modify and adapt their images of self as a teacher. Next,

they need to acquire procedural knowledge such as behavior management procedures before

they can shift their attention to student learning.

Fuller and Brown (1975) proposed a 4-stage model of teacher development: (a)

preteaching, (b) concerns for survival, (c) concerns for teaching performance, and (d) concerns

for pupils. During the first stage, preteaching, candidates tend to identify with students rather

than teachers. During, the second stage, concerns for survival, the teacher is concerned with

class control, behavior management, mastery of content, and the teacher’s own adequacy to

fulfill the teaching role. During the third stage, concerns turn to teaching performance, and in

the final stage the teacher focuses on the students. It is during this stage that the teachers

become concerned about students’ academic and social performance, as well as emotional

needs and begin relating to students as individuals. Berliner (1988) proposed a similar

progression with teachers’ concerns originally focused on procedural and classroom knowledge,

with subsequent focus on students’ learning. According to Berliner, it is only after effective

routines have been integrated into class management and instruction that the teacher can

focus on the students and their learning of academic tasks.

16
 Novice educators often do not accurately conceptualize teaching, having spent many

years in an “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie, 1975, p. 123) watching what effective

teachers do. But watching what teachers do is not sufficient training for knowing what to do

nor how to articulate the purpose of teaching methods to parents and administrators. Mentors

can prompt deeper reflection about practice, offer encouragement that supports ongoing

growth, and increase job satisfaction needed for teachers to move through more mature career

stages (Danielson, 2002a). Several researchers have suggested that multiple mentors may

enhance the mentoring process (Griffin et al., 2009; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Wang et al., 2009).

Studies focusing on the needs, problems, and concerns of beginning teachers may

illuminate concerns of beginning teachers, but these studies do not focus on the core tasks of

learning to teach (Carter & Richardson, 1989) and simply retaining teachers may not develop

the kind of teaching that fosters deep and complex learning on the part of students

(Feiman-Nemser et al., 1999). Frequently missing from some mentoring programs is a coherent

structure to enable mentors to guide new teachers in reform-minded, standards based, and

critically reflective practices to meet the needs of all learners (Feiman-Nemser, 2001b).

Rationale for the Study of the Problem

While mentoring is widely accepted as a desirable approach for teacher development

and retention, the features that distinguish a highly effective program for special educators

have not been clearly defined (Billingsley et al., 2009). Whitaker (2000b) stated that little is

known about the nature or extent of induction supports that result in special education teacher

quality and retention over time. Furthermore, Sindelar et al. (2010) state, “We know nothing

17
about what happens during mentor and mentee exchanges which requires studying mentoring

pairs over time and fine-grained analyses of their interactions” (p. 16).

This study utilized the archived and text-based interactions between special education

mentors and mentees, which provided the opportunity to analyze the content of the

conversations occurring over time. From analyses of this text-based interaction, evidence of

beginning teachers’ concerns and development, as well as their mentors’ support for problem

solving and reflection was observed. Researchers have noted the importance of mentors’

nonevaluative roles, which strengthen their focus on novice teachers’ professional growth

(Boyer, 1999; Gehrke & McCoy, 2007; White & Mason, 2006). White and Mason (2006) found

that beginning teachers feared revealing their problems and concerns to mentor teachers who

were responsible for their evaluations for fear of losing their jobs; however, when mentors

assumed nonevaluative roles, mentees felt comfortable “to ask anything or get anything”

(Boyer, 1999, p. 68). In the e-mentoring program, which is the basis for this study, mentors

were not involved in their mentees’ evaluations, so it was anticipated that their discourse

would involve a wide range of concerns for beginning new special educators that was

supported by the data.

This study examined the extent to which mentors supported new special educators in

addressing their specific concerns. Irinaga-Bistolas, Schalock, Marvin, and Beck (2007) studied

44 beginning special educators and found that of the 83.3% of beginning special educators who

received support from their mentors, only 62.5% reported that the feedback was adequate.

This study also examined novice special educators’ perspectives about their mentors’ support.

Wong and Wong (2008) stated that the content, duration, and delivery of programs as well as

18
discrepancies between what mentors are expected to do and what actually occurs, need to be

examined. In addition to content analysis, frequency of interactivity across mentoring pairs was

also examined.

The need for qualified special education teachers continues to be one of the most

serious obstacles to the appropriate and effective education of students with disabilities

(Billingsley, 2003). To address the critical concern about attrition, mentoring programs for

special educators need to be examined for their effectiveness in addressing the key concerns of

special educators as well as professional standards for the field. This examined a new online

mentoring program through analysis of online discourse between mentors and novice special

educators and the perspectives of mentees about the quality of mentoring support.

Literature and Research Background

In the past, emphasis has been placed on the importance of a face-to-face community of

professionals in producing maximum career success (Wellington, 2001), but changes in career

patterns have opened the door to alternative mentoring approaches. Given the millions of

worldwide Internet users (Hof, 2005) and increasing reliance on technology for personal and

professional connectivity, individuals are utilizing email and CMC for relationship development

(Sproull & Kiesler, 1999). E-mentoring is defined as “a relationship between a more

experienced individual [mentor] and a less skilled or experienced individual [mentee], primarily

using computer mediated communication (CMC), that is intended to develop and improve each

mentee’s skills, confidence, and cultural understanding” (Jaffe, Moir, Swanson, &Wheeler,

2006, p. 94). E-mentoring is relatively new to the field of education, but has been used for

decades in business and positive results have been realized (Ensher, Heun, & Blanchard, 2003;

19
Single & Muller, 2001; Single & Single, 2005). E-mentoring is changing the way mentors and

mentees interact (Smith & Israel, 2010).

E-mentoring offers several distinct advantages and holds considerable promise as a

means of addressing the needs of novice teachers, reducing attrition, and improving teacher

effectiveness. Trained mentors can be drawn from much larger pools of seasoned teachers

than that typically available in local schools. Online mentors and novices often develop open,

honest relationships due in part to the fact that the mentor is not a member of the teacher’s

immediate school context, creating a perceived sense of anonymity (Levin & Cross, 2002).

E-mentors may also have the advantage of time to develop responses that are more thoughtful

and reflective as opposed to those communicated “on demand” in face-to-face mentoring

situations (Gareis & Nussbaum-Beach, 2007). Networked technology can provide an

opportunity for novices to have continued and frequent contact with mentors and each other,

thereby creating a sense of community and shared learning (Bruffee, 1993). E-mentoring can

help to combat new teachers’ isolation by means of a networked community of peers and

mentors (Hawkes & Rosmiszowski, 2001; Naidu & Olson, 1996). According to Smith and Israel

(2010), e-mentoring relationships are primarily intended to develop and improve the mentee’s

skills, knowledge, confidence, and cultural understanding through differentiated experiences

based on the mentee’s needs and immediate concerns.

The effectiveness of mentoring is closely aligned to the expertise of the mentor as well

as the quality and type of support provided to beginning teachers (Nickson & Kritsonis, 2006;

Parker-Katz & Hughes, 2008). Several studies examining the content of support (Gehrke &

McCoy, 2007; Giacobbe, 2003; Griffin, 2005; Irinaga-Bistolas et al., 2007; Walker-Wied, 2005;

20
Whitaker, 2000b) found that the content of mentor’s interactions are most often in the areas of

emotional support and that mentees rate this type of assistance highly. Less attention has

been given to mentors assisting new teacher to develop their content knowledge and general

pedagogical knowledge. If we trust mentors to have a substantial input into the professional

training and development of teachers, we need to be confident that their practices are

effective, consistent, and based on existing knowledge (Jones & Straker, 2006). This is largely

dependent on the commitment, expertise, and enthusiasm of the teacher performing the

mentoring role (Jones & Stacker, 2006). “Keeping new teachers in teaching is not the same as

helping them become good teachers” (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a, p. 25). Scheeler (2008) points

out that the need to teach teachers to generalize their newly acquired teaching skills continues

to be the missing link between preservice teacher preparation and inservice application of

skills. In order for the full potential of induction to be realized, it must be framed in expanded

terms including teacher learning, student learning, and teacher retention (Bartlett, Johnson,

Lopez, Sugarman, & Wilson, 2005). Systematically examining evidence of teacher learning will

identify a more complete picture of induction benefits.

The online forum represents a complex learning environment in which collaboration is

practiced in a technologically-mediated environment (Kanuka & Anderson, 1998) and holds

potential for new forms of collaborative work, study, and community that reduce barriers of

time and distance; yet the types of interactions and means by which individuals create new

knowledge in online environments are not well understood (Kanuka & Anderson, 1998). Single

and Muller (2001) claim that “. . .e-mentoring holds promise for redefining the mentoring

relationships and changing the conditions under which mentoring is sought and offered” (p.

21
122) but the literature is lacking in research that examines the process (the how and why) of

implementing e-mentoring programs (Costello-Dougherty, 2008).

As e-mentoring is becoming a popular means of supporting novice teachers, and new

online induction and mentoring programs emerge and attempt to incorporate best practices of

both face-to-face mentoring and e-pedagogy, it is worthwhile to examine the growing research

on the efficacy of e-mentoring while also using the practical knowledge from current

e-mentoring programs that support novice teachers. CMC offers a potential solution to the

challenge of providing quality content and pedagogy based mentoring to special education

teachers, but there is sparse research on e-mentoring. Continued research needs to be

conducted to determine the efficacy of e-mentoring as a supplement to face-to-face mentoring

as well as a possible replacement. Several researchers have examined online mentoring

environments involving teachers, but special education has not been examined.

Electronic Mentoring

E-mentoring is designed to support novice teachers’ needs through differentiated

experiences based on the mentee’s needs and immediate concerns (Smith & Israel, 2010).

E-mentoring involves the use of asynchronous and synchronous communication technology to

support interaction between participants, allowing them to interact across geographical

distances with fewer scheduling constraints; thus, the attainment of mentoring goals is

dependent upon the quality and quantity of the interactions between mentors and their

mentees. E-mentoring has been used with general education teachers, but has not been

examined with special educators. This study examined a pilot e-mentoring program with 68

special educators and trained mentors conducted in 2009.

22
 Attrition significantly impacts the field of special education so an awareness of how

e-mentoring works is important to understanding both the advantages and the disadvantages

of e-mentoring, especially in the field of special education. In existing mentoring literature, the

content of mentoring support is often overlooked; however, the content can provide insight

into how novice special education teachers and their mentors focus on critical competencies for

special educators.

Electronic mentoring for student success program. The Electronic Mentoring for

Student Success Program (eMSS) is a teacher mentoring program developed in 2002 at the New

Teacher Center (NTC). The purpose of the program was to explore the feasibility of mentoring

beginning math and science teachers to move beyond the survival mode and focus on

content-oriented professional practice. The mission of NTC is “to transform the lives of new

teachers through intensive, mentor-based induction” (Kepp & Myke, 2009, p. 2). In 2009, the

New Teacher Center received funding from state departments of education in Louisiana and

Nevada as well as the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs to

pilot a program to “empower and develop the next generation of special educators providing

content-focused mentoring through a national, online technology network”(Kepp & Myke,

2009, p. 2).

“Through eMSS, new and veteran teachers collaborate in an interactive and facilitated

professional learning community to exchange information, ideas, and experiences” (Kepp &

Myke, 2009, p. 2). In the eMSS program, veteran teachers are matched with mentees to

participate in an online mentoring project. The mentees are assigned a mentor from the same

grade level and discipline and interact electronically through one-to-one communication

23
discussing pedagogy and selected content. Mentees also have access to: (a) a nationwide

network of special education teachers; (b) content focused online support for the classroom; (c)

a guided curriculum that engages mentees in planning, applying practice to their classroom,

and reflection with their mentor and a group of teachers working on similar goals; and (d) a vast

array of special education resources (NTC, 2010).

Mentors are experienced teachers with strong content area knowledge and evidence of

exemplary teaching. Mentors are also granted access to a nationwide network of other mentor

teachers, university faculty, and other beginning teachers. Requirements include completion of

a 3-week online institute, participation in mentor professional development activities, active

participation in eMSS defined as posting a minimum of two times weekly, quality online

dialogue, and working with 3 to 8 mentees to guide them through all aspects of the eMSS

online environment.

The eMSS network “is designed to promote professional development through

dialogue” (NTC, 2010). Mentees work with their online mentor in what is called Our Place, a

private discussion area for mentees and mentors. Another area of the site is called Inquiries.

The NTC defines Inquiries as “conversation guides designed to help mentees—with guidance

from a small group of mentors and a facilitator—to deepen your teaching practice and boost

your effectiveness with students” (NTC, 2010, p. 5). These inquiries, described as the core of

the eMSS program, are classroom based and each inquiry is flexible and adaptable for mentees

teaching situations. The mentee picks an Inquiry in an area relevant to them and takes

approximately 6 to 8 weeks to complete. Mentees also participate in a variety of online

discussions with other new teachers and their mentors. Facilitators, who are experienced eMSS

24
mentors with demonstrated ability to be exceptional online mentors, guide discussion areas of

mentors and mentees. Facilitators are trained in moderating online discussion groups,

providing timely feedback, and posing engaging questions. Paid facilitators are expected to be

online daily. In addition, eMSS also provides access to content specialists who are available to

help answer content area questions. Content specialists are university faculty who regularly

participate in eMSS discussions, answer content questions, probe for understanding, and share

information related to their research. Our Place, a facilitated mentoring community of

one-on-one mentoring, was examined in this study. The source of data was archived transcripts

from their asynchronous communications drawn from teacher participants in Nevada and

Louisiana who engaged in private discussions with their assigned mentor.

This study sought to determine whether private paired discussions between a beginning

special education teacher and a mentor in a computer-mediated environment is an effective

avenue for co-construction of knowledge among teachers. Because e-mail lacks the full

spectrum of visual and auditory cues that people depend on in face-to-face conversations

(Sproull & Keisler, 1986), e-mentoring requires different interaction strategies than face-to-face

mentoring to create maximal educational benefits. The two main areas addressed are the

content of the conversations and the perceptions of the program based on surveys completed

by mentors and mentees.

Research Questions

1. What are the characteristics of the participants in the pilot online mentoring

program?

25
 2. What are the perceived outcomes of the participants in the pilot online mentoring

program?

3. What is the frequency of interactions between beginning special educators and their

mentors?

4. What is the content of the discourse among novice and mentor special educators, by

key concerns, Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC)

Model Core standards, and the How People Learn framework (HPL)?

Methodology

Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to evaluate the archived data collected

by the eMSS program. Descriptive statistics are particularly valuable when an area is first

investigated (McMillan, 2008) and were used to describe the population including certification

status of mentors and mentees, prior experience with online technology, years taught, age and

grade level currently teaching, and perceptions of preparedness for respective roles. The

frequency of postings by each participant provides an overview of the amount of interaction

between mentors and mentees and sets the context for more in-depth analysis of the

interactivity of these relationships. The content of messages exchanged was also examined

based on the literature about beginning teachers’ needs and concerns, the InTASC Model Core

Teaching Standards, and the HPL framework.

Qualitative research examines social settings and the individuals in the setting in order

to answer a particular question. Qualitative methods are used to find out what “people do,

know, think, and feel by observing, interviewing, and analyzing documents” (Patton, 2002, p.

145). Taylor and Bogdan (1984) described qualitative research as an inductive process in which

26
researchers gain insight and a deeper understanding through patterns that emerge in the data.

Qualitative analysis was conducted of mentee and mentor posts in an e-mentoring program.

Analysis was conducted using the one-to-one communications that occur between the mentor

and mentee with a focus on the content of support.

Summary

In sum, teacher attrition has a negative impact on the educational outcomes for

students with disabilities. Loss of staff in large numbers results in “disruption of the coherence,

continuity, and community that are central to strong schools” (National Commission on

Teaching and America’s Future *NCTAF], 2010, p. 32). The content of mentoring conversations

has not been widely reported. Through the examination of an online forum the nature,

frequency, and content of support was examined. Mentees in a number of studies (Kasprisin,

Single, Single, & Muller, 2003; Klecka, Clift, & Cheng, 2005) shared that online environments

offer teachers opportunities to connect with similar-minded individuals not readily available in

their buildings, and found online environments less threatening and more conducive to sharing

thoughts and inadequacy as well as doubts; but these studies were conducted with personnel

in other fields and have not been examined with special educators.

Definition of Key Terms

Beginning special educator. For the purpose of this study, a beginning special educator

had 3 years or less experience teaching students with disabilities.

Computer mediated communication. Communication occurring between two or more

persons using synchronous or asynchronous web-based computer hardware and software

(Single & Muller, 2001)

27
 Discourse. Lupton (1992) describes discourse as a group of ideas or patterned way of

thinking which can be identified in textual communications. In this study, discourse is the

related ideas and patterns collected in the record of messages in an online communication site.

E-mentoring. A relationship between a more experienced individual (mentor) and a less

skilled or experienced individual (mentee), primarily using computer-mediated communication

(CMC) that is intended to develop and improve each mentee’s skills, confidence, and cultural

understanding (Jaffe et al., 2006)

Facilitator. A program manager who regularly communicates with participants and can

significantly increase the number of successful mentoring relationships (Boyle & Boice, 1998;

Wunsch, 1994).

Induction. Feiman-Nemser (1999, 2001a) views induction as both a phase in a teacher’s

career and a process. As a phase, it is the period during which a teacher develops from

preservice preparation through professional practice. As a process, induction involves

socializing beginning teachers into teaching practice as well as supporting teachers and helping

them build their knowledge about teaching through professional development that occurs with

or without a formal program.

Lurkers. A term used to refer to members who do not actively participate by

communicating, but who visit and presumably read and may benefit from the postings in the

forum (Gareis & Nussbaum-Beach, 2007).

Knowledge construction. To understand a new piece of information by relating it to an

existing schema, integrating it with existing knowledge is considered knowledge construction.

It is a type of learning (Bransford, 2000).

28
 Mentoring. A complex and multidimensional process of guiding, teaching, influencing

and supporting a beginning or new teacher. It is generally accepted that a mentor teacher

leads, guides, and advises another teacher more junior in experience in a work situation

characterized by mutual trust and belief (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1990)

Professional development. Professional development includes activities that improve

and increase teachers’ knowledge of the academic subjects they teach; advances teacher

understanding of effective evidence-based instructional strategies; gives teachers the

knowledge and skills to provide students with the opportunity to meet state academic and

student academic achievement standards; and improve classroom management skills.

Professional development must be high quality, sustained, intensive and classroom-focused in

order to have a positive and lasting impact on classroom instruction and the teacher’s

performance in the classroom.

29
 CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

This chapter reviews relevant research pertaining to the needs of beginning special

educators, school-based induction programs, and the characteristics of mentors. The available

literature on electronic mentoring will also be reviewed. The rationale for the literature review

on new teacher induction in special education is based on three critical concerns: (a) the high

attrition rate of special educators, (b) the potential for adverse student outcomes when

beginning special educators struggle in adverse situations, and (3) the conditions under which

special educators work (Griffin, Winn, Otis-Wilborn, & Kilgore, 2003).

“The lack of qualified special education teachers threatens the quality of education that

students with disabilities receive” (Billingsley, 2004a, p. 40) and compromises teacher quality

and school stability (McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Currently, many

students do not have the opportunity to be taught by experienced teachers who have acquired

expertise due to attrition (Boyer & Gillespie, 2000). The Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act [IDEA] requires a free, appropriate education for students with disabilities, which has not

been realized due to teacher shortages and attrition. Improving educational results for

students with disabilities not only requires an adequate supply of special education teachers

but also a pool of teachers who are highly skilled and knowledgeable (Study of Personnel Needs

in Special Education Summary, 2002). Therefore, developing a qualified workforce and creating

30
work environments that sustain special education teachers are important challenges with

serious consequences for students with disabilities (McLeskey et al., 2004).

Researchers recognize the potential of teacher induction to support beginning teachers,

improve teacher quality, and increase retention (Guarino et al., 2006; Strong, 2005). As a

result, mentoring and induction programs, based on an awareness of new teachers’ unique

needs for comprehensive support and training have been developed (Johnson, Goldrick, &

Lasagna, 2010). As a result, many more states are requiring induction support for beginning

special education teachers (Johnson et al., 2010). Despite these additional programs and

resources, a lack of professional support is often cited as the primary reason why special

educators leave the field (Billingsley & Cross, 1991; Gold, 1996) and current research illustrates

the precipitous decline in years of experience among the nation’s teachers (NCTAF, 2010).

Teacher attrition is a major contributor to teacher shortages. Federal mandates such as the No

Child Left Behind legislation, state highly qualified teachers are of critical importance to ensure

that students reach proficiency in core academic subjects (Katsiyannis, 2010).

The literature on mentoring special educators has been described as fragmented,

lacking a cohesive conceptual framework, and containing numerous methodological errors

(Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Griffin, 2010, Strong, 2005). Findings from attrition studies, which

originated in the field of general education, were applied to the field of special education prior

to researchers’ realization that special educators had different needs and concerns; therefore,

effective mentoring programs for general educators did not apply to special educators.

Subsequent examinations of mentoring have focused on needs and concerns, documenting

trends, informal forms of support and formal forms of support. Due to increased emphasis on

31
teacher quality and legislation including the IDEA and NCLB, the field has recognized the

important challenge of “developing a qualified work force and creating work environments that

sustain special educators’ involvement and commitment” (Billingsley, 2004a, p. 45). As a result,

local, state, and national efforts must focus on the content and types of supports provided and

the outcomes of these supports.

One of the reasons new teachers leave the profession is that the profession has been

slow to develop a systematic way to induct beginning teachers into a highly complex job.

Mentoring is a form of support frequently used in school divisions and when mentoring is

available, decreased attrition rates are realized (Boyer & Gillespie, 2000; Whitaker, 2000b).

How well teachers are provided with necessary supports clearly influences retention rates and

perceived effectiveness of mentoring is correlated with beginning special educators’ plans to

remain in teaching (Whitaker, 2000b). Smith and Ingersoll (2004) found that mentoring and

induction support for special educators varies widely and Gehrke and Murri (2006) reported

that many special educators stated that they were inducted in programs designed for general

educators reporting that these programs were not helpful.

Needs of Beginning Special Educators

New special educators face complex expectations during their first year of teaching. In

many ways, they experience some of the same challenges as their general education colleagues

such as managing a classroom, becoming familiar with a district’s curriculum, acquiring

information about the school and district where they work, and engaging in the communication

and collaboration that are essential to becoming a member of a school team. However, they

encounter additional responsibilities that include: understanding the IDEA, acquiring the

32
knowledge of special education forms, developing modifications or accommodations,

developing effective professional relationships, clarifying the school culture around issues of

inclusion, determining the availability of assistive technology, apprising themselves of complex

medical procedures, and collecting data (Billingsley, 2003; Billingsley et al., 2004; Boyer &

Gillespie, 2000; Gehrke & McCoy, 2007). The magnitude of additional demands placed on new

special educators exacerbates the existing frustrations and stress that all new teachers

experience (Boyer & Gillespie, 2000) causing beginning special educators to feel overwhelmed

by the variety of roles they play (Wilson, Shulman & Reichert, 1997).

Special educators also experience challenges including unsupportive climates,

insufficient materials, lack of familiarity with the curriculum, poor preparation for supervising

paraprofessionals and working with parents, and inadequate time for lesson planning and

writing Individualized Education Plans; these factors negatively affect instruction and student

achievement (Billingsley et al., 2009). While both special and general educators have

pedagogical concerns including addressing challenging student behaviors and learning the

curriculum, special education teachers often have curriculum responsibilities that exceed those

of general educators (Kilgore, Griffin, Otis-Wilborn, & Winn, 2003) spanning many content

areas and grade levels. This is especially difficult for new special educators who report minimal

preparation in content areas causing the new special educators to spend time learning the

content rather than thinking about how to design appropriate teaching strategies and routines

(Borko & Livingston, 1989). Collectively, these studies suggest that new special educators

struggle with (a) including students with disabilities; (b) collaborating with general education

teachers; (c) working with adults; (d) handling pedagogy, including teaching multiple content

33
areas; (e) securing materials; (f) performing assessments; (g) addressing student behavior; and

(h) managing their varied roles (Billingsley et al., 2009).

The transition between teacher preparation programs and the realities of classroom life

can be overwhelming (Ralph, 2002) and experiences in their first teaching assignments are

often quite different from what they expected when in college (Huling-Austin, 1992). Faced

with this array of challenges, a novice teacher’s odds of feeling confirmed about and committed

to his or her career choice can be severely reduced and result in the loss to the profession of

qualified teachers. These challenges coupled with difficult assignments and inadequate

supports contribute to high levels of teacher attrition (Darling-Hammond & Sykes; 2003; Gold,

1996; Grissmer & Kirby 1987; Odell & Ferraro, 1992). Beginning teacher support programs

need to build the capacity of novice teachers, but too often support is directed toward or

limited to a narrow range of classroom survival skills (Reynolds, 1990). Survival and adjustment

are important, but support should not stop there, but should improve and expand the

beginning teacher’s ability to implement a variety of appropriate instructional strategies,

implement curriculum, and select and develop effective teaching materials (Reynolds, 1990).

Beginning teachers who are given reasonable assignments, receive helpful feedback, and are

provided with personal support are more likely to acquire the skills needed for a satisfying

teaching career and to develop greater commitment to teaching (Yee, 1990). Unfortunately

this is not being realized, causing Merrow (2001) to state, “Simply put, we train teachers poorly,

and then treat them badly—and so they leave in droves” (p. 64).

34
 Literature Review

Face-to-Face Mentoring

Research has focused on the proximity of the mentor, the traits of the mentor, and

perceptions of the mentoring experience mainly from the perspective of the mentee. Results

have been mainly mixed with a few consistent results such as beginning teachers prefer

mentors who are special education teachers, informal supports, and that the support currently

received is not perceived to be sufficient. Many of these studies have been conducted utilizing

qualitative methodology, which involves small groups or case studies of individual teachers to

describe problems encountered by novice special educators, but cannot be generalized (Griffin,

Kilgore, Winn, Otis-Wilborn, Hou, & Garvan, 2009). Induction programs have successfully

increased retention and the forms of support have mainly focused on emotional supports. The

idea of support for beginning teachers has had a major impact on policy formulation and

implementation; however, programs vary widely in terms of stated purposes, the type of

support, the targeted audience, the length of the program, and the qualifications of mentors

(Bay & Parker-Katz, 2009).

Induction has been defined in numerous ways, for this review it is defined as “the period

after preservice education extending into the first years in the classroom” (Billingsley et al.,

2009, p. 4). Studies examining induction have been predominantly qualitative and typically

examine specific programs by gathering perceptions from mentees only and few large-scale

quantitative studies exist. Although teacher induction can encompass a variety of activities

(Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004), research in both general and special education has focused mainly on

mentoring (Griffin et al., 2003; Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004); however, the

35
research is limited. Emerging evidence exists that mentoring and induction support influences

beginning special educators’ intent to remain in teaching (Whitaker, 2000b) and perceived

effectiveness. Billingsley et al. (2004) found that teachers with higher levels of induction

support also reported greater job manageability and success in getting through to difficult

students. Recently, induction has also been linked to beginning teachers’ self-ratings of their

preparedness to teach, pedagogical content knowledge, and ability to manage classrooms (Boe

et al., 2008). Teacher induction experiences have been evaluated “including satisfaction with

mentoring, perceived effectiveness, perceived helpfulness, perceived self-confidence,

perceptions of job manageability, and intentions to stay in teaching” (Billingsley et al., 2009,

p. 21) mainly by surveys soliciting the views of mentees only. Mentors’ views of support

provided have rarely been examined. Specific programs have also been examined, but lacking

is the content of the conversations that occur and the support provided from both the mentors

and the mentees perspectives.

Several studies have focused on characteristics and traits of mentors and those results

are summarized. Irinaga-Bistolas et al. (2007) surveyed 44 mentees to determine the

effectiveness of mentoring programs in rural communities, finding that personal characteristics

of mentors was one of the most important factors associated with successful mentoring.

Several researchers found similar results including beginning special educators prefer mentors

who are special educators teaching students with similar disability characteristics at the same

grade level (Boyer, 1999; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Whitaker, 2000a; White, 1995). Whitaker

(2000a) found that beginning special educators who had mentors they rated as effective were

more likely to remain in special education. Effective mentors had the following characteristics:

36
They were special educators who met with new teachers frequently, providing emotional

support and conveyed information related to both special education and the school

environment; and they informed new teachers of available supplies and resources. Odell and

Huling (2000) state the characteristics of good mentors are: (a) willingness to be a mentor, (b)

sensitivity to the needs of new teachers, (c) being helpful not authoritarian, (d) being

diplomatic, (e) the ability to anticipate problems, (f) encouraging, (g) keeping beginner’s

problems confidential, (h) enthusiasm about teaching, (i) being a good role model at all times,

(j) having an understanding of school policy and priorities, (k) skill in classroom observations, (l)

experience working with adult learners, and (m) the ability to provide feedback to keep new

teachers apprised of successes. Based on a national sample of 1,153 special educators,

Billingsley et al. (2004) reported a variety of supports available to beginning special educators

including informal help from other colleagues (89%) and building administrators, regular

meetings with new teachers, and formal mentoring programs; however, support received from

meetings with new teachers (62%), inservice programs (72%) and formal mentoring programs

(72%) were rated lowest. Irinaga-Bistolas et al. (2007) also reported that three factors hindered

successful mentoring relationships: time constraints, a deficiency of knowledge on the part of

the mentor, or simply a bad match either professionally or philosophically.

Irinaga-Bistolas et al. (2007) found that of the 83.3% of beginning special educators who

received support from their mentors, only 62.5% reported that the feedback received was

helpful. Perhaps this is a reason that beginning special educators seek others to fulfill their

support needs. Billingsley et al. (2004) reported the forms of support rated highest were

informal help from other colleagues (89%) and informal help from building teachers (88%).

37
Gehrke and McCoy (2007) referred to this as relying on a “village” citing novices rely on other

special educators, reading specialists, and school psychologists for support (p. 490). Other

researchers have provided evidence that beginning special educators value the support of

professional colleagues and administrators (Billingsley, 2004b; Boe et al., 2008; Boyer, 1999;

Giacobbe, 2003); university professors and fellow preservice graduates (Martinez & Mulhall,

2007); the teacher next door (Babione & Shea, 2005; White & Mason, 2006); and general

education teachers (Babione & Shea, 2005). Whitaker (2003) found that other special

education teachers were the most frequently reported providers of support; however, mentees

perceived the frequency of support as inadequate to address their needs. In a nationally

representative sample, Smith and Ingersoll (2004) found that mentors in the same field,

common planning time with other teachers, and participation in an external network of

teachers contributed to teacher retention. Furthermore, Smith and Ingersoll (2004) suggested

that multiple rather than single forms of support are effective.

Formal supports including scheduled meetings and professional development have been

proposed. Formal induction programs have been implemented and consistently only half of

special educators surveyed report them helpful; although positive impacts on intent to remain

and perceptions of professional competence have been found (Gehrke & McCoy, 2007; Griffin,

2005; Irinaga-Bistolas et al., 2007; Martinez & Mulhall, 2007; Tucker, 2000). Whitaker (2000b)

found that 47% of beginning special educators participating in scheduled meetings reported

these meetings were helpful or extremely helpful. Griffin (2005) speculated that the social and

collaborative aspects of meeting were especially beneficial. Gehrke and McCoy (2007) and

White and Mason (2006) warn that having release time to attend scheduled meetings is

38
important. Billingsley et al. (2004) found that 49% of special educators participated in formal

meetings, but when asked to rank helpfulness of support, these teachers rated these meetings

last, not finding them helpful. Additionally, Billingsley et al. (2004) found that over 90% of

beginning special educators participated in professional development opportunities within their

district, but few reported these helpful. Gehrke and Murri (2006) reported that special

educators were included in training sessions with general educators so perhaps that is a reason

these meetings did not meet their needs. While the literature on formal supports appears

mixed, informal supports provided to beginning special education teachers have consistently

been reported as helpful (Billingsley et al., 2004). Babione and Shea (2005) state that informal

supports may be more responsive to the teacher’s needs. The frequency of support has been

studied and found to be highly correlated with special educators’ perceptions of support

(Billingsley, 2004b; Whitaker, 2000b).

Research examining the proximity of mentors has also revealed mixed results. Boyer

(1999) reported mentors located outside of the school offered an “objective viewpoint that was

not tainted by knowledge of the building culture or the dynamics of the staff within the school”

(p. 69) and that personal conversations were less likely to be repeated in the mentees’ building.

White and Mason’s (2006) study found special educators did not seek help from mentors

located outside their building. Griffin (2005) reported having a mentor in the same building

played a significant role in relationship development and Whitaker (2000b) found that special

educators possess a strong preference for mentors who are special educators over those placed

in the same school. Irinaga-Bistolas et al. (2007) found that early career special educators with

39
mentors in the same building reported their information, instructional, and emotional needs

were met at higher levels than did participants with mentors in another building.

The content of support has also been examined and it is widely acknowledged that the

predominant content of mentoring is emotional support (Gehrke & McCoy, 2007; Giacobbe,

2003; Griffin, 2005; Irinaga-Bistolas et al., 2007; Whitaker, 2000b). Andrews and Quinn (2005),

studying the content of mentoring, found support topics related to information about school

policies and procedures as well as dimensions of personal and emotional support. Sindelar,

Heretick, Hirsch, Rorrer, and Dawson (2010) stated the general content of the conversations

includes addressing behavior, Individualized Education Plans, and factors that influence

mentees’ satisfaction with mentoring, but we know nothing about what happens during mentor

and mentee exchanges and how mentors guide novices. Wang and Odell (2002), completing

one of the few studies examining perceptions from both mentors and mentees, found that

mentors expect to provide and novices expect to receive psychological support and guidance

on local customs and policies, but neither views mentoring as a substantial and meaningful

influence on novices’ learning to teach while several studies have outlined the reported need

for additional content area support (Irinaga-Bistolas et al., 2007; Whitaker, 2003).

Two studies examining the content of support within the Beginning Teacher Support

and Assessment (BTSA) program were located. Dalton (1994) used mentoring logs to

determine the forms of support given over a 10-month period to beginning teachers by four

advisors. The researcher found that the types of support varied by grade level taught and how

long the beginning teacher had taught. A beginning teacher at the elementary level received an

40
average of 10.7 hours of support a month and the elementary teacher in her second year of

teaching received an average of 6.1 hour monthly. The top three forms of support for the

first-year teacher were assisting in the classroom, instructional strategies, and observations by

the advisor, but for the second year they were curriculum development, assisting in the

classroom with observation, and conferencing. Overall, the first-year teacher averaged 4.6

hours more of classroom assistance than the second-year teacher and the second-year teacher

averaged 5.9 hours more of curriculum development. The author speculated that the

differences were due to varying developmental needs. At the middle school level the three

most common forms of support for first-year teachers were conferencing, curriculum

development, and assisting in the classroom and for second-year teachers they were

curriculum development, assisting in the classroom, and observation. The levels of support in

classroom management, emotional support, and coaching dropped from the first year to the

second year. First-year high school teachers mainly received support on instructional

strategies, curriculum development, and classroom management while second-year teachers

received the most support on instructional strategies, then classroom management, followed

by curriculum development and observations. Acknowledging difficulties with advisor logs and

a coding system using coding categories that were not exclusive, Dalton (1994) attributed the

differences in first and second-year teachers as developmentally related. Participants also

answered survey questions about how the project assisted them in growth. First-year teachers

revealed the practical help received such as assisting in the classroom and gathering needed

materials and supplies; whereas second-year teachers responded that it was the supportive

41
presence of the advisor that assisted them most, with many stating that project participation

assisted with retaining a “focus on my goals and objectives for the year” (Dalton, 1994, p. 43).

Kennedy and Burstein (2004) examined weekly logs kept by advisors in the BTSA

program for special educators established in 1999. Participant surveys were also completed

and retention rates were gathered. The weekly logs specified the frequency of contact, the

topics of discussion, and the types of assistance given. An analysis of weekly logs revealed that

the California Formative Assessment and Support System for Teachers was discussed most

frequently (82%); followed by legal requirements (27%); lesson planning, instruction, and

selection of curricular materials (27%); student assessment (26%); classroom management and

student behavior issues (25%); orientation procedures and workshops (7%); and finally working

with parents (6%). Based on a participant satisfaction survey, high ratings were achieved for all

five program components. Rated on a 5-point Likert scale in which 1 = not valuable and 5 =

very valuable, scores ranged from 3.6 to 4.8. Additionally, retention rates measured at the end

of the 3-year program were 95%. Outcomes of this evaluation suggest that induction should

address the unique needs of the special educator, facilitate collaboration, and be implemented

within a comprehensive program with multiple supports.

An area where research findings differ from practice is the evaluative role of mentoring.

Researchers point to the importance of mentors assuming nonevaluative roles in which they

focus on fostering teachers’ professional growth (Boyer, 1999; Gehrke & McCoy, 2007; White &

Mason, 2006). However, in White and Mason’s (2006) examination of seven induction

programs, mentors served evaluative roles and mentees reported this aspect as uncomfortable

stating it was stressful to reveal their problems and concerns with mentors for fear of losing

42
their jobs. Conversely, Boyer (1999) found that when mentors assumed nonevaluative roles,

mentees reported feeling comfortable “asking anything or getting anything from mentors”

(p. 68). The literature also suggests that beginning teachers are often reluctant to seek help in

general (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a) and may be especially reluctant to seek help from those

responsible for their evaluations (Billingsley, 2005; Griffin et al., 2003). Beginning teachers

often have questions they do not ask based on the belief they should know the answers

(Johnson & Kardos, 2002). Special educators in Whitaker’s study stated,

I felt like I had learned most of the stuff in college. . .but I didn’t remember or know

exactly how to apply it in my particular situation (Whitaker, 2000a, p. 29), or, It’s hard

the first time you go and ask. . .makes you feel dumb. . .they are going to think I can’t

handle this. (p. 32)

Sindelar et al. (2010) assert that if students are to meet content-based standards, the

quality of instruction must improve. Noticeably missing from the mentoring literature is a focus

on instructional practices, but it has been examined with student teachers. Hiebert, Gallimore,

and Stigler (2002) found that mentoring dialogues about teaching experiences are important

educational contexts for helping student teachers develop professional knowledge.

Kremer-Hayon and Wubbels (1993) found that the role mentors take differ and therefore have

different effects on student teachers’ learning and professional development. Through learning

dialogues, mentor teachers may have a considerable influence on what teachers learn, but this

area has not been examined empirically. While psychological support is important and

necessary, it will not move teachers along a continuum of lifelong learning and students will not

meet state and federal mandates.

43
 An immense need exists for special education teachers to create high quality

educational opportunities and to level the playing field for students with disabilities. The IDEA

requires that students with disabilities have access to the general education curriculum and

meet adequately yearly progress on state academic content standards (Leko & Brownell, 2009),

which requires new special educators to use effective practices; teach across grades and

content areas; collaborate with general education teachers, parents, and professionals; and

manage time to ensure that their students meet achievement standards (Sindelar et al., 2010).

In order to provide high quality instruction special education teachers need to have content and

pedagogical knowledge, but depending on their initial preparation and ongoing access to

professional development, special education teachers may vary considerably in their content

knowledge and pedagogical knowledge (Billingsley et al., 2009).

Only a few studies have examined mentoring and induction and student achievement.

Mentoring has been shown to have positive effects on teacher retention; however, staying in

the classroom does not mean that new teachers are effective in helping students learn

(Fletcher et al., 2008). Student achievement is the least studied outcome variable in mentoring

studies because of difficulty obtaining data, because not all induction programs are focused on

student achievement, and any connection between mentoring and student achievement is

mediated by other factors (Fletcher et al. 2008). Six studies were located and will be reviewed.

Fletcher et al. (2008), using student achievement data for classes taught by elementary

teachers in their first or second year of teaching, compared gain scores on reading tests for the

new teachers’ classes with the scores of their respective schools. From this analysis it was

apparent that despite new teachers being assigned classes with the lowest initial achievement

44
levels, levels below district averages, these classes had greater achievement than classes taught

by more experienced teachers suggesting that new teacher support can have a positive effect

on student achievement. The new teachers in this study worked with their mentors for 1 to 2

hours weekly on instructional issues. Furthermore, Fletcher et al. (2008) found that the most

intensive induction programs had greater gains in reading with teachers in the intensive

program showing class gains equal to those of experienced teachers in the same district.

Fletcher and Strong (2009) compared groups of beginning teachers in the same urban school

districts, found that those with full-time mentors shower greater achievement gains over one

year than those with part-time mentors.

Thompson, Paek, Goe, and Ponte (2004), studying the California BTSA program among

1,125 third to fifth grade teachers from 107 school districts during their third year of teaching,

found high engagement in BTSA was associated with higher scores on student engagement and

higher test scores on student achievement measures. Rockoff (2008), examining the NTC

mentoring program using surveys and standardized test scores, also found that more time with

mentors showed higher achievement in math and reading. However, a study completed by

Mathematica Policy Research containing four reports conducted by Glazerman and colleagues

between 2006 and 2010 did not corroborate the above findings. Using student test data,

observations, interviews, and questionnaires to examine the intensity of induction support on

retention, teacher practice, and student achievement, no significant effects were found on

retention, practice, or student achievement after 1 year or on retention or achievement after 2

years; however, student achievement of treatment teachers was significantly higher after 3

years. Using hierarchical linear modeling, Adams (2010) used student standardized test scores

45
to analyze and determine the impact of mentoring first and second-year teachers on their

students’ achievement using a comparison group consisting of experienced teachers in

matched schools. Examining data from over 300 teachers of over 6,900 students in language

arts, reading, mathematics, and science from the state of Alaska, results show that although

mentoring new teachers did not bring the students’ standardized scores up to the same level as

students in classes with veteran teachers, they were much closer than expected for reading,

writing, and science. Standardized scores for reading, writing, and science were statistically

significant with small effect sizes and math scores the same for first and second-year teachers

as veteran teachers.

Ingersoll and Strong (2011) reviewed 15 empirical studies, including 4 of the 5 reviewed

above to find empirical support for the claim that support and assistance for beginning teachers

from mentors had a positive effect on teachers’ classroom instructional practices and student

achievement. In conclusion, several studies support that the quantity of induction support is

important; however, an optimal program length or intensity is not known. Additionally, while

almost all of the studies reviewed showed that students of beginning teachers participating in

induction had higher scores or gains on academic achievement tests, much research remains to

be done in this area. Several studies suggest that long-term intensive induction should be

studied longitudinally. Furthermore, Ingersoll and Strong (2011) state that the empirical

research has examined what works, but not why or why not.

Conversations amongst mentors have also been examined. Orland-Barak (2006)

analyzed conversations within a 1-year in-service professional development program for

mentors in Israel to explore the content of mentor and mentee professional conversations. Ten

46
mentors participated in this study. Analysis of the content of conversations revealed that these

dialogues constituted unique opportunities for participants to co-construct meanings from

different dimensions of mentoring. The three dialogue types were divergent, convergent, and

parallel. Divergent dialogues involve shifting from personal context to theorizing about

mentoring and allowing for exploring, comparing, and making connections across practices. In

parallel dialogues participants use the conversation to develop their own ideas in a kind of

“dialogue with themselves” providing opportunities for participants to discriminate and dispute

their own ideologies and fixed assumptions (Orland-Barak, 2006, p. 13). Lastly, convergent

dialogues occurred when participants mediated understandings that outlined possible solutions

to a particular dilemma. The mentors stated the conversations allowed for solving problems

and assisting each other to jointly construct new understandings about how mentoring

operates in different teaching contexts corroborating the potential of conversation for learning

and professional development (Clandinin, 2001; Clark, 2001).

In summary, it is widely accepted that beginning teachers need support and guidance as

they work through the process of becoming an experienced, effective teacher

(Darling-Hammond, 1998; Feiman-Nemser, 2001b, Odell, 1986). Studies focusing on needs,

problems, and concerns of beginning teachers shed some light on what makes the induction

phase unique, but they do not focus on the core tasks of learning to teach (Carter & Richardson,

1989). Mentoring tends to focus on situational adjustment, technical advice, emotional

support, and local guidance (Feiman-Nemser, 2001b: Little, 1990; Wang & Odell, 2002).

Additionally, programs vary dramatically in the degree of support, time, and financial resources

from comprehensive systems with release-time for mentors and novices to meet, to more

47
informal arrangement that pair a new teacher with a buddy at the school site with no release

time, no common planning, no compensation, and no professional development (Gless, 2006).

Frequently missing from mentoring programs is a coherent structure to enable mentors to

guide new teachers in reform-minded, standards-based, and critically reflective practice;

however, when conceptualized as joint participation in authentic tasks mentoring can foster

improved practice (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1990; Wang & Odell, 2002). Currently, in the

research and at the policy level it is often asserted that if new teachers engage in induction

activities, particularly mentoring, they will become better practitioners, but “this uncritical view

of the provision of support activities ignores the fact that some programs may not offer

guidance and support that lead to improved practice and retention” (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a,

p. 18) and little is known about how induction leads to quality instructional practices because it

is rarely examined. Andrews and Quinn (2005) found that mentored teachers reported that

curriculum and instruction were the areas in which they received the least support. To realize

improvements in students’ achievement, this trend needs to be reversed with an emphasis on

curriculum and pedagogical issues moving to the forefront.

Feiman-Nemser et al. (1993) found differences in the way mentors defined and enacted

their roles. Some mentors defined their roles as conveyers of emotional support and

short-term technical assistance and felt their roles were to share materials, answer questions,

explain local procedures and policies, and offer advice while others defined their roles in

educational terms such as focusing on student learning and helping novices with immediate

problems, but few mentors saw themselves as agents of change responsible for encouraging

and arranging collaboration and shared inquiry. The mentoring role needs to be redefined

48
around standards and student learning for change to be enacted state Zanting, Verloop,

Vermunt, and Van Driel (1998), referring to the multifaceted roles of mentors (co-thinker,

inquirer, evaluator, supervisor, and learning companion). Novice teachers need well-prepared

mentor teachers competent to combine the knowledge and skills of classroom teaching with

the knowledge and skills of a teacher of teaching (Feiman-Nemser, 2001b).

The Role of the Mentor

If mentoring is to function as a strategy of reform, it must be linked to a vision of good

teaching and guided by an understanding of adult learning (Feiman-Nemser, 1996). While

beginning teachers should have access to emotional support, advice and feedback does not

qualify as an educational intervention (Feiman-Nemser, 1996). Emotional support, practical

advice, and technical proficiency will not help novices learn to teach (Cochran-Smith, 1991).

Evertson and Smithey (2000) concluded that mere presence of a mentor is not enough—

mentors must possess knowledge and skill in mentoring. The effectiveness of mentoring is

closely aligned to the expertise of the mentor as well as the quality and type of support

provided (Nickson & Kritsonis, 2006; Parker-Katz & Hughes, 2008). A literature review

completed by Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, and Tomlinson (2009) concluded that the extent to

which mentor teachers are able to address mentees’ learning needs is an important factor in

the success of mentoring. However, Feiman-Nemser (1996) found that teachers who serve as

mentors do not see themselves as school-based teacher educators responsible for helping

novices learn to teach. In order for state and federal standards to be realized, mentors need to

focus on student learning in the context of the standards.

49
 One approach to identifying effects of teacher induction on novices’ teaching is to

analyze what mentors do and to identify the impact on novices’ practice based on theoretical

assumptions of effective mentoring (Wang et al., 2008). Athanses and Achinstein (2003)

surveyed program coordinators of teacher induction programs who stated that mentors should

help novices focus their attention on children’s thinking. Feiman-Nemser (2001b) analyzed

interview and observation data collected over 2 years from a mentor teacher assigned to work

with 14 beginning teachers discovering that this mentor was concerned with arranging

conditions for growth-producing experiences and co-thinking; however, this study only

examined one teacher’s view of mentoring. Wang (2001) explored the relationship between

mentoring context and mentoring practice by drawing on data from 23 mentor teachers in the

United States and China finding that mentors in different countries hold different beliefs

concerning what novices should learn. Through comparative analysis he discovered that U.S.

mentors believed that establishing a purpose for teaching and learning about individual

students was important whereas mentors in China believed novices should develop a deep

understanding of the subject matter, curriculum, and professional ethics. Additionally, Wang

found that U.S. mentors spent less time with novices. This study was mainly comparative in

nature and was focused on broad differences based on where the mentoring occurred and

lacked detailed information and analysis. Unfortunately, none of these studies addressed the

views of beginning teachers.

How mentors define and enact their role, what kind of preparation and support they

receive, and whether mentors have time to mentor all influence the character and quality of

mentoring and its influence on novice’s practice (Feiman-Nemser, & Parker, 1990).

50
Feiman-Nemser (1996) suggests that it is difficult for teachers to develop the necessary

dispositions and skills to become school-based teacher educators because most lack experience

and skills in the core activities of mentoring such as observing and talking with other teachers

about teaching. Teachers generally work alone in their classrooms and rarely see teachers’

practice and they have limited opportunities to talk about teaching in systematic and rigorous

ways. Stallion and Zimpher (1991) tested the benefits of mentor training on mentee teacher

change related to classroom management concluding that the mentors’ own knowledge base

was vital in transferring such knowledge to their mentees. In contrast, mentors not provided

extensive training in mentoring lacked sufficient skills to transfer this knowledge. In addition,

school environments need to be set up to support quality mentoring. Wildman, Magliaro,

Niles, and Niles (1992) analyzed specific roles, activities, and conditions experienced in

mentoring programs through a qualitative analysis including 150 mentor teachers and found

that mentors lacked time for communication and observations. Mentors stated that their

school environments were not set up to foster these tasks.

The Developmental Needs of Beginning Teachers

Goldrick (2009) describes the developmental pathway into teaching as fragmented,

haphazard, and an incoherent system of training and support defining three distinct phases of

teacher development: (a) preservice training, (b) new teacher induction, and (c) career-long

professional development. Wideen, Mayer-Smith, and Moon (1998) completed a meta-analysis

of 93 research-based studies on learning to teach. These studies showed that pedagogical

content knowledge could not be acquired during preservice education because practicum

experiences were usually too limited to acquire a significant amount of direct application.

51
Wideen et al. (1998) concluded that teachers learn to teach in the classroom through their own

construction of knowledge “that develops and evolves through sustained conversation”

(p. 159). Therefore, beginning teachers need practice, coaching, and feedback. From a

developmental perspective, this is how induction is viewed. Berliner (1988), in his examination

of experts and novices, uncovered qualitative differences in the thinking and performance of

teachers at different stages of their careers pointing out that proficiency and expertise take

time to develop and do not automatically flow from experience. Berliner (1988) proposed six

dimensions on which novice and experts differ: (a) their abilities to interpret classroom

phenomena, (b) discern important events, (c) use routines, (d) make predictions, (e) judge

typical and atypical events, and (e) evaluate performance. This developmental theory of skill

acquisition had a powerful impact on the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment policy

(Scott, 1995).

As discussed earlier, beginning teachers are reluctant and afraid to ask questions,

especially if their mentor is responsible for evaluating them. They often feel that they should

know the answers or should have learned them at the preservice level. Hammerness,

Darling-Hammond, Grossman, Rust, and Shulman (2005) outlines three areas or problems that

occur during preservice education that inhibit learning: (a) the apprenticeship of observation,

(b) the problem of enactment, and (c) the problem of complexity. This states that teachers

enter preservice education with preconceived notions from their own schooling which serve as

filters and possibly barriers to gaining knowledge from coursework. One of the widespread

misconceptions is that teaching is easy because as a student, you observe the “superficial

trappings of teaching, but not the underlying knowledge, skills, planning, and decision making”

52
(Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, Grossman et al., 2005, p. 367). Therefore, the knowledge,

skills and attitudes needed for optimal teaching are not something that can be fully developed

in preservice programs (Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, Bransford, Berliner, Cochran-Smith,

McDonald, Zeichner, 2005), rather teacher education should lay a foundation for lifelong

learning.

Schon (1987) describes as a paradoxical situation the need to demonstrate skills and

abilities that they do not have and can only gain by beginning to do what they do not yet

understand. Beginning teachers have limited experience and practical knowledge to draw on

which increases their sense of frustration and inadequacy and they are expected to perform

and be effective (Feiman-Nemser et al., 1999). A common complaint from beginning teachers

is that they need to be proficient in all knowledge and skills from the first moment they enter

the classroom and they often report being unprepared for the variety of roles all at once (Kealy,

2010). Both qualitative and quantitative research results provide convincing evidence that role

problems significantly interfere with special educators’ ability to be effective with their

students and job satisfaction (Billingsley, 2004, p. 22). Role problems not only increase attrition

(Billingsley & Cross, 1992; Cross & Billingsley, 1994; Gersten et al., 2001), but may also cause

the overwhelmed beginning teacher to cling to the first strategy that works.

Once in the classroom, teachers must apply the knowledge learned in preservice

programs, but understanding and skillful practice are two different forms of knowledge (Carter,

1990; Schon, 1987). While in college methods, curriculum, and behavior management are

learned, but in the classroom application is required. Professional practice is complex,

context-specific and involves reasoning, decision making and continuous reflection

53
(Feiman-Nemser & Norman, 2000). Teachers must size up situations, weigh competing goals,

and make decisions about what to do. These decisions are shaped by the situations

encountered and mediated by the knowledge and skills they bring to the classroom

(Feiman-Nemser, 2001b). Therefore, during the induction phase, teachers are shifting from

theory to application while simultaneously attempting to adjust to their environment and

professional roles. During this time mentors attempt to assist with this transition, but if simply

serving as a local guide and provider of emotional support rather than helping the novice

attend to student learning they are not assisting the novice. Novices need guides to transform

their knowledge of discrete skills and strategies into deep understandings of students and the

subject matter and how the two intersect. Teachers need to be involved in meaningful

sustained engagement with colleagues, ideas, and materials which enable teachers to deepen

their understanding of the subjects they teach and to investigate students’ work (National

Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 1998). The induction phase must also take into

account the teacher’s preparation and build upon and continue this learning process.

Otherwise, beginning teachers will cling to strategies focused on survival rather than student

learning. For mentoring programs this means a shift from emotional support and conveying

knowledge of school and district information to a more sustained and systematic approach

focused on standards and curriculum. It means framing induction around visions of student

learning, good teaching, and standards rather than simply reducing stress and applying feel

good support.

54
 Conceptual Framework: How People Learn

The professional development literature tells us that teachers need learning

opportunities that are connected to their daily work with students, related to the teaching and

learning of subject matter, organized around real problems of practice, and sustained over time

by conversation and coaching (Darling Hammond & McLaughlin, 1996; Little, 1993). Little

(1990) distinguishes between emotional support, which makes novices feel comfortable, and

professional support that fosters a principled understanding of teaching and argues that the

promise of mentoring lies not in easing novices’ entry into teaching but in helping them

confront difficult problems of practice and use their teaching as a site for learning. Helping new

teachers learn to teach inevitably means helping them learn about students and contexts and

how to engage their students in learning content (Feiman-Nemser et al., 1999). We know from

the literature on preservice education that challenging aspects of teaching must be learned in

practice—learning to size up teaching situations, investigate what students are thinking, and

use the information gathered to inform and improve practice (Feiman-Nemser et al., 1999).

Feiman-Nemser (1996) states, “The education community understands that mentors

have a positive effect on teacher retention, but that leaves open the question of what mentors

should do, what they actually do, and what novices learn as a result” (p. 2). Teacher shortages

and teacher attrition have contributed to a growing consensus that support and assistance are

essential to the retention of beginning teachers (Feiman-Nemser et al., 1999), but simply

retaining teachers does not mean that they will develop the kind of teaching that fosters deep

and complex learning on the part of students (Feiman-Nemser et al., 1999). If we want to

realize the potential of induction to help improve the quality of teaching, we must provide the

55
conditions, support, and guidance to help construct a professional, standards-based practice in

the context of their teaching (Feiman-Nemser, Schwille, Carver, Yusko, 1999); otherwise we

design programs that reduce stress and address problems and concerns without promoting

teacher development (Feiman-Nemser et al., 1999). The way induction is conceptualized has

consequences for the way induction programs and policies have been framed, accessed, and

studied.

In the last 30 years, research from anthropology, linguistics, philosophy, developmental

psychology, computer science, neuroscience and sociocognitive studies have contributed to the

formulation of the How People Learn (HPL) framework and the science of learning knowledge

base (Bransford et al., 2000). These authors describe three essential competencies for

teachers: (a) knowledge of how students learn; (b) knowledge of teaching; and (c) knowledge of

subject matter, stating teachers with an understanding of the nature and processes of learning

possess knowledge that can significantly increase the facilitation of learning and development

for each student (Bransford et al., 2000; Peterson, Clark, & Dickson, 1990). The learning

community built around vision includes understanding, practices, dispositions and tools and is

included in Figure 1.

Based on the fact that learning needs to continue once teachers enter the classroom,

Hatano and colleagues (Hatano & Inagaki, 1986; Hatano & Oura, 2003) describe effective

lifelong learning that allows for continuous knowledge and skill building. Bransford et al. (2005)

developed a conceptual framework highlighting three general areas of knowledge, skills, and

dispositions that are important for every teacher to acquire.

56
Figure 1. Learning in community. Adapted from How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School by J. D.
Bransford, A. L. Brown, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), 2005, Washington, DC: National Academics Press.

57
  Knowledge of learners and how they learn and develop within social contexts;

 Conceptions of curriculum, content and goals: an understanding of the subject

matter and skills to be taught;

 An understanding of teaching in light of the content and learners to be taught,

informed by assessment and supported by classroom environments. (Bransford et

al., 2005, p. 10)

The HPL framework is developed around four overlapping design for teaching

environments that can be used to analyze any learning situation. The HPL Dimensions of

Learning Environments is presented in Figure 2.

The HPL framework suggests ways instruction can be designed around the four

dimensions: learner centered, knowledge centered, assessment centered, and community

centered (Bransford et al., 2000) (see Appendix A).

Learner centered environments incorporate the learners’ strengths and interests and are

designed to help students make connections between their previous knowledge, skills,

attitudes, and beliefs. Teachers recognize the importance of building on these conceptual

frameworks to focus on how students construct meaning and connect new knowledge to old

knowledge (Bransford, 2004).

Knowledge centered environments are standards based and organized around big ideas

and involves providing rigorous content and helping students’ understanding of a subject or

discipline.

Assessment centered environments are designed to enhance understanding of content

through frequent opportunities for feedback, reflection, and revision to enhance learning.

58
Figure 2. The HPL dimension of learning environments. Adapted from How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
Experience, and School by J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, R. R. Cocking (Eds.), 2005, Washington, DC: National Academics Press.

59
 Community centered learning environments provide stimulating, supportive, and safe

environments in which students challenge themselves (The IRIS Center for Training

Enhancements, 2009). Collaborative learning environments that foster the skills of lifelong

learners are valued here. Effective teachers know how to balance the four components.

Teacher expertise is developed within specific domains and is situated within specific

contexts meaning learning needs to be derived from and connected to the content and

students taught. Simultaneously, teachers need to learn how aspects of what they learned in

preservice education may apply to their classrooms and the problems they encounter. Studies

have suggested that professional development focused on how students learn specific content

within subject matter is helpful for teachers (Ma, 1999). Learning communities in which

teachers share understandings about the nature of good teaching and work together to enact

them provide particularly conducive settings for learning to teach (Darling-Hammond,

Grossman, Rust, & Shulman, 2005). These communities of learning support learning and

problem solving and teachers learn from guidance, mentorship, and peer support not sink or

swim (Rodriguez & Sjostrom, 1995; Sparks, 2001). Adult learning theories support that adults

learn more when they have the opportunity to interact with peers (Sprinthall & Theis-Sprinthall,

1983) and induction research suggests that beginning teachers need frequent opportunities to

share or solve problems with other first-year teachers.

Teacher Standards

Three national organizations have provided outlines for the professional learning

continuum for the teaching profession. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher

Education (NCATE) developed standards for accreditation of preservice programs, the

60
Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Continuum (InTASC, 2009) developed licensure for

beginning teachers, and the National Board for Professional Teaching standards (NBPTS)

outlines certification of accomplished practitioners.

The current Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) standards,

released in April, 2011 (see Appendix B), outline what teachers should know and be able to do

to help students reach the goal of being college and career ready. The new standards, designed

to articulate what effective teaching and learning looks like, are intended as professional

practice standards, setting one standard for performance that will look different dependent on

the teacher’s developmental stage (Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2010). To

reflect this change in emphasis, INTASC has removed “new” from its name and is now called the

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. While the old standards were

performance based and focused on outcomes, the new standards are based on the premise of

assuring that every learner learns. In order to achieve this goal, three things must be realized:

(a) transparency of practice; (b) a culture of collaboration; and (c) ongoing, embedded

professional learning (CCSSO, 2010). The basis for revision of the standards included the report

by Bransford et al. (2000) for the National Research Council, How People Learn. Substantial

changes to the standards include that communication, which used to be a stand-alone

standard, is now integrated throughout the standards. A new standard, Innovative Applications

of Content, has been added to address cross-disciplinary skills and interdisciplinary themes.

Additionally, standards have been grouped into four categories (The Learner and Learning,

Content Knowledge, Instructional Practice, and Professional Responsibility) to emphasize the

renewed focus on the learner. While the terms knowledge, dispositions, and performances

61
were retained, performance is now listed first and the others have been renamed as essential

knowledge.

The new standards are formed around a newly conceptualized educator development

and career continuum organized into four stages: preparation, novice, professional, and

expert. Recognizing that expertise is developed over time, the degree of sophistication in the

application of the standards will develop over time and through the development of expertise.

These stages are not defined by programs, coursework, or time on the job, but rather by the

level of competency (Hill et al., 2010). Initial licensure is viewed as minimum competency to

move into the novice phase as candidates transition into teaching. The standards focus on

collaboration among teachers to improve professional practice and suggest that induction and

mentoring are central to the professional collaborative culture. Assessment within the new

standards is envisioned as being integrated within teaching. Elmore (2004) states

accountability should be considered a reciprocal process, with both high expectations for

educators to address the changing needs of students and a system strategy for investing in the

knowledge and skills of educators who are challenged to do their work in new ways. Because

national and state standards reflect visions of good teaching, they can serve to shape

conversations about instruction and may also be used by the beginning teacher as a tool for

formative assessments of their teaching and learning. Currently, little is known about how

standards actually influence induction practices and how they affect novices’ teaching and their

students’ learning (Feiman-Nemser et al., 1999).

62
 Summary and Limitations of Literature

Researchers have found that the current induction programs are not successfully

meeting beginning special educators’ needs (Billingsley et al., 2004; Whitaker, 2000b).

Mentoring programs vary dramatically in their degree of support, time, and financial resources

(Athanses et al., 2008), content, duration, and delivery of programs; therefore, it is not clear to

what extent general conclusions about mentoring and induction can be drawn from any given

study (Wong & Wong, 1998). Mentoring programs also differ in infrastructure, focus, and

outcomes (Huling & Resta, 2007; Mullen, 2008). CoBabe (2000) stated that the overall picture

is uneven in terms of the purpose and goals of mentoring programs and how they are

implemented. Most mentoring and induction programs are conducted by local schools, and

differ considerably from school to school (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Fideler & Haselkorn,

1999). Fox and Singletary (1986) stated that much is known about the concerns of beginning

teachers and rates of attrition, but little is known about programs that assist during the crucial

induction period. Annual attrition rates for beginning teachers are approximately twice that of

experienced teachers (Odell & Ferraro, 1992) suggesting that the needs of first-year teachers

must be addressed. Carver and Feiman-Nemser (2009) declare prescriptions about induction

and mentoring abound, but the research on the character, quality, and effects of induction

programs and policies remains limited at both the research and policy levels. Current research

provides evidence that mentoring has a positive effect on teacher retention, but does not

include information regarding what components should be included, how much assistance is

needed, what the content of that assistance should include (Huling-Austin, 1986; Little, 1990;

63
Whitaker, 2000b) therefore questions remain about what mentors should do, what they

actually do, and what novices learn as a result (Evertson & Smithey, 1999; Gratch, 1998).

The extant literature has been described as fragmented, lacking a cohesive conceptual

framework (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a; Griffin, 2010), and containing numerous methodological

limitations that “are liable to compromise the implications one is able to draw” (Strong, 2005,

p.192). Reasons for this include that many studies are qualitative with a small number of

participants (Billingsley & Tomchin, 1992; Kilgore & Griffin, 1998), are case studies (Boyer &

Lee, 2001; MacDonald & Speece, 2001), focus on specific programs, or are surveys. Few

large-scale quantitative studies offering generalizable findings of induction on actual teacher

retention, teaching practices, and student learning exist (Lopez, Lash, Schaffner, Shields, &

Wagner, 2004; Whisnant, Elliott, & Pynchon, 2005). Only two studies, Gehrke and McCoy

(2007) and Gehrke and Murri (2006) were located that used mixed methods. Gehrke and

McCoy (2007) examined factors related to professional growth and job satisfaction with eight

special education teachers through mailed questionnaires and telephone interviews; and

Gehrke and Murri (2006) examined how work-related variables influenced decisions to remain

in teaching with six special education teachers using open ended questions and 10-item Likert

scale. Only one of the studies gathered data from both the mentor and the mentee. Allen, Eby,

O’Brien, and Lentz (2008) found limited triangulation of data sources citing few studies

collected data from multiple sources. The use of multiple sources of data helps combat mono-

method bias and improves construct validity through triangulation (Jick, 1979).

Studies examining the perceptions of mentoring, teachers’ satisfaction with mentoring,

perceived effectiveness and helpfulness, perceptions of job manageability, and intentions to

64
remain in teaching have been examined mainly through the use of surveys administered to

mentees. Most studies have failed to balance the views of the mentor and mentees, which

greatly limits our understanding of mentoring (Eby, Rhoades, & Allen, 2007). Mentoring

relationships are inherently dyadic and a complex process with the mentor and mentee

enacting different roles and responsibilities in the relationship (Allen, 2007). Mentors and

mentees report different benefits (Eby, Durley, Evans, & Ragins, 2006; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990)

and costs (Eby, 2007) in a mentoring relationship suggesting that data from both perspectives is

necessary to fully understand a mentoring relationship. Methodologically, surveys are subject

to social desirability and measure beliefs only at the time of completion (Billingsley et al., 2009).

Due to the heavy emphasis on survey methodology, Ingersoll and Smith (2004) stated they are

hesitant to claim any particular conclusions concerning the mentoring of beginning teachers

can be established.

While mentoring has been recommended as a means of facilitating the entry of

beginning teachers into the profession, the current research provides limited information about

how much assistance is needed, and what the content of that assistance should include (Huling-

Austin, 1986; Little, 1990; Whitaker, 2000b). Although the importance of mentors is well

established, detailed information on the roles of mentors and how mentors actually do this are

limited (Carver & Katz, 2004). Descriptive research is needed to illuminate critical needs,

problems, and issues from the perspectives of beginning teachers and their mentors. Extended

engagement with beginning teachers and their mentors is needed to help identify the specific

supports and the work contexts that help to develop and sustain special educators’

commitment and growth. Such analysis is necessary if members of the education community

65
are to make informed decisions about support practices within the context of teacher

professional development (Bay & Parker-Katz, 2009) and will increase knowledge about the

formation of school and district-level policies and state initiatives (Bay & Parker-Katz, 2009).

Electronic Mentoring (E-Mentoring)

Online mentoring expands traditional new teacher support by bringing novice and

expert educators together in a web-based professional learning community. There are multiple

definitions of e-mentoring and its role in facilitating the mentor-mentee relationship. DeWert,

Babinski, and Jones (2003) noted that computer mediated communication (CMC) has the

potential to change the way mentoring support is conceptualized and designed as well as to

overcome some of the limitations of face-to-face (FtF) mentoring. This study adopts the

definition provided by the creators of the program under examination. Specifically, they define

e-mentoring as “a relationship between a more experienced individual [mentor] and a less

skilled or experienced individual [mentee], primarily using CMC that is intended to develop and

improve each mentee’s skills, confidence, and cultural understanding” (Jaffe et al., 2006, p. 90).

Miller and Griffiths (2005), examining e-mentoring, state that e-mentoring complements

and extends what is achieved by FtF mentoring. Findings from several FtF mentoring studies

also have implications for e-mentoring. Klug and Saltzman (1991) used random assignment

design to compare mentoring by a team (mentor, school administrator, and university faculty)

and mentoring by a buddy (experienced teacher within the same school). They found that new

teachers inducted using a team approach had significantly higher positive attitude changes than

those in the buddy program on 5 of the 10 scales examined. Boyer (1999) found that mentors

located outside the school offered an “objective viewpoint that was not tainted by knowledge

66
of the building culture or that dynamics of the staff within the school” (p. 69) and personal

conversations were less likely to be repeated in the mentee’s building. Jaffe et al. (2006)

suggested that a mentor in the building may assist with school and district information and

provide emotional support, whereas an e-mentor may assist with curriculum and pedagogical

issues; thus a mentor in a different town, region, or state with the same teaching assignment

has more to offer a mentee than a mentor in the same building who teaches a different subject.

Finally, attainment of mentoring goals in e-mentoring is dependent upon the quality and

quantity of the interactions between mentors and their mentees rather than physical proximity

(Bonnet, Wildermuth, & Sonnenwald, 2006) with instructional needs, cultural needs, and

content standards serving as a cornerstone for the process (Hebert, Clift, & Wennerdahl, 2008).

Advantages of E-Mentoring

E-mentoring offers several advantages: (a) the mentee’s immediate needs can be

supported, (b) mentors can be assigned based on expertise rather than availability within the

building, and, (c) no one needs to leave the classroom. E-mentoring fosters integration of

learning and novices have the ability to ask questions of multiple voices of experience, within

the e-mentoring program, and seek out others experiencing similar problems (Davis & Resta,

2002). When designed as a group forum, online mentoring can provide more opportunities to

network with others and to draw on the support and expertise of a virtual community (Gareis &

Nussbaum-Beach, 2008) creating a sense of community and shared learning (Bruffee, 1993)

while combating teachers’ feelings of isolation (Hawkes & Romiszowski, 2001; Naidu & Olson,

1996). Jaffe et al. (2006) finds that, for the most part, the mentoring relationship does not

appear to be impeded by technology and beginning teachers appear to engage e-mentors in

67
the typical mentoring process—asking questions, seeking advice, and generally looking for

support stating, “The only apparent difference is the time of day, the manner in which the

information is provided, and the ability to archive answers or comments” (Jaffe et al., 2006,

p. 92). Digital accessibility allows for easy use from home, school, the community, and possibly

cell phone. The fact that e-mail and discussion forum postings require an individual sign-in

allows users to track correspondences by the users, and provides a record of interaction that

can be studied (Billingsley et al., 2009).

Levin and Cross (2002) found e-mentors have the advantage of time to develop

responses that are more thoughtful and reflective, in contrast to those communicated “on

demand” in FtF mentoring situations. Additionally, mentors may answer mentees’ email at

convenient times with little disruption to daily schedules. Through online collaboration, novice

teachers may develop stronger professional voices to express their views (Jervis, 1996), and

find inspiration in being members of a collaborative community (Selwyn, 2000). The process of

articulating thoughts and beliefs may help novices closely examine what they believe and why

(Koschman, 1997) or create of a more reflective learning environment (Mueller, 2004) due to

the time-delayed nature of communication. Archiving e-mails offers flexible and ongoing

access on the part of the mentor or mentee so both may review previous conversations.

Mueller (2004) found that email exchanges between mentor and mentee facilitate the

learning process because e-mail is a medium for thinking and writing conversationally, rather

than writing a finished piece that requires correction and evaluation. Furthermore, he states

that the pairs learn more than they would from oral conversations partly because they must

clarify first for themselves and then in words the dilemmas, questions, or topics for discussion

68
for which they seek input from a mentor. Eik-Nes (2002) contends that the mentee must

clearly formulate his or her questions and describe the scenario to the mentor and that this

careful planning requires the sender to effectively communicate the core problems and

questions. This process helps the mentees clarify the issues for themselves in the process.

Strong professional communities are built on teachers who regularly engage in discussions with

colleagues about their work (Newmann, 1993).

By engaging in extended conversations that hold beliefs about teaching, learning, and

instructional practice under scrutiny, teachers can examine the assumptions that underlie their

practices (Newmann, 1993). Reflection upon practice leads to deepened understandings of

instruction and of the products created within the teaching and learning process (Byrk,

Camburn, & Louis, 1999). The opening up of one’s practice to scrutiny also encourages

teachers to ask questions about their practice and to view it in a more analytical fashion. In

addition, online mentoring may reduce the pressure of close scrutiny on beginning teachers at

their school site by allowing a degree of anonymity in the mentoring process (Dempsey,

Arthur-Kelly, & Carty, 2009). Paulus and Scherff (2008) reported that the anonymity of online

communication can provide opportunities for beginning teachers to vent their frustrations and

to seek support or to raise questions that they do not feel confident asking within their schools,

especially if their school-based mentor is involved in their evaluation process (Klecka, Cheng,

and Clift, 2004). Single and Single (2005) suggest that the benefits associated with e-mentoring

are similar to those associated with FtF mentoring, including information and subject-matter

transfer and psychosocial benefits such as self-esteem and confidence building with e-mentors

69
providing feedback on curriculum issues, personalized attention, educational advice and

encouragement.

Disadvantages of E-Mentoring

Not all findings about e-mentoring have been positive and many of the same challenges

exist that have been identified in FtF mentoring (Kasprisin et al., 2003). Single and Single (2005)

warn that e-mentoring is not a panacea neither is it an inexpensive alternative to FtF

mentoring. E-mentoring has unique challenges and six major challenges have been identified:

(a) the likelihood of miscommunication (Eby & McManus, 2004); (b) slower development of

relationships (Eby & McManus, 2004; Henri, 1992; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986); (c) required

competency in written communication and technical skills (Dobbs, 2000; Eby & McManus

(2004); Henri, 1992; Kiser, 1999; Mueller, 2004; Shrestha, May, Edirisingha, Burke, & Linsey,

2009); (d) the possibility of computer malfunctions (Eby & McManus, 2004); (e) issues of

privacy and confidentiality (Eby & McManus, 2004; Emery (1999); and (f) declining usage over

time (Bonnett et al., 2006; Kasprisin et al., 2003; Klecka et al., 2004; Price & Chen, 2003). An

additional concern is the technological requirements of completing observations or in some

cases, the lack of observations.

O’Neill and Harris (2004-2005) warn that because the mentor and mentee work and

learn in different settings, both must consider the contextual perspective of the other before

applying advice or insights from one’s own context. Another concern is the role of nonverbal

communication which is traditionally regarded as carrying more weight than verbal codes.

Since that is eliminated in CMC, personal interactions may be inhibited (Ma, 1996). Henri

(1992) and Segall (2000) also warn that the lack of nonverbal cues may provide an incomplete

70
picture of the problem that leads to a higher rate of inappropriate diagnosis or suggestions.

Bonnett et al. (2006) cited the removal of visual communication cues as a particular

disadvantage because this nonverbal behavior generally carries relational information. Ridout

(2006) also states that because body language and voice tone are missing, careful wording of

e-mails is essential; likewise, Van Gelder (1999) notes that it is easy to be careless in email

resulting in messages being misinterpreted and the relationship between mentor and mentee

may falter. The delay intrinsic in e-mail and reduction of information exchanged in CMC

eliminates the usual give-and-take of verbal communication that may be confusing or

frustrating (Ensher et al., 2003). Burke and Kraut, (2002) concluded that e-mail messages do

not seem to be as useful as telephone calls or FtF meetings for developing and sustaining strong

social relationships. Ridout (2006) reports that “using technology requires a complete re-

thinking of people-to-people interactions and the ways in which technology can and will

support programs” (p. 47).

Mentees in any context learn from their mentors by directly or indirectly observing their

behaviors and receiving performance related feedback (Bell, 1996; Kram, 1985; Scandura &

Schriesheim, 1992). Because the observational component is difficult to replicate in a virtual

context, mentees in e-mentoring are not likely to receive the role modeling available in FtF

settings. Role modeling is thus the function of mentoring that is “least” efficiently done in a

virtual setting (DeJanasz, Ensher & Huen, 2008). However, new technologies may alleviate this

issue (Miller & Griffiths, 2005). During the pilot program that will be examined in this study,

virtual opportunities were not present; however, communicating via Skype and conducting

online classroom observations are being incorporated into the second iteration of the program.

71
Interactivity

Interactivity, the pattern of online communications between mentor and mentee, has

been predominantly researched as a key to understanding and evaluating CMC’s effectiveness

providing consistent results. Interactivity has been defined in numerous ways, but the

importance of frequent and continued communication is well documented. Bonnett et al.

(2006) analyzed the interactivity between pairs of corporate research scientists and university

biology students during two consecutive implementations of an electronic mentoring program.

They found mentoring pairs with high levels of interactivity were rated as effective by both

mentors and mentees overall. DeJanasz et al. (2008) found that the more interaction mentees

had with their mentors, the more psychosocial and career support they received and that

interaction was directly related to satisfaction with the mentor relationship.

The quantity of the messages is not the only factor; Bonnet et al., (2006) found that the

quality and content of the messages play in a role in efficacy ratings. Mentor-mentee pairs

rated effective had well-structured threads, had postings that were similar in topic coverage

and message length, and were described as “horizontal relationships” in which the mentor

treated the mentee as an equal participant (p. 56). According to Harris, Rotenberg, and

O’Bryan (1997), the development of successful e-mentoring relationships depends on: (a)

frequent, regular contact; (b) active, inquiry-based and mentee-centered communication; and

(c) multidimensional communication utilizing intellect and emotion, balancing personal and

scholastic information shared in the exchange. O’Neill (2004) suggests that diversity in the

types of assistance and support provided may itself be the defining characteristic of

72
e-mentoring, but warns that lag time—time between a post and a response—is important

stating quality e-mentoring requires a timely response and when this does not occur, it can

damage the mentoring relationship because the assumption is that the replier is not really

interested in the mentoring relationship.

E-mentoring With Teachers

The College of William and Mary in partnership with the Center for Teacher Quality

created Electronically Networking to Develop Accomplished Professional Teachers (ENDAPT), an

asynchronous online forum that brings together novice teachers and teacher leaders in a virtual

mentoring community. Eleven veteran teachers, selected from a national group of

accomplished professionals, serve as the online mentors, ranging in teaching experience from 5

to 31 years. The online mentoring took place in an asynchronous group mentoring

environment with discussions taking place in a common area among all mentors and novices.

Gareis and Nussbaum-Beach (2008) examined the function or purpose of the posts to the

online forum to ascertain reasons why mentors and novices posted. Using separate, but

parallel, sets of functions for mentors and novices, the content analysis revealed clear patterns

of use: Three-quarters (76%) of the posts by novice teachers either posed direct questions

(37%), or described a problem that novice teachers were experiencing (39%), about which they

were seeking guidance (39%). Thus, novice teachers clearly used the online forum to solicit the

support and assistance of others and to share experiences that were not considered problems

(42%) (Gareis & Nussbaum-Beach, 2008). Within online communities, some members are

lurkers, a term used to refer to members who do not actively participate by communicating,

but who visit and presumably read and may benefit from the postings in the forum. Comparing

73
lurkers to quiet students in classrooms, one does not know if the student’s reticence is

indicative of a lack of interest or of an introverted mode of learning (Gareis & Nussbaum-Beach,

2008).

Modeling, a mentor describing his or her own experience or thinking but not giving

direct advice, answers, or interpretations of a given situation, was the most frequent mentor

posts (63%) far exceeding the second most frequent function which was offering guided advice

(38%) (Gareis & Nussbaum-Beach, 2008). Veteran and novice teachers alike discussed topics

related to planning for instruction, delivering instruction, assessing student learning, managing

the classroom, and meeting responsibilities of professionalism (Gareis & Nussbaum-Beach,

2008). More specifically, 4 of the 5 content areas were evident with near-equal frequency with

assessment of student learning discussed least frequently. Examining frequency of posts by

mentors and novices, these researchers found the discussion of topics was closely balanced

between mentor and novice teachers, with the only notable exception being planning for

instruction, in which novices tended to post more frequently than mentors (Gareis &

Nussbaum-Beach, 2008). Gareis and Nussbaum-Beach (2008) also analyzed the direction of

posts finding that participants communicated in a networked fashion rather than a linear

fashion and discussions were not typified by one-to-one dialogues. Instead, mentors and

novices alike discussed topics with each other individual-to-individual, as well as using

broadcasts posts to the entire group in this asynchronous group environment. Gareis and

Nussbaum-Beach (2007) found that the discussions moved beyond a conventional

mentor-to-novice exchange with novices responding to other novices and mentors addressing

other mentors. The authors suggested that the online forum may provide a venue that is

74
complementary to the school and the online group mentoring forum may be a source for

consistent, constructive engagement with other professionals.

Studies of eMSS Program

The eMSS program is intended to encourage reflectivity, inquiry, and acquisition of

shared professional standards (Little, 1990). Dalton (1994) described the program as a

“collegial, nonjudgmental approach to professional development” (p. 5) based on the

understanding that many novice teachers are not prepared to provide meaningful instruction

and organize classrooms to enhance students’ learning. The eMSS program provides content

support to special education teachers based on best practices and research in teacher

development. Newmann (1993) stated that creating new educational structures is not

sufficient for improving education; instead activities guided by content, commitment, and

competence to optimize opportunities for teachers to share perspectives, values, and forms of

practice are needed. The program offers mentees a range of online activities that mentees can

participate in. The mentee chooses the activities that best suit his or her own learning needs.

Through eMSS, new and veteran teachers collaborate in an interactive and facilitated

professional learning community to exchange information, ideas, and experiences in order to

advance high quality special education instruction for all students (NTC, 2010). The Santa Cruz

Model recognizes that when people assume new roles, they need assistance and the kinds of

assistance needed will vary with context, role, and prior knowledge (Wagner, 1990). Moir,

founder of the New Teacher Center, states: “Support for new teachers can transform our

nation’s schools” (2009, p. 15). The NTC developed a Formative Assessment System to ensure

that mentor discussions are grounded in standards-based instructional practice and are driven

75
by data. New teachers are matched with exemplary teachers who analyze practice using

classroom data and offer constructive suggestions for improvement (Moir, Barlin, Gless, &

Miles, 2009). Furthermore, Moir et al. (2009) states that when mentors with similar content

knowledge are unavailable in the local school system the “local induction mentors can focus

their support of the new teacher on pedagogy and an online mentor can focus on connecting

subject matter to content-specific pedagogy” (p. 17).

Three dissertations and two published articles have focused on discourse within the

eMSS mentoring site. Simonsen, Luebeck, and Bice (2009) analyzed discourse from the eMSS

site involving science and math teachers to examine the co-construction of knowledge among

participants to determine if CMC environments are effective for the social co-construction of

knowledge about content and pedagogy. Analyzing over 1,600 messages in a private paired

discussion area, 940 messages were coded by knowledge type, 719 contained materials

representing pedagogical knowledge, 520 contained pedagogical content knowledge, and 165

addressed content knowledge leading the researchers to conclude that teachers experienced

growth. Further examination comparing new mentors to continuing mentors revealed a

noticeable shift in the primary focus of the messages from pedagogical knowledge among the

beginning pairs to pedagogical content knowledge among the continuing pairs supporting that

first-year teachers are mainly concerned with coping and maintaining control which tends to

take precedence over concerns related to content and instructional practice. In contrast, there

was no significant growth in the mentees’ active co-construction of knowledge between their

first year and second year in the program, which is consistent with mentor training, and the

eMSS program’s definition of a mentor’s role. Mentors are trained to facilitate and promote

76
reflection to provide support without immediately solving problems for mentees, and to be

encouraging without taking the lead in discussions (Simonsen et al., 2009).

The purpose of Farrar’s (2009) dissertation was to identify the elements of nonreflective

and reflective discourse used by facilitators, mentors, and mentees in Inquiry, Content,

Dilemma, and Topic of the Month discussion areas of eMSS. The vast majority of messages

were found to be nonreflective discourse with a high percentage of the messages being

procedural, with only 0.96% of messages submitted by mentors and 16.84% submitted by

novices considered reflective. In this study, mentors submitted more messages to the

discussion areas than novices and many of the messages written were to provide advice,

encouragement, assignment explanations and other procedural information. While novice

science teachers submitted a lower volume of messages, a higher percentage of these

messages were recorded as reflective. Additionally, Farrar noted that the novice teachers

submitted answers to the questions, but did not expand on their answers stating that they

completed what the facilitator asked them to do, but nothing more.

Bice (2005) completed discourse analysis of math and science teachers using discussions

in Pair Place (now called Our Place) and the Diversity Module to determine if the online

mentoring program can increase cultural awareness causing these teachers to subsequently

alter their practice. Findings were that teachers increased their cultural awareness through

participation, and case study data revealed that participants expressed increased teaching

confidence in instruction and representation of materials because of the support received from

mentors and peers.

77
 McAller’s (2007) dissertation focused on the professional growth of mentors involved in

the math mentoring program. Data collected through surveys and six case studies revealed

that mentors’ growth was realized by providing opportunities for reflection on broader

professional issues through supporting the community of learners. Survey results indicated the

mentor teachers perceived they had grown professionally as a result of engagement in the

program. Growth in reflective practices, professional engagement, leadership development,

knowledge of pedagogy and content, and access to new instructional ideas, resources, and

strategies was reported. Case study data confirmed growth in the same domains, and survey

results found that participation in the Content Forums was particularly meaningful.

Grimberg (2006) examined online dialogue in the Dilemma section of the eMSS program

involving science teachers. Discourse was analyzed to elicit teacher’s subject matter and

pedagogical content knowledge construction. Findings included that mentors tend to use

incomplete argumentation structures and novices used fewer levels of argumentation in their

discourse. Beginning teachers participated more in pedagogical conversations and the

metacognitive and affective aspects of the discourse seemed to promote teachers

participation. Mentors tended to provide general claims and claims without warrants.

Mentees seldom used questioning to advance discourse and based their claims mainly on

descriptive data, lacking content data.

Summary and Limitations of Existing E-Mentoring Research

Most research on electronic mentoring has focused on informing the design of future

programs (Bonnett et al., 2006) and despite the growth of e-mentoring in business

organizations, little is known about the efficacy of e-mentoring in educational settings

78
(DeJanasz et al., 2008). No studies exist that examine e-mentoring with special education

teachers. In sum, little is known about the processes and outcomes related to e-mentoring

beyond descriptive statistics describing participant reactions to and satisfaction with

e-mentoring programs (Knapczyk, Hew, Frey, & Wall-Marencik, 2005; Single, Muller,

Cunningham, Single, & Carlsen, 2005). The patterns of interactivity have been consistently

studied and compared with outcomes, but the actual content of that discourse has had limited

review. Murphy and Ensher (2007) state that e-mentoring has exploded in the business world;

however, research studies exploring electronic mentoring programs effectiveness, challenges,

and possible drawbacks are lacking. Billingsley et al. (2009) states that e-mentoring is untested

in special education primarily because funded research has focused on e-mentoring in math

and science. Smith and Israel (2010) warn that special education concerns need to be

addressed in an e-mentoring environment site because in math and science sites the focus is on

content.

Content analysis has revealed that mentors provide vocational, psychosocial, and role

modeling support to novices and postings were substantively related to professional

competencies. Teachers talked about planning for teaching, delivering instruction, assessing

student learning, managing the classroom, and performing as professionals (Gareis &

Nussbaum-Beach, 2007). While mentoring aims to provide emotional support and

encouragement to beginning teachers, mentoring should also aim to improve professional

practice (DeWert et al., 2003; Pitton, 2006; Portner, 2003; Rudney & Guillaume, 2003).

E-mentoring holds promise for the induction of beginning teachers because it is not bound by

geographic location, it has the capability of providing quality mentoring support that extends

79
beyond the school day, and it has the potential to address the isolation new teachers’

experience. E-mentoring studies in business have repeatedly found that mentees report it

beneficial to be paired with a “complete stranger” from a different organization, rather than an

individual with vested interest in the mentee’s decisions. This impartially allows the mentee to

share self-doubts, express concerns, and ask “silly questions” in a way that is almost impossible

when the mentor and mentee are in the same organization (Single & Single, 2005).

The Current Study

The focus of this study is the nature of online, Internet-based interactions among novice

special education teachers and their mentors. No studies exist in the current literature base

involving e-mentoring with special education teachers. While the aim of mentoring programs is

to retain and professionally develop novice teachers (Pitton, 2006; Portner, 2003; Rudney &

Guillaume, 2003), the focus of this study is to determine the nature of the interaction and the

substance of the conversations within this relatively novel venue. Analysis of extended

discourse will provide a rich description of the content and frequency of the conversations

between novice special educators and their mentors. Given the questions about the nature

and effects of mentoring interactions (Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003), this study analyzed

the content of e-mentoring interactions in relationship to the needs of new special educators,

professional teaching standards, and a conceptual model for teacher development.

There are several limitations in this study. First, the data for this study were collected as

part of a pilot e-mentoring program for special educators, and the researcher did not

participate in the design of data collection methods. The data analysis, therefore, was based on

archived data that could not be examined prior to Institutional Review Board (IRB) review and

80
study approval. A second limitation is that the beginning special educators participating in this

study were also participating in mentoring programs within their respective states and these

programs may have affected the results; however, that data was not available for this study. To

address this limitation, caution has been exercised in any interpretation of mentees’ responses

and perceived outcomes. Third, the number of study participants (50 mentees and 22 mentors)

is a large number for in-depth descriptions characteristic of qualitative studies, but limiting for

certain quantitative analyses. To address these concerns, coding systems based on the

literature were developed to structure the qualitative content analyses, and survey results were

analyzed using descriptive statistics that are appropriate for the sample.

81
 CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the context of the study and the research

design, as well as the data collection, and data analysis methods. The research design used

mixed methods, including both qualitative and quantitative analyses. Two primary data sources

were used: the archived transcripts of mentors’ and mentees’ discourse as well as mentees’

and mentors’ postsurveys. The one-to-one interactions between mentor and mentee occurring

in the eMSS site (called Our Place) were examined using discourse analysis and representative

examples are provided. Descriptive data and survey responses were analyzed simultaneously.

This chapter begins with a discussion of the context of the study including the duration

of the mentoring program, participant selection, and the research questions that guided this

study. Next, a description of the research design is provided beginning with the quantitative

methods followed by the qualitative components. Finally, the researcher discusses the

limitations of the study.

Context of the Study

The eMSS program began in 2002 after the National Science Foundation awarded a

5-year grant to the New Teacher Center at the University of California-Santa Cruz for mentoring

math and science teachers. After a year of developing the online components of the program,

the eMSS program formally began in fall, 2003. During 2009-2010, a pilot program was

82
initiated for special education teachers and that pilot program is the focus of this study. eMSS

is a web-based professional development program designed to provide opportunities for

support, primarily in the form of online mentoring to special education teachers with 3 or less

years of classroom experience. eMSS was designed to support and improve the practice of

early career special education teachers through mentoring and participation in a structured

curriculum. The site is a computer mediated asynchronous communication platform within a

Sakai web-based platform. In 2010-2011, the eMSS program designed for special educators

was expanded to teachers in seven states.

In the discussion areas, mentors, mentees, content specialists and facilitators engage in

dialogue designed to stimulate beginning teachers’ progress along “a professional continuum

from survival to focused problem solving to critical reflection on teaching practices” (NTC, 2007,

p. 2). The program is multifaceted, using modules to promote learning through a specified

curriculum and guided and nonguided interactive discussion threads. Content specialists

interact with mentor-mentee pairs to assist mentees with acquisition of content and

pedagogical knowledge. Figure 3 outlines the main topical areas contained in the eMSS pilot

programs’ website.

Beginning special education teachers were recruited for the pilot program from the

states of Louisiana and Nevada. In Nevada, all interested special education teachers were

invited to participate, while in Louisiana, special educators working in low performing schools

were encouraged to participate. Mentors received stipends of $800 to $1,000 dependent on

the number of mentees they were matched with and successful completion of the Beginning

83
 Our Place
A private area Inquiries
designed for mentees Conversation guides designed
to help mentees - with the help
to work with their
of mentors - deepen their
mentors. Mentees teaching practice and boost
discuss their teaching their effectiveness with
students. Inquiries, which are
practice and receive the core of the eMSS program,
one-on-one mentoring are online converstions based
on classroom practices that
from an experienced
follow the plan, prepare, and
teacher in the same reflect cycle.
grade and subject.

Discussion Areas
A community of teachers
participates in discussion Topic of the Month
forums facilitated by teacher A facilitated communication
Cyber Cafe
leaders and practicing area in which topics of interest
are posted for mentors and
mathematicians, scientists, mentees. Three topics were
In this area, mentors and
and special education mentees could create strands posted during the pilot
university professors. to request assistance in an area program: Student
of need. Achievement, Student
Content-focused discussions, Engagement, and Reflecting on
dilemmas of practice, and Our Successes and Challenges
access to resources are the
heart of this area.

Figure 3. Topical areas within eMSS website

84
Mentor Institute. Typically, stipends for the full year of participation range from $2,400 to

$3,000 dependent on the number of mentees assigned. Participants worked in private and

common discussion areas within the online program. Mentors were matched with mentees

from the same state who taught students in the same disability category and similar grade

levels. Mentors were asked to work with 1 to 4 beginning teachers in a one-to-one site called

Our Place within the eMSS site. Our Place was designed for private discussion between a

mentor and their mentees.

Expected Data and Actual Data

When the research project was originally proposed, it was anticipated that the survey

data for individual mentors and mentees could be linked to their online discourse in the

mentoring site to identify perceived changes; however, this was not possible because the

collected data were archived by group rather than individual. Since group level data were

available, posttest survey data were analyzed to describe the sample of participants at the end

of the first year. Additionally, the researcher anticipated using the pre-survey results to

examine discourse to determine if the areas of perceived and reported weaknesses were the

actual focus of discourse occurring between mentor and mentee; however, with group data this

was also not possible. Furthermore, analysis of cases based on level of discourse by category

were going to be focused in this research; however, due to the lack of interactivity between

mentoring pairs in general, the researcher felt that representative examples of each category

better represented the discourse occurring at the site. Due to the inability to link individual

survey data to discourse transcripts to examine relationships between perceived needs, novice

characteristics, and discourse content the researcher expanded the analysis of interactivity

85
between mentors and mentees across the entire site to better describe the frequency and

content of interactions at the group level. Finally, due to only being able to analyze group

differences based on the pre- and postsurvey responses, correlations were not able to be

performed. It was proposed that correlations would be used to examine the relationship

between years of teaching experience and perceptions of preparedness addressed in the survey

including lesson planning, students’ demonstration of knowledge, assessment of students’

knowledge, managing paperwork, discipline, and knowledge of CEC standards, and IDEA.

Confidence intervals were going to be reported and for any statistical significant findings

practical significance was going to be discussed.

Research Design

Gunawardena, Lowe, and Anderson (1997) assert that no single method can adequately

assess the processes comprising an online learning experience for the social construction of

knowledge; therefore a concurrent mixed method design was utilized to converge both

quantitative and qualitative findings (Creswell, 2003). Patton (2002) states that analysis can be

mixed and matched in the search for relevant and useful information and Johnson and

Onwuegbuzie (2004) define this approach as “the class of research where the researcher mixes

or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts

or language into a single study” (p. 17) in a way that offers the best opportunities for answering

research questions. While both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used, qualitative

methods were the predominant method used in this study, since the primary objectives were

to “describe what is going on” and to address “topics *that+ need to be explored (Creswell,

1997, p. 17). Because this study used online dialogue to determine the content of

86
conversations in a relatively new medium, qualitative research methods were important for

answering the research questions.

Mason (1992) reviewed the research techniques used in CMC and concluded that while

qualitative studies may be value-laden, not generalizable, nor easily replicable, quantitative

analysis of messages may limit investigations to easily measurable aspects such as number of

messages sent and by whom, number of logons, and number of replies. Mason (1992) stated

that quantitative methods do not reflect the complexity of group interactions and do not

provide contextualized interpretations of why certain behaviors occur and also acknowledged

the difficulties involved in isolating the important factors from the abundance of details

emerging from such studies. Researchers have found that content analysis of verbal data

occurring in online mediums this expands studies from mere descriptions to meaningful

interpretation (Chi, 1997; Merriam, 2001). Schrire (2006) stated that merging quantitative

analysis within qualitative methodology yields an analytic and holistic perspective of examining

the knowledge-building process in asynchronous discussions.

Therefore, this study employed a combination of methods to describe the participants,

examine the frequency of interactions, and analyze the discourse content to more fully describe

the interactions of novice and mentor special educators in this pilot online mentoring program.

In addition, descriptive statistics were used to characterize participants’ perceptions of their

preparedness for teaching special education. Table 1 reviews the research questions, the data

sources, and the data analysis procedures for each question. To aid the reader’s

understanding, research questions 1 and 2 will be explained in the Quantitative Methods

87
Table 1

Summary of Data Sources and Analyses

Research questions Data source(s) Data analysis

1. What are the characteristics of •Mentor surveys •Frequency

the participants in the pilot online
mentoring program? •Mentee surveys •Percentages
o Response rates
o Teaching experience
o Degrees held
o Certification areas
o Mentoring experience
o Computer usage and
experience
o Perceived levels of
preparedness

2. What are the perceived outcomes •Mentor surveys •Frequency

of the participants in the pilot online
mentoring program? •Mentee surveys •Percentages
o Perceived levels of
•End of year preparation
reflection postings o Qualifications to teach
students with
exceptionalities
o Importance of
pedagogical issues
o Perceived level of
preparedness

•Qualitative analysis
o End of year reflections
postings

88
Table 1 - continued

Research questions Data source(s) Data analysis

3. What is the frequency of •All areas of eMSS site •Frequency

interactions between beginning o Our Place
special educators and their o Topic of Month •Percentages
mentors? o Inquiries
o Cyber Café •Mean
o Disability discussion
areas (11 total) •Range

•Standard deviations

4. What is the content of the •Our Place •Frequency

discourse among novice and mentor
special educators by key concerns, •Content
InTASC standards, and the HPL o HPL
framework? o InTASC
o Beginning special
educators' needs and
concerns

89
section and research questions 3 and 4 will be explained in the Qualitative Methods section of

this chapter.

The researcher understands that “only true experiments offer definitive evidence of

causal inferences” (Thompson, Diamond, McWilliams, Snyder, & Snyder, 2005); however

random assignment was not possible in the phenomena under study. Most research on

mentoring has been conducted through either the use of qualitative methods or survey results.

Evidence is provided based on the research review completed by Billingsley et al. (2009); of the

37 studies reviewed only one study (Gehrke & Murri, 2006) used mixed methods to evaluate

the mentoring experience. Gehrke and Murri (2006) gained information from eight special

education graduates from the same program in their first or second year of teaching through

open-ended interview questions and a 10-item Likert scale. Therefore, survey responses will

also be used to confirm or deny the qualitative findings. By comparing qualitative and

quantitative results, the researcher insures reliability, depth, and descriptive detail (Creswell,

2003). Similarities and discrepancies found are discussed.

Participants

A 5-month pilot project (February through June) was conducted in 2009-2010 involving

78 special education teachers, mentors, facilitators, and one university faculty member. This

study examined survey data from participants and the conversations that occurred between

mentors and mentees during the pilot. Online mentoring for beginning special education

teachers was provided by trained mentors who teach the same type of disability and

approximate grade level. Facilitators, who were experienced mentors, provided support to

participants during the pilot. Beginning special education teachers (defined as a teacher with 3

90
years of experience or less) were recruited from the states of Louisiana and Nevada to

participate in the eMSS pilot program and completed an online mentee orientation.

Experienced special educators from the states of Louisiana and Nevada agreed to be mentors in

the program and attended a 3-week online mentor training institute to develop and enhance

their online mentoring practices. All mentors were first year eMSS mentors. Facilitators in

online discussion areas were experienced special education teachers and university level special

education professors. The facilitators participated in a 3-week facilitator training program.

Interactivity occurring within the entire site was analyzed; however, the interactions that

occurred between mentors and novice teachers in Our Place were the primary focus of this

work.

The NTC recommends that mentors and mentees log on three to four times weekly to

participate in the eMSS online collaborative learning environment. Furthermore, their

expectations are that mentors and mentees will participate for three to four hours weekly

within the online e-mentoring site. Additionally, mentors have access to a facilitated area,

Mentor Place, which offers ongoing support and includes monthly discussions about improving

mentoring practices.

Instrumentation

Data about participants and their interactions were collected through an online survey

completed at the end of the pilot program. Additional data were gathered using interaction

measures and examination of the content of their archived asynchronous conversations in Our

Place. The survey, developed by the New Teacher Center, was based on previous surveys

91
utilized with eMSS participants. The content measures were developed by the researcher and

based on the literature to characterize the content of interactions among participants.

Survey

The survey included 23 questions with 18 forced choice responses and 5 open-ended

questions. The survey was based on previous surveys developed by Horizon Research for the

eMSS science and math programs, and modified based on “contextual differences in special

education and the research and literature” (A. Mike, personal communication, July 4, 2011).

The primary purpose of the mentee questionnaire was to collect information about who was

participating in the eMSS program and to assess the quality and impact of the program.

Descriptive statistics, frequency charts, and graphic displays of data are used to report

years of teaching experience for mentors and mentees, grade level taught, certification, and

degrees.

Interaction Measures

To address the question about the frequency of interactions, interactivity was examined

to determine the frequency of interactions within the site. First, each of the five main areas of

the site was examined and frequencies of interactions were tallied for mentors and mentees.

Next, all areas of the site were tallied to determine total interactivity levels for mentors and

mentees.

In addition, to answer question four concerning the content of interactions, all

interactions occurring in Our Place between mentor and their mentees were analyzed using the

following: (a) InTASC standards, (b) Needs and Concerns of Beginning Teachers, and (c) the

rubric for the HPL framework. Twenty-five percent of all content analysis was coded by a

92
second rater. Interrater reliability, reported as percentage agreement and Cohen’s Kappa was

calculated. Finally, the researcher examined the discourse for emerging themes not previously

outlined.

Procedures

First, the postsurvey data were analyzed to describe the characteristics of participants

and to describe participants’ perceptions of their levels of preparedness. Then, the frequency

of interactions was measured to determine the total number of posts made by the mentor, the

mentee, and the content specialists across all five sections of the website. Next, the content of

participants’ interaction in Our Place was analyzed using the researcher-developed coding

system, based on key concerns, InTASC standards, and the HPL framework. Additionally, the

researcher examined the discourse for emerging themes that were not previously captured

through the coding system.

Quantitative Research Procedures

Participant postsurveys were used to gather data from all the mentors and mentees

during the pilot implementation. The same survey was administered prior to and at the

conclusion of the program (see Appendix C). The survey included 23 questions, 18 required

forced choice answers and the remaining 5 questions were open-ended. Response rates for the

postsurveys depicted a higher return rate and were therefore deemed a more accurate

representation of the participants and were therefore used to describe the population. The

program designers developed the survey and estimated completion time as approximately 15

minutes. The directions to the survey state that “no information which could identify you will

be provided to anyone without your permission,” therefore identifiable information is not

93
reported in this study. Survey questions included total years of teaching experience, years

teaching special education, grade levels taught, and exceptionality taught, the total number of

preparations, and the amount of daily planning time. Perceptions of preparedness in variety of

teaching areas were also examined. All forced choice questions were analyzed to obtain

descriptive statistics. Open-ended survey questions were examined qualitatively.

To answer question two, which addresses perceived outcomes, survey responses were

analyzed and reported. Questions about prior computer usage were also asked including the

number of online courses, seminars, or discussion groups the person had previously taken and

a separate question asking how many of these were related to special education. The location

of the computer and the type of connection at each location were asked. Prior computer usage

was asked using forced choice answer ranging from new to it to quite experienced. Participants

were asked about:

 using computers,

 surfing the internet for educational purposes,

 use of email and Listservs,

 participating in synchronous chat rooms,

 participating in asynchronous discussion boards,

 attaching files to email,

 uploading and downloading files to/from a server,

 completing and submitting online forms and or questionnaires,

 monitoring and posting messages to a threaded discussion group, and

 participating in online seminars and/or courses.

94
 Familiarity with legal requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA), state standards, benchmarks, the comprehensive curriculum, and CEC standards were

asked using forced choice answers including: new to it, a little experienced, moderately

experienced, and quite experienced. Perceptions of qualifications to teach students from a list

of disability types was also asked using four forced choice answers including not well qualified,

adequately qualified, qualified, and very well qualified. Level of preparedness for a list of areas

was solicited through the use of four forced choice answers. The areas included:

 managing student grades, record keeping and paperwork;

 student discipline;

 lesson planning and time management;

 effectively deal with and communicating with parents;

 using group work effectively;

 setting and achieving student goals as written on IEPs; and

 setting and achieving professional goals.

Level of preparedness in the following areas was assessed through forced choice

answers including: not adequately prepared, somewhat prepared, fairly well prepared, and very

well prepared.

 Question students for understanding.

 Have students demonstrate higher order thinking skills.

 Motivate students to learn and become actively involved in classroom activities.

 Use real world/functional skills in lessons.

95
  Examine student work in order to assess student thinking and reflect on classroom

practice.

 Provide instruction for multiple learning styles of my students.

 Identify/develop lessons aligned to instructional goals of the students’ IEPs.

 Identify/develop lessons to address individual student needs.

 Identify/develop lessons aligned to state and national standards.

 Formally assess student learning within the content area in which you are teaching.

 Informally assess student learning within the content area in which you are teaching.

 Identify how students think about the content you are teaching.

Quantitative Data Analysis

Quantitative data analysis was used to answer research questions 1, 2, and 3. Survey

responses provided demographic information and perceived outcomes for all participants.

Frequency counts of interactivity were used to define frequency of interaction by participant

role. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the mentors and mentees by years of teaching

experience, grade level taught, and disability area taught. Additionally, the perceived level of

preparedness to teach students from various disability categories, the level of preparedness for

areas of teaching (questions 13 and 15), and level of importance question (14) are reported.

Also, frequencies of interactions in the five main areas of the eMSS site are reported.

Descriptive statistics from the analysis of the survey data were used to answer question

2: What are the perceived outcomes for mentors and beginning teachers who participated in

the eMSS mentoring and induction program? Additional information was examined

96
qualitatively from discourse occurring within the eMSS site within the End of Year reflections

for mentors and mentee strands and is also reported.

Active engagement in professional development is hypothesized to be a precursor to

professional growth and development. Active engagement is measured in online environments

by the frequency of interactions between mentors and mentees. This process is called

interactivity which has been widely researched as leading to successful e-mentoring

relationships. Analysis of interactivity across all mentoring partners and throughout the online

mentoring site, which is the focus of research question 3, are provided in chapter 4. Messages

that contained only discourse associated with eMSS such as technical issues or of social nature,

no further actions were taken in the coding process. Totals, reported by standard and strands

are also outlined in chapter 4.

In-depth Qualitative Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to describe the population and to compare results with

the qualitative findings. The statistical program SPSS Version 17 was used for quantitative

methods and nVivo 19 was used for qualitative methods. For the purpose of this study, further

in-depth qualitative analysis provided an appropriate methodology to understand how the

content of the conversations relates to common concerns outlined in existing mentoring

literature, to InTASC standards, and the HPL framework. Excerpts from conversations between

mentoring partners were analyzed and used to depict the population under study. The

discussions between mentoring partners were analyzed in greater detail to identify themes

within and across partners to address research question four, which involved a detailed content

analysis of the messages to identify patterns among them. For instance, conversations were

97
analyzed to determine how career and content related topics were integrated into the overall

discussion. The in-depth analysis investigated the type of knowledge constructed.

Yin (2003) and Merriam (2001), state that qualitative methods are the most appropriate

to answering research questions that focus on what happens in a given context and how the

events take place. The use of multiple cases will provide more convincing data than the use of

an individual case (Yin, 2003). Schrire (2006) proposes using a qualitative approach to provide

in-depth analysis using content analysis of discourse done at a number of levels, focusing on the

discussion forum itself, the discussion threads, the messages, and the exchanges and moves

among the messages. Schrire used this approach to analyze three cases stating that by

performing a fine-grained content analysis of the discourse in each conference within the

broader context of the conference as a whole, it was possible to move from one level of

explanation to another and to “arrive at an understanding of the learning process that was both

analytic and holistic” (Schrire, 2006, p. 50). The technique outlined by Schrire will be used to

qualitatively analyze data for further inquiry. Additionally, insightful quotes or excerpts from

dialogue are used to describe and depict exchanges.

In Henri’s (1992) analysis, individual statements within messages corresponding to units

of meaning were coded. Therefore, each message could contain several different coded units,

but Henri, as well as other researchers, has argued against breaking messages into statements

for analysis. Several researchers have argued that breaking messages down into statements

can generate superficial results without informing the collaborative building of knowledge

(Garrison, 2003; Gunawardena et al., 1997; Henri, 1992; Newmann, 1996). Pilkington (2001)

98
contends that detailed analysis of dialogue and its position within exchanges can suggest

common themes for understanding the reasoning that builds learning.

Discourse analysis occurred through analysis of the text-based discussions that occurred

between the mentoring partners to determine the content of the conversations. Content

analysis of online discourse is crucial in understanding the learning that takes place in an online

discussion area (Angeli, Bonk & Hara, 1998). To successfully use content analysis, you must first

carefully define your coding categories. Since this is a new phenomenon under study and

existing coding categories do not exist, the researcher developed rubrics for coding data based

on InTASC standards, the HPL framework, and key concerns of beginning special educators’

needs and concerns found through a review of the literature. Due to the lack of data

availability prior to Institutional Review Board approval and the rarity of the e-mentoring

design, a pilot study was conducted using 10% of the data to determine if the data coding

schemas are sufficient to continue coding data. The researcher was the first coder and coded

data by all categories outlined in question 4. Examples depicting each category were extracted

from the remaining 90% of the data and added to the coding rubric

Wang and Odell (2002) state that mentor-novice conversations about teaching are

important to the development of teachers’ professional knowledge and thus to the

improvement of teaching practices. By examining the content of conversations between

individual mentor-novice pairs; the content and focus of mentor and novice interactions about

teaching can be examined (Achinstein & Villar, 2002; Strong & Baron, 2004; Wang & Paine,

2002). To address research question four content analysis of all communications occurring in

Our Place between beginning special educators and their mentors were coded for three

99
purposes. The purposes are: (a) coding for Beginning Special Educators Needs and Concerns;

(b) coding for InTASC Standards; and (c) coding for HPL framework.

First, the content analysis was compared to existing literature outlining the needs and

concerns of beginning special educators outlined by Billingsley et al. (2009) including the three

broad categories: (a) inclusion, collaboration, and interactions with adults; (b) pedagogical

concerns; and (c) managing roles (see Appendix D). To teach according to standards, “teachers

are asked to develop knowledge and teach in ways that help children acquire knowledge, skills,

and dispositions for their future” (p. 804) (Wang, Strong, & Odell, 2004). In order to meet these

goals, teachers need to understand the subject matter they are required to teach (Ball &

McDiarmid, 1989) and develop flexible representations of subject matter to various groups of

students (Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1987). The purpose of eMSS program is to build

professional knowledge based on standards; therefore the second content analysis was based

on professional standards, the InTASC Teaching standards. The InTASC Teaching Standards,

developed by the Council of Chief State School Officers, and based on the HPL framework (see

Appendix E) were used to code the conversations that occurred in the online mentoring site.

Discourse analysis is a well-tested method for study of online learning (Jarvela &

Hakkinen, 2002; Kanuka & Anderson, 1998) and has been applied by a number of researchers to

online discourse to gauge participant learning (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000;

Gunawardena et al., 1997; Gunawardena, Plass & Salisbury, 2001; Hara, Bonk & Angeli, 2001;

Henri, 1992; Kanuka & Anderson, 1998). Currently, there is not agreement on what the unit of

analysis in discourse analysis should be (Garrison & Archer 2003; Henri, 1992; Kanuka &

Anderson, 1998).

100
 To address issues of reliability in the content analysis of online discourse, second coders

were used to code the discourse. Both of the second coders are currently doctoral candidates

completing dissertations using qualitative methods and have experience teaching online

courses. Both were trained on the coding schemes by the researcher. One of the secondary

coders coded the InTASC standards and the other coded the Needs of Beginning Special

Educators and the HPL rubrics. Both coded independently and percentages of agreement and

disagreement were 100% agreement for InTASC standards and HPL framework and 99% for

Special Educators Needs and Concerns. Specifically, Agreements were 1,081 segments of 1,085

segments for InTasc, 630 of 632 segments for the HPL framework, and 624 out of 634 segments

for Beginning Special Educators Needs and Concerns. The second coder independently coded

the same data into categories and interrater reliability measures using Cohen’s kappa were

determined. Additionally, the researcher and the secondary coders discussed the coding

schemes and it was determined that changes did not need to be made prior to coding the

remaining data independently. Based on initial interobserver reliability ratings, additional

training was not necessary and therefore was not provided to the second coders and the coding

schema did not require changes to better represent the data.

The initial plan was to have the coders exchange data if disagreements occurred, but

this was not necessary due to high interrater reliability ratings. Interrater reliability is a

measure used to examine the agreement between two raters on the assignment of categories

of categorical variables and is an important measurement for determination of implementation

of the coding system. Reliability measures are reported in percentage of agreement between

the two coders. The statistical measure of interrater reliability used in this study is Cohen’s

101
Kappa. Cohen’s Kappa ranges from 0 to 1.0 where larger numbers mean more reliability, values

near or less than zero suggest that agreement is attributable to chance alone. Cohen’s Kappa

was performed and reported. The results of interrater analysis are: Kappa = 0.93 with p< 0.001

for InTASC, Kappa = 0.94 with p < 0.001 for HPL, and Kappa = 0.94 with p < 0.001 for Beginning

Special Educators Needs and Concerns.

Ball and Cohen (1999) state that if teachers are to do the type of teaching and facilitate

standards-focused student learning then sustained professional development opportunities for

teachers focused on student learning must occur. By identifying which standard was the focus

of each message, it was hoped that the researcher would be able to determine if the online

environment provides a medium for focusing on standards-based learning. Teachers cognizant

of the nature and processes of learning can significantly increase the facilitation of learning and

development for each student (Bransford et al., 2000; Peterson et al., 1990); therefore, the final

content analysis was coding the data for evidence of knowledge centered, assessment

centered, learning centered, and community centered communication based on the schema

found in Appendix D. Based on the HPL framework, the three essential competencies for

effective teaching include: (a) knowledge of teaching; (b) knowledge of subject matter; and

(c) knowledge of how students learn.

Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and Archer (2001) based on their review of 19 content

analysis studies, summarized the five units previously used in discourse analysis including: (a)

the paragraph; (b) the sentence; (c) the meaning unit, or speech segment; (d) the speech act;

and (e) the message. Since there are tradeoffs between the grain size and the amount of

information derived from the data, Chi (1997) proposes a dynamic approach in which data can

102
be coded more than once, each time according to a different grain size, depending on the

purpose and the research question to which examination of data is related. This approach was

used by Kneser, Pilkington, and Treasure-Jones (2001) who used a larger unit for coding the role

of the message and the fine-grained unit was used for coding the purpose of the discourse unit.

According to Chi (1997), the advantages of the dynamic approach to unitization are that it

increases the reliability of the coding and that units can be determined post hoc. The dynamic

approach will be utilized in this study.

Credibility measures for qualitative research include triangulation, disconfirming

evidence, researcher reflectivity, member checks, collaborative work, external auditors, peer

debriefing, audit trail, prolonged field engagement, thick detailed descriptions, and

particularizability (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klinger, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005). Data

triangulation occurred through using a variety of sources in the study including pre- and

postsurveys, analysis of discourse, and comparison of discourse analysis and perceptions from

surveys. Multiple perspectives were used to interpret the data increasing theory triangulation.

Methodological triangulation will be increased through using qualitative and quantitative

methodologies. Preliminary themes and categories were established for this study a priori;

however the data was examined for emerging themes and disconfirming evidence by the initial

and second coders. Coding is based on connections with an established research field and that

information was re-examined throughout the data analysis process. Excerpts are reported

qualitatively through the use of quotations to illuminate the population. The researcher

attempted to self-disclose pre-study assumptions by writing a reflectivity statement and “being

forthright about position and perspectives” (Brantlinger et al., 2005, p. 201). First and second

103
level member checks were performed for each area under examination by the first and second

coders. Interrater reliability was determined in percentage of agreements and Cohen’s kappa.

Peer debriefing occurred with both the second raters and persons knowledgeable about

mentoring. Audit trails including dates and times of examination and researcher’s inferences

throughout the examination of data were recorded to document that substantial time was

“spent to claim dependable and confirmable results” (Brantlinger et al., 2005, p. 201). An audit

trial was used to document the researcher’s reactions, personal position, perspectives, and

coding to establish and add to credibility and trustworthiness. Thick detailed descriptions of

each participant are provided through information gathered from discourse analysis. These

descriptions may assist the reader in determining the degree of transferability to their own

situation or circumstances.

Reflectivity

In this section, I describe my position as a researcher. How we account for ourselves as

researchers is important to assuring believability in research (Altheide & Johnson, 1998).

Patton (2002) contends that the credibility of the researcher is advanced by the presentation of

self.

Currently, I am teaching in a university setting, but have 12 years of classroom

experience in special education at the elementary level. While in the classroom, I taught

students in resource, consultative, collaborative, and self-contained models from the following

disability categories: other health impairments, specific learning disabilities, autism,

developmental delays, intellectual disabilities, emotional disabilities, traumatic brain injury,

multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, and hearing impairments as primary disability

104
categories and students with speech language impairments as secondary disabilities. I am

certified to teach students with specific learning disabilities from pre-kindergarten to 12th

grade and general education students from kindergarten to sixth grades (although I have never

been a general education teacher).

When I began my first year of teaching, I had 22 self-contained students on my

caseload. Although I was assigned a school-level mentor, I only met with her twice during the

academic year. My first year of teaching would be described as survival. Not only did I have a

difficult caseload with multiple grade levels and content areas to plan for, but I was also

responsible for introducing the collaborative model of teaching to all teachers at the school in

which I was employed. I was supposed to serve as a role model for collaborative teaching, but

during that first year the teachers that I worked with were not receptive to the collaborative

model.

After teaching for 3 years, I became the grade level chairperson responsible for a staff of

11 special educators and 17 instructional assistants. I was also charged with again presenting

collaborative teaching to the school with a yearlong series of professional development

delivered monthly at faculty meetings. I became a peer coach in my fourth year of teaching and

continued with these duties until I left the classroom. As a peer coach, I attended five all day

training sessions annually with the two teachers I coached during the year and was responsible

for completion of their teaching observations. Also, in my fourth year of teaching, I became the

mentor coordinator at the school level for all new teachers at the school. In this position, I

prepared beginning of the year training and information sessions for mentors and mentees,

monthly training sessions for mentors, monthly informational sessions for mentees, monthly

105
calendars for both, and compiled notebooks for all participants to allow them to collect data

that I provided them throughout the year.

I am also trained in the Clinical Faculty model, having completed training at both level I

and II. After completion of Level I training, I was a supervisor of student teachers that were

placed in my classroom and as Level II trained personnel, I was responsible for supervising

teacher candidates in their externship experience to receive their Master of Education degree.

After being a classroom teacher and prior to beginning teaching at the university level, I

was a lead teacher specialist for 2 years. In this position, I was mainly responsible for legal

compliance and attended eligibility and Individualized Education Plan meetings for students in

preschool through adulthood at 5 preschools, a private daycare center used as a reverse

inclusion model for county students, 5 elementary schools, 1 middle school, 1 high school, 1

alternative high school, and a jail program. There were 1,288 students on my caseload. I was

also responsible for teacher observations for all beginning teachers in my corridor. While in this

position, I created an online training module for all beginning special education teachers and

also initiated and conducted a 5-day training program for beginning special educators. I was

also responsible for presenting professional development to all special education teachers in

the county. Lastly, I began a professional learning community for teachers of students with

autism.

My only participation in online mentoring has been that I have participated as a mentor

to college level students for the past 3 years through the Council for Exceptional Children. All

four of these mentees have been full-time students and have not been employed in the school

system.

106
 Summary

To date, no studies of e-mentoring have been performed with special educators and few

studies exist with general educators; therefore this study is exploratory in nature. The existing

literature base is comprised of mainly qualitative studies and survey methodology soliciting

only the perceptions of the mentee. There are limited studies using qualitative and

quantitative designs; therefore the concurrent mixed methods design of this study addressed

the perceptions of mentors and mentees involved in an e-mentoring site during a pilot

program. This study targeted special education teachers with three or less years of experience

in the classroom involved in a pilot e-mentoring program. In addition, the study examined

dialogue in the context of asynchronous online discourse between novice and experienced

special educators in a professional development program. Evidence of the communication was

maintained and all messages posted online were archived. Through the examination of

electronic discourse this study examined the content and frequency of discourse found in

messages written by participants. Additionally, conversations occurring in this site were

compared to national standards and needs and concerns of beginning special educators to

determine if the conversations addressed standards and concerns.

Postsurveys provided descriptive findings of perceptions of teachers concerning their

levels of preparedness at the completion of the pilot program. The data gathered adds to the

mentoring literature base as well as to the mentoring and induction literature by examination

of perceptions of preparedness on classroom discipline issues, planning, computer usage, and

issues surrounding national standards. In-depth qualitative analysis was used to further explore

107
the discourse for national standards, needs and concerns, and the HPL framework. The

researcher also examined the discourse for emerging themes.

Limitations of Study

Extraneous variables may have affected the conversations that occurred in the formal e-

mentoring environment with an online mentor. Each mentee also had a school-based mentor

with whom it is assumed that they conversed. The conversations between school-based

mentors were not the focus of this research and were not examined. The researcher

recognizes that the content of these conversations may have included topics and categories

analyzed in this work, but that are not accounted for. Secondly, the CMC medium is relatively

new and participants may have worried about the confidentiality of the medium, may have

been inhibited by their lack of computer usage, type of computer connection, or perceptions of

computers. Thirdly, school settings are social settings with many informal conversations

occurring in the hallways and teacher’s lounge, and they are not accounted for in this study.

Professional development opportunities are offered in school systems and training provided

through professional development opportunities as well as classes taken are not accounted for

in this work.

A pre- and postsurvey was available to mentors and mentees in an online format.

Survey responses were archived for groups of mentors and mentees. Several mentor and

mentee survey respondents completed the survey twice, but those individual responses could

not be identified and removed since the data was archived at the group level. The survey was

used to gather data about participants in this pilot program. In addition, the original study

proposal was based on the expectation that the survey answers could be matched with

108
individual participants’ discourse; however this did not prove to be the case. Further

clarification was needed for some questions, and additional questions would have been helpful,

such as, perceptions about the e-mentoring experience, the levels of assistance received, the

match of mentors-mentees, demographic data such as ethnicity and race, and the use of CMC

for mentoring. Additionally, each beginning teacher had a school-based mentor in addition to

an eMSS mentor. Questions about the conversations that occurred with each mentor would

have been helpful to determine variability in supports across mentees. The survey was

developed by the program administrators and additional studies of construct validity and

reliability of the instruments are needed.

Generalizability is not claimed for this study. Like all qualitative research, rich

descriptions were given of the program and the participants and the reader must determine if

the results are applicable to their setting. The participants in this study were selected from two

states and the sample size is relatively small for quantitative analyses and may not be

representative of a broader population. Furthermore, the novelty of an online mentoring and

induction program for special educators may have affected outcomes; while there were some

questions on the survey addressing previous computer usage, connection speed, and

experience in online learning environments, there may have been other factors, such as

concerns about lack of confidentiality of the discourse.

The participants were from a voluntary sample and the volunteers may differ from non-

volunteers in important ways. The more representative the sample, the more external validity

the results will have, but this sample was not representative so generalization of results will be

left to the reader’s interpretation. Also, sampling bias is possible since random sampling

109
techniques were not used. The study was relatively short in length although many studies

examining online learning were located that lasted for one semester in duration.

Another limitation is the researcher’s inexperience with both qualitative and

quantitative research methodology, since the researcher is a doctoral student conducting her

first study. Additionally, the coding rubrics were researcher-created and the categories proved

to not be mutually exclusive. While a pilot test of the coding schema was conducted with 10%

of the discourse, the rubrics were not independently evaluated or field- tested; however

independent raters were able to reliably use the coding system.

Most researchers have reviewed relatively small amounts of discourse occurring and

have focused on the interactivity between participants. Analysis of the discourse between

mentoring pairs will add to the body of research for both FtF and e-mentoring. Additionally,

studies involving mixed methods are significantly lacking in the current literature so this study

will add to the body of literature. A mixed-method approach allowed the converging of

qualitative and quantitative data (Creswell, 2003), which increases the internal validity of the

study. Multiple forms of triangulation were used to increase the validity of the study.

Triangulation involved comparing findings from the survey with the in-depth qualitative analysis

providing methodological triangulation. Theory triangulation occurred by comparing the survey

and content analysis results with the existing literature base. Researcher triangulation occurred

through the use of three coders for the content analysis. Patton (2002) describes triangulation

as “contributing to the validation of qualitative analysis” (p. 557). According to Patton,

triangulation involves checking the consistency of different data sources within the same

110
method. Other data collection might contribute to triangulation, such as direct classroom

observations of mentees, was not conducted for this pilot program.

Quality assurance measures in qualitative research leads to increased believability of

results (Huberman & Miles, 1998; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 2002). Patton (2002) provides

criteria for evaluating a study’s quality recommending that the researcher presentation of self

which was presented earlier in this chapter be included. Lincoln and Guba (1985) add

trustworthiness and credibility associating trustworthiness with data collection and analysis

measures and credibility with the process of interpreting results. Lincoln and Guba (1985) state

that trustworthiness should convince the readers that findings are worth paying attention to.

They suggest maintaining a journal, mounting safeguards, developing and maintaining an audit

trail, gathering referential adequacy materials, and triangulation. Maintaining a journal during

the research process, the researcher reflected on personal bias; which provided introspective

information about the researcher’s state of mind (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Journaling was also

used to provide insight into the researcher’s understanding of information from analysis of the

data which assisted with the realization of biases and created an audit trail. An audit trail is

designed to allow the researcher to retrace the process of conducting the study.

Trustworthiness involves comparing emergent information from one data source with

data from other sources, which was aided by the concurrent mixed methods design of the

study. Additionally, data from qualitative and quantitative measures were compared for

similarities and differences that are noted in chapters 4 and 5. Triangulation is a “process of

using multiple perceptions to clarify meaning” (Stake, 1994, p. 241) or as Patton (2002) states it

is multiple ways of looking at the same phenomenon, which adds confidence when looking at

111
conclusions. Lincoln and Guba (1985) describe credibility measures as assuring that the data

and the findings are aligned. Dereshiwsky (2003) states that providing rich, thick descriptions

of the setting, participants, program and procedures increase credibility. Descriptions of the

program, the participants, and the setting are described.

112
 CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS

Existing literature examining face-to-face mentoring has explained little about the

content of interactions between beginning special educators and their mentors. Additionally,

e-mentoring is a relatively new concept in the field of education; therefore the purpose of this

study was to determine the type of support special educators seek and receive from their

online mentors and to characterize the interactions occurring between beginning special

educators and their mentors. This chapter presents the characteristics and perceived outcomes

of the participants, the frequency of interactions occurring within the site, and finally through

the application of teacher development models, professional standards, and the unique

concerns of special educators to the discourse occurring in an e-mentoring site messages were

examined and classified into categories based on the HPL framework, InTASC standards, and a

literature review of needs and concerns of beginning special educators documented in

literature.

This chapter presents the results of this mixed methods study with analysis of archived

data from a web-based survey and online discourse between novice and experienced special

educators. Results are presented to address the following research questions:

1. What are the characteristics of the participants in the pilot online mentoring

program?

113
 2. What are the perceived outcomes of the participants in the pilot online mentoring

program?

3. What is the frequency of interactions that occurred in an online asynchronous e-

mentoring site between beginning special education teachers and their mentors?

4. What is the content of the discourse among novice and mentor special educators by

the following content areas: concerns of beginning special educators, the Interstate

Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) standards, and the How People Learn

framework?

Results from the survey data describe participants’ demographics, current teaching

position, degrees held, experience with online environments, and perceived levels of

preparedness.

Survey Results

The survey results are based on responses provided by mentors and mentees involved

in the eMSS program sponsored by the New Teacher Center at the University of

California-Santa Cruz during the 2009-2010 pilot program. Due to the method of online

distribution through the eMSS site, it was not possible to ascertain the number of potential

survey participants who received the survey invitation, but did not participate. The same

survey was used to gather information prior to and at the conclusion of participation in the site.

Based on a more accurate response rate, postsurvey data were used for mentors and mentees

to reflect beliefs and attitudes of participants. Mentees completed 45 surveys, with one

mentee completing the survey twice yielding a response rate of 90% (including the mentee that

114
completed twice, or 88% excluding her). Twenty-three surveys were completed by mentors but

one mentor completed the survey twice; therefore the return rate is 100% for mentors.

Surveys for both mentors and mentees were completed online utilizing the Inquisite®

program and group data were provided to the researcher; therefore answers from participants

completing the surveys twice could not be removed. This is an obvious limitation of the study,

but results will be presented to characterize the mentors and mentees involved in this pilot

e-mentoring program. Survey responses were used to examine years of teaching experience,

subjects taught, disability categories taught, degrees held, and experience with online

coursework and use of computers. To provide an understanding of the participants in this

study, frequencies of the educational and experiential variables reported by the mentors and

mentees are provided in Tables 2 and 3.

Participants’ Education Background and Experience

Mentors. More than 60% of respondents had 11 years of teaching experience with

almost 21% reporting 21 years of experience or more. Most mentors held a master’s degree.

Six of the mentors did not have previous mentoring experience. Additionally, similar numbers

had mentored special educators (52%) and nonspecial educators (48%) previously.

Mentees. Mentees were queried on experience teaching and experience teaching

within special education. In response to years of teaching experience within special education,

the majority of teachers (44%) reported that this was their first year of teaching and seven

(32%) reported that this was their first year of teaching special education. Overall, 18

participants (78%) reported that they had taught special education for 3 years or less and 14

115
Table 2

Frequency Distribution of eMSS Mentors' Preparation (N = 24)

Preparation Frequency Percent

Years teaching

1 - 5 years 1 4

6 -10 years 8 33

11 - 20 years 10 42

21 or more years 5 21

Degrees held

Bachelors 6 25

Masters 9 38

Masters + 30 8 33

Doctorate 1 4

Previous mentoring experience

None 6 26

Mentoring nonspecial educator 11 48

Mentoring special educator 12 52

116
(64%) reported having less than 3 years of teaching experience including the current school

year. Interestingly, 22% reported that they had been teaching special education for 4 years

or longer and 36% reported 4 years or longer of total teaching experience despite the program

being designed for teachers with 1 to 3 years of teaching experience. An interesting finding is

that more mentees reported holding doctorate degrees (13%) than mentors (4%). To provide a

clear understanding of the mentees in this study, frequencies of the educational and

experiential variables reported by mentees are provided in Table 3.

One mentee reported not holding a degree and 10 reported not being certified in the

disability area taught. In response to an open-ended question asking respondents to explain if

they were not certified in the areas of special education for the exceptionality that they taught,

4 participants indicated that they were currently enrolled in alternative teacher certification

programs, 1 indicated that she planned to enroll in an alternate certification program, and 2

indicated that they were in the process of adding endorsements to their certification. However,

none of these participants indicated their current endorsement areas or degrees.

Mentees responded to a question about grade levels and area of exceptionality taught

during the academic year of involvement in eMSS. Thirteen mentees (57%) taught students

with Specific Learning Disabilities, 12 (52%) taught students with Mild/Moderate Mental

Disabilities; 10 (43%) taught students with Autism; and 8 (35%) taught students with Emotional

Disabilities. Additionally, many of the mentees indicated that they taught students in particular

grade levels. Respondents could choose more than one answer for this question so it is

assumed that they picked multiple disability categories as well as grade levels. Fifteen mentors

(65%) indicated that they taught students with Specific Learning Disabilities; another 15 (65%)

117
Table 3

Frequency Distribution of eMSS Mentees' Preparation (N = 45)

Preparation Frequency Percent

Years teaching special education

1 year 10 44

2 years 4 17

3 years 4 17

4 or more years 5 22

Overall years of teaching experience

1 year 7 32

2 years 4 18

3 years 3 14

4 or more years 8 36

Degrees held

Bachelors 15 65

Masters 4 17

Doctorate 3 13

None 1 4

Certification in area taught

Yes 13 57

No 10 43

118
indicated that they taught students with Mild/Moderate Disabilities; 16 (70%) indicated that

they taught students with Emotional Disabilities; and 13 (57%) indicated that they taught

students with “Other.” A wide variety of grade levels and disability categories were indicated

showing that mentors were highly experienced in a variety of grade levels and disability

categories. The results are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4

Grade Level and Area of Exceptionality Taught (Mentees)

Disability area Frequency Percentage

Specific learning disability 13 57

Mild/moderate mental disability 12 52

Autism 10 43

Emotionally disturbed 8 35

Severe/profound mental disability 3 13

Other health impairment 2 9

ADD and OD 2 9

Deaf 1 4

Other health impaired 1 4

Mentor responses were varied when questioned about the number of students taught

daily with responses indicating that they taught between 0 and 180 students daily. Mentees

responded that they taught between 2 and 75 students daily with an average of 13 students

taught daily. Mentees were asked number of periods and subjects taught daily and amount of

119
planning time and almost half (n = 11; 48%) responded they taught six periods per day and

most (30%) reported that they taught five subjects daily with the average of four preparations

daily. In response to a question about individual planning time allotted daily, 11 (48%)

indicated that they had between 46-60 minutes; 4 indicated 16-30 minutes; another 4 indicated

31-45 minutes; and 1 respondent for each of the categories indicated that they had 0 minutes,

61-75 minutes, 76-90 minutes, and more than 2 hours daily. Mentors were not queried about

courses taught or amount of planning time.

Previous Computer Usage and Experience

Mentors were asked about previous participation in online courses, seminars, and

discussion groups prior to involvement in the eMSS program. Additionally, they were queried

about how many of these online courses seminars or discussion groups were related to special

education content. The majority of mentors (65%) reported involvement in five or more

courses utilizing the online format. The results are provided below in Table 5.

Table 5

Frequency Distribution of Previous Online Experience for Mentors

Courses Frequency Percent

Number of courses

0 4 17

1-2 3 13

3-4 1 4

5 or more 15 65

120
 Mentees were also questioned about involvement in online courses, seminars, and/or

discussion groups prior to involvement in special education and how many of these were

related to special education content. Unfortunately, the answer choices were reported in

amount of minutes so comparisons cannot be made. However, eight mentees (35%) reported

no previous involvement (or 0 minutes) in online courses. Additionally, 11 (48%) reported that

despite previous involvement in online seminars, courses, and discussion groups, 0 were

related to special education.

Both mentors and mentees were asked about previous experience with using

computers as well as experience surfing the Internet for educational purposes, using e-mail,

using Listservs, and participation in synchronous chat rooms and discussion boards. Most

respondents reported that they were quite experienced with using computers; in fact, 75% of

mentors and 65% of mentees responded this way. Similarly, 74% of mentees and 79% of

mentors responded that they were quite experienced surfing the Internet for educational

purposes. High percentages of experience were also reported for using e-mail with 87% of

mentees and 92% of mentors responding that they were quite experienced. However,

participation in synchronous chat rooms was much lower for both mentors and mentees. Nine

mentees (39%) reported that they were quite experienced; 6 (26%) reported that they were

moderately experienced, and 7 (30%) reported that they were a little experienced. One mentee

(4%) reported that they were new to synchronous chat rooms. Mentor responses were similar

with 6 (25%) reporting they were quite experienced; 8 (33%) moderately experienced; 9 (38%) a

little experienced; and 1 (4%) reported they were new to it. Results are reported in Table 6. In

addition, a thread was created in Cyber Café entitled, Difficulty Seeing Entire List of Resources,

121
Table 6

Reported Participation in Asynchronous and Synchronous Discussion Boards by

Mentors and Mentees*

A little Moderately Quite

New to it experienced experienced experienced

Synchronous chat room

Mentor 4 38 33 25

Mentee 4 30 26 39

Asynchronous chat room

Mentor 3 4 29 54

Mentee 0 17 39 44
*Reported in percentages.

122
in which two mentors wrote three messages about difficulties viewing resource lists and videos

within the site. Two NTC staff responded stating that Firefox 3.0 or lower was the most

compatible with the platform utilized in this forum and a link to a download was provided for

the mentors experiencing difficulties. These postings occurred between February 16-17, 2010,

and no subsequent postings were added to this area implying that these mentors and other

mentors were able to view the site after these initial concerns were raised.

Mentees were asked to report the amount of time spent on eMSS activities each week.

The majority of mentees (48%; n = 11) reported spending less than 1 hour; 30% (n = 7) reported

spending 1 to 2 hours weekly; and 22% (n = 5) reported spending 3 to 4 hours weekly in eMSS

activities. This question was not asked of mentors.

Perceived Outcomes

Mentors and mentees were questioned about their familiarity with the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Standards.

Most mentors reported being either very familiar (21%) or fairly familiar with CEC standards.

Similarly, 44% (n = 10) of mentees reported being fairly familiar or very familiar (22%; n = 5)

with CEC standards. All mentors reported being fairly familiar (25%; n = 6) or very familiar

(75%; n = 18) with IDEA. Mentee perceptions of familiarity with IDEA varied with 4% reporting

they were not at all familiar; 13% reporting they were somewhat familiar; 52% reported fairly

familiar; and 30% reported being very familiar.

Mentees were asked how well qualified they felt to teach students with a variety of

exceptionalities. Mentors were not asked this question. More than half of the mentee

respondents (52%) reported they were not well qualified to teach students with

123
severe/profound mental disabilities and 44% reported that they were not well qualified to

teach students with emotional disabilities; however, it is unknown how many of these

respondents actually teach students in those categories. When initially questioned about

disability areas taught during the 2009-2010 academic year 8 mentees (35%) responded that

they taught students with emotional disabilities and only 3 (13%) stated that they taught

students with severe/profound disabilities. The results are reported in Table 7.

Table 7

Mentees' Perceptions of Qualification to Teach Students by Exceptionality*

Not well Adequately Very well

Qualified qualified qualified qualified

Specific learning disabilities 9 4 39 48

Mild/moderate mental disabilities 9 4 48 39

Severe/profound mental disabilities 9 52 26 13

Autism 17 30 39 13

Emotionally disturbed 13 44 35 9

Other 24 38 38 0
*Results reported in percentages.

Mentees were also questioned on the importance of a variety of pedagogical issues in

their teaching. Most reported that it was fairly important (39%) or very important to identify

how students may think about the content being taught. Mentee responses were more varied

when questioned about questioning students for understanding with 1 respondent (4%)

124
indicating it was somewhat important; 3 (13%) indicating it was fairly important and the

majority, 19 respondents or 83% indicating it was very important. In all categories, respondents

indicated it was very important to have students demonstrate higher-order thinking skills

(65%); motivate students to learn and become actively involved in classroom activities (78%);

use real world/functional skills in lessons (87%); examine student work in order to assess

student’s thinking and reflect on classroom practices (78%); provide instruction to multiple

learning styles (74%); identify and develop lessons aligned to instructional goals on the students

IEP (91%); identify and develop lessons to address students’ needs (83%); identify and develop

lessons aligned to state and national standards (65%); formally assess student learning within

the content area in which you are teaching (61%); and informally assess student learning within

the content area taught (78%). The responses were from an online survey and respondents

may have been responding in socially desirable ways.

Mentees were also questioned about their perceived level of preparedness for a variety

of activities and while the majority in each case indicated that they felt very well prepared; the

responses were more varied. The responses are reported in Table 8.

Mentees were also asked how well prepared they felt in each of the following areas of

their own teaching: managing student grades, record keeping, and paperwork; student

discipline; lesson planning and time management; effectively dealing with and communicating

with parents; setting and achieving student goals as written in IEPs; and setting and achieving

professional goals. Many of these areas are included in the literature review as concerns of

beginning teachers. No respondents indicated that they were not adequately prepared in any

125
Table 8

Mentees' Reported Levels of Preparation

Level of preparedness reported

Not Fairly Very
Item Adequately Somewhat well well

Identify how students think about the 4 17 30 48

content taught.

Motivating students to learn and 9 44 48

become involved.

Use real world problems/contexts 5 32 64

in lessons.

Examine student work to assess 9 39 52

student thinking and reflect on
classroom practice.

Provide instruction for multiple 13 44 44

learning styles.

Identify/develop lessons aligned to 13 17 70

IEP goals.

Identify/develop lessons to address 18 18 64

individual student needs.

Identify/develop lessons aligned with 14 23 64

state and national standards.

Formally assess student learning 13 35 52

within content area in which you teach.

Informally assess students within the 9 22 70

content area in which you teach.

Question students for understanding. 13 22 65

126
areas queried. Student discipline was the area that the highest number indicated that they

were somewhat prepared and mentees indicated that they were comfortable with setting and

achieving IEP goals with 35% indicating they were fairly well prepared and 61% indicating they

were very well prepared. Table 9 summarizes the results.

Table 9

Mentees' Reported Levels of Experience

Level of experience reported

Not Fairly Very
Item Adequately Somewhat well well

Manage student grades, record keeping, 13% (3) 35% (8) 52% (12)
and paperwork.

Student discipline. 27% (6) 23% (5) 50% (11)

Lesson planning and time management. 13% (3) 48% (11) 39% (9)

Effectively communicating with and 13% (3) 44% (10) 44% (10)
dealing with parents.

Using group work effectively. 9% (2) 52% (12) 39% (9)

Setting and achieving student goals as 4% (1) 35% (8) 61% (14)
written on IEPs.

Using an open response format, mentees were also asked why they participated in the

eMSS Special Education program. Twenty-two participants answered this question. Five

participants indicated that they were required to participate, 4 stated that they were

encouraged to participate, 1 decided to participate because she did not have an assigned

mentor within her school, another stated this was their first year as an autism teacher and she

127
requested to have a mentor who would be available to answer questions. The majority of

responding mentees (n = 11) reported that they thought it would be beneficial, and wanted to

gain knowledge and professional growth.

Mentees were asked to report what they gained from participation in the eMSS

electronic mentoring program through an open-ended survey question. Responses to the

open-ended survey question were similar to three of the four categories included in the Needs

and Concerns Rubric of Beginning Special Educators. Many mentees shared generally that they

gained, techniques, ideas, classroom strategies, and resources for teaching students. One

mentee stated, “I am more prepared to teach.” Table 10 provides examples of mentees’

reported gains from participation.

Participants Across the eMSS Site

Participants included 50 mentees, 22 mentors, 4 New Teacher Center staff members, 2

facilitators, and 1 content specialist. A total of 1,928 messages related to mentoring content

and posted in the discussion areas were analyzed for this study. Announcements and technical

assistance postings (such as Summer Inquiries, Facilitator Forum, Louisiana Mentors Survey,

Online Masters in Special Education, Difficulty Seeing Entire Screen, and Help) were not

included in the analyses for this study. Website areas entitled “End of Year Reflections for

Mentors and Mentees and Mentor Place” are discussed in Chapter 5.

Frequency of Interactions

Of the 1,928 postings in the online mentoring forum, 66% (n = 1,277) were made by

mentors, 24% (n = 465) were written by mentees, and 10% (n = 186) were made by facilitators,

128
Table 10

Mentees' Reported Gains From Participation in the eMSS site

Reported gains within inclusion, • Collaboration with professionals in my

collaboration, and interaction with adults. field.

• A sense of camaraderie with others.

• To collaborate with my colleagues.

Reported gains with pedagogical concerns. • Helpful information on classroom

behavior (3).

• Teaching techniques I can use to help

my students better understand content.

• Teaching strategies.

• Resources.

• Options for transition services.

Reported gains within emotional/ • Confidence to teach content.

psychological needs.
• That many of us face the same
challenges in the classroom.

• Self-confidence.

• Confidence in teaching students with

disabilities.

129
content specialists, and New Teacher Center staff. The postings by the facilitator, content

specialist, and NTC staff are not included in later analyses since the primary focus of this study

is the dialogue of mentors and mentees. The overall means for postings by mentors were 58,

mentees were 9, and for NTC staff, facilitators, and content specialists were 27 postings.

The online mentoring site was divided into five main sections: Our Place, Topic of the

Month, Cyber Café, Dilemmas, and Discussion threads for Early Childhood/Elementary

Education and Middle/High School (see Appendix E for a screen capture of the home page).

The purpose of the main sections were as follows: Our Place (discussion area for mentees and

their mentor), Topic of the Month (topics of interest to mentees), Cyber Café (area designed to

request assistance in perceived area of need), Dilemmas (short scenarios about specific

teaching issues), and Discussion threads for Early Childhood/Elementary Education and

Middle/High School students (this area is divided into multiple disability categories).

In all areas of the site, mentors posted more messages in each section of the site than

mentees. Postings by mentors, mentees, facilitators, and New Teacher Center (NTC) staff were

examined for frequency of postings. Results are reported in Table 11. Mentor postings per

section ranged from 4 to 161 postings. Mentee postings per section ranged from 0 to 27.

Our Place. Our Place, the location that mentees are paired with veteran teachers in

their content area as mentors, is a private discussion area for mentors and a small group of

mentees. During the pilot program, 21 of the 22 mentors created Our Place pages. One

mentor was not paired with any mentees and did not create an Our Place page. This mentor

participated in other areas of the site and posted a total of eight postings, therefore this

mentor is not counted in Our Place but is in other areas of the site. Mentors were paired with 1

130
Table 11

Frequency of Posts in the eMSS Site

Facilitator/
Area Mentor Mentee NTC staff Total

Our Place 675 322 0 997

Emotional disability
Early childhood - 5 7 1 5 13
Grades 6-12 11 6 5 22

Developmental delay 11 1 4 16

Autism spectrum disorder

Early childhood - 5 34 4 13 51
Grades 6-12 5 7 10 22

Mild moderate
Early childhood - 5 21 2 11 34
Grades 6-12 24 5 10 39

Significant
Early childhood - 5 19 2 3 24
Grades 6-12 4 0 6 10

Early childhood 161 27 47 235

Middle/high school 68 25 17 110

Topic of the Month

March 49 16 7 72
April 36 10 11 57
May 35 8 15 58

131
Table 11 - continued

Facilitator/
Area Mentor Mentee NTC staff Total

Dilemmas
Overwhelmed 27 9 4 40
Test anxiety 40 6 4 50
At risk 16 1 3 20

Cyber Café 34 13 11 58

Totals 1,277 465 186 1,928

132
to 4 mentees each in Our Place. Mentors created discussion threads outlining topics of

discussion. Mentors created between 4 and 31 thread titles for discussion in Our Place

(Mean = 15.14; SD = 6.7). Common threads created by all mentors at the site are contained in

Appendix F.

Within Our Place, there were 997 total posts of which 675 (68%) were made by mentors

and 322 (33%) were made by mentees. All mentors made broadcast posts for all mentees, and

the number of mentees assigned to a mentor ranged from 1 to 4. Most mentors also posted to

each mentee’s response, which accounts for some of the differences in postings. The mean for

postings was 32 (SD = 15.44) and the mean for mentee postings was 6 (SD = 6.51). Table 12

depicts the range in frequency of mentors’ postings based on the number of mentees they

were assigned.

Table 12

Range by Number of Mentees Assigned

Number of mentees Total

assigned postings

1 6 - 39

2 15 - 22

3 35 - 47

4 27 - 61

Mentors had varying numbers of mentees assigned to their Our Place pages ranging

from 1 to 4. Five mentors were assigned one mentee each. Six mentors were assigned two

133
mentees each. Five mentors were assigned three mentees and five mentors were assigned four

mentees.

The range of postings by mentors and mentees provides further insight into the

involvement of individual members of the forum. Notably, among mentors and mentees,

participants appeared to be distinguishable from one another based on the number of posts.

Mentee postings within Our Place also varied from 0 postings (n = 7) to 24 postings and 20 of

the 50 mentees only posted in Our Place and did not post in any other area of the site.

Additionally, only five of the mentees posted more times in all other areas of the site combined

than in Our Place. These mentees postings in Our Place ranged from 1 to 9 postings and 5 to 20

total postings at the site. Also, there were seven mentees that never made an entry into Our

Place, sometimes referred to as lurkers. Additionally, two mentees never posted at the site

during the pilot program. Table 13 summarizes the posts made by mentors and mentees in Our

Place.

Table 13

Frequency of Mentor and Mentee Posts in Our Place

Role Mean Range SD

Mentors 32.14 6 - 61 15.44

Mentees 6.44 0 - 24 6.51

The number of mentor and mentee postings was highly variable across the areas of the

mentoring site. See Appendix G for analysis by mentor and mentee.

134
 Twelve (57%) mentors posted in Our Place more frequently than in all other areas of the

eMSS site combined; conversely, 36 (72%) mentees posted more frequently in Our Place than

all other areas of the site combined. Furthermore, of the mentees, only 10 posted more

elsewhere than in Our Place and 4 had equal amounts of postings in Our Place and all other

sites combined. Two mentees never posted at the site. Figure 4 depicts the patterns of mentor

and mentee postings in Our Place and all other areas of the site combined.

40
35
30
25
20
15 Mentor
10 Mentees
5
0
More More Equal Zero Postings
Postings OP Postings Postings
Elsewhere

Figure 4. Mentors’ and mentee’s postings in Our Place versus all other sections of the eMSS

site.

Topic of the Month. The Topic of the Month (TOM) section was available for March,

April, and May (see Appendix H). The topics were Student Achievement, Student Engagement,

and Reflecting on Our Successes and Challenges. The topic of the month for March had the

most overall postings.

Three prompts were created by NTC Staff to discuss Student Achievement (see

Appendix H). For Student Achievement, the number of mentee postings ranged from 0 to 3,

with a mean of .32, and mentor postings ranged from 0 to 6, with a mean of 2.23. Student

Engagement and Reflections had similar participation patterns with 57 and 58 total postings,

135
respectively. By participant role, mentors accounted for 36 of the postings about Student

Engagement, with mentees accounting for 10, and content specialists for 11. Mentors

accounted for 35 postings in Reflections, mentees accounted for 8, and Content specialists, NTC

staff, and facilitators accounted for 15 postings (see Table 14).

Table 14

Total Mentor and Mentee Postings by Topic of the Month

Student achievement (March)

Mentor 49

Mentee 16

Content specialists 7

Total 72

Student engagement (April)

Mentor 36

Mentee 10

Content specialists 11

Total 57

Reflections (May)

Mentor 35

Mentee 8

Content specialists 15

Total 58

136
 Cyber Café. The Cyber Café was the area of least participation for both mentors and

mentees; therefore, posts in this area were collapsed into one category. There were a total of

58 postings in all areas of the Cyber Café. In this area, mentors and mentees could create

strands to request assistance in an area of need. This discussion area was begun by a

member of the NTC staff and the opening message states:

Cyber Café is a discussion area where you are welcome to start new topics about

anything you would like to discuss with your fellow special education teachers, sort of

like a teacher’s lounge. It is a place where you can post funny stories, good news, items

of interest, or anything else you’d like to chat about. We strive to develop a close-knit

community and support system and this is where people can relax and get to know each

other.

Of the Cyber Café postings, 34 were made by mentors, 13 by mentees, and 11 by content

specialists and facilitators. Titles of threads created included confidentiality, firelight books,

Wright’s Law, testing, CEC, concern, and thanks.

Dilemmas. Dilemmas were short, open-ended scenarios posed as a question about a

specific teaching issue. Mentors and mentees could conduct online discussion about possible

solutions to a dilemma. Dilemmas were optional and were designed to be quick, interesting,

and useful ways to participate in the eMSS site. The first week of a Dilemma is reserved for

mentees to respond and share their thoughts. During the second week, the mentors may join

in the Dilemma conversation as the facilitator guides the discussion into new areas based on

the responses from the first week. During the third week, the facilitator summarizes the key

points of a Dilemma discussion.

137
 Three dilemmas were presented: Overwhelmed with Paperwork, Test Anxiety, and

Working with Students at Risk. The dilemma Test Anxiety had the majority of postings by

mentors, whereas, mentees posted most to the paperwork dilemma. Table 15 summarizes the

frequency of postings by mentors, mentees, and content specialist in the dilemma section.

Table 15

Frequency of Participant Postings in Dilemmas

Content
Dilemma title Mentor Mentee Specialist

Overwhelmed with paperwork 27 9 4

Test anxiety 40 6 4

Students at risk 16 1 3

Finally, an optional discussion area for mentors, mentees, and content specialists was

available to discuss students in Early Childhood through Elementary School and Middle and

High School. Within these categories, there were subcategories for specific disability areas

including emotional disability, autism spectrum disorder, mild moderate, and significant

disabilities. The results for these analyses are reported by Early Childhood and Middle/High

School.

Early Childhood/Elementary K-5. A facilitator for the NTC described this section in an

opening posting on February 3, 2010, stating:

My name is Diane [pseudonym] and I will be facilitating our discussions within this area.

This forum is for: asking questions, finding teaching suggestions and resources to work

138
 with children with mild to moderate disabilities, helping each other increase our

successes by sharing suggestions, and helping us increase the quality of their education.

We look forward to discussing the issues unique to special education teachers. Please

introduce yourself and let us know about your current role in supporting special

education students/teachers.

The Early Childhood section contained the most postings with mentors accounting for

161 postings, mentees 27, and content specialists/facilitators 47. The facilitator posted 28

times.

In response to participants’ requests the Early Childhood/Elementary section was

further divided into specific disability categories during the pilot program. The following

categories were included within Early Childhood: Mild/Moderate Disabilities, Significant

Disabilities, Autism Spectrum Disorder, and Emotional Disability. In these areas, mentors,

mentees, or facilitators began message threads on topics of their choice. Also, there was a

discussion section for students with Developmental Disabilities. An overview of mentor,

mentee, and facilitator/content specialist activities is included in Table 16.

Middle/High School. The Middle/High School discussion area originally contained a

general area for postings on students in middle and/or high school, which was divided into

specific disability categories at participant requests during the pilot program. The disability

areas included were: emotional disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, mild/moderate

disabilities, and significant disabilities. Table 17 summarizes the postings in these areas by

mentor, mentee, and content specialist.

139
Table 16

Frequency of Participant Postings in Early Childhood Discussion Areas

Content
Discussion areas Mentor Mentee facilitator/NTC Total

Early childhood 161 27 47 235

Developmental delay 11 1 4 16

Autism spectrum disorders 34 4 13 51

Emotional disability 7 1 5 13

Mild/moderate 21 2 11 34

Significant disabilities 19 2 3 24

Totals 253 37 83 373

Table 17

Frequency of Participant Postings in Middle/High School Discussion Areas

Mentor Mentee Content Total

Discussion area postings postings postings postings

Middle/high school 68 25 17 110

Emotional disability 11 6 5 22

Autism spectrum disorders 5 7 10 22

Mild/moderate 24 5 10 39

Significant 4 0 6 10

Total 112 43 48 203

140
The Content of Discourse

The content of the dialogue among mentors and mentees provides further insight into

the nature of the issues and support provided within this e-mentoring environment. Using the

researcher-created rubrics for How People Learn, the Interstate Teacher Assessment and

Support Consortium standards, and Beginning Teachers Needs and Concerns, all postings were

coded by these key content areas. Chi’s (1997) dynamic approach, in which data is coded more

than once, each time according to a different grain size, dependent on the purpose of the

research question, was utilized with all coding rubrics. Segments, defined as groups of words

with meaning were coded using the above named rubrics. This approach allows for coding of

the same segment across categories within and between rubrics. A total of 9,381 segments

were coded.

In addition, the frequency of postings by content codes was also calculated to further

characterize the discussions. In this section, results were totaled by mentoring team rather

than by mentee and mentor because the discussions involved multiple participants.

Postings Related to HPL Framework

According to the HPL framework, effective learning environments have four features:

they are learner centered, knowledge centered, community centered, and assessment

centered. The content analysis results are presented next, with posting frequencies in Table 18,

followed by examples of specific postings that characterize each category. There were a total

of 2,527 segments (27% of all coded segments) within conversations occurring in Our Place

between mentors and mentees corresponded to the HPL framework. Table 18 presents

frequencies of postings by the four main categories.

141
Table 18

Frequency of Postings by HPL Framework

Total
Framework postings

Learner centered 909

Knowledge centered 818

Community centered 213

Assessment centered 587

Total 2,527

142
 Learner centered. Learner centered environments “refer to environments that pay

careful attention to the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs that learners bring to the

education setting” (Bransford, et al., 2000, p. 133). Students’ background knowledge, interests,

and social and cultural values are accounted for within these environments (The IRIS Center for

Training Enhancement, 2009).

The majority of the postings within this coding area were within the learner centered

framework. A total of 909 postings were coded as learner centered. Examples of postings

coded as learner centered include:

 Can I ask a few clarifying questions? Is this student choosing to be lazy due to his slow

processing or is he being perceived as lazy by others due to his processing? Under

the accommodations section of the IEP, is it specified that he gets extra time on

tests or assignments due to processing?

 Many of my ideas came straight from my students. So, I take no credit for how I

arranged things. I pretty much let the kids do it and we explored and had a lot of

fun. I also tend to include one art or building project for each unit—whether it's a

volcano, a kite, airplane, house draft, garden design.

 Most of the students I work with are boys. . .90% of them. Boys love insects, bugs,

building things, and seasonal sports activities. So, I presented units this year

seasonally. We read and learned vocabulary related to activities, sports, and

personal interests that each student provided to me as their teacher.

 One of my students [3rd. grade] doesn't know how to read. He is in Language

Exclamation program. Until now we are still in Dolch sight [k-3] words and word

143
 families. He can answer his test correctly in ELA given test read aloud. The problem

is with reading comprehension test, since he cannot read. According to his

Language teacher, he refused to do his work. He scored 0 in Dibels test as well. He

is really good in math, he can do mental math and solve word problems

independently given test read aloud and small group testing. So in order to help him

be successful in the gen education classroom, I modify his tests, asking lower level

questions. As time goes on and he understands what exactly I'm asking when I ask

‘why’, through modeling and repetition, I'm hoping he'll be able to catch on.

 One of my students with autism would shut down about half way through reading class

and refuse to participate any longer. This resulted in a battle of wills. One thing that

really helped was making a schedule. Every day I make a schedule for reading class,

which is kept on her desk, as each activity or task is completed, she removes that

item from the list. At the bottom of the schedule is a preferred activity—she loves

to do Kid Pics on the computer. When she completes all of the required activities,

she gets to use the computer. This helped tremendously. She still has good and bad

days, but the good days are more frequent than bad ones.

 I do have one student that is difficult to motivate and has many issues pertaining to

his home life that contribute to his academic performance. Knowing this helps me

understand why he acts out and struggles so much with concentration. Getting to

know your students’ background and prior knowledge is key to helping them

succeed.

144
 Knowledge centered. Knowledge centered environments are standards based,

organized around big ideas, and focused on information and activities that help learners

develop an understanding of a subject or discipline. Metacognitive skills and sense making are

emphasized as well as learning with understanding rather than restating factual information.

A total of 818 segments were coded as knowledge centered. Examples of items coded

as knowledge centered include:

 My class attended our second annual all district roller skating party last week. It was

great! We had lots of opportunities to work on mobility skills, communication skills,

making purchases, and other life skills we’ve been working on in class.

 This year, I did far more work [at the 3rd and 4th grade levels] with nonfiction

material. This decision resulted in more challenging work for students [with learning

disabilities]. The selection of nonfiction resulted from seeing how much fictional

reading the students received in their homeroom classes.

 Next year, to improve the themes of each unit, I will do a better job making explicit

connections for the students. At present, there was a natural thread of seasonal

interest material that could easily be linked in one's understanding. However, I think

that I missed some learning opportunities to not point out this thread more clearly.

 By giving your students a Learning Styles Inventory, you were able to hone in on the

learning styles of your students. Activities that address these specific learning styles

of your students create interactive lessons in which they can become active

participants. These strategies that you are using also address long term

comprehension, which allows your students to build upon their knowledge.

145
 Assessment centered. Assessment centered environments consist of environments that

provide feedback on misconceptions, allowing learners to reflect and revise, and involves the

self-assessment of learning. A total of 587 segments were coded as assessment centered.

Examples included:

 Keep a student portfolio full of sample work and assessments of a variety and this

will make it easier for you to keep up with progress.

 I use a management binder, I have it sectioned off by student. For each student,

there are copies of regular ed. progress and report cards as each nine weeks

ends, special education progress reports state testing results, achievement test

results, etc. [put whatever your system requires] behavior plan if applicable and

copies of behavior referrals, health plan if applicable, testing accommodations

page from IEP, the first two pages of the IEP [general student information, a

chart for timelines [ex. re-evaluations due, IEP revisions].

 I make charts using Excel for charting my objectives. I also teach my paras how

to document effectively.

 To monitor student progress, each student has an individual file with their

targeted objectives for each academic area. I graph their daily activities—the

percentage, date, and brief description [ex. two digit add no regrouping]. At the

end of the 9 weeks, I use this data to write progress reports. Very manageable

and not time consuming. I can use the graph for regression/recoupment and

critical point of instruction #1. This is also useful for parent conferences, as you

can use this info for all kinds of tracking purposes.

146
  I also used a binder to keep up with the progress of each student. I made a form

and give to each teacher who taught the students in the general curriculum to

give to me the week grades. I place them in the binder so that there were no

surprises at the end of the 6 weeks.

Community centered. A community centered environment is where goals and

expectations are explicit and defined, involves active participation within the community and

with learning goals and is a supportive, stimulating, and safe environment where students

challenge themselves and become lifelong learners. A total of 587 portions of messages were

coded as community centered. Examples include:

 This school has a very supportive atmosphere and strives to work together to

increase student performance.

 I just wanted to post and ask you both to introduce yourselves to each other. You

are both my mentees for the year and I would like to establish a true community

among the three of us. Linda and I have been working together for several weeks,

so Cristy you will get the benefit of reading all that has come before you. I would

encourage you to respond to each other’s posts as well as to post original

questions. I am not the only one with good ideas, and I am hoping that we can all

learn from each other.

 My class attended our second annual all district roller skating party last week. It was

great! We had lots of opportunities to work on mobility skills, communication skills,

making purchases, and other life skills we’ve been working on in class.

147
  This was my first time attending the event. One of the most pleasant surprises I had

was watching my boys make new friends. Out of about 75 kids attending there were

maybe 10 that were verbal. No matter how limited their communication skills were

the kids enjoyed meeting and interacting with new friends. They communicated

with facial expressions, gestures, and vocalizations in addition to any augmentative

communication they may have been using. They loved it! I won’t miss it again!

 Discussing both with your group can help you celebrate what has gone well, share

ideas with others, and discuss areas upon which you need support.

Posts Related to InTASC Standards

Within the InTASC standards there are 10 standards (see Appendix I). A total of 4,322

segments (46% of all coded segments) within conversations occurring within Our Place were

coded as pertaining to the InTASC standards. Each standard will be discussed individually

below. Table 19 summarizes the posts by standard. The standards, in order are: learner

development, learning differences, learning environments, content knowledge, application of

content, assessment, planning for instruction, instructional strategies, professional learning and

ethical practice, and leadership and collaboration. These standards, created by the Council of

Chief State School Officers, created the Model Core Teaching standards “that outline what

teachers should know and be able to do to ensure every K-12 student reaches the goals of

being ready to enter college or the workforce in today’s world” (CSCCO, 2011, p. 3). The

standards are applicable to all subject areas and grade levels.

Learner development. The Learner Development standard entails the teacher

understanding how learners grow and develop while simultaneously recognizing that these

148
Table 19

Posts by InTASC Standards

Total Mean by
Standard postings group SD

Learner Development 449 21.38 14.68

Learning Differences 391 18.62 10.01

Learning 850 40.48 19.43

Environments

Content Knowledge 60 2.86 3.34

Application of 115 5.48 4.51

Content

Assessment 93 4.43 3.38

Planning for 306 14.57 9.46

Instruction

Instructional 274 13.05 9.95

Strategies

Professional Learning 878 41.81 20.02

and Ethical Practice

Leadership and 906 43.14 20.36

Collaboration

149
patterns of development vary. A total of 449 segments were coded within this standard.

Examples include:

 I have started an informal behavior plan with the autistic boy [sic]. I broke the day

down in sections and encourage him to earn happy faces. This has been working as

a motivator for getting his work down but it hasn't changed the hitting. I get a sad

face when he does that. I have been sending a copy home to mom each day so she

knows how his day is going.

 Finally, one way that I hope you and I will help each other this year is by providing and

sharing with each other valid educational resources that may be utilized in any

classroom setting. I am looking forward to discovering new approaches to ‘average

and/or everyday’ lessons. I want to create new and creative ways for students to

receive and maintain information being presented to them.

 The special ed teachers meet once a week to collaborate with each other. I try to stay

on top of what is going on with all of our special students and we help each other with

lesson preps, behavior, IEP's, etc. . . .This is so very helpful for all of us. We learn so

much from each other.

 Determine the level of the student through test data collected, each parish uses

different types of tests, the students' weekly tests and work samples. Choose specific

areas of concern. Many of our students have gaps in their learning, skills that are

building blocks for them to reach the next level. Target these areas of importance to

incorporate in your daily lessons.

150
 Learner differences. Learner differences entail the teacher understanding the individual

differences and diverse cultures within the learning environment. A total of 391 portions of

messages occurring within Our Place were coded to this standard. Examples include:

 Many of the students have support needs in self-help and social skills so a portion of

the instructional day is spent on social and self-help skills in addition to functional

math and reading skills. The older students participate weekly in what is called PAES

lab activities, which is a career exploration type of program that consists of kits that

address a variety of different career interests.

 Make sure your students can actually understand the instructional materials.

Privately and calmly discuss the behavior with the student. Do not ask ‘Why’ or take

a threatening stance. Provide an incentive for positive behaviors. Show

appreciation for small successes. Expect small, slow changes. Show

acceptance. Build trust!

 I have developed a very good relationship with my students, and I can generally see

potential explosions coming before they happen, often thereby avoiding them or at

least lessening the impact of them. As this relationship has grown, I've really seen

them make a lot of academic gains.

Learning environments. Learning environments involve the teacher working with others

to create supportive environments for learners. This category had 850 coded sections.

Examples include:

 Have you considered co-teaching with your general education teachers? I know that

push in can make you feel like a glorified aide if not done in a manner that utilizes

151
your skills. Let me give you a few examples of co-teaching. You can do a One

Teach/One Support method. In this instance, one teacher is teaching while

the second teacher is giving support to the rest of the students. It's the easiest

model but also a model that can easily lead to the "glorified aide" issue. The key in

this model is to switch the teaching. One week, or every other day, the general

education teacher teaches while the resource teacher supports. Then they switch

and the resource teacher teaches while the general education teacher

supports. The nice thing about this is that you are a specialist in delivering

instruction in a variety of ways to help support different learning styles. This can be

useful to all students, not just sped students. Another method of co-teaching

is parallel teaching. This is when the class is split down the middle. You teach one-

half and the general education teacher teaches the other half the same

concept. You may approach it differently if you have a lower half, but they are

all learning the same thing. Yet another approach is station teaching. This style

looks like a ‘center’ approach to teaching. You run your station, the general

education teacher runs her station, and they may have an independent station. The

students then rotate through all stations in a 30 or 45-minute period. The last style

is team teaching. This is the toughest and requires good rapport and similar learning

styles with the general education teacher. This is where you are literally teaching

together. It may look like a tennis match with both teachers giving input, one

teacher giving instruction while the other writes visuals on the board, etc. What are

your thoughts on these methods? Do you feel this may be a better use of your time

152
 and skills? Is this a possibility in your current placement? Just a few ideas to think

about!

Content knowledge. Content knowledge is the teacher displaying understanding of the

concepts and structure he or she teaches and creating meaningful lessons for learners. This

standard contained the lowest amount of coded portions. This standard encompasses the

teacher demonstrating and creating which may have occurred within the classroom, but it was

not the topic of conversation within the site. Examples include:

 I also have a good many cut outs that I made, an elephant we feed peanuts to

distinguish between short vowel ‘e,’ a tree that has leaves to add, apples to add and

birds, for a variety of games, rhyming words, opposites, etc. . . . My boards are

magnetic so I just stick magnets to the back of everything and they take turns. I

used them throughout the years and have refreshed many of them because the

students love to play games and take turns and it provides movement in the room

that they so desperately need. It provides practice of specific skills. I have an apple

cut out, we add worms to it, I cut a hole in whatever it is I draw, color and cut out

and tape a piece of plastic to the back so the pieces won't fall out and it is easy to

take the pieces out after.

 The math practice is great for the students on the computer. Many of my students

learned their basic facts on the computer.

 In my classroom, I have a lot of center activities for all subject areas. I have file

folder games, flashcards, puzzles, charts, books, computer games etc. I always start

my lesson with a whole group introduction or review of concepts and we spend

153
 most of our time in small groups. When I get my small group [which is by grade

level], my para [sic] monitors the other students in center activities. We rotate every

25 minutes to make sure that I meet all my students in small groups or one on one

every day.

Application of content. Application of content entails the teacher understanding how

to connect concepts and use differing perspectives to engage learners in critical thinking,

creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues. A total

of 115 segments were coded within this standard. Examples include:

 I use SMARTboards! I love using SMARTboards and the students love using them

also. A SMARTboard is like a dry erase marker board except it is computerized. I do

my best to let the students come up to the class and use the board. Also, one of my

students uses a computer that has a big keyboard because she has cerebral palsy.

This type of keyboard is used to her advantage because all she does is uses a pencil

to tap the keyboard so she can do her computer assignments.

 The field of severe disabilities is changing, and we are doing academic instruction in

a very real and appropriate way with our kids for the first time. I see the potential in

my students.

 Colleagues work together to learn to teach, but do not have adequate planning time

to incorporate real world examples in instruction and assure that students are being

taught application of basic skills. Also, the accomplishments of individuals and

groups are not always recognized and celebrated.

154
 Assessment. Assessment involves the teacher understanding and using multiple

methods of assessment to engage learners in their growth, progress, and decision making.

Again, this is a standard that involves a great deal of demonstration within the classroom.

Within this standard, there were a total of 93 postings. Examples include:

 He is really good in math, he can do mental math and solve word problems

independently given test read aloud and small group testing.

 Determine the level of the student through test data collected, each parish uses

different types of tests, the students' weekly tests and work samples. Choose

specific areas of concern. Many of our students have gaps in their learning, skills

that are building blocks for them to reach the next level. Target these areas of

importance to incorporate in your daily lessons.

 I modify his weekly story tests. Some students with autism struggle with reading

comprehension. They can decode the words, but have a difficult time processing

the information. My student does okay with simple who, what, when, and where

questions, however, has difficulty with how and why.

 On Monday, the students were given an application as pretest. We wanted to know

what skill we needed to work on.

Plan for instruction. The plan for instruction involves planning for instruction for every

student. A total of 306 message segments were coded to this strand. Examples include:

 Perhaps when given a problem, he could have a timer and he knows that he needs

to complete his assignment or problem within the allotted time. You could set the

timer to give him enough time to process, but not enough time to ‘take advantage.’

155
  What has gone well this year? I have seen tremendous growth in almost all of them.

I work with ECE students in the mornings and Kindergarteners in the PM that are

receiving a ‘second shot’ of kinder because they are on an IEP and needed additional

support.

 Two other students, OHI and ED, cannot stop falling asleep during my reading

instruction. So during the lesson we are changing seats periodically to keep

everyone on task.

 I videoed him working in an effort to lure him to want to participate in group and

show him behaving appropriately and inappropriately. This seems to be working for

him. . . But you know what works for one does not work for another. He is reading

in group and participating more on his good days, he has made tremendous gains in

behavior and academics.

 Designing lesson plans that meet the needs of my diverse group [age and ability

level] is where I could use some advice.

Instructional strategies. Instructional strategies involve using a variety of instructional

strategies to encourage deep understanding of content areas. A total of 274 segments were

coded to this standard.

 I just want to share what works for my class since I have two different levels at the

same time. I am currently working with 1st and 3rd grade students. Basically, I can

consider it a 3-leveled class since one of my students in first grade is nonverbal, so

she has different needs.

156
 In my classroom, I have a lot of center activities for all subject areas. I have file

folder games, flashcards, puzzles, charts, books, computer games etc. I always start

my lesson with a whole group introduction or review of concepts and we spend

most of our time in small groups. When I get my small group [which is by grade

level], my para [sic] monitors the other students in center activities. We rotate

every 25 minutes to make sure that I meet all my students in small groups or one on

one every day.

 My students are experiencing many behavior concerns; it is the time of year that I

have to make some adjustments in my reward systems and lessons as well.

 I got permission from the parents to video some of the students working. . . .One

autistic student in particular with severe behavior/conduct issues. . .hits, kicks,

screams. . .I videoed him working in an effort to lure him to want to participate in

group and show him behaving appropriately and inappropriately. This seems to be

working for him. . . . But you know what works for one does not work for another.

He is reading in group and participating more on his good days, he has made

tremendous gains in behavior and academics.

 One of my students with autism would shut down about half way through reading

class and refuse to participate any longer. This resulted in a battle of wills. One

thing that really helped was making a schedule. Every day I make a schedule for

reading class, which is kept on her desk, as each activity or task is completed, she

removes that item from the list. At the bottom of the schedule is a preferred

activity—she loves to do Kid Pics on the computer. When she completes all of the

157
 required activities, she gets to use the computer. This helped tremendously. She

still has good and bad days, but the good days are more frequent than bad ones.

Professional learning and ethical practices. These practices involve the teacher

engaging in ongoing professional learning accounted for a total of 878 segments being coded to

this standard. Examples include:

 Since you've been involved in this program for several weeks now, it's time to reflect

on this experience so far. A tool that is used regularly in eMSS is the Self -

Assessment. Reflecting on your practice is essential to advancing your teaching

success. Directions for completing Self-Assessment: Click on Self-Assessment on the

left Menu bar. Please complete the Getting Started Self-Assessment, as it is a

valuable tool for assessing and reflecting on your progress. It's really important to

know what's working for mentees and what might need to be changed. Check back

in a few days, an eMSS facilitator will be reviewing your assessment and providing

you feedback.

 In addition to the support of an individual mentor, mentees have the opportunity to

engage in online discussions with other mentees and mentors as well as program

facilitators and content specialists from across the country. Our discussion areas,

resource sections, Inquiries, Dilemmas, and content areas are designed to help

beginning teachers advance their pedagogical and content expertise.

 eMSS provides a nationwide online content focused mentoring program that links

beginning special education teachers with a rich network of online support. First,

second, and third-year teachers in the program are known as mentees. An

158
 outstanding veteran teacher from his or her academic discipline and grade level

mentors each mentee.

Leadership and collaboration. The teacher is involved in collaborating with others to

ensure learner growth due to the nature of the online mentoring site, and the interactions that

occurred within the site between mentors and mentees. This accounted for the largest number

of postings within the InTASC standards. Within this area there were a total of 906 coded

segments. Examples include:

 Determine the level of the student through test data collected; each parish uses

different types of tests, the students' weekly tests and work samples. Choose

specific areas of concern. Many of our students have gaps in their learning, skills

that are building blocks for them to reach the next level. Target these areas of

importance to incorporate in your daily lessons.

 I wanted to make a suggestion for your parents, since summer will be here before

we know it. Lack of parent involvement has always been an ongoing issue for me

and you as well, as many of you have expressed. I never give up on parents even at

the end. I usually send them a closing of the year letter with suggestions of activities

for them to help their children during the summer.

 I collaborate primarily with my students' regular education teachers also with the

rest of the special education team, who have been extremely helpful in showing me

the ropes. Three ladies in particular, one a speech teacher, one an alternative PE

teacher, and the other the lower elementary resource teacher, provide guidance on

159
 a daily basis when I go into their room to use the copying machine. They have been

wonderful.

 Finding age-appropriate, interesting reading materials that are at the right

reading/listening level for our students is a challenge. Here is a website that can

help: www.tarheelreader.org. This website provides free on-line access to

thousands of emergent level readers most of which are appropriate for older

students with significant disabilities. You can search the database for books on

specific topics. There are books that provide curriculum access, books of social

stories, books that address life skills, and books that are just for fun. You can set up

and bookmark a favorites page so that you can preselect books for your students to

use. The program allows you to read independently or to have the computer read

the book aloud in one of three voices. There are options for access for students who

can't use a typical mouse or keyboard. You can even download the books as Power

Points so that you can modify them or print out paper copies.

Posts Related to Beginning Teachers Needs and Concerns

Overall, the area of beginning teachers’ needs and concerns accounted for 2,532 coded

(27% of all coded categories) segments at the eMSS site. Managing roles accounted for 791

coding, pedagogical concerns 774 coded segments; Inclusion, Collaboration, and Interaction

with Adults 683 coded segments; and Emotional and Psychological concerns 284 coded

portions of messages.

Inclusion, collaboration, and interaction with adults. Inclusion, collaboration, and

interaction with adults include collaborative teaching with general education teachers;

160
inclusion of students with disabilities into the school environment; and interacting with parents,

instructional assistants, and administration. The range of occurrences of discussions concerning

this area within Our Place was from 6 to 53 within mentoring partners. A total of 683 segments

were coded in this area with Our Place. Examples of coded messages include:

 Another aspect that has gone quite well for me is teacher/parent communication.

As a second-year teacher, I am much more willing to communicate more with my

students' parents via newsletter or telephone conferences. When I first began to

teach I was so afraid that I would say the wrong thing to a parent or that a parent

would receive what I was attempting to tell them the wrong way.

 Another big challenge that I have faced this year dealt with

parent/guardian participation in annual IEP meetings. It is so imperative that the

parent or guardian understands the services allotted to them and why the

services are being provided to students.

 Not to mention when another teacher would talk to me in a way that I was not

accustomed to.

 My observations are going well this year from both my school and my practitioner

advisor.

 I have a very difficult partner teacher. I have a lot of behavior problems in my group,

which interrupts the lesson almost on a daily basis.

 They gave me my own classroom because my students were not getting the

individual time they needed. I had a very small table at the back of the room and

basically the regular education teacher wanted me to just sit at the back table all day

161
 long no matter what the IEP said. It became a problem because the children were

crowded so that would trigger behavior problems plus they could not hear me over

her. When I tried talking louder so they could hear she would make comments

about how my group didn't belong in a regular education setting.

Pedagogical concerns. The category of pedagogical concerns encompasses curriculum

and teaching, assessment, materials, and student behavior. Total postings in this area were 774

ranging from 4 to 87 within mentoring partners. Representative examples of discourse include:

 Another challenge is that in my self-contained classroom, I am working with three

students in three different grades. I need help preparing for each of these students

and remain aligned with the comprehensive curriculum.

 For one of my autistic students, I have changed his schedule to add an additional PE

time. His aggression was becoming so severe. It seems to help [not a cure all by any

means], however, it is providing an additional activity outlet for him.

 I really have trouble reaching the children with ‘old school’ techniques. They seem

to respond better to computer generated techniques but I am worried that they are

not grasping everything because to the students it's a game and not a lesson. In

other words are they really learning from all the computer generated literacy

programs? Any input?

 I use Sight Words That Stick. I ordered it from one of our online vendors. It is a book

that has a sight word listed with a story that goes along with it. It will take the sight

word and turn it into a picture to go along with the story. It seems to help and the

children love it.

162
 Managing roles. Managing roles includes dealing with paperwork, meetings, and IEPs;

caseloads; timing and scheduling issues; and role confusion. This area accounted for the

majority of postings within this category. A total of 791 segments were coded to this area

within Our Place. Examples include:

 One or two challenges: Juggling paper work, lesson plans, prepping materials for the

lesson plans, paper work, writing New IEPs, Revising IEPs, jumping through hoops to

get additional assessments and the list goes on. Another challenge or stress is

wondering if I will even have a job next year because of budget cuts and being so

low on the totem pole.

 The biggest challenge I've been facing is helping my teachers get all their paperwork

done for this time of year. My teachers are doing so many revisions and trying to

get ESY [Extended School Year] paperwork in on time. We also have a new web-

based IEP program [Easy IEP], which has been a learning curve for us all!!

 One of my biggest challenges is keeping up with my workloads both as a special

education teacher [only 23 students on my case load] and as a doctoral student.

 Currently work at an elementary school as a Special Education Inclusion Teacher K-

5. My role is fun and exciting yet very difficult to keep up with everything from

paperwork to working with kids, teachers and parents.

Emotional and psychological concerns. Coded response ranged from 2 within

mentoring team to 40. Total postings in this area accounted for 284 segments to be coded to

this category, which is by far the lowest amount within this category. Perhaps, mentees relied

163
on local mentors and fellow teachers for emotional and psychological support. Examples of

items coded in this category include:

 I’m feeling disorganized, overwhelmed, and want to spend time with students

not filling out paper work

 I have given up many activities and interests he used to enjoy after school to

work on the mountain of paperwork he has to complete to stay in compliance.

 Leave your work at school. Bringing work home after school can cause problems

in that it often interferes with personal and family life. One way to break that

cycle is to avoid bringing work home.

 I spent February-May wondering why I ever wanted to be a teacher in the first

place. I didn't feel I had been prepared for having my own classroom at all.

Other Themes That Occurred

Many mentees were concerned with confidentiality within the eMSS site and asked

multiple questions concerning confidentiality. One of the features of the site was also Private

Messaging (PM), which allowed mentors and mentees to engage in one-to-one conversations

that the other mentees were not privy to. There were quite a few references to PMs, emails to

school accounts rather than within this site, and phone calls involving personal issues or issues

that mentees specifically did not wish to share with other members within Our Place. One

mentee asked her mentor when discussing a troubling relationship with her collaborative

teacher, “Is there a more private way of discussing things on here? I don’t want to post

everything under the sun for others to see!”

164
 Summary of Results

This study explored the frequency and content of interactions between special

education mentors and mentees in an online mentoring pilot program conducted by the New

Teacher Center. Participants in the eMSS site included 22 mentors, 50 mentees, and 7

facilitators, content specialists, and NTC staff. All but one mentor reported 6 or more years of

teaching experience. In comparison, 32 of the 45 mentees responding to the survey reported

that they had 3 years or less experience, with 17 of those stating they were completing their

first year of teaching. The majority of mentors held master’s degrees and the majority of

mentees held bachelor’s degrees; however, more mentees had doctorate degrees than

mentors. The majority of mentor and mentee respondents taught students with specific

learning disabilities. Mentors reported higher levels of involvement in online courses; however,

both reported high levels of experience with using computers, email, and the Internet. Three

mentors and no mentees reported previous involvement in asynchronous chat rooms.

Perceived outcomes on a variety of areas including perceptions of qualifications to teach

students with a variety of exceptionalities and reported levels of preparedness for routine

classroom activities were gathered from mentees. Perceived levels of familiarity with IDEA and

CEC standards as well as perceptions of participation in the eMSS site were gathered from

mentees and mentors and reported. Most mentors and mentees reported that they were fairly

to very familiar with CEC standards; however, mentees reported lower levels of familiarity with

IDEA. The majority of mentor and mentee comments about participation in the eMSS site were

positive and both stated that they gained knowledge, skills, and resources from their

participation.

165
 Interaction patterns were provided for the entire site including the five main discussion

areas. Patterns of interaction revealed that mentors initiated more messages than mentees in

all areas of the site. Mentors, based interaction patterns, appeared to be more comfortable

posting at a variety of discussion areas. Mentees posted mainly in the small group discussion

area designed for conversations between mentors and a small group of mentees, called Our

Place. Cyber Café, an area that mentors and mentees could create strands to request

assistance in areas of need, received the least amount of postings by both mentors and

mentees. Mentors had the highest number of postings in the Early Childhood discussion area.

The content of dialogue among mentors and mentees within Our Place was examined

using the InTASC standards, and researcher-created rubrics for HPL and beginning teachers’

needs and concerns. The InTASC standards accounted for 46% of all coded segments, needs

and concerns 27%, and the HPL framework 27%. Confidentiality was identified as an additional

theme that many mentees were concerned about. A more detailed summary of findings and

discussion will be included in the next chapter.

166
 CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

Despite increased mentoring and induction programs for beginning special educators,

attrition statistics remain high. Existing literature documents this continuing trend, but is

lacking in recommendations for addressing this concern. Little information exists about the

content of mentoring conversations, the interactions that occur between mentor and mentee,

and how the mentor guides the mentee. This mixed methods study was conducted to extend

understanding of the mentoring process and specifically to examine a new phenomenon,

electronic mentoring with special educators. Additionally, rubrics were created and used to

identify needs and concerns of beginning special educators, evidence of learner-centered

environments, and professional standards in order to examine discourse occurring between

novice special educators and their mentors.

This chapter begins with a brief review of the research questions, methodology, and

significance of the study. Next, an interpretation of results, discussion of findings, and

limitations of the study are discussed. The chapter concludes with implications of the study for

further research and practice.

Research Problem and Methodology

Teacher attrition has a negative impact on the educational outcomes of students with

disabilities and causes “disruption of the coherence, continuity, and community that is essential

to strong schools” (NCTAF, 2010, p.32). The first year of teaching is especially difficult for a

167
variety of reasons and greatly influences a teacher’s decision to remain in the field. During this

time, the teacher is transitioning from being a student of teaching and learning to being a

teacher, however support is needed for development as a competent professional (Reynolds,

1990). No matter the quality of the teacher preparation program, no program can fully prepare

a teacher for the realities and complexities of daily life in the classroom. While the preservice

program lays the foundation, it is not until entering the classroom that learning to teach begins

in earnest (Feiman-Nemser, 2001b).

This study focused on the eMSS program which is designed to support the needs of

beginning teachers with goals of greater teacher retention, improved practice, and ultimately

increased student achievement. This unique e-mentoring program matches beginning teachers

with experienced teachers who work with students with similar disabilities in the same grade

level, despite geographic location. Beginning teachers have access to teachers with content

and pedagogical knowledge that may not otherwise be available in their local schools. In

addition to the mentoring conversations that occur in private and small group areas, mentees

had access to multiple discussion areas that allow them to customize their learning

experiences. The site has been in existence since 2002 serving math and science teachers, but

this pilot program was the first expansion to special educators. The eMSS site, while focusing

on emotional/psychological and survival skills of beginning teachers, also has a strong content

focus.

The specific research questions for this study were:

1. What are the characteristics of the participants in the pilot online mentoring

program?

168
 2. What are the perceived outcomes of the participants in the pilot online mentoring

program?

3. What is the frequency of interactions between beginning special educators and their

mentors?

4. What is the content of the discourse among novice and mentor special educators, by

key concerns, InTASC standards, and the HPL framework?

In order to examine the characteristics and perceived outcomes of the participants,

archived data from the web-based survey were analyzed. In addition, archived discourse

between special education mentors and their mentees was analyzed to examine the frequency

of interactions and the content of that discourse. Since special educators teach a variety of

subject areas across grade levels, academic content focus can be more difficult to define;

therefore, InTASC professional standards were used to analyze their discourse as well as

documented needs and concerns of special educators. Specifically, rubrics were created based

on documented needs and concerns of beginning special educators, the HPL framework, and

the newly released InTASC standards to code the discourse occurring in the e-mentoring site

between 22 mentors and their 50 mentees.

Significance of the Study

The quantity, quality, and stability of the teaching force is essential for appropriate

educational services for students with disabilities (Guarino et al., 2004). The quality of our

nation’s schools is dependent on the quality of teachers. Existing literature documents special

educator attrition trends despite mentoring and induction programs. Teacher attrition

continues to be the major contributing factor to the inadequate supply of special educators.

169
Although preservice programs may address critical knowledge, skills, and dispositions, studies

show that teacher candidates need practice and assistance to transfer the knowledge to

practice. New teacher support is essential to achieving excellence in teaching quality. Existing

mentoring programs, which focus mainly on emotional and psychological support, do not

provide sufficient scaffolding for expert practice. Beginning teachers need comprehensive,

systematic programs with trained mentors who provide structured support to improve new

teachers’ instructional skills (NTC, 2007).

Although mentoring literature recommends support for new teachers’ entry into the

profession, guidance about the quality and content of this assistance is lacking (Huling-Austin,

1986; Little, 1990; Whitaker, 2000b). Descriptive studies are needed to illuminate critical

needs, problems, and issues from the perspectives of beginning teachers and their mentors to

further inform the design of support programs (Bay & Parker-Katz, 2009). The text-based

nature of e-mentoring allows examination of the mentor-mentee discourse and the focus on

the needs and concerns, issues discussed, as well as professional competencies of beginning

special educators. Feiman-Nemser (1996) stated that the question remains of “what mentors

should do, what they actually do, and what novices learn as a result” (p. 2). The current study

provides further information about what mentors and mentees actually do in an electronic

mentoring site.

This study examined discourse and survey results to describe the pilot e-mentoring

program with special educators. To address teacher development principles, the HPL

framework, needs and concerns of beginning special educators, and professional standards

were utilized to code segments of the discourse. Electronic mentoring, a popular alternative

170
and addition to existing mentoring programs in other fields, has been studied and synchronous

electronic mentoring of general educators has been examined; however, asynchronous

communication sites with special educators, their mentors, and content facilitators needs

further examination. This study provides rich descriptions of special educator e-mentoring

within the eMSS program to inform training, practice, and research.

Induction and mentoring programs have been examined from a variety of lenses, but

this is an initial examination using the HPL framework and the newly updated InTASC standards

to examine the content of the conversations occurring within the field of mentoring and

specifically within an e-mentoring site for beginning special educators. Built around examples

of teaching and learning in practice and understanding of students’ background knowledge and

cultural understandings, eMSS offers an environment to construct knowledge, build on prior

knowledge, and organize one’s learning. This allows teachers to make sense of what is going on

in their classrooms and provides a lens for understanding students’ growth and development.

Learning, which involves drawing connections between what is known and new information,

occurs in environments rich with stimuli and useful feedback to a learner’s efforts

(Darling-Hammond, 2007). Despite various studies of mentoring programs, little is known

about the interactions that occur between mentor and mentee. Teaching requires not only

knowledge of subject matter, but also knowledge of learning, students, and pedagogy and

these are critical areas for mentoring programs to address. In addition, Gehrke and McCoy

(2007) found that having a strong network of support positively influenced teachers’ ability to

focus on student learning and their intent to remain in the field. Thus, high quality, accessible

171
mentoring programs have the potential to increase new teachers’ confidence, competence, and

effectiveness.

Interpretation of Results

Survey participants were mentors and mentees involved in an electronic mentoring pilot

program sponsored by the New Teacher Center, the Electronic Mentoring for Student Success

(eMSS). Surveys completed by 45 mentees and 21 mentors were analyzed to describe the 72

participants in this study and discuss perceived outcomes. Archived discourse occurring in the

e-mentoring site was examined for frequency of postings of mentors and mentees in each area

of the site. In addition, conversations occurring in Our Place were further analyzed using the

researcher-created rubrics based on the literature and teaching standards to characterize the

content of the discourse.

Participants

The majority of mentors held master’s degrees or higher (78%) and had previously

mentored special educators (52%) or nonspecial educators (48%) although six mentors (26%)

stated that they had no previous mentoring experience. The majority of mentees (44%)

reported that this was their first year of teaching and 32% reported that this was their first year

of teaching special education. Interestingly, more mentees (13%) reported holding doctorate

degrees than mentors (4%). The majority of mentees (65%) held bachelor’s degrees. The

majority of mentees (56%) and mentors (79%) taught students with specific learning disabilities.

Eight mentees (35%) indicated that they taught students with Emotional Disabilities and 16

mentors, or 70%, indicated that they taught students with Emotional Disabilities. Both mentors

and mentees also indicated that they taught students with Autism (70% of mentors and 43% of

172
mentees). Ten mentees stated that they were not certified to teach students in disability area

they were currently teaching.

Billingsley et al. (2004) found that 71% of the special educators, in their examination,

were not fully certified for their main assignments, but also found that the percentage of fully

certified teachers increases each year over the first 5 years of teaching, further finding that 94%

of special educators with 3 or more years of experience were certified. Several mentees in this

study stated that they were currently enrolled in initial certification programs or were adding

additional endorsements. Suell and Piotrowski (2007) attributed school districts hiring

uncertified teachers to high attrition and low retention among special educators. Several

researchers have reported higher levels of attrition among uncertified teachers than certified

teachers (Boe, Bobbitt, Cook, and Whitener, 1997; Miller, Brownell, & Smith 1999).

Furthermore, Ingersoll (2007) stated that few teaching positions are left unfilled, instead they

are filled with uncertified or out of field teachers trained in another subject or grade level.

Mentoring is particularly important for the high percentage of novice teachers who are not

qualified for positions that they hold (Billingsley, 2002b; Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009).

Perceived Outcomes

Mentors reported higher levels of previous involvement with online courses than

mentees; however, four mentors and eight mentees reported no previous involvement in

online courses. Furthermore, the mentees, who reported previous involvement in online

courses, stated that none were related to special education. Most mentors (75%) and mentees

(65%) reported they were quite experienced surfing the Internet for educational purposes. High

percentages of experience were also reported for using e-mail with 87% of mentees and 92% of

173
mentors responding that they were quite experienced. However, previous involvement in

synchronous chat rooms was much lower for both mentors and mentees. One mentor and one

mentee reported they were new to synchronous chat rooms; only one mentor reported that

she was were new to asynchronous chat rooms, the format examined in this study. The time

mentees reported they spent in eMSS activities varied from 48% reporting less than 1 hour per

week to 22% reporting spending 3 to 4 hours weekly.

Mentees, in response to perceived qualifications to teach students with a variety of

disabilities, reported that they were not well qualified to teach students with severe/profound

mental disabilities and 44% reported that they were not well qualified to teach students with

emotional disabilities. One mentee responded that she did not feel adequately prepared to

identify how students think about the content taught. All mentors reported either being fairly

well to very familiar with IDEA, but only 82% of mentees reported similar levels of knowledge

and one mentee stated she were not familiar at all.

When questioned about a variety of pedagogical areas, the majority of mentees

responded that they were fairly well prepared to identify how students think about content

taught; to motivate students to learn and become actively involved; to use real world

problems/contexts in lessons; to identify and develop lessons aligned to IEP goals, state

standards, and to address individual students learning needs; and to examine student work to

assess student thinking and reflect on classroom practice. Mentees’ rated their abilities to

provide instruction for multiple learning styles evenly between fairly well prepared and very

well prepared. Additionally, mentees responded that they were fairly well prepared to use

174
group work effectively, to complete lesson planning and time management, and effectively

communicate and deal with parents.

Mentors and mentees were also asked to provide feedback about their involvement and

learning through a discussion strand on the site. The next section outlines these online

reflections and the survey responses.

Mentees’ end of year reflections. Mentees and mentors were asked to respond to a

strand entitled, End of Year Reflection. Mentees were asked by a facilitator:

1. What worked – What did you find most useful about the program? Be specific

2. Participation – Did you participate as much as you had planned? If you weren’t able

to spend as much time as you wanted with eMSS this year, what participation

challenges did you face?

3. Suggestions – What suggestions do you have as we look forward to preparing the

eMSS program for next year?

Five mentees posted replies under this strand. Two mentees stating that the Inquiry

entitled Managing Student Behaviors was especially helpful. One stated, “I found the special

education inquiry for managing student behavior very helpful. All of the ideas and

encouragement that I received helped me to keep my head on days that I felt overly

frustrated.” The other replied that “The various suggestions and perspectives of the teachers

enabled me to combine the ideas and come up with a plan suitable for my management

difficulty in my classroom.” Other mentees responded that they found “practical suggestions

for increasing student engagement,” receiving “great tips, hints, and suggestions for anything

troubling in the classroom,” “ all the suggestions,” “especially the reward system which helped

175
my students be motivated and behave during class,” and lastly, “information on parental

involvement in IEP meetings.”

Four of the five mentees stated that they participated as much as planned or was

required by the program. One stated that she “logged in three to four times weekly, but only

for 20 minutes because my planning only lasted for 30 minutes and I had to make copies, etc.”

One respondent stated, “No, I did not participate as much as I had planned. I participated more

in the beginning, but the paperwork was getting hectic at the end.”

Finally, suggestions included notification that can be emailed when a person comments

or responds to a posting. To this, a facilitator responded that this feature already existed and

explained how to access it. Another mentee suggested a reminder email when postings are due

to “jar the memory.” The final two responses both reflected lack of responsiveness from

mentors. One mentee stated that mentors should email their mentees about updates stating

that she rarely received emails from her mentor. The other mentee stated that “When a

mentee has indicated an area of concern, make sure that person is emailed. Participation in

the thread is important and could be helpful ”.

Mentors’ end of year reflections. Mentors were also asked what worked and

suggestions for the following year. Eighteen mentors posted in this forum. In response to the

query “what worked,” numerous mentors stated that the responsiveness of the facilitators in

assisting with questions and concerns, the training provided, “tips provided by NTC for

mentoring,” “the stems created by the NTC for mentoring conversations were the most

beneficial.” One mentor commented that she ran out of topics given for use in Our Place and

“found myself scrambling to figure out what to post and the wording I wanted to use.” This

176
mentor also added that “The stems were valuable and provoked thoughtful answers from the

mentees.” One mentor specifically commented on the interactions with other mentors stating,

“the collaboration between mentors was outstanding. The suggestions were outstanding and

the wealth of information that was shared was terrific.”

Suggestions made by mentors included weekly reminders or prompts of things to be

covered during the week, “creating a pool of situations to post,” “clarification of expectations,”

“additional topics to post in Our Place,” and “more strict rules for mentees outlining

expectations.” Numerous mentors commented on the frustration felt by the lack of

responsiveness of their mentees. Several contributed this to the program beginning late in the

year when mentees “appeared to be on their own and very busy.” Another mentor

commented:

I was assigned my mentees very late in the process and very late in the year. None of

them participated in this process I think by the time they were assigned, the year was

mostly finished and they had too much on their plates.

Another mentor commented on needing more specific information about the mentees, stating

that she had only received the mentee’s name, where he or she taught, and what level. This

mentor stated:

It would be helpful to know more about them, especially if they aren’t all that active. It

would be helpful to know what type of class and what exceptionalities they serve; that

way, even if they aren’t responding, we can make sure the information we share is

specifically targeted to what they’re doing because the more on target our posts are the

more likely they are to reach out to us!

177
Finally, a mentor stated:

Continue to expand on topics to issues specific to students with disabilities. . .I would

love to see much of the discussion center on specific instructional strategies since often

these teachers are entering the classroom with little or no background. I’d like to see us

having good discussions about curriculum standards.

The last section asked mentors about skills and professional development. Responses to

skills required include empathy, patience when waiting for responses, time to read and respond

to postings, the ability to stay positive, and resources. One mentor commented, “I found that

at times the mentees were my support.” Numerous mentors commented about the frustration

of posting and waiting for replies or posting and receiving no response, one mentor summed it

up by stating, “There were times that I felt like I was posting to air and no one was listening.”

Several mentors again commented about expectations, guidelines, or quick guides for

participation, and getting lost in the site.

Mentors were asked about professional development needs, specifically they were

asked: What skills do you think are most important to be an effective online mentor? What

areas of professional development would you like to see offered to mentors by eMSS.

Responses included specific strategies for working with students with autism, addressing

curriculum for students with significant disabilities and strategies to use with low incidence

disabilities, co-teaching strategies, assistive technology, and suggestions for how to “talk in an

online environment.” Again, numerous comments about the comprehensiveness of the

professional development provided, the mentoring institute, and the ongoing help and support

from the NTC staff were often mentioned.

178
Frequency of Interactions

According to research, effective professional development opportunities for teachers

involve active learning and collaboration, and reflection, and are congruent with teachers’ daily

lives (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Garet et al., 2001). Engagement, defined by the

number of posts to the eMSS site, was examined. The ease of communication has been

presented as an advantage to online mentoring environments, which allows participants to log

in from multiple locations at a convenient time and place. Rourke et al. (2001) stated that

“online support can be structured to encourage frequent, focused interactions among

participants, while providing for temporal and spatial independence” (p. 10). Furthermore,

Brufee (1993) stated that networked technology can provide an opportunity for novices to have

continued and frequent contact with mentors and each other, thereby creating a sense of

community and shared learning which can help combat new teachers’ isolation (Hawkes &

Rosmiszowski, 2001). During the 5-month pilot program, mentors posted 1,277 messages at

the site and mentees posted 465. Interestingly, Gareis and Nussbaum-Beach’s examination of a

synchronous mentoring site lasting for one academic year, revealed a total of 526 postings

between 11 mentors and 80 mentees. This examination’s duration of a 5-month period and

during that time almost four times the amount of posts were made. Previous studies involving

math and science teachers revealed that participants rated the influence of their participation

in the Content Forums section of the eMSS site more highly than their participation in Our Place

(McAleer, 2008). However, Pasley and Madden (2007) documented that mentees

overwhelmingly post in Our Place more than any other discussion area.

179
 In this examination, mentors participated in all portions of the site more frequently than

mentees, in fact mentors accounted for 66% of the total postings at the site and mentees

accounted for 24% of the postings. Gareis and Nussbaum-Beach (2007) reported similar results

with 71% of the postings made by mentors and 29% written by novices in their 10-month

examination. One reason for the discrepancy is that mentors made sure to encourage or thank

every mentee who submitted a message. Additionally, mentors frequently asked questions to

be answered by anyone to keep the discussion moving. Bice (2005) reported that participants

posted 9,307 messages during the academic year within the eMSS site suggesting that

participation rates may be higher in the eMSS site than other e-mentoring sites involving

teachers.

Mentee participation declined towards the end of the pilot program in all areas of the

site. While this phenomenon was not examined during this study, participation by week and

month should be examined in further studies. One mentee reflecting at the end of the year

stated that she was not able to participate as much as she had hoped because although she

started out participating frequently, the end of the year paperwork prohibited her from

participating as much as she would have liked to. Gareis and Nussbaum-Beach (2007) also

found that “participation began to drop in March, with very little activity occurring during the

final months of the school year” (p. 238). Among mentors and mentees there was huge

variability in the amount of postings with mentors ranging from 0 to 161 postings and mentees

ranging from 0 to 27.

Mentors and mentees displayed varying patterns of participation within the site.

Mentees sought out the one-on-one interaction with mentors and predominantly posted in Our

180
Place. In fact, 20 of the 50 mentees or 40% only posted in Our Place and in no other area of the

site. Only five mentees posted more in all other areas of the website combined than in Our

Place. Interaction patterns also revealed that seven mentees never posted in Our Place and

two mentees never posted at the site. Conversely, mentors were more likely to post in other

areas of the site more frequently. Nine mentors posted in areas other than Our Place more

often and were much more likely to interact in multiple sections of the site than mentees.

Mentors interacted with each other sharing curriculum resources, websites, processes, and

insights into students. Mentors readily asked others for help and assistance and received

multiple replies to these requests. Findings from studies examining face-to-face mentoring

programs document that beginning special educators prefer mentors who are special educators

(Boyer, 1999; Whitaker, 2000b; White, 1995) who teach students with similar disabilities and

teach in the same grade level (Boyer, 1999). Furthermore, White and Mason (2006) found that

beginning special educators did not seek help in modifying instruction if their mentors did not

teach students with similar disabilities and they did not ask for help with preparing lessons and

interpreting assessment data if their mentors did not teach similar age groups.

Postings in the areas of the site dealing with specific disability areas were predominantly

made by mentors and mentee postings were minimal. For example, only one mentee posted in

the emotional disability section which contained 15 mentor postings and one mentee posted in

the mild/moderate section twice. In these areas, mentors discussed a variety of topics

including: modifications and accommodations, tensions between general and special education

teachers, assigning homework, specific instructional strategies, and numerous resources were

shared. Within the significant disabilities section, only two mentees responded throughout the

181
forum. Mentors especially enjoyed conversing in the Early Childhood section of the site where

they mainly conversed about specific curriculum used, forms of assessments, implementation

of Response to Intervention (RtI), and shared websites. In this area mentors accounted for 161

of the 235 total postings. Facilitator participation was also high in this forum with 47 posts

made by NTC staff. NTC staff began discussion threads in this area and also posted summaries

of postings for each thread. Interestingly, after six exchanges between mentors about RtI, a

mentee posted stating that she had never heard of RtI and asked the mentors to explain it to

her.

Content analysis was conducted within three main frameworks: How People Learn;

InTASC, and alignment with beginning teachers’ needs and concerns based on a literature

review. Summaries of frequency and content of interactions for each area are shared below.

Content Related to Beginning Teachers Needs and Concerns

Based on a literature review completed by Billingsley et al (2009), four main areas of

beginning special educators’ needs and concerns were documented. These areas included:

interacting with adults including parents, administration, other teachers, and instructional

assistants. The second area is pedagogical concerns, which include curriculum and teaching,

assessment, obtaining materials, and student behavior. Managing roles is the third major area

and includes caseloads, time and scheduling, and role confusion. Finally, emotional and

psychological concerns are outlined as a major area of concern. Conversations occurring within

Our Place, the area designed for small group interactions between beginning special educators

and their mentors, were coded for these main topical areas. Mentors and mentees exchanged

2,532 remarks containing these outlined concerns. Examples are shared below.

182
 Conversations about inclusion, collaboration, and interacting with adults accounted for

683 postings. Collaborative teaching, especially the difficulty with collaborative relationships

with general education teachers, was the focus of many conversations. Mentors and mentees

discussed models of collaboration, special education teachers being relegated to the back table

to work with “their kids,” and special educators being “down talked” daily by general

educators. One mentee stated, “I finally have my own classroom instead of being in an

inclusion classroom all day,” stating she was given her own classroom because her students

were not getting the individual attention they needed. She described the collaborative

environment as “being given a small table at the back of the room and the general education

teacher wanting her to just sit at the back table all day long no matter what their IEP said.” The

general education setting was described as a noisy, chaotic environment that required her to

talk louder to her groups resulting in the general education teaching “making comments about

how my group did not belong in a regular education setting.”

Other areas of interacting with adults included difficulty with instructional assistants.

Many mentees discussed that they didn’t feel comfortable “bossing” the aide. Another mentee

described her aide not taking instruction from her, exclaiming she could not wait “until this

horrible year is over!” Most mentors encouraged mentees to develop a schedule for the

instructional assistant and let the schedule guide the instructional assistant’s day rather than

the special educator having to give directions throughout the day. Interactions with parents

were also mentioned by several mentees as an area of concern. These concerns ranged from a

lack of care, students appearing at school in “unkempt conditions,” lack of parental

involvement, and lack of reinforcement at home both academically and behaviorally. Mentors

183
were encouraging and offered suggestions to mentees to use newsletters, phone calls, have

students invite their parents to meetings at school, especially IEP meetings, and giving students

extra credit points for parental participation. Many mentors also suggested to their mentees

that they provide parents with a list of activities and resources during the summer.

Conversations occurring within Our Place concerning administration were generally

positive with many referring to their administrators as great supporters. One mentee stated, “I

realize that I am really blessed because my principal and co-teachers are very supportive.”

However, several mentees described challenging situations working with or relating to special

education administration. One mentee stated:

My challenges have been to understand the rules and laws in the state of Nevada. My

supervisor is in another town and I am in an outlying town to the school, so I kind of do

what I know, which isn’t always kosher with her. I do what I understand and what I have

studied in another state which doesn’t always translate to Nevada.

Student behavior, a pedagogical concern frequently mentioned in the literature as an

area of difficulty for beginning teachers, was frequently conversed about in this forum. In

addition to a forum entitled, Managing Student Behaviors, many conversations in Our Place

focused on student behaviors. In fact, one mentoring partnership focused predominantly on

managing behaviors in the classroom and many other mentees described specific situations

asking for assistance from their mentors. Most mentors stated that behavior management had

been their biggest concern when they first began teaching. Total postings coded as Pedagogical

concerns were 774.

184
 Emotional and psychological concerns of beginning special educators are well

documented in existing literature and have been cited as the primary interactions that occur

between mentors and mentees; however, within the current study this category accounted for

the least data being coded within the overall category of Beginning Teachers Needs and

Concerns. Only 284 messages were coded to this area. Perhaps mentee participants relied on

their in school mentors and colleagues to discuss this area.

Managing roles is another common concern expressed by beginning teachers. Mentees

struggled with teaching students from multiple grade levels and with a multitude of disabilities.

Mentees reportedly struggled with the time commitments required for teaching multiple grade

levels, multiple subjects, grading, lesson planning, and multiple meetings. Maria, a mentee,

described a variety of meetings that she was required to attend weekly. She stated that each

week she met with general education teachers, special education teachers, and attended

mandatory professional development due to their school currently being under Memorandum

of Understanding Status due to low test scores. Her mentor shared a variety of resources that

she had created with her mentees to keep abreast of lesson plans, tests, and other things that

were occurring in the general education classroom daily and weekly. Managing roles accounted

for the majority of postings within the broader category of Beginning Teachers’ Needs and

Concerns.

Content Based on How People Learn

The How People Learn (HPL) framework, which establishes principles of effective

learning environments, was also used to examine the content of discourse occurring in Our

Place. Specifically, learning centered, assessment centered, knowledge centered, and

185
community centered principles that guide knowledge development were utilized. The HPL

framework involves groups of individual’s collectively and singularly applying learning to

relevant situations. Complex problem solving is a socially-mediated process in which persons

test solutions through structured learning opportunities. Just as effective learning

environments in the school setting focus on academic learning of students, effective learning

environments for beginning teachers are built on testing, evaluating, and refining instruction

and practice. Research suggests that online learning happens through active collaboration in

online dialogue (Gunawardena et al., 1997; Kanuka & Anderson, 1998). The eMSS site proved

to be conducive for conversations between mentors and mentees surrounding HPL.

Learning centered environments. Learning centered environments “pay careful

attention to the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs that learners bring to the educational

setting” (NRC, 2000, p. 133) as well as learning styles, attitudes, and unique characteristics of

the learner. A learner centered environment uses learners’ capabilities as a starting point for

learning, and focuses on their prior experiences, preconceptions, current knowledge, skills,

attitudes, and cultural perspectives (NRC, 2000). The learner centered framework also accounts

for differences in educational backgrounds and experience of the mentees. All mentors asked

mentees to describe their classroom makeup including categories of disabilities served, ages,

ethnic and cultural backgrounds early in the mentoring relationship. The information provided

was used to frame the remainder of the conversations, which probably accounts for this area

having the largest number of postings.

Knowledge. In order for learners to acquire requisite knowledge and skills and develop

an understanding for the discipline of teaching, critical examination of existing conceptions

186
through integration and sense making as new information is accumulated must be facilitated.

Based on learner driven interactive environments, activities structured around exploring,

explaining, extending, and evaluating progress facilitates the relevant use of knowledge to

make sense of what is being learned (NRC, 2000) rather than focusing on memorization.

Knowledge centered environments are focused on learning for understanding and organizing

knowledge around key concepts, not memorizing facts. A strong content focus is required for a

knowledge centered environment. Additionally, a strong focus on pedagogical content

knowledge promotes learning of that content (NRC, 2000). This category had the second

largest number of postings within the HPL framework accounting for 818 postings.

Assessment. Assessment centered environments, which include formative and

summative forms of assessment, “provide opportunities for feedback and revision” (NRC, 2000,

p. 140) in which feedback is an essential component. The learner makes his or her thinking

visible so understanding can be refined as needed. In addition to all mentees completing

self-assessments, a great deal of conversations also centered on assessments. There were 587

postings in this area. Mentors and mentees discussed state assessments as well as formative

assessments and assessments used for IEP goal documentation and planning. Resources, such

as list of assessments used, were shared amongst mentors and mentees.

Community-based environments. Community based environments are focused on

shared learning within and through a community of learners with consideration of contextual

factors. Communication and collaboration influence the learner’s understanding and

construction of knowledge and active learning involves using ideas by writing and talking about

them and applying these ideas to complex problems requiring the integration of many ideas

187
and perspectives to promote deeper learning and reflection. The structure of the site created

an advanced organizer for sharing ideas amongst its members; however, most mentees did not

discuss implementation of these ideas accounting for the least amount of interactions being

coded to this area. The concept of adaptive expertise was observed within the site. Mentees,

through their interactions with mentors, saw how expert learners approached and encountered

tasks’ thus modeling and demonstrating their approaches to tasks and providing feedback to

learners as they approach tasks.

Theoretical frameworks provide a powerful lens through which to make sense of

everyday experiences and observations; providing a way to organize and explain that

which might otherwise appear mystifying or without reason. By providing this

framework for understanding, such theories also then provide a framework for

developing and implementing strategies to direct and manage our experiences

(Woodard & Hinchliffe, 2002).

In addition to looking specifically at the discourse, the structure of the eMSS site is

learner centered offering mentors and mentees choice of subject matter and the ability to

create a discussion area surrounding a topic or concern of the learner’s choice. Also,

participants are given a variety of topics for possible interaction allowing them to test their

preconceptions and integrate new knowledge and information in a safe, supportive

environment. Through learner driven methods, the environment offered assistance in

developing knowledge while assisting the learner in understanding the material of teaching

within their particular context. The eMSS environment is also assessment centered with

188
mentors and mentees completing self-assessments to determine their unique learning needs.

Content specialists and facilitators review the self-assessments with each mentee.

The focus of the site is on a community of learners sharing knowledge, skills, and values

while simultaneously building new knowledge, skills, and dispositions within a safe, nurturing,

and caring environment. Mentors and mentees interact within a larger community rather than

learning in isolation which is how new teacher learning frequently occurs. Within the site,

mentors and mentees take control of their own learning by defining learning goals and

monitoring their progress in achieving them.

Based on content analysis of interactions occurring between special education mentors

and their mentees in an online mentoring environment using the HPL framework, specifically

the Learning to Teach in Community, evidence was found for each area. Professional

development literature tells us that teachers need learning opportunities that are connected to

the work of students, related to teaching and learning of subject matter, organized around real

problems of practice, and sustained over time by conversation and coaching (Darling-Hammond

& McLaughlin, 1996; Little, 1993). This site offered that environment.

InTASC Standards

Feiman-Nemser et al. (1999) stated that we must provide the conditions, support, and

guidance to help construct a professional, standards-based practice in the context of teaching

in order to promote teacher development. The Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support

Consortium (InTASC) standards outline what teachers should know and be able to do to help

students reach the goal of being college and career ready. These standards, designed to

articulate what effective teaching and learning looks like, are intended as professional practice

189
standards. One goal is set as the standard for performance that looks different dependent on

the teacher’s developmental stage, which ranges from preparation to expert (CCSSO, 2010,

July). These standards were also used to code discourse found in the site.

Support for all 10 standards was found within the eMSS site. Standards focused on

learning environments, professional learning and ethical practice, and leadership and

collaboration received the most support. Several standards were difficult to document through

online discourse because they predominantly focus on implementation. For instance, the

standard Content Knowledge requires teachers to “create learning experiences that make

aspects of the discipline accessible and meaningful to learners to assure mastery of the

content” (CSCCO, 2010, p. 13). While multiple interactions between mentor and mentee

focused on content, the researcher was not able to code many strands because demonstration

was required. Likewise the Assessment standard required demonstration of using assessments

appropriately and was difficult to document solely through online discourse. Thus, frequency

variability among strands was primarily related to the lack of opportunity for direct observation

to document implementation in specific standards.

Study Limitations

There are several limitations in this study. First, this was a relatively small sample size

for quantitative research, although sufficient for qualitative analyses. The variability in the

frequency of postings across mentors and mentees may have affected measures of central

tendency. Another limitation was the relatively short duration of the pilot program although

the participants were very active compared to other studies. Additionally, the pilot period

began in February and mentee participation declined sharply towards the end of the school

190
year, so studies of a full academic year may produce different results. Mentees involved in this

study were presumed to have school-based mentors and information was not available about

these mentoring relationships so the effects of other mentoring relationships may have

influenced the findings. Since the participants were involved in a specific e-mentoring program

and from two specific states (Louisiana and Nevada) caution must be exercised in generalizing

these findings to other electronic mentoring contexts. Detailed descriptions of the site and the

participants are provided to assist the reader in determining if the findings can be applied to

their settings and populations.

Another limitation is related to the new survey instrument, which could be expanded

and studied for further validity and reliability analyses. Expansions might include: participant

demographics, information about other mentoring support, questions based on the three

frameworks used for discourse coding, and further questions about e-mentoring. In addition,

archiving survey responses by individual level would also permit comparisons between

individuals’ survey results (such as change over time) and the content of their online dialogue

with mentors. This would permit individual level analyses, with attention to mentee

characteristics and perceived needs with specific mentor supports, for further validation of the

e-mentoring process.

Focusing on the number of postings has drawbacks such as participants may make

frequent postings, but these postings may be short and lack reflection. Likewise, participants

may post infrequently, but the posts may be in-depth and highly reflective in nature.

Numerous researchers have relied on word count by interaction and area to account for these

differences. Word count analysis was not summarized in this study and remains an area for

191
future examination. Also, many mentors stated that they sent mentees private messages that

are not included in the content or frequency analysis and cannot be analyzed. Several mentors

and mentees commented about phone calls that occurred between mentor and mentee. Those

requests do indicate that mentees were turning to their mentors for assistance with areas of

significant concern. Again, this communication was not accounted for in either frequency or

content analyses.

As documented in other studies, there were probably participants visiting the site

reading messages posted by others, but not corresponding themselves. One mentor, after

several threads with no responses from mentees, created a thread entitled, “I sure would like

to hear from you.” Interestingly, after a period of inactivity, two mentees immediately

responded to this thread implying that they may have been reading the postings and

participating in the site throughout, but did not respond until specifically asked to do so. Klecka

et al. (2004) reported that beginning teachers may be more likely to start as “peripheral

participants” (or lurkers) and that many use this opportunity to learn the norms of the online

environment. Given the short duration of this study, the phenomena of lurkers may have

affected the interactions occurring at this site (e.g., number of mentor postings). Participants

were not questioned about time spent online reading others postings, but not responding

themselves. This question could be added to the postsurvey to gather self-reported measures

of peripheral participation or to follow-up interviews. Thus, the phenomena of lurking could be

investigated to explore what mentees learn from observing and how to engage them in online

dialogue. Bice (2005), in his examination of the eMSS site, reported that numerous participants

stated that they read threads and responses posted by others, but they did not respond. In

192
interviews, participants also reported reading ideas in one section of the site, but posting about

it in another discussion area at the site. In fact, one respondent reported reading

approximately 1,100 messages, but she responded infrequently. The lurker phenomenon is an

important issue with online learning. Bice (2005), using interview data, documented the high

occurrence of lurking behavior in the eMSS site with math and science teachers.

This study was completed by a single researcher, which is a limitation for qualitative

research. The researcher was previously involved with beginning teacher mentoring, peer

coaching, and was a special education teacher; therefore, it is impossible to divorce oneself

from the past experiences, beliefs, and values. Bogden and Biklen (2007) state that the

researcher must acknowledge this reality to address this limitation. A field journal was

maintained during the study containing notes during interpretation of results. Guba’s Model of

Trustworthiness of Qualitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) emphasizes the importance of

neutrality or ensuring that the findings are based on information provided by the participants,

not other biases, motivations or perspectives. To check the trustworthiness of the study,

second coders were used in this study and high levels of interrater reliability were found.

Another challenge was the use of professional standards for coding because they are

integrated and difficult to separate into discrete codes. For example, the standards presented

knowledge as integrated along a continuum. This caused several of the standards within the

InTASC frameworks to be grouped together. In addition, some of the standards are based on

demonstration of teacher competencies and cannot be observed in online discourse; therefore

these standards were not coded as frequently as other standards. In addition, the InTASC

standards are based on the HPL framework and similar grouping was documented within this

193
area as was the lack of implementation. Furthermore, the rubrics were created by the

researcher and this was the first time they were used. Additional studies using the coding

system and other measures (such as direct observation) are desirable.

Desimone (2009) stated that researchers need to account for the relationships that exist

among the core components of professional development, teacher knowledge and beliefs,

classroom practice, and student achievement outcomes. The researcher acknowledges that

longer-term program goals such as professional growth, teacher retention, and improved

student achievement remain the intended program outcomes by which the efficacy of online

mentoring can ultimately be evaluated (Gareis & Nussbaum-Beach, 2007). Sindelar et al. (2004)

further stated that we need to identify factors that support special educators’ implementation

of knowledge they acquire in professional development. This information could be gathered

through longitudinal studies and the use of classroom observations. This study lacks

observations to determine teachers’ implementation of strategies and standards within the

classroom environment. Longitudinal studies can help illuminate whether e-mentoring among

the same mentors and protégés is sustainable over time (Smith & Israel, 2010) as well as the

outcomes of such programs. Additionally, a survey question inquiring about intent to remain

should be considered for inclusion in the postsurvey.

Implications for Practice

Based on this examination, it was evident that both experienced and novice special

educators enjoyed communicating, sharing resources, and gaining knowledge from one another

in an online environment. School systems may consider creating online environments for

teachers to converse and share resources and materials. E-mentoring can be viewed as a

194
complement to face-to-face mentoring, therefore school systems could implement e-mentoring

amongst their teachers to create a community in which educators can communicate and share

resources and information, allowing teachers with similar student populations to interact online

when geography does not allow them to do so in person. In their literature review, Ehrich,

Hansford, and Tennent (2004) concluded that the nature of mentoring support desired by

novices was wide ranging including emotional support, how to manage their workload,

minimize administrative tasks such as paperwork, work effectively with general education

teachers, deal with scheduling, and receive instructional support. These wide ranging needs

were documented in this study.

Professional development literature states that teachers involved in one day training

with no follow up do not usually implement the content of the training. Teachers are busy

individuals and when they return to their classrooms after training, the materials often are left

on their desk or put in a file cabinet rather than implemented. School systems and professional

development providers could create online follow up in which participants are asked to share

their implementation of the training, share resources created, ask questions of other individuals

that participated in the training, and continue the learning process while increasing

accountability. Studies in content areas, specifically math and reading, have begun to look at

positive student outcomes as a result of teachers’ professional development, and online

environments could be a meaningful way to promote implementation and sustain learning.

Some schools, especially those in rural areas, only have one special education teacher

serving the school or with smaller schools there may be only one special educator teaching a

particular content area. Forms of online communication with other special educators on a

195
routine basis may be beneficial to these special educators, thereby reducing the isolation

reported while creating opportunities to collaborate amongst teachers. Mentors and mentees

both discussed difficult collaborative relationships within this study; perhaps e-mentoring with

both a general and special educator assisting the novice teacher may prove beneficial for all

parties involved. This environment may lead to increased knowledge and understanding.

Future Studies

While this study has added to existing literature by providing a descriptive study of an

electronic mentoring site for beginning special educators, there are many unanswered

questions and areas for future study. Additionally, future studies could link survey responses to

participation in the online environment to expand understanding of the relationship between

the e-mentoring experiences and perceived growth. Studies of this nature were identified in

the initial literature review as lacking. Bay and Parker-Katz (2009) speculated that due to the

diverse nature of special education including students with varying disabilities, age levels,

abilities, and the various instructional models that must be enacted to meet the needs of these

students that support likely needs to vary in relation to what novices actually face. The ability

to match survey responses with participants would allow an examination of this issue and

further capture characteristics of mentoring pairs.

Effective mentoring programs aim to improve knowledge, skills, and dispositions that

will subsequently impact student achievement. While the measurement of student

achievement was beyond the scope of this study, establishing the effectiveness of eMSS

through measurements of changes in student achievement would add to the understanding of

the impact of participation in a mentoring program for beginning educators. Gentry, Denton,

196
and Kurz (2008) call for research that uses more empirical measures to confirm teacher’s self-

reported improvements as a result of technology-based mentoring. They also point out that

the ultimate test of all forms of teacher mentoring will be measurable improvements in

outcomes of their students.

Future research could also focus on using observational data collected from the

mentees’ classrooms to assist in determining changes and perceived changes. This would also

allow for examination of learner outcomes and offer a more objective measure of growth in

knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The program occurring during the 2010-2011 academic year

is conducting observations via interactive video capability, so this type of study will be possible.

Gareis and Nussbaum-Beach (2007) suggest that further research could identify more

clearly the differences between the communication that happens in online mentoring and in

face-to-face mentoring. It would also be instructive to compare the nature of online mentoring

and face to face mentoring. To begin examining the differences between the two, surveys and

interview questions could be created to query participants about the differences between the

two. In this study, it was speculated that the low percentage of postings for emotional and

psychological concerns may have been because mentees relied on their in-school mentors for

this. This could be examined directly through surveys, interviews, and observations.

Additionally, e-mentoring represents a different context and medium from traditional

mentoring, therefore it is important to understand what measures can be directly applied from

FtF mentoring and what must be created (Gareis & Nussbaum-Beach, 2007).

197
 Summary

This descriptive study provides information about the participants in a new e-mentoring

program for special educators. Results indicate that special education mentors and mentees

conversed about substantive issues during the pilot e-mentoring program. Survey results and

qualitative data both revealed that mentors and mentees reported positive results from their

participation in this program. This study analyzed online discourse between experienced and

novice special educators for elements of HPL, InTASC standards, and Needs and Concerns of

Beginning Special Educators and findings revealed numerous conversations around each area.

Goals of eMSS program include meeting the immediate needs of beginning special educators

while also improving content and pedagogical knowledge through reflection and collaboration.

Through qualitative findings, this study revealed that mentees’ immediate needs were met

through acquiring resources, strategies, and ideas to enhance instruction and teach students

with disabilities.

The findings from this study were similar to other studies of the eMSS program with

math and science teachers; specifically that experienced teachers acting as mentors submitted

more messages to all discussion areas at the site than mentees (Bice, 2005). Bice (2005)

reported that 96 mentees posted 3,048 messaged compared to 84 mentors posting 6,259

messages in the course of an academic year. Gareis and Nussbaum-Beach (2007) found similar

results with general education teachers and their mentees.

Costello-Dougherty (2008) predicted that “teachers in growing numbers are likely to

continue to reach through their computers to offer one another a helping hand. And when

they connect, they’ll start factories of new ideas that, ultimately, should have a great impact on

198
learning” (p. 2). The eMSS site showed that what Costello-Dougherty predicted is coming to

fruition.

199
List of References

200
 LIST OF REFERENCES

Achinstein, B., & Villar, A. (2002, April). The politics of the mentoring process for beginning

teachers: Tensions and negotiations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Association, New Orleans.

Adams, B. L. (2010, May). Connecting mentoring to student achievement in Alaska: Results and

policy implications. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Allen, T. D. (2007). Mentoring relationships from the perspective of the mentor. In B. R. Ragins

& K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice

(pp. 123-147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006). The relationship between formal mentoring program

characteristics and perceived program effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 59, 125-153.

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., O’Brien, J., & Lentz, E. (2008). The state of mentoring research: A

qualitative review of current research method and future research implications, Journal

of Vocational Behavior. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2007.08.004

Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative

research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.

485-499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

201
American Federation of Teachers. (2009). Beginning teacher induction: The essential bridge.

Retrieved on March 11, 2009, from

http://www.aft.org/edissues/downloads/New_Teach_Induct.pdf

Andrews, B. D., & Quinn, R. J. (2005). The effects of mentoring on first-year teachers’

perceptions of support received. Clearing House, 78, 110-116.

Angeli, C., Bonk, C., & Hara, N. (1998). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied

educational psychology course. CRLT Technical Report, No. 2-98. Retrieved from

http://crlt.indiana.edu/publications/crlt98-2.pdf

Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 3-42.

Arrends, R. I., & Ragazio-DiGilio, A. J. (2000, July). Beginning teacher induction: Research and

examples of contemporary practice. Paper presented to the Japan-United States Teacher

Education Consortium (JUSTEC), Tokyo, Japan. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service

No. ED450074).

Athanses, S., & Achinstein, B. (2003). Focusing new teachers on individual and low performing

students: The centrality of formative assessment in the mentor’s repertoire of practice.

Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1486-1520.

Athanses, S. Z., Abrams, J., Jack, G., Johnson, V., Kwock, S., McCurdy, J., Riley, S., & Toraro, S.

(2008). Curriculum for mentor development: Problems and promise in the work of new

teacher induction leaders. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(6), 743-770.

Auton, S., Berry, D., Mullen, S., & Cochran, R. (2002). Induction program for beginners benefits

veteran teachers too. Journal of Staff Development, 23(4).

202
Babione, C., & Shea, C. (2005). Special education mentoring within the context of rural schools.

Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(2), 1-9.

Ball, D. H., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Towards a

practice based theory of professional education. In F. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond

(Eds.), Teaching and the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-32).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Ball, D. H., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1989). The subject matter preparation of teachers (Issue Paper

89-4). East Lansing: National Center of Research on Teacher Learning. Michigan State

University.

Barbera, E. (2006). Collaborative knowledge construction in highly structured virtual

discussions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(1), 1-12.

Barnett, S., & Koslowski, B. (2002). Adaptive expertise: Effects of type of experience and level of

understanding it generates. Thinking and Reasoning, 8(4), 237-267.

Bartlett, L., Johnson, L., Lopez, D., Sugarman, E., & Wilson, M. (2005). Teacher induction in the

midwest: Illinois, Wisconsin, and Ohio: Implications for state policy. NTC Executive

Summary. Santa Cruz, CA: The New Teacher Center.

Bartell, C. (1995). Shaping teaching induction policy in California. Teacher Education Quarterly,

22(4), 27-43.

Baugh, S. G., & Scandura, T. A. (1999). The effect of multiple mentors on protégé attitudes

toward the work setting. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 503-522.

Bay, M., & Parker-Katz, M. (2009). Perspectives on induction of beginning special educators,

Teacher Education and Special Education, 32(1), 17-32. doi: 10.117/0888840640830871

203
Bell, C. R. (1996). Managers as mentors. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Bender, T. (2003). Discussion-based online teaching to enhance student learning: Theory,

practice, and assessment. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and

implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.

Berge, A. L., & Collins. M. (Eds.). (1998). Wired together: The online classroom in K-12: Vol. 3.

Teacher education and professional development. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Berliner, D.C. (1988). Implications of studies on expertise in pedagogy for teacher education

and evaluation. In New directions for teacher assessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational

Testing Service.

Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise: The wonders of exemplary performance. In J. N. Maigieri & C.

Collins Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students. Fort Worth, TX:

Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Retrieved on February 16, 2011, from

http://courses.ed.asu.edu/berliner/readings/expertise.htm

Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about learning from expert teachers. International Journal of

Educational Research, 35(5), 463-482.

Berliner, D. C. (2004). Describing the behavior and documenting the accomplishments of expert

teachers. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24(3), 200-212.

Berry, B. (2003). What it means to be a ‘highly qualified teacher.’ Southeast Center for Teacher

Quality. Retrieved on January 18, 2010 from http:

www.teachingquality.org/resources/pdfs/definingHQ.pdf

204
Berry, B., Hoke, M., & Hirsch, E. (2004). The search for highly specialized teachers. Phi Delta

Kappan, 85(9), 684-689.

Bice, L. R. (2005). Construction of knowledge about teaching practice and educating students

from diverse cultures in an online induction program. Dissertation Abstracts

International, ATT 3319930.

Bierema, L. L., & Hill, J. R. (2005). Virtual mentoring and HRD. Advances in Developing Human

Resources, 7(4), 556-568.

Bierema, L. L., & Merriam, S. B. (2002). E-mentoring: Using computer mediated communication

to enhance the mentoring process. Innovative Higher Education, 26(3), 211-227.

Billingsley, B. (2007). Recognizing and supporting the critical roles of teachers in special

education leadership. Exceptionality, 15, 163-176.

Billingsley, B. S. (1993). Teacher retention and attrition in special and general education: A

critical review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 27(2), 137-174. doi:

10.1177/002246699302700202

Billingsley, B. S. (2003). Special education teacher retention and attrition. A critical analysis of

the literature (COPSSE Document No. RS-2). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center

on Personnel Studies in Special Education.

Billingsley, B. S. (2004a). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of

the research literature. Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 39-55.

Billingsley, B. S. (2004b). Promoting teacher quality and retention in special education. Journal

of Learning Disabilities, 37(5), 370-376. doi: 10.1177/00222194040370050101

205
Billingsley, B. S. (2005). Cultivating, and keeping committed special education teachers.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Billingsley, B. S., Carlson, E., & Klein, S. (2004). The working conditions and induction support of

early career special educators. Exceptional Children, 70(3), 333-347.

Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1991). General education teacher’s interest in special

education teaching: Deterrents, incentives and training needs. Teacher

Education and Special Education, 14, 162-168.

Billingsley, B. S., Griffin, C. C., Smith, S. J., Kamman, M., & Israel, M. (2009). A review of

teacher induction in special education: Research, practice, and technology

solutions. (NCIPP doc. No. RS-1). Retrieved November 1, 2009, from University

of Florida, National Center to Inform Policy and Practice in Special Education

Professional Development website http://ncipp.org/reports/rs_1./pdf

Billingsley, B. S., & McLeskey, J. (2004). Critical issues in special education teacher supply and

demand: Overview, The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 2-4.

Billingsley, B. S., & Tomchin, E.M. (1992). Four beginning LD teachers: What their

experiences suggest for trainer and employers. Learning Disabilities Research

and Practice, 7(2), 104-112.

Birman, B., Le Floch, K. C., Klekotka, A., Ludwig, M., Taylor, J., Walters, K., et al. (2007). State

and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Vol. 2. Teacher quality under

NCLB: Interim report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education; Office of Planning,

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.

206
Bishop, A. G., Brownell, M. T., Klingner, J. K., Leko, M. M., & Galman, S. A. (2009).

Understanding the influence of personal attributes, preparation, and school

environment on beginning special education teacher’s classroom practices during

reading instruction. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Blasé, J. J. (1985). The socialization of teachers: An ethnographic study of factors

contributing to the rationalization of the teacher’s instructional perspective.

Urban Education, 23(3), 235-256.

Boe, E. E. (1990, November). Comprehensive retention and attrition model (CRAM). Paper

presented at the Research Forum on Differing Approaches to Defining and Measuring

Personnel Supply and Demand, Washington, DC.

Boe, E. E., Bobbitt, S. A., Cook, L. H., Whitener, S. D., & Weber, A. L. (1997). Why didst thou go?

Predictors of retention, transfer, and attrition of special and general education teachers

from a national perspective. Journal of Special Education, 30(4), 390-411.

Boe, E. E., & Cook, L. H. (2006). The chronic and increasing shortage of fully-certified teachers in

special and general education. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 443-460.

Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., & Sunderland, R. J. (2008). Teacher qualification and turnover: Bivariate

associations with various aspects of teacher preparation, induction, mentoring, extra

support, professional development, and workload factors for early career teachers in

special and general education (Data Analysis Rep. 2008-DAR1). Philadelphia: University

of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, Center for Research and Evaluation in

Social Policy.

207
Boe, E. E., Shin, S., & Cook, L. H. (2007). Does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers

in either special or general education? Journal of Special Education, 41(3), 148-170.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to

theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Boneva, B., Kraut, R., & Frohlich, D. (2001). Using e-mail for personal relationships: The

difference gender makes. The American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 530-549.

Bonnett, C., Wildermuth, B. M., Sonnenwald, D. H. (2006). Interactivity between protégés and

scientists in an electronic mentoring program. Instructional Science 34, 21-61.

Borko, H. (1996). Clinical teacher education: The induction years. In J. Hoffman & S. Edwards

(Eds.) Reality and reform in clinical teacher education, New York: Random House

Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics

instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Education al Research Journal,

26(4), 473-498.

Boudah, D. J., Blair, E., & Mitchell, V. J. (2003). Implementing and sustaining strategies

instruction: Authentic and effective professional development or ‘business as usual’?

Exceptionality, 11, 3-23.

Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Grossman, P., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2007).

Boyer, L. (1999). A qualitative analysis of the impact of mentorships on new special educators’

decisions to remain in the field of special education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.

Boyer, L. (2001). Converting challenge to success: Supporting a new teacher of students with

autism. Journal of Special Education, 35(2), 75-84.

208
Boyer, L., & Gillespie, P. (2000). Keeping the committed: The importance of induction and

support programs for new special educators. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33, 10-15.

Boyer, L., & Lee, C. (2001). Converting challenge to success: Supporting a new teacher of

students with autism. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 75-83.

Boyle, P., & Boice, R. (1998). Systematic mentoring for new faculty teachers and graduate

teaching assistants. Innovations in Higher Education, 22, 157-179.

Bransford, J. D. (2004). Toward the development of a stronger community of educators: New

opportunities made possibly by integrating the learning sciences and technology.

Retrieved on March 10, 2010, from http://www.pt3.org.

Bransford, J. D. (2006, September). Adaptive Expertise: Theory, methods, findings, and

emerging issues. Symposium conducted at the Adaptive Expertise Symposium of SRI

International, Menlo Park, CA.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind,

Experience and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond &

J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 1-39). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass

Bransford, J., Derry, S., Berliner, D., & Hammerness, K., Beckett, K. I. (2005). Theories of learning

and their roles in teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing

teachers for a changing world (pp. 40-87). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klinger, J., Pugach, N., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in

special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195-207.

209
Brill, S., & McCartney, B. (2008). Stopping the revolving door: Increasing teacher retention.

Politics & Policy, 36(5), 750-774. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-1346.2008.00133.x

Britton, E., Paine, L., Pimm, D., & Raizen, S. (Eds.) (2003). Comprehensive teacher induction.

Norwell, MA: Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Britton, E., Paine, L., & Raizen, S. (1999). Middle grades mathematics and science teacher

induction in selected countries: Preliminary findings. Washington, DC: National Center

for Improving Science Education.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.

Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Brownell, M. T., Hirsch, E., & Seo, S. (2004). Meeting the demand for highly qualified special

education teachers during severs shortages. What should policymakers consider?

Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 56-61.

Brownell, M. T., Leko, M. M., Kamman, M., & King, L. (2008). Defining and preparing high

quality teachers in special education: What do we know from the research? In T. Scruggs

& M. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities, Vol. 21.

Personnel preparation (pp. 35-74). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the

authority of knowledge. London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K .S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary

schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 35, 751-781. doi: 10.1177/0013161X99355004

210
Bullough, J. R., & Draper, R. J. (2004). Mentoring and the emotions. Journal of Education for

Teaching, 30(3), 271-288.

Burke, M., & Kraut, R. (2008). Mind your Ps and Qs: The impact of politeness and rudeness in

online communities. ACM CSCW Conference, 2008 on Computer-Supported Cooperative

Work (pp. 281-284). Retrieved on November 14, 2010, from

http://www.thoughtcrumbs.com/publications/328-burke.pdf

Burlew, L. D. (1991). Multiple mentor model: A conceptual framework. Journal of Career

Development, 17(3), 213-221.

Butler, K. (2008, December). Desperately seeking special ed teachers. District Administration.

Retrieved on January 2, 2009, from

http://www.districtadministration.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=1777

Burton, D. (2003). Technology professional development: A case study. Academic Exchange

Quarterly, 7(2), 283-287.

Busch, T. W., Pederson, K., Espin, C. A., & Weissenburger, J. W. (2001). Teaching students with

learning disabilities: Perceptions of a first-year teacher. The Journal of Special Education,

35(2), 92-99.

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge

of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study.

American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499-531.

Carroll, T. G., & Foster, E. (2010). Who will teach? Experience matters. Washington, DC: National

Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

211
Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook

of research on teacher education. New York: Macmillan.

Carter, K. B., & Scruggs, T. E. (2001). Thirty-one students: Reflection on the first-year teacher of

students with mental retardation. The Journal of Special Education, 35(2), 100-104.

Carter, K., & Richardson, V. (1989). A curriculum for an initial-year teaching program.

Elementary School Journal, 89(4), 405-419.

Carver, C. L. & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2009). Using policy to improve teacher induction: Critical

elements and missing pieces. Educational Policy, 23(2), 295-328.

Carver, C. L., & Katz, D. S. (2004). Teaching at the boundary of acceptable practice: What is a

new teacher mentor to do? Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 449-462. doi:

10.1177/0022487104269524

Chan, C. C., & Ho, W. C. (2008). An ecological framework for evaluating relationship-functional

aspects of youth mentoring. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 837-867.

Chi, M. T. C. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of

Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271-315.

Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts’ characteristics. In A. Ericsson, N.

Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and

expert performance (pp. 2130). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Clandinin, J. (2001). Foreword. Talking shop. In C. M. Clark (Ed.), Talking shop. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Clark, C. M. (Ed.) (2001). Talking shop. New York: Teachers College Press

212
Clarke, D., & Hoi lingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947-967.

CoBabe, E. A. (2002, February). Paving the way: An evaluation of new teacher induction in the

U.S. Report for Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning, Denver, CO.

Retrieved from http://www.scientistsineducation.org/PavingtheWay-Emily.PDF

Cochran-Smith. M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review, 61,

279-310.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1995). Mentor and mentoring: Did Homer have it right? In J. Smyth (Ed.)

Critical discourses in teacher development (pp. 175-195). Yorkhouse, Australia.

Cochran-Smith, M., Feiman-Nemser, S., McIntyre, D. J., & Demers, K. E. (Eds.). (2008).

Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts

(3rd ed.) (pp. 231-237). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group and the Association

of Teacher Educators.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, M .K. (2001). Sticks, stones and ideology: The discourse of reform in

teacher education. Educational Researcher, 30(8), 3-15.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationship of knowledge and practice: Teacher

learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-298.

Collison, G., Etbaum, B., Haavind. S., & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning: Effective

strategies for moderators. Madison, Wl: Atwood.

Collinson, V. (1996). Reaching students: Teaches ways of knowing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Conderman, G., & Johnston-Rodriquez, S. (2009). Beginning teachers’ views of their

collaborative roles. Preventing School Failure, 53(4).

213
Conderman, G., & Stephens, J. T. (2000). Reflections from beginning special educators.

Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(1), 16-21.

Costello-Dougherty, M. (2008, August). A match made in cyberspace: The next generation of

teacher will seek virtual support. Edutopia. Retrieved on December 8, 2010, from

http://www.edutopia.org/whats-next-2008-online-mentoring

Coulon, S. C. (1994). The effect of post teaching conferences on the instructional behaviors of

student teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 21(5), 457-473.

Council of Chief State Officers. (2010, July). Model core teaching standards: A resource for state

dialogue. (Draft for Public Comment). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support

Consortium (InTASC). Washington, DC: Author.

Crawford, V. M., & Brophy, S. (2006). Adaptive expertise: Methods, findings, and emerging

issues. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from

http://cti.sri.com/publications/downloads/AESymposiumReportOct06.pdf

Creswell, J. W. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American

Psychologist, 30, 116-127.

Cross, L. H., & Billingsley, B.S. (1994). Testing a model of special educators’ intent to stay in

teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 60(5), 411-419.

Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K.

H. Roberts, & W. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 420-

443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

214
Dalton, S. S. (1994). A program evaluation of support and assessment of beginning teachers: A

responsive-teaching alternative to diagnosis and prescription (ERIC Reproduction No

ED377176). Santa Cruz, CA: National Research Center for Cultural Diversity and Second

Language Learning.

Danielson, C. (2002a). Developing and retaining quality classroom teachers through mentoring.

The Clearinghouse, 75(4), 183-185.

Danielson, C. (2002b). Forward. In S. Villani (Ed.), Mentoring programs for new teachers:

Models of induction and support. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Teaching for high standards: What policymakers need to know

and be able to do. Philadelphia: CPRE Joint Report Services.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational

Leadership, 55(5).

Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Changing conceptions of teaching and teacher development.

Teacher Education Quarterly,

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007, January). A Marshall plan for teaching. What it will really take to

leave no child behind. Retrieved on January 3, 2010, from

http://nctecee.blogspot.com/2007/01/darling-hammond-on-teacher-quality.html

Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., Haselkorn, D., & Fideler, E. (1999). Teacher recruitment,

selection and induction: Policy influences on the supply and quality of teachers. In L.

Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook on

policy and practice (pp. 183-232). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

215
Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond &

J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 1-39). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., & National Academy of Education. (2005). Preparing

teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L., Bullmaster, M. L., & Cobb, V. L. (1995). Rethinking teacher leadership

through professional development schools. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 87-107.

Darling-Hammond, L., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). In L. Darling-Hammond & J.

Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn

and be able to do (pp. 390-441). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (1996). Policies that support professional development

in an era of reform. In M. McLaughlin and I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning: New

policies, new practices (pp. 202-218). New York: Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for

education: The right way to meet the ‘highly qualified teacher challenge.’ Education

Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33), 1-57. Retrieved December 13, 2010, from

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n33/

Davis, B., & Resta, V. (2002). On-line collaboration: Supporting novice teachers as researcher.

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10, 101-117.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A

comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.

216
Davydov, V. V. (1990). Types of generalization in instruction: Logical and psychological problems

in structuring of school curriculum. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics.

Dawson, K., Swain, C., Johnson, N., & Ring, G. (2004). Partnership strategies for systemic

integration of technology in teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and

Teacher Education, 3, 482-495.

Dempsey, I., Arthur-Kelly, M., & Carty, B. (2009). Mentoring early career special education

teachers, Australian Journal of Education, 53(3), 294-305.

Department of Education, Science and Training. (2002). An ethic of care: Effective programs for

beginning teachers. Canberra: Author.

DeJanasz, S. C., Ensher, E. A., & Heun, C. (2008). Virtual relationships and real benefits: Using e-

mentoring to connect business students with practicing managers. Mentoring and

Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16(4), 394-411.

DeJanasz, S. C., & Sullivan, S. E. (2004). title, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 263-283, doi:

Dereshiwsky, M. I. (2003). Believe it. . .or not: A Factor analysis of incoming web course student

perceptions of the online classroom. Paper presented at the Techology, Colleges, and

Community Conference. Retrieved

http://tcc.kcc.jawaii.edu/previous/TCC%202005/dereshiwskypdf

Desimone, L. (2009). Complementary methods for policy research. In D. Plank, G. Sykes, & B.

Schneider (Eds.), AERA handbook on education policy research. Washington, DC:

American Educational Association.

217
DeWert, M. N., Babinski. L. M., & Jones, B. D. (2003). Safe passages: Providing online support to

beginning teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 311-320.

DiRenzo, M. S., Linnehan, F., Shao, P., & Rosenberg, W. O. (2010). A moderated mediation

model of e-mentoring, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 292-305. doi:

10.1016/jvb.2009.10.003

Dobbs, K. (2000). Too much learning.com. Training, 37(2), 10-12.

Dole, S., & Bloom, L. (2009). Online course design: A case study. International Journal of

Scholarship and Learning to Teach, 3(1), 1-11.

Dollase, R.H. (1992). Voices of beginning teachers: Visions and realities. New York: Teacher

College Press.

Doyle, C. S. (1995). Telementoring takes off in California: The Telemation project develops

integrated curriculum. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy,

5(1), 40-45.

Drago-Sevenson, E., & Pinto, K. (2006). School leadership for reducing teacher isolation:

Drawing from the well of human resources. International Journal of Leadership in

Education, 9(2), 129-155.

Driscoll, M. P., (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Eby, L. T. (2007). Understanding relational problems in mentoring: A review and proposed

investment model. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at

work: theory, research, and practice (pp. 323-344). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

218
Eby, L. T., Durley, J., Evans, S. C., & Ragins, B. R. (2008). Mentors’ perceptions of negative

mentoring experiences: Scale development and nomological validation. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 93, 358-373.

Eby, L. T., & McManus, S. (2004). The protégé’s role in negative mentoring experiences. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 65, 255-275.

Eby, L. T., Rhodes, J., & Allen, T. D. (2007). Definition and evolution of mentoring. In T. D. Allen

& L. T. Eby (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach

(pp. 7-20). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Eik-Nes, N. L. (2002). Using e-mail logbooks to facilitate scientific publications. In J. R. Lohmann

& M. L. Corradini (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 eTEE conference (pp. 36-41). Retrieved

December 1, 2010, from http://services.bcpress.com/egi/etechnologies

Ehrich, L., Hansford, B., & Tennent, L. (2004). Formal mentoring programs in education and

other professions: A review of the literature. Educational Administration Quarterly,

40(4), 518-540.

Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice and performance.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Emery, K. A. (1999). Online mentoring: A review of the literature and programs. Retrieved online

December 5, 2010 from www.homestead.com/prosites-ffy/files/onlinementoring.htm

Ensher, E. A., Heun, C., & Blanchard, A. (2003). Online mentoring and computer mediated

communication: New directions and research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 264-

288.

219
Epanchin, B., & Colucci, K. (2002). The professional development school without walls.

Remedial and Special Education, 23, 349-358.

Esposito, M. C., & Lal, S. (2005). Responding to special education teacher shortages in diverse

settings: An accelerated alternative credentialing program. Teacher Education and

Special Education, 28(2), 47-50.

Evertson, C. M., & Smithey, M. W. (2000). Mentoring effects on protégés classroom practice.

Journal of Educational Research, 93(5), 294-304.

Farrar, B. L. (2009). Elements of reflective and non-reflective discourse in an online induction

program for experienced and novice science teachers (Doctoral dissertation).

Featherstone, H. (1996). Teachers helping teachers. Changing Minds Bulletin, 12.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1996). Teacher mentoring: A critical review. Washington: ERIC

Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education (ERIC No. ED397060).

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001a, January/February). Helping novices learn to teach: Lessons from an

exemplar support teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 17-30.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001b). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen

and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Norman, P. J. (2000). Teacher education: From initial preparation to

continuing professional development. Routledge International Companion to Education,

732-755.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Parker, M.B. (1990). Making subject matter part of the conversation or

helping beginning teachers learn to teach (Research Report 90-3). East Lansing, MI:

National Center for Research on Teacher Education, Michigan State University.

220
Feiman-Nemser, S., Parker, M. B., & Zeichner, K. (1993). Are mentor teachers teacher

educators? In D. MyIntyre, H. Hagger, & M. Wilkin (Eds.), Mentoring, perspectives on

school-based teacher education (pp. 147-165). London: Kogan Page.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Remillard, J. (1995). Perspectives on learning to teach. In D. Murray (Ed.),

The teacher educator’s handbook (pp. 63-91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Feiman-Nemser, S., Schwille, S., Carver, C., & Yusko, B. (1999). A conceptual review of literature

on new teacher induction. Washington, DC: National Partnership for Excellence and

Accountability in Teaching.

Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1993). Learning, teaching, and testing for complex

conceptual understanding. In N. Frederiksen & I. Bejar (Eds.), Test theory for a new

generation of tests (pp. 126-146). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press/MIT Press

Fideler, E., & Haselkorn, D. (1999). Learning the ropes: Urban teacher induction practices in the

United States. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers, Inc.

Fletcher, S., & Strong, M. A. (2009). Full-release and site-based mentoring of new elementary

grade teachers: An analysis of changes in student achievement. The New Educator, 5,

329-341.

Fletcher, S., Strong, M., & Villar, A. (2008). An investigation of the effects of variations in

mentor-based induction on the performance of students in California. Teacher College

Record, 110(10), 2271-2289.

Fox, S. M., & Singletary, T. J. (1986). Deduction about supportive induction. Journal of Teacher

Education, 37, 12-15.

221
Frederico, R., & Bowley, J. (1996). The great e-mail debate. Human Resources Magazine, 41, 67-

70.

Frankel, M., & Stowe, P. (1990). New teachers in the job market, 1987 update. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Education.

Frey, T. J. (2009). An analysis of online professional development and outcomes for students

with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 83-96.

Fuller, F. F., & Brown, O. H. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education. 74th

Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, (Pt. II, pp. 25-52). Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of

the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4-10.

Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional

development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Education

Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Garet, M. S., Birman, B. F., Porter, A. C., Desimore, L., Herman, R. & Yoon, K. (1999). Designing

effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower program. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Gareis, C. R. (2005, March). Become a teacher through the Graduate School of Education.

Presented at the 2nd Annual Great Virginia Teach-In, Richmond, VA.

Gareis, C. R., & Nussbaum-Beach, S. (2007). Electronically mentoring to develop accomplished

professional teachers. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 227-246.

222
Garrison, D. R. (2003). Self-directed learning and distance education. In M. Moore & W.

Anderson (Eds.) Handbook of distance education. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research

and practice. London and New York: Routledge Falmer.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment:

Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87-

105.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and

computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance

Education, 13(1), 7-23.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London: Taylor

& Francis.

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

Gehrke, R. S., & Murri, N. (2006). Beginning special educators’ intent to stay in special

education: Why they like it here. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29(3), 179-

190.

Gentry, L. B., Denton, C. A., Kurz, R. (2008). Technologically-based mentoring provided to

teachers: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,

16(3), 339-373.

223
Gersten, R., Keating, T., Yovanoff, P., & Harniss. M. K. (2001). Working in special education:

Factors that enhance special educators’ intent to stay. Exceptional Children, 67(4), 549-

567.

Giacobbe, A. C. (2003). Perceptions of Virginia beginning special educators regarding the

frequency and helpfulness of mentoring activities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

Glazerman, S., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Isenberg, E., Lugo-Gil, J. . . .Ali, M. (2010).

Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Final results from a randomized controlled

study. Mathematical Policy Research, Inc. on behalf of the U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Washington, DC.

Gless, J. (2006). Designing mentoring programs to transform school culture. In B. Achinstein &

S. Z. Athanases (Eds.), Mentors in the making: Developing new leaders for new teachers

(pp. 165-177). New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press.

Gless, J., & Moir, E. (2001). Teacher quality squared. Journal of Staff Development, 22(1), 62.

Gold, Y. (1996). Beginning teacher support: Attrition, mentoring, and induction. In J. Sikula, T.

Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.). Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.) (pp.

548-594). New York: MacMillan.

Goldrick, L. (2009). A teacher development continuum: The role of policy in creating a supportive

pathway into the profession. Santa Cruz, CA: The New Teacher Center.

Goldrick, L. (2011). State policies on new teachers. Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center:

Gillani, B. B. (2003). Learning theories and the design of e-learning environments. Lanham, MD:

University Press of America.

224
Gratch, A. (1998). Beginning teacher and mentor relationships. Journal of Teacher Education,

49(3), 220-228.

Greenwood, C. R., Tapia, Y., Abbott, M., & Walton, C. (2003). A building-based case study of

evidence-based literacy practices: Implementation, reading behavior, and growth in

reading fluency, K-4. The Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 95-110.

Griffin, G. A. (1985). Teacher induction: Research issues. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1),

42-46.

Griffin, G. C. (2010). A summary of research for educational leaders on the induction of

beginning special educators, Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23(1), 14-20.

Griffin, M. L. (2005). Perspectives of mentors and mentees involved in a special education

resident teacher program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North

Dakota, Grand Forks.

Griffin, G. C., Kilgore, K. L., Winn, J. A., Otis-Wilborn, A., Hou, W., & Garvan, C.W. (2009). The

influence of school and classroom context factors on their accomplishments and

problems. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32(1), 45-63.

Griffin, G .C., Winn, J. A., Otis-Wilborn, A., & Kilgore, K.L. (2003). New teacher induction in

special education: Review of the literature. Retrieved December 15, 2010, from the

University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education web site:

http://www.coe.ufl.edu/copsse/docs/RS-5/1/RS-5.pdf

Grimburg, B. (2006, April). The structure of teacher’s online discourses. Paper presented at the

meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

225
Grissmer, D. W., & Kirby, S.N. (1987). Teacher attrition: The uphill climb to staff the nation’s

schools. Santa Monica, CA: AND Corp.

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community.

Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942-1012.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Guarino, C. M., & Santibanez, L., & Daley, G.A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A

review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 173-

208.

Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the

development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of

knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research,

17(4), 397-431.

Gunawardena, C., Plass, J., & Salisbury, M. (2001). Do we really need an online discussion

group? In D. Murphy, R. Walker, & G. Webb (Eds.), Online learning and teaching with

technology: Case studies, experience, and practice (pp. 36-43). London: Kogan Page.

Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and process of teacher change. Educational Researcher,

5(5), 5-12.

Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan,

84(10), 748-750.

226
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M.,

McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-

Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers

should learn and be able to do (pp. 358-389). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design

of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing

teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390-

441). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hannafin, M. J., & Kim, M. C. (2003). In search of a future: A critical analysis of research on web-

based teaching and learning. Instructional Science, 31(4-5), 347-351.

Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2001). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied

educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152.

Harasim, L. (1987). Teaching and learning online: Issues in computer mediated graduate

courses. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16(2), 117-135.

Harasim, L. (1993). Collaborating in cyberspace: Using computer conferences as a group

learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 119-130.

Harris, D. N., & Adams, S. J. (2007). Understanding the level and causes of teacher turnover: A

comparison with other professions. Economics of Education Review, 26, 325-337.

Harris, J. B., & Jones, G. (1999). A descriptive study of telementoring among students, subject

matter experts, and teachers: Message flow and function patterns. Journal of Research

on Computing in Education, 32, 36-53.

227
Harris, J., Rotenberg, L., & O’Bryan, E. (1997). Results from the electronic emissary project:

Telementoring lessons and examples. Denton, TX: Texas Center for Educational

Technology. Available July 14, 2010, online at

http//www.tcet.unt.edu/pubs/em/em01.pdf

Hatano, G. (1997). Learning arithmetic with an abacus. In T. Nunes & P. E. Bryant (Eds.),

Learning and teaching mathematics: An international perspective (pp. 209-231). Hove:

Psychology Press/Erlbaum.

Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. A. H. Stevenson & K. Hakuta

(Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262-272). New York: Freeman.

Hatano, G., & Ouro, (2003). Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from

expertise research. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 26-29.

Hawkes, M., & Romiszowski, A. (2001). Examining the reflective outcomes of asynchronous

computer-mediated communication on inservice teacher development. Journal of

Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 285-308.

Hawkey, K. (1998). Consultative supervision and mentor development: A study of two

mentoring relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(6), 657-670.

Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1998). The essentials of effective professional development: A new

consensus. In L. S. Darling Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), The heart of the matter:

Teaching as a learning profession (pp. 86–124). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

228
Hebert, L., Clift, R., & Wennerdahl, R. (2008). If we build it, will anyone use it? From web-based

resources toward a statewide community of support. In K. McFerrin, R. Weber, R.

Carlson, & D .A. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and

Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 2973-2978). Chesapeake, VA:

Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative

learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 117-136). Berlin, FRG:

Springer-Verlag.

Herrington, A., Herington, J. K., Kervin, L., & Ferry, B. (2006). The design of an online community

of practice for beginning teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher

Education, 6(1). Retrieved December 1, 2010, from

http://www.citejournal.org/vo16/iss1/general/article1.cfm.

Herrington, A., Rowland, G., Herrington, J., & Hearne, D. (2006). The BEST approaches to online

mentoring (AARE, Paper HER06680). Adelaide: Australian Association for Research in

Education.

Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession:

what would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-15.

Higgins, M. C., (2000). The more, the merrier, multiple developmental relationships and work

satisfaction. Journal of Management Development, 19, 277-296.

Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental

network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 264-288. Retrieved from

www.jstor.org/stable/259122

229
Hill, D., Jeffrey, J., McWalters, P., Paliokas, K., Seagren, A., Stumbo, C. (2010). Transforming

teaching and leading: A vision for a high-quality educator development system.

Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Hill, D., Stumbo, C., Paliokas, K., Hansen, D., & McWalters, P. (2010, July). State policy

implications of the model core teaching standards (InTASC Draft Discussion Document).

Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

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(1), 207-216.

Hof, R. D. (2005, June 20). The power of us. Business Week, Issue 3938, 74-82, 8p, 14.

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI:

Author.

Holyoak, K. J. (1991). Symbolic connectionism: Toward third-generation theories of

explanation. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise:

Prospects and limits (pp. 301-335). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Howe, E. R. (2006). Exemplary teacher induction: An international review. Educational

Philosophy and Theory, 38(3), 287-297.

Howey, K. R., & Zimpher (1989). Teacher educator’s role in program for beginning teachers.

The Elementary School Journal, 89(4), 451-470.

Huberman, M. B., & Miles, A. M. (1998). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Huling, L., & Resta, V. (2001). Teacher mentoring as professional development. Washington, DC:

ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.

230
Huling-Austin, L. (1990). Teacher induction programs and internships. In W. R. Houston (Ed.),

The handbook of research on teacher education. New York: Macmillan.

Huling-Austin, L. (1992). Research o learning to teach: Implications for teacher induction and

mentoring programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 173-180. doi:

10.1177/0022487192043003003

Hussein, J. W. (2006). Which one is better: Saying student teachers don’t reflect or

systematically unlocking their reflective potentials. A positive experience from a poor

teacher education faculty in Ethiopia. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education,

31(2), 12-28.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.

American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499-534.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). The teacher shortage: Myth or reality? Educational Horizons, 81(3), 146-

152.

Ingersoll, R. M., & Kralik, J. M. (2004). The impact of mentoring on teacher retention: What the

research says (Research Review). Denver, CO: Educational Commission of the States.

Ingersoll, R.M., & Smith, T. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational

Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.

Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for

beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research,

81(2), 201-233. doi: 10.3102/0034654311403323

231
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (1992). Model standards for

beginning teacher licensing and development: A resource for state dialogue.

Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (2009). Model standards for beginning

teacher licensing and development: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC:

Council of Chief State School Officers.

Irinaga-Bistolas, C., Schalock, M., Marvin, R., & Beck, L. (2007) Bridges to success: A

developmental induction model for rural early career special educators. Rural Special

Education Quarterly, 26, 13-22.

IRIS Center for Training Enhancements (2009). How people learn: Presenting the learning theory

and inquiry cycle on which the IRIS modules are built. Retrieved from

http://iris.peabody/Vanderbilt.edu

Israel, M., Pattison, J., Moshirnia, A., & Newton, J. (2008). Supporting novice special educators

through e-mentoring. In K. McFerrin, R. Weber, R. Carlson, & D. A. Willis (Eds.)

Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International

Conference 2008 (pp. 5101-5108). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of

Computing in Education.

Jaffe, R., Moir, E., Swanson, E., & Wheeler, G. (2006). Online mentoring and professional

development for new science teachers. In C. Dede (Ed.), Online teacher professional

development. Emerging models and methods (pp. 89-116). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Education Publishing Group.

232
Janssen, F., De Hullu, E., & Tigelaar, D. (2008). Positive experiences as input for reflection by

student teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(2), 115-127. doi:

10.1080/13540600801965903

Jervis, K. (1996). Eyes on the child: Three portfolio stories. New York: National Center for

Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching.

Jarvela, S., & Hakkinen, P. (2002). Web based cases in teaching and learning – the quality of

discussion and a stage of perspective taking in asynchronous communication. Interactive

Learning Environments, 10(1), 1-22.

Jenlink, P., & Carr, A. A. (1996, January-February). A methodology for the analysis of patterns of

participation writing computer-mediated communication courses. Instructional Science,

31-38.

Jick, T. D. (1979, December). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in

action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602-611.

Johnson, L. S., Goldrick, L., & Lasagna, M. (2010). New teacher excellence: The impact of state

policy on induction program implementation. Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center.

Retrieved online December 6, 2010, from www.newteacherrcenter.org

Johnson, N. M., & Diare, A. P. (2007). School counselor implementation of an electronic

mentoring (e-mentoring) program in a rural setting. Journal of Technology in

Counseling, 5(1). Retrieved December 24, 2010, from

http://jtc.colstate.edu/Vol15_1/Johnson.htm

233
Johnson, R. W., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed method research: A research paradigm

whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. (2003). Pursuing a ‘sense of success’: New teachers explain their

career decisions. American Education Journal, 40(3), 581-617.

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.

Harvard Education Letter Research [Online]. Retrieved on January 6, 2011, from

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/

Johnson, S.M., & Kardos, S. (2002). Keeping new teachers in mind. Educational Leadership,

59(6), 12-16.

Jones, M., & Staker, K. (2006). What informs mentor’s practice when working with trainees and

newly qualified teachers? An investigation into mentor’s professional knowledge base.

Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(2), 165-184. doi: 10.1080/026074706000655227

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers, Review of

Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169. Retrieved on May 24, 2009, from

www.jstor.org/stable/1170578

Kamman, M. L., & Long, S. K. (2010). One district’s approach to the induction of special

education teachers. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23(1), 21-29.

Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge

construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57-74.

234
Kasprisin, C. A., Single, P. B., Single, R. M., & Muller, C. B. (2003). Building a better bridge:

Testing e-training to improve e-mentoring programmes in higher education. Mentoring

and Tutoring, 11, 67-78.

Katsiyannis, A. (2010). Highly qualified teachers revisited. Council for Children with Behavioral

Disorders Newsletter. Retrieved online from http://www.ccbd.net

Kealy, M. V. (2010). A leadership focus on teacher effectiveness. Journal of Special Education

Leadership 23(1), 52-54.

Keigher, A. (2010). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the 2008–09 teacher follow-up

survey (NCES 2010-353). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Kelly, L. M. (2004). Why induction matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), 438-448. doi:

10.1177/0022487104269653

Kennedy, M. (1991). An agenda for research on teacher learning (NCRTL Special Report). East

Lansing: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning, Michigan State University.

Kennedy, M. (1998). Form and substance of inservice teacher education (Research Monograph

No. 13). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science

Education.

Kennedy, V., & Burnstein, N. (2004). An induction program for special education teachers.

Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(4), 444-447.

Kepp, L., & Myke, A. (2009). eMSS: An online, content focused mentoring program for

secondary math and science teachers [White paper]. Retrieved from The New Teacher

Center website, http://www.newteachercenter.org/pdfs/eMSS_whitepaper.pdf

235
Khan, B. (2001). A framework for e-learning. Learning and Training Innovations. Retrieved from.

file://localhost/<http/::www.elearningmag.com:ltimagazine:article:articleDetail.jsp%3Fi

d=5163>.

Kilgore, K. L., & Griffin, C. C. (1998). Beginning special educators: Problems of practice and the

influence of school context. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(3), 155-173.

Kilgore, K. L., Griffin, C. C., Otis-Wilborn, A., & Winn, J. (2003). The problems of beginning

special education teachers: Exploring the contextual factors influencing their work.

Action in Teacher Education, 26(3), 2-9.

Kirka, D. (1995, March 13). Corporate trail guides: On-line women’s group offers mentoring

advice. Los Angeles Times, p. 23.

Kiser, K. (1999). Ten things we know so far about online training. Training, 36(11), 66-74.

Klecka, C. L., Cheng, Y., & Clift, R. T. (2004). Exploring the potential of electronic mentoring.

Action in Teacher Education, 26(3), 2-9.

Klecka, C. L., Clift, R. T., & Cheng, Y. (2005). Are electronic conferences a solution in search of an

urban problem? Urban Education, 40(4), 412-429. doi: 10.1177/00420859025276434

Klug, B. J., & Saltzman, S. A. (1990, April). Formal induction vs. informal mentoring:

Comparative effects and outcomes (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED

323628). Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, Boston.

Knapczyk, D. R., Hew, K., Frey, T. J., & Wall-Marencik, W. (2005). Evaluation of online mentoring

of practicum experiences for limited licensed teachers. Teacher Education and Special

Education, 28(4).

236
Kneser, C., Pilkington, R., & Treasure-Jones, T. (2001). The tutor’s role: An investigation of the

power of exchange structure analysis to identify roles in CMC seminars. International

Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 63-84.

Knouse, S. B. (2001). Virtual mentors: Mentoring on the Internet. Journal of Employment

Counseling, 38(4), 162-169.

Kornhaber, M., & Gardner, H. (1993). Varieties of excellence: Identifying and assessing

children’s talents. New York: National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools and

Teaching, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Koschmann, T. D., Kelson, A. C., Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1997). Computer supported

problem-based learning: Principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative

teaching. In T. D. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm

(pp. 110-131). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentor at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life.

Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Kremer-Hayon, L., & Wubbels, R. (1993). Supervisors’ interpersonal behavior and student

teachers’ satisfaction. In T. Wubbles & J. Levy (Eds.). Do you know what you look like?

Interpersonal relationships in education (pp. 123-135). London: The Falmer Press.

Kumpulainen, K., & Mutanen, M. (2000). Mapping the dynamics of peer group interaction: A

method of analysis of socially shared learning processes. In H. Cowie & G. van der

Aalvoort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: The meaning of discourse

for the construction of knowledge. Amsterdam: Pergamon Press.

237
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership redefined: An evocative context for teacher leadership. School

Leasdership and Management, 23, 421-430.

Lanier, J.E. (1978). Research and development needs for the advancement of teacher education

(ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED161859). East Lansing: Institute for Research on

Teaching, Michigan State University.

Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2010). Professional vision and the politics of teacher learning. Teaching

and Teacher Education(in press).

Leko, M. M., & Brownell, M. T (2009). Crafting quality professional development for special

educators: What school leaders should know. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(1), 64-

70.

Levin, B. (2008). Attracting and retaining good teachers, Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 223-224.

Levin, D., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust

in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477-1490.

Lichtenstein, S., & Williamson, K. (2006). Understanding consumer adoption of internet

banking: An interpretive study in the Australian banking contest. Journal of Electronic

Commerce Research, 7(2), 50-66.

Lin, L., Cranton, P., & Bridglall, B. (2005). Psychological type and asynchronous written dialogue

in adult learning. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1788-1813.

Lin, F. R., Hsieh, L. S., & Chuang, F. T. (2009). Discovering genres of online discussion threads via

text mining. Computers and Education, 52, 481-495. doc:

10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.005

238
Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. (2007). Intercultural adaptive expertise: Explicit and

implicit lessons from Dr. Hatano. Human Development, 50, 65-72. doi:

10.1159/000097686

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

Little, J. W. (1990). The mentor phenomenon. In C. Cazden (Ed.), Teacher education and

learning to teach (pp. 297-351). Washington, DC: American Educational Research

Association.

Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.

Little, J. W. (1995). Contested ground: The basis of teacher leadership in two restructuring high

schools. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 47-63.

Little, J. W. (2003). Constructions of teacher leadership in three periods of policy and reform

activism. School Leadership and Management, 23, 201-219.

Long, L. & Long, N. (2001). Computers brief edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

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. SRI International

for the National Center of Education Evaluation, Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S

Department of Education.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional

development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

239
Lovingfoss, D., Molloy, D. W., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S., (2001). Preparation, practice, and

program reform: Crafting the University of Maryland’s five year, multicategorical

undergraduate program in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 35(2),

105-114.

Ludlow, B. L., Conner, D., & Schecter, J. (2005). Low incidence disabilities and personnel

preparation for rural areas: Current status and future trends. Rural Special Education

Quarterly, 24(3), 15-24.

Lupton, D. (1992). Discourse analysis: A new methodology for understanding the ideologies of

health and illness. Australian Journal of Public Health, 16, 145-150. doi: 10.111/j.1753-

6405.1992.tb00043.x

Lyons, B. D., & Oppler, E S. (2004). The effects of structural attributes and demographic

characteristics on protege satisfaction in mentoring programs. Journal of Career

Development, 30, 215-229.

Ma, R. (1996). Computer mediated conversations as a new dimension of inter-cultural

communication between East Asian and North American college students. In S. C.

Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication. Linguistic, social and cross-cultural

perspectives (pp. 173-186). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publications

MacDonald, V., & Speece, D. L. (2001). Making time: A teacher’s report on her first year of

teaching children with emotional disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 35(2), 84-91.

Mangin, M. M., Stoelinga, S. (2008). Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and

reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

240
Mariage, T., & Garmon, A. (2003). A case of educational change: Improving student

achievement through a school-university partnership. Remedial and Special Education,

24(4), 215-234.

Mason, R. (1992). Evaluation methodologies for computer conferencing applications. In A. R.

Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 105-116). Berlin:

Springer

Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). Is the glass half full or half empty? Challenges encountered by first-

year special education teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 35(2), 66-74.

Martinez, E., & Mulhall, L. (2007). Transition mentoring: Supporting teachers through the

induction phase of the teaching profession. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67,

2537.

McAller, S. D. (2008). Professional growth through mentoring: A study of experienced

mathematics teachers participating in a content-based online mentoring and induction

program. Dissertation Abstracts, ATT 3319930.

McCombs, B. L. (2004). The learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for

balancing a focus on academic achievement with a focus on social and emotional

learning needs. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building

academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? New

York: Teachers College Press.

241
McDiarmid, G. W. & Clevenger-Bright, M. (2008). Rethinking teacher capacity. In Cochran-

Smith, Feiman-Nemser, McIntyre & Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher

education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed.) (pp. 134-156). New York:

Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group and the Association of Teacher Educators.

McDonald, F. (1980). The problems of beginning teachers: A crisis in training. Study of induction

programs for beginning teachers (Vol. 1). Princeton, NY: Educational Testing Service.

McLeskey, J., & Billingsley, B. S. (2008). How does the quality and stability of the teaching force

influence the research-to-practice gap? A perspective on teacher shortage in special

education. Remedial and Special Education, 29(5), 293-305. doi:

10.1177/0741932507312010

McLeskey, J., Tyler, N., & Saunders Flippen, S. S. (2004). The supply and demand for special

education teachers: A review of research regarding the nature of the chronic shortage of

special education teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 5-21.

McLuckie, J., & Topping, K. J. K. (2004). Transferrable skills for online peer learning. Assessment

and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(5), 563-584.

McMillan, J. H. (2008). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer (5th ed.). Boston:

Pearson Education.

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (Rev. ed.).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merrow, J. (2001). Choosing excellence. Lanham: Scarecrow Press.

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (1st

ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

242
Miller, H., & Griffiths, M. (2005). E-Mentoring. In D.L. Dubois (Ed.), The handbook of youth

mentoring (pp. 300-313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, D., Brownell, M., & Smith, S. (1999). Factors that predict teachers staying in, leaving, or

transferring from the special education classroom. Exceptional Children, 65(2), 201-218.

Miller, M. D., Brownell, M., & Smith, S. W. (1999). Factors that predict teacher staying in,

leaving, or transferring from the special education classroom. Exceptional Children,

65(2), 201-218.

Moir, E., Barlin, D., Gless, J., & Miles, J. (2009, November). New teacher mentoring hopes and

promise for improving teacher effectiveness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.

Morvant, M., Gersten, R., Gillman, J., Keating, T., & Blake, G. (1995). Attrition/retention of urban

special education teachers: Multi-faceted research and strategic action planning (Final

Performance Report, Volume 1). Eugene, OE: Eugene Research Institute.

Moskowitz, J., & Stephens, M. (1997). From students of teaching to teachers of students:

Teacher induction around the Pacific rim. Washington, DC: Asia-Pacific Education Forum.

Mueller, S. (2004). Electronic mentoring as an example for the use of information and

communications technology in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering

Education, 29(1), 53-63.

Mullen, C. A. (2008). Naturally occurring student-factory mentoring relationships: A literature

review. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple

perspectives approach. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

243
Muller, C. B. (1997). The potential of industrial ‘e-mentoring’ as a retention strategy for women

in science and engineering. Frontiers in Education 1997, 27th Annual Conference

Proceedings, Pittsburgh, PA, 2, 622-626.

Muller, C. B., & Barsion, S. J. (2003). Assessment of a large scale e-mentoring network for

women in engineering and science: Just how good is MentorNet? Paper presentation at

the WEPAN 2003 Conference, Chicago, IL

Murnane, Singer, & Willett (1989).

Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin.

Murphy, S. E., & Ensher, E. A. (2006). Lessons from research on prosocial organizations for

mobilizing adults for positive youth development. In E. G. Clary & J. E. Rhodes (Eds.),

Mobilizing adults for positive youth development: Strategies for closing the gap between

beliefs and behaviors (pp. 117-135). The Search Institute Series on Developmentally

Attentive Community and Society. New York: Springer.

Naidu. S., & Jarvela, S. (2006). Analyzing CMC content for what. Computers and Education,

46(1), 96-103.

Naidu, S., & Olson, P. (1996). Making the most of practical experience in teacher education with

computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Education

Telecommunications, 2, 265-278.

Nance, E., & Calabresse, R. L. (2009). Special education teacher retention and attrition: The

impact of increased legal requirements. International Journal of Educational

Management, 23(5), 431-440. Doi: 10.1108/0951354091097/0520

244
National Center for Educational Statistics (1998). Networks and reform in American education.

Teachers College Record, 98(1), 7-15.

National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education (1988). The decline in special

education degrees conferred. (Grant No. F0087C3058-88). Washington, DC: National

Association of State Directors of Special Education.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching

for America’s future. New York: Author.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2010). Induction into learning

communities. Washington, DC.

Nemser, S. F. (1983). Learning to teach. In L. S. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching

and policy (pp. 150-169). NY: Longman.

Newmann, F. M. (1993, March). Beyond common sense in educational restructuring: The issues

of context and linkage. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 4-13. doi:

10.3102/0013189X022002004

New Teacher Center. (Fall, 2007). Teacher support pays off: A return on investment for

educators and kids. Santa Cruz: The New Teacher Center at the University of California.

Nickson, L. M., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2006). A national perspective: An analysis of factors that

influence special educators to remain in the field of education. Doctoral Forum:

National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 1, 1-5.

Nielsen, D. C., Barry, A., L., & Addison, A. B. (2006). A model of a new teacher induction

program and teacher perceptions. Action in Teacher Education, 28(4), 14-24.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002). 20 USC 6301 § 1-9601.

245
Norman, P. J., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2005). Mind activity in teaching and mentoring. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 21, 679-697. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.006

Nougaret, A. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2005). Does teacher education produce

better special education teachers? Exceptional Children, 21(3), 217-229.

Odell, S. J. (1986). Induction support of new teachers: A functional approach, Journal of Teacher

Education, 37(1); 26-29.

Odell, S. J., & Ferraro, D. (1992). Teacher mentoring and teacher retention, Journal of Teacher

Education, 43(3), 200-204.

Odell, S. J., & Huling, L. (2000). Quality mentoring for novice teachers. Joint publication.

Association of Teacher Educators, Washington, DC and Kappa Delta Pi, Indianapolis, IN.

O’Neill, D. K. (2004). Building social capital in a knowledge-building community: Telementoring

as a catalyst. Interactive Learning Environments, 12(3), 179-208.

O’Neill, D. K., & Harris, J. (2000). Is everybody happy? Bridging the perspectives and

developmental needs of participants in the telementoring programs. Paper presented at

the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

O’Neill, D. K. & Harris, J. (2004-2005). Bridging the perspectives and developmental needs of all

participants in curriculum-based telementoring programs. Journal of Research on

Technology in Education, 37(2), 111-128.

O’Neill, D. K., Wagner, R., & Gomez, L. M. (1996). Online mentors: Experimenting in science

class. Educational Leadership, 54(3), 39-42.

Orland-Barak, L. (2006). Convergent, divergent and parallel dialogues: knowledge construction

in professional conversations. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(1), 13-31.

246
Orland-Barak, L., & Klein, S. (2005). The expressed and the realized: Mentors’ representations

of a mentoring conversation and its realization in practice. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 21(4), 379-402.

Orland-Barak, L., & Yinon, H. (2005). Sometimes a novice and sometimes an expert: Mentors’

professional expertise as revealed through their stories of critical incidents. Oxford

Review of Education, 31(4), 557-578.

Otis-Wilborn, A., Winn, J., Griffin, C., & Kilgore, K. (2005). Beginning special educators forays

into general education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28(3, 4), 143-152.

Overbaugh, R. (1998). Large group e-mail communication, Clearing House, 71,355-358.

Paloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Parker-Katz, M., & Hughes, M. T. (2008). Preparing special education mentors using classroom

artifacts as a vehicle for learning about teaching. Teacher Education and Special

Education, 31(4), 268-282.

Pasley, J. D., & Madden, L. O. (2007). Electronic mentoring for student success year five

evaluation report. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

Patel, V. L., Groen, G. J., & Patel, Y. C. (1997). Cognitive aspects of clinical performance during

patient work-up: The role of medical expertise. The International Journal of Health

Science Research, 2, 95-114.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

247
Paulus, T., & Scherff, L. (2008). Can anyone offer any words of encouragement? Online dialogue

as a support mechanism for preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher

Education, 16(1), 113-136.

Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional

development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American

Educational Research Journal, 44, 921-958.

Perren, L. (2003). The role of e-mentoring in entrepreneurial education and support: A meta-

review of academic literature. Education and Training, 45(8, 9), 517-525.

Peterson, P., Clark, C. M., & Dickson, W. P. (1990). Educational psychology as a foundation in

teacher education: Reform an old notion. Teachers College Record, 91(3), 322-346.

Pilkington, R. M. (2001). Analyzing educational dialogue interaction: Towards models that

support learning: Editor’s introduction to the special issue on analyzing educational

dialogue. Guest editorial. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education,

12(1), 1-7. ISSN: 1560-4292

Pitton, D. E. (2006). Mentoring novice teachers: Fostering a dialogue process. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin.

Portner, H. (2005). Embedding induction and mentoring into the school’s culture. In H. Portner

(Ed.), Teacher mentoring and induction: The state of the art and beyond (pp. 75-92).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Price, M. A., & Chen, H. H. (2003). Promises and challenges: Exploring a collaborative

telementoring programme in a preservice teacher education programme. Mentoring

and Teaching, 11(1), 105-117.

248
Pugach, M. C., Blanton, L. P., Correa, V. I., McLeskey, J., & Langley, L. K. (2009). The role of

collaboration in supporting the induction and retention of new special education

teachers (NCIPP Document Number RS-2). Gainesville, FL: National Center to Inform

Policy and Practice in Special Education Professional Development.

Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring

relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 321-339.

Raine, L., Fox, S., Horrigan, J., & Lenhgart, A. (2000, May 10). Tracking online life: How women

use the Internet to cultivate relationships with family and friends. Pew Internet and

American Life Project. Retrieved on December 24, 2010, from

http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/11/report_display.asp

Raizen, S., Huntley, M. A., & Britton, E. (2003). Cooperation, counseling and reflective practice:

Swiss induction programs. In E. Britton, L. Paine, D. Pimm, & S. Raizen (Eds.),

Comprehensive teacher induction (pp. 83-140). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Ralph, E. G. (2002). Mentoring beginning teachers: Findings form contextual supervision,

Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16(3), 191-203.

Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Reynolds, W. A. (1990). Forward. In A. I. Morey & D. S. Murphy (Eds.), Designing programs for

new teachers. CA: San Diego State University, Far West Laboratory.

Richardson, J. (2008). The plugged-in school: Districts harness technology to attract and retain

new teachers, the learning system. National Staff Development Council. Retrieved online

December 8, 2010, from www.nsdc.org

249
Richardson, J. C., & Newby, T. (2006). The role of students’ cognitive engagement I online

learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 129-144.

Ridout, S. (2006). Mentoring: Guided by the light. PT: Magazine of Physical Therapy, 14(1), 42-

48.

Riley, W., & Anderson, P. (2006). Randomized study on the impact of cooperative learning.

Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(2), 129-144.

Rivikin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic

achievement. Econometrica. Princeton, NJ.

Rockoff, J. E. (2008). Does mentoring reduce turnover and improve skills of new employees?

Evidence from teachers in New York City (Working Paper 13868). Cambridge, MA:

National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved on May 15, 2011, from

http://www.nber.org/papers/e13868

Rodriguez, Y., & Sjostrom, B. (1995). Culturally responsive teacher preparation evident in

classroom approaches to cultural diversity: A novice and an experienced teacher.

Journal of Teacher Education, 46(4), 304-311.

Roehrig, A. D., Bohn, C. M., Turner, J. E., & Pressley, M. (2007). Mentoring beginning primary

teachers for exemplary teaching practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 684-

702. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.008

Rosenberg, M. S., & Sindelar, P. T. (2001). The proliferation of alternative routes to certification

in special education: A critical review of the literature. The National Clearinghouse for

Professions in Special Education. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children

250
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment:

Implications for teacher induction programs. he Elementary School Journal, 89(4), 420-

439.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the

content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial

Intelligence in Education, 12, 8-22.

Rudney, G. L., & Guillaume, A. M. (2003). Maximum mentoring: An action guide for teacher

trainers and cooperating teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D.A. (1978). Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of

learning. In J. W. Cotton & R. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition (pp. 81-96)).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Saunders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future

student achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-added Research and

Assessment Center.

Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994, December). Leader-member exchange and

supervisor career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. The

Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1588-1602.

Scheeler, M. C. (2008). Generalizing effective teaching skills: The missing link in teacher

preparation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17, 145-159. doi: 10.1007/s10864-007-

9051-0.

Schlechty, P. C. (1985, November). Evaluation procedures in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg career

ladder plan. Educational Leadership, 43(3), 14-20.

251
Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond

quantitative analysis. Computers and Education, 46, 49-70. doi:

10.1016j.compedu.2005.04.006

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. United States: Basic Books.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Publishing.

Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency an innovation in transfer. In J.

Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning: research and perspective (pp. 1-51). Greenwich, CT:

Information Age Publishing Inc.

Scott, L. (1995). Successful beginning teachers: A developmental model of support and

assessment. Teacher Education Quarterly, 22(4), 93-105.

Seabrooks, J. J., Kenney, S., & LaMontagne, M. (2000). Collaboration and virtual mentoring:

Building relationships between pre-service and in-service special education teachers.

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(1), 113-136.

Segall, R. (2000). Online shrinks. Psychology Today, 32, 38-44.

Selwyn, N. (2000). Creating a ‘connected community’? Teachers’ use of an electronic discussion

group. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 750-778.

Shen, J. (1997). How to reduce teacher attrition in public schools: Policy implications from a

national study. Educational Horizons, 33-39.

Sherin, M. G., Linsemmeir, K. A., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Selecting video clips to promote

mathematics teacher’s discussion of student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60,

212-230.

252
Sherry, L., Billig, S. H., Tavalin, F. (2000). Good online conversation: Building on research to

inform practice. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 85-127.

Showers, B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development: A

framework for future study and a state-of the-art analysis. Educational Leadership,

45(3), 77–87.

Shrestha, C. H., May, S., Edirisingha, P., Burke, L., & Linsey, T. (2009). From face-to-face to e-

mentoring: Does the ‘e’ add any value for mentors? International Journal of Teaching

and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 116-124.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. arvard

Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Sikula, J. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of research on teacher education. New York: Macmillan.

Simonsen, L., Luebeck, J., & Bice, L. (2009). The effectiveness of online paired mentoring for

beginning science and math teachers. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 51-68.

Sindelar, P. T., Brownell, M. T., & Billingsley, B. (2010). Special education teacher education

research: Current status and future directions. Teacher Education and Special Education,

33(1), 8-24. doi: 10.1177/0888406-409358593

Sindelar, P. T., Heretick, J., Hirsch, E., Rorrer A., & Dawson, S. A. (2010, March). What district

administrators need to know about state induction policy. Journal of Special Education

Leadership, 23(1), 5-13.

253
Single, P. B., & Muller, C. B. (2001). When e-mail and mentoring unite: The implementation of a

nationwide electronic mentoring program: MentorNet, the national electronic industrial

mentoring network for women in engineering and science. In L.K. Stromei (Ed.), Creating

mentoring and coaching programs (pp. 107-122). Alexandria, VA: American Society for

Training and Development (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 472832).

Single, P. B., Muller, C. B., Cunningham, C. M., Single, R. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2005).

MentorNet: E-Mentoring for women in engineering and science. Journal of Women and

Minorities in Science and Engineering, 11, 295-309.

Single, P. B., & Single, R. M. (2005). E-mentoring for social equity: A review of the research to

inform program development. Mentoring and Tutoring, 13(2), 301-320.

Smith, S. J., & Israel, M. (2010). E-mentoring: Enhancing special education teacher induction.

Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23(1), 30-40.

Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on

beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681-714.

Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Scielzo, S. A., Yarbrough, C. S., & Rosopa, P. J. (2008). A comparison of

face-to-face and electronic peer mentoring: Interaction with mentor gender. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 72, 193-206.

Sparks, D. (2001). Change: It’s a matter of life or slow death: An interview with Robert Quinn,

Journal of Staff Development, 22(4), 49-53.

Sparrow, S. (2006). Stuck in the middle with E. Training and Coaching Today, 22-23.

254
Sprinthall, N. A., & Theis-Sprinthall, L. (1983). The teacher as an adult learner: A cognitive-

developmental view. In G. A. Griffin (Ed.), Staff development: Eighty-second yearbook of

the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 13-35). Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational

communication. Management Science, I32, 1492-1512.

Stallion, B. K., & Zimpher, N. L. (1991). Classroom management intervention: The effects of

training and mentoring on the inductee teacher’s behavior. Action in Teacher Education,

13(1), 42-50.

Stansbury, K., & Zimmerman, J. (2000). Lifelines to the classroom: Designing support for

beginning teachers (A WestEd Knowledge Brief). San Francisco, CA. WestEd, 23(4) 1-5.

Stell, C. (1999). The power of e-mentoring. Legal Assistant Today, 16, 12-14.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (990). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and

techniques. London: Sage

Strong, M. (2005). Teacher induction, mentoring, and retention: A summary of the research.

New Educator, 1(3), 181-198.

Strong, M. (2006). Does new teacher support affect student achievement? (Research Brief). New

Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center, University of California. Retrieved January 5, 2011,

from http://www.newteachercenter.org/pdfs/NTCResearchBriefo6-01.pdf

Strong, M., & Baron, W. (2004). An analysis of mentoring conversations with beginning

teachers: Suggestions and responses. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 47-57.

255
Strong, M., & St. John, L. (2001). A study of retention: The effects of mentoring for beginning

teachers. Santa Cruz: New Teacher Center, University of California.

Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education. (2002, May 7). Recruiting and retaining high-

quality teachers (Summary Sheet). Retrieved December 6, 2010, from

http://www.spense.org/Results.html

Suell, J. L., & Piotrowski, C. (2007). Alternative teacher education programs: A review of the

literature and outcome studies. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34(1), 54-58.

Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for

meanings. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Thomas, D. A., & Higgins, M. C. (1996). Mentoring and the boundaryless career: Lessons from

the minority experience. In M.B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.). The boundaryless

career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Thompson, B., Diamond, K. E., McWilliams, R., Snyder, P., & Snyder, S.W. (2005). Evaluating the

quality of evidence from correlational research for evidence based practices.

Exceptional Children, 71(2), 181-194.

Thompson, M., Paek, P., Goe, L., & Ponte, E. (2004). Study of the impact of the California

formative assessment and support system for teachers. Report 2. Relationship of

BTSA/CFASST engagement and teacher practices (ETS-RR-04-31). Washington, DC:

Educational Testing Service.

Trumfio, G., Keenan, W. (1994). Liberty, equality, e-mail! Sales and Marketing Management,

146, 38-39.

256
Tucker, T. N., (2000). Impacts of an induction program for beginning special education teachers.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(10), 3600.

Van Emmerik, H J. I. J. (2004). The or you can get the better: Mentoring constellations and

intrinsic career success. Career Development International 9, 578-594.

Van Gelder, L. (1991). The strange case of the electronic lover. In C. Dunlop & R. Kling (Eds.),

Computerization and controversy: Value conflicts and social choices. Boston: Academic

Press.

VanHanegan, J., Pruet, S., & Bamberger, H. (2004). Mathematics reform in a minority

community: Student outcomes. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 9(2),

189-211.

Veeman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research,

54(2), 143-178.

Villar, A., & Strong, M. (November, 2007). Is mentoring worth the money? A benefit-cost

analysis and five year rate of return on comprehensive mentoring program for beginning

teachers. ERS Spectrum, Alexandria, VA. Retrieved on January 5, 2011, from

www.newteachercenter.org/cgi-bin/norti_area/research.cgi

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). The mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Boston, MA: Harvard Press.

Walker-Wied, J. K. (2005). The role of a school’s culture in the induction and socialization of two

special education teachers in an alternative certification program. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

257
Wagner, L. A. (1990). Mentoring teachers for staff development. Thresholds in Education, 13(3),

14-19.

Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic

process model. In Ferris, G. R. & Martocchio, J. J. (Eds.), Research in personnel and

human resources management, 22, 39-124. Greenwich, CT: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

Wang, J. (2000). Contexts of mentoring and opportunities for learning to teach: A comparative

study of mentoring practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 51-73.

Wang, J., & Odell, S. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standards based reform:

A critical review: Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 481-546.

Wang, J., Odell, S. J., & Schwille, S. A. (2008, March/April). Effects of teacher induction on

beginning teachers’ teaching: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Teacher

Education, 59, 132-152. doi: 10.1177/0022487107314002

Wang, J., & Paine, W. L. (2002). Forms and substance of mentor-novice interactions on nocies’

teaching: Lessons from Chinese readers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Association, New Orleans. Retrieved on February 16, 2011, from

www.aea.org

Wang, J., Strong, M., & Odell, S. J. (2004). Mentor-novice conversation about teaching: A

comparison of two U.S. and two Chinese cases. Teachers College Record, 106(4), 775-

813.

Washburn-Moses, L. (2005). How to keep your special education teachers. Principal Leadership,

5(5), 35-38.

258
Wayne, A. J., Yoon, K. S., Zhu, P., Roner, S., & Garet, M. (2009). Experimenting with teacher

professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37, 469-479.

Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks [Electronic

Version]. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2. Retrieved December 29, 2010,

from http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/vol2_issue1/wegerif.htm

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional development in the United

States: Trends and challenges. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.

Weiss, E. M., & Weiss, S. G. (1999). Beginning teacher induction (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED436487).

Wellington, S. (2001). Be your own mentor: Strategies from top women on the secrets of

success. New York: Random House.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Westat (2002). Study of personnel needs in special education. Retrieved on January 5, 2011,

from www.spense.org

Whisnant, E., Elliott, K., & Pynchon, S. (2005). A review of literature on beginning teacher

induction. Tacoma, WA: Centre for Strengthening the Teaching Profession.

Whitaker, S.D. (2000a). What do first year special education teachers need? Implications for

induction programs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(1), 28-36.

Whitaker, S. D. (2000b). Mentoring beginning special education teachers and the relationship to

attrition. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 546-566.

259
Whitaker, S.D. (2003). Needs of beginning special education teachers: Implications for teacher

education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(2), 106-117.

Whitcomb, J., Borko, H., & Liston, D. (2009). Growing talent: Promising professional

development models and practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 207-212.

White, M. (1995). Factors contributing to special education teacher attrition: How a one year

internship affects the attrition rates of special education teachers in Kentucky.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

White, M., & Mason, C. (2006). Components of a successful mentoring program for beginning

special education teachers: Perspectives from new teachers and mentors. Teacher

Education and Special Education, 29(3), 191-201 doi:

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning

to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of

Educational Research, 68(2), 130-178.

Wildman, T. M., Magliaro, 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. doi:

10.1077/0022487192043003007.

Wildman, T.M., Niles, J. A., Magliaro, S. G., McLaughlin, R. A. (1989). Teaching and learning to

teach: The two roles of beginning teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 89(4), 471-

493.

Wilson, S., Shulman, L. & Reichert, A. (1997). ‘150 different ways’ of knowing: Representations

of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking. London:

Cassell.

260
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional

knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development.

Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.

Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Bernstein, H. T., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1984). Teacher

evaluation: A study of effective practices. National Institute of Education. Santa Monica,

CA: RAND.

Wong, H. K., & Wong, R. T. (1998). How to be an effective teacher: The first days of school.

Mountainview, CA: Harry K. Wong Publications, Inc.

Woodard, B. S., & Hinchliffe, L. J. (2002). Technology and innovation in library instuction

management. Journal of Library Administration, 36(1, 2), 39-55.

Woodd, M. (1999). The challenges of telementoring. Journal of European Industrial Training,

23(3), 140-144.

Wunsch, M. A. (1994). Developing mentoring programs: Major themes and issues. New

Directions for Teaching and Learning, 57, 27-34.

Wynn, S. R., Carboni, L. W., & Patall, E. A. (2007). Beginning teachers’ perceptions of mentoring,

climate, and leadership: Promoting retention through a learning communities

perspective. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6, 209-229.

Yee, S. M. (1990). Careers in the classroom: When teaching is more than a job. New York:

Teacher’s College Press.

Yin, R. X. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence

on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues &

261
 Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,

Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional

Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.

York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two

decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74, 255-316.

York-Barr, J., Ghere, G., & Sommerness, J. (2003). Special educators as teacher leaders in

inclusive schools. Impact, 16, 6.

Zanting, A., Verloop, J. D., Vermunt, J. D., & Van Driel, J. H. (1998). Explicating practical

knowledge: An extension of mentor teachers’ roles. European Journal of Teacher

Education, 21(1), 11-28.

Zeichner, K. (1992). Rethinking the practicum in the professional development school

partnership. Journal of Teachers Education, 43(4), 296-307.

Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H. S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical

analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record,

107(8), 1836-1884.

Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S., Fuchs, D., Baker, J.N., Jenkins, L., & Couthino, M.

(1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year

studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 531-540.

262
 APPENDIX A. CODING FOR HOW PEOPLE LEARN FRAMEWORK

LEARNER CENTERED ENVIRONMENTS

Description: “Learner centered is used to refer to environments that pay careful attention to the
knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs that learners bring to the educational setting.”(Bransford,
Brown, & Cocking, 2000, p. 133). Learner centered environments take into account students’
background knowledge, interests, and social and cultural values (The IRIS Center for Training
Enhancement, n.d.).

Examples:
 Knowledge, skills, interests, and attitudes, and beliefs of learner are displayed
 Discussing misconceptions
 Attempting to discover what students think in relation to the problem
 Giving a situation that will allow the learner to readjust their ideas
 Recognizes the importance of building on cultural and conceptual knowledge
 Sensitivity to cultural practices
 Expressing multiple intentions
 Connecting everyday talk and school talk
 Building on what student already knows
 Initial assumptions

KNOWLEDGE CENTERED ENVIRONMENTS

 Standards based
 Organized around big ideas
 Focused on information and activities that help learners develop an understanding of a
subject or discipline
 Introduces knowledge
 Emphasis on sense making and metacognitive skills
 Learning with understanding, not restating facts

ASSESSMENT CENTERED ENVIRONMENTS

 Providing feedback about misconceptions and performance

 Reflect and revise

263
 Formative and summative assessments
 Reflect on responses and approaches to activities
 Determining the effectiveness of their learning methods
 Self-assessment of learning

264
 COMMUNITY CENTERED ENVIRONMENTS

Description: a collaborative learning environment where goals and expectations are explicit defined by
active participation in the community and with learning goals. A stimulating, supportive, and safe
environment where students challenge themselves and become lifelong learners.

Adapted from Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000 and Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005) and The IRIS Center for Training Enhancement
(n.d.).

Coding Sheet for How People Learn Framework

_____Mentor _______ Mentee Identifier _______

Code Trait Example eMSS Example

LC Learner Centered  Knowledge, skills, interests, and
attitudes, and beliefs of learner
are displayed
 Discussing misconceptions
 Attempting to discover what
students think in relation to the
problem
 Giving a situation that will allow
the learner to readjust their
ideas
 Recognizes the importance of
building on cultural and
conceptual knowledge
 Sensitivity to cultural practices
 Expressing multiple intentions
 Connecting everyday talk and
school talk
 Building on what student
already knows
 Initial assumptions

KC Knowledge  Standards based

Centered  Organized around big
ideas
 Focused on information
and activities that help
learners develop an
understanding of a
subject or discipline
 Introduces knowledge
 Emphasis on sense
making and
metacognitive skills
 Learning with
understanding, not

265
 restating facts
Assessment  Providing feedback about
AC Centered misconceptions and
performance
 Reflect and revise
 Formative and summative
assessments
 Reflect on responses and
approaches to activities
 Determining the effectiveness
of their learning methods
 Self-assessment of learning

CC Community  a collaborative learning

Centered environment
 goals and expectations are
explicit
 learning goals
 stimulating, supportive, and
safe environment
 where students challenge
themselves
 lifelong learners

266
APPENDIX B. INTERSTATE TEACHER ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORT CONSORTIUM MODEL

CORE TEACHING STANDARDS

1. Learner Development: The teacher understands how learners grow and develop,
recognizing that patterns of learning and development vary individually within
and across the cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical area, and
designs and implements developmentally appropriate and challenging learning
experiences.

2. Learning Differences: The teacher uses understanding of individual differences

and diverse cultures and communities to ensure inclusive learning environments
that allow each learner to reach high standards.

3. Learning Environments: The teacher works with learners to create

environments that support individual and collaborative learning, and that
encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-
motivation.

4. Content Knowledge: The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of

inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and creates learning
experiences that make these aspects of the discipline accessible and meaningful
for learners to assure mastery of content.

5. Application of Content: The teacher understands how to connect concepts and

use differing perspectives to engage learners in critical thinking, creativity, and
collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues.

6. Assessment: The teacher understands and uses multiple methods of assessment

to engage learners in their own growth, to monitor learner progress, and to
guide the teacher’s and learner’s decision making

267
 7. Planning for Instruction: The teacher plans instruction that supports every
student in meeting rigorous learning goals by drawing upon knowledge of
content areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, and pedagogy, as well as
knowledge of learners and the community context.

8. Instructional Strategies: The teacher understands and uses a variety of

instructional strategies to encourage learners to develop deep understanding of
content areas and their connections, and to build skills to apply knowledge in
meaningful ways.

9. Professional Learning and Ethical Practice: The teacher engages in ongoing

professional learning and uses evidence to continually evaluate his/her practice,
particularly the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (learners,
families, other professionals, and the community), and adapts practice to meet
the needs of each learner.

10. Leadership and Collaboration: The teacher seeks appropriate leadership roles
and opportunities to take responsibility for student learning, to collaborate with
learners, families, colleagues, other school professionals, and community
members to ensure learner growth, and to advance the profession.

Source: Council of Chief State School Officers (2011, April). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support
Consortium (InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards. A Resource for State Dialogue. Washington, D.C.

268
 APPENDIX C. eMSS SPECIAL EDUCATION MENTEE PRESURVEY 2009-10

The following eMSS Participant Pre-Survey will be used to construct a picture of the range of teaching
experiences in the field of special education. This survey is used to collect data on the program’s
effectiveness. A follow up survey will be administered in May.

Please Note: You must complete the entire survey in order to receive a certificate of professional
development hours at the end of the eMSS-Special Education year. The survey will take you about 15
minutes to complete.

All the information you provide is kept confidential. No information, which could identify you, will be
provided to anyone without your permission.

1. First Name (Required) Last Name (Required) Email Address (Required) Program Code

2. Including the 2009-10 school year, how many years how you been teaching:
{Options include: 1, 2, 3, 4 or more]
Special education?
Overall? (Please include your entire teaching experience –all subjects, all grade levels)

3. In your current position, what grade level(s) and/or exceptionalities are you working with in the 2009-
10 school year? (Mark all that apply)

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
And/or
 Specific learning disabilities
 Mild/moderate mental disabilities
 Severe/profound mental disabilities
 Autism
 Emotionally Disturbed
 Other____________________________
 _________________________________
 _________________________________

269
4. How many class periods/hours a day are you teaching or co-teaching in the 2009-10 school year?
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
5. How many course/subject preparations do you have in the 2009-10 school year (including different
subjects, grade levels)?
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
6. Please indicate the amount of individual planning time you are allotted during the school day in the
2009-10 school year.

• 0 minutes

• 1-15 minutes

• 16-30 minutes

• 31-45 minutes

• 46-60 minutes

• 61-75 minutes

• 76-90 minutes

• 91-105 minutes

• 106-120 minutes

• more than 2 hours

7. Do you:
 have your own classroom?
 Travel between classrooms?

8. Which of the following degrees do you hold?

 Bachelor's
 Master's
 Master’s +30

270
  Specialists
 Doctorate

9. List the area(s) of certification or endorsement in special education that you currently hold:

10. Are you certified in the areas of special education for the exceptionalities that you are currently
teaching in the 2009-10 school year? Yes No

11. If you are not certified in the areas of special education for the exceptionalities that you are teaching,
please explain. If you are certified, enter Does Not Apply.

_____________________________________________________________________

12. Approximately, how many different online courses, seminars and/or discussion groups have you
completed prior to your involvement with the eMSS-Special Education project?
 0
 2
 4
 5 or more

13. If you have participated in online courses, seminars or discussion groups, how many were related to
special education content?
 0
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5 or more

14. For each location listed below, indicate the type of Internet connection that you will use to access the
online portions of eMSS.
[Options include: won’t use, Use high-speed most often, use dial-up most often]

 Through a computer at home

 Through a computer in my classroom
 Through a computer in the school media center, computer lab, or some other location within my
school
 Through a computer at a local college, university, or library

271
15. How experienced are you with each of the following:
[Options include: New to it, A little experienced, Moderately experienced, Quite experienced]

 Using computers (e.g., using basic types of software)

 Surfing the Internet for educational purposes
 Using E-mail
 Using Listservs
 Participating in synchronous (live) chat rooms (e.g., everyone online at the same time)
 Participating in asynchronous discussion boards (e.g., participants read/post messages at their own
convenience)
 Attaching files to e-mail/accessing attached e-mail files
 Uploading and downloading files to/from a server
 Completing and submitting online forms and/or questionnaires
 Monitoring and posting messages to a threaded discussion group
 Participating in online seminars and/or courses

16. How familiar are you with the following, at the grade level(s) for which you are responsible?
[Options include: New to it, A little experienced, moderately experienced, quite experienced]

 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

 Your State’s Standards, Benchmarks, and Comprehensive Curriculum
 Council for Exceptional Children Standards

17. Within special education, many teachers feel better qualified to teach students with specific
exceptionalities than others. How well qualified do you feel you are to teach students with the following
exceptionalities?
[Options include qualified, not well qualified, adequately qualified, very well qualified]

 Specific learning disabilities

 Mild/moderate mental disabilities
 Severe/profound mental disabilities
 Autism
 Emotionally Disturbed
 Other____________________________

18. Please indicate how well prepared you feel in each of the following areas in your own teaching.
[Options include: Not adequately prepare, somewhat prepared, fairly well prepare, very well prepared]
 Managing student grades, record keeping and paperwork
 Student discipline
 Lesson planning and time management
 Effectively dealing with and communicating with parents
 Using group work effectively

272
  Setting and achieving student goals as written on I.E.P.’s
 Setting and achieving professional goals

19. Please rate HOW IMPORTANT it is for you to do each of the following in your own teaching.
[Options include: not important, somewhat important, fairly important, important]

 Identify how students may think about the content you are teaching
 Question students for understanding
 Have students demonstrate higher-order thinking skills
 Motivate students to learn and become actively involved in classroom activities
 Use real world/functional skills in lessons
 Examine student work in order to assess student thinking and reflect on classroom practice
 Provide instruction for multiple learning styles of my students
 Identify/develop lessons aligned to instructional goals on the students’ I.E.P’s
 Identify/develop lessons to address individual student needs
 Identify/develop lessons aligned to state and national standards
 Formally assess student learning within the content area in which you are teaching
 Informally assess student learning within the content area in which you are teaching

20. Please indicate HOW WELL PREPARED you feel to do each of the following in your own teaching.
[Options include: Not adequately prepare, somewhat prepared, fairly well prepare, very well prepared]

 Identify how students may think about the content you are teaching
 Question students for understanding
 Have students demonstrate higher-order thinking skills
 Motivate students to learn and become actively involved in classroom activities
 Use real world/functional skills in lessons
 Examine student work in order to assess student thinking and reflect on classroom practice
 Provide instruction for multiple learning styles of my students
 Identify/develop lessons aligned to instructional goals on the students’ I.E.P’s
 Identify/develop lessons to address individual student needs
 Identify/develop lessons aligned to state and national standards
 Formally assess student learning within the content area in which you are teaching
 Informally assess student learning within the content area in which you are teaching

21. How much time do you anticipate being able to spend on eMSS activities each week?
 less than 1 hour
 1-2 hours
 3-4 hours
 5-6 hours
 more than 6 hours

22. Why did you decide to participate in the eMSS-Special Education program?

273
 ___________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
23. What do you hope to gain from your participation in this electronic mentoring program?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

274
 APPENDIX D Coding Protocol for Beginning Special Educators’ Needs and Concerns

Needs and Concerns of Beginning Special Educators

Inclusion, Collaboration and Interaction
Pedagogical Concerns Managing Roles Emotional/Psychological
with Adults

Parents

Student Behavior

Caseload

Time/Scheduling

Role Confusion
Collaboration

Aides

Materials
Curriculum & Teaching
Administrators
Inclusion

Assessment

Paperwork, IEP's, & Meetings

Emotional/Psychological
Boyer & Lee (2001) X X X X X X X X X X

Busch, Pederson,
Espin, &
X X X X X X
Weissenburger
(2001)

Carter & Scruggs

X X X X X X X X X X X
(2001)

Lovingfoss, Harris, X X X X X X X

275
& Grahma (2001)

MacDonald &
X X X X X X X
speece 92001)

Mastropieri (2001) X X X X X X X X X X X

Billinsgley &
X X X X X X X X
Tomchin (1992)

Conderman &
X X X X X X
Stephens (2000)

Gehrke & McCoy

X X X X X X
(2007)

Gehrke & Murri

X X X X X X X X X X
(2006)

Kilgore & Griffin

X X X X X X X X X
(1998)

Kilgore, Griffin,
Otis-Wilborn, & X X X X X X X X X X
Winn (2003)

Otis-Wilborn,
Winn, Griffin, & X X X X X X X X X X X X
Kilgore (2005)

Griffin, X X X X X X

276
Seitz (1994) X X X X X X X X X

Whitaker (2003) X X X X X

White & Mason

X X X X X X X X X X
(2006)

Source: Billingsley, B. S., Griffin, C.C., Smith, S.J., Kamman, M., & Israel, M. (2009). A review of teacher induction in special
education: Research, practice, and technology solutions. (NCIPP Doc. No. RS-1). Retrieved November 1, 2009, from University of
Florida, National Center to Inform Policy and Practice in Special Education Professional Development website:
http:?/nicipp.org/reports/rs_1.pdf

277
 APPENDIX E. eMSS HOME PAGE

Discussions Topics Messages Last Message

Facilitator Forum
Facilitator Forum 7 53 06-01-2010 13:20:57

Facilitator Forum Archives 26 112 05-09-2010 15:01:15

Post Survey and End of Year Reflections

Post Survey for Mentees 1 16 05-25-2010 13:38:56

Post Survey for Mentors 1 17 05-27-2010 08:12:04

End of Year Reflections for Mentees

This area is only viewable to mentees and eMSS staff. 1 9 05-23-2010 11:17:31

End of Year Reflections for Mentors

This area is only viewable to mentors and eMSS staff. 1 19 05-28-2010 11:40:17

Spring Inquiry Registration

If you would like to participate in an 8 week inquiry focused on an area of your choice, please
sign up now. Remember, both mentors and mentees can earn 2 graduate quarter credits for
completion. 2 24 04-04-2010 13:53:30

Our Place Mentor 1 (name removed)

Weekly Happenings 8 18 06-01-2010 18:47:17

Archives 6 41 04-16-2010 13:02:22

Our Place Mentor 2 (name removed)

Weekly Happenings 8 20 05-22-2010 17:28:48

Archives 7 10 03-26-2010 18:16:19

Our Place Mentor 3 (name removed)

Weekly Happenings 12 22 06-02-2010 06:42:09

Archives 22 83 04-21-2010 19:01:05

Our Place Mentor 4 (name removed)

Weekly Happenings 7 31 05-08-2010 04:32:22

278
 Archives 3 21 03-08-2010 16:34:02

Our Place Mentor 5 (Name removed)

Weekly Happenings 11 26 06-01-2010 09:13:22

Archives 8 26 04-08-2010 10:09:42

Our Place Mentor 6

Weekly Happenings 8 8 06-01-2010 14:32:29

Archives 19 35 04-26-2010 07:25:53

Our Place Mentor 7

Weekly Happenings 3 16 05-11-2010 07:39:46

Archives 10 58 04-07-2010 06:32:51

Our Place Mentor 8

Weekly Happenings 2 3 06-03-2010 17:34:11

Archives 29 106 05-28-2010 13:39:37

Our Place Mentor 9

Weekly Happenings 9 54 06-04-2010 19:01:24

Archives 5 33 03-14-2010 19:27:26

Our Place Mentor 10

Weekly Happenings 8 28 05-17-2010 11:31:48

Archives 5 43 03-15-2010 11:25:29

Our Place Mentor 11

Weekly Happenings 3 4 05-24-2010 08:15:29

Archives 15 37 05-06-2010 10:52:19

Our Place Mentor 12

Weekly Happenings 7 28 05-06-2010 14:16:15

Archives
0 No messages No messages

279
Our Place Mentor 13
Weekly Happenings 9 12 05-26-2010 07:55:57

Archives 8 8 04-18-2010 07:26:23

Our Place Mentor 14

Weekly Happenings 16 52 06-01-2010 18:17:00

Archives 7 19 03-25-2010 19:10:38

Our Place Mentor 15

Weekly Happenings 7 13 06-01-2010 19:31:11

Archives 10 41 04-15-2010 16:57:34

Our Place Mentor 16

Weekly Happenings 14 43 05-19-2010 18:52:10

Archives 0 No messages No messages

Our Place Mentor 17
Weekly Happenings 9 26 05-14-2010 14:12:30

Archives 0 No messages No messages

Our Place Mentor 18
Weekly Happenings 10 12 05-27-2010 10:26:55

Archives 0 No messages No messages

Our Place Mentor 19
Weekly Happenings 8 31 05-26-2010 09:56:18

Archives 10 35 04-02-2010 15:58:55

Louisiana Survey - please fill out ASAP

Louisiana Survey from Dept. of Ed. 1 22 04-14-2010 07:40:25

Our Place (Mentor's Name)

Weekly Happenings! 0 No messages No messages
Mentor Place
Mentoring Strategies 8 104 06-07-2010 10:57:48

Mentor Place Archives

Archived discussions from Mentor Place 36 542 05-23-2010 15:03:39

280
Topic of the Month
Topic of the Month: May
Reflecting on Our Successes and Challenges 7 58 06-01-2010 13:40:30

Working with at-risk students at year's end Dilemma

How can we help at-risk students to do their best when they are facing hardships at home?
3 21 05-11-2010 08:23:373

TOM/Dilemma Archives
Archived discussions from Topics of the Month and Dilemmas 25 225 04-26-2010
14:55:42

Early Childhood/Elementary K-5

Developmental Delay (EC/K-5) 2 16 05-16-2010 06:50:46

Mild/Moderate Disabilities (EC/K-5) 5 35 06-02-2010 10:25:54

Significant Disabilities (EC/K-5) 5 24 05-12-2010 10:51:36

Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) (EC/K-5) 6 51 05-26-2010 05:24:01

Emotional Disability (EC/K-5) 3 13 05-21-2010 06:43:18

Early Childhood/Elementary K-5 Archives

Archived discussions from the Early Childhood topic areas. 27 226 04-18-2010
15:15:01

Middle/High School (6-12)

Mild/Moderate Disabilities (6-12) 6 39 05-28-2010 09:55:37

Significant Disabilities (6-12) 4 10 05-14-2010 06:55:57

Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)(6-12) 5 22 05-16-2010 19:02:55

Emotional Disability (6-12) 4 22 06-02-2010 13:59:30

Middle/High School Archives

Archived discussions from the Middle School topic areas. 22 127 04-12-2010 00:06:18

281
Cyberlounge
Cyber Cafe
Share anything of interest to you that expands conversation. 4 38 06-06-2010
20:54:00

Cyber Cafe Archives 7 51 04-07-2010 05:28:24

Our Place Mentor 20

Weekly Happenings 4 6 03-24-2010 21:11:33

Archives 0 No messages No messages

Our Place Mentor 21
Weekly Happenings 4 14 03-13-2010 10:04:21

Archives

282
 APPENDIX F. COMMON THREADS POSTED IN OUR PLACE BY MENTORS

Welcome thread

Please take a moment to introduce yourself. We will be spending a lot of time together
virtually, so please tell our group more about you. You can include any or all of the following:
· Tell us where you teach, what city you are in, and about your role in your school.
· What brought you into teaching and/or this position?
· What might you want me to know that might give me some insights about you?
· Family and/or other significant people that surround you in your personal life?
· Hobbies/interests?
· How do you hope I will support you and each other this year?
Please take a moment to introduce yourself. We will be spending a lot of time together
virtually, so please tell our group more about you. You can include any and all of the following:

 Tell us where you teach, what city you are in, and about your role in your school.
 What brought you into teaching and/or this position?
 What might you want me to know that might give me some insights about you?
 Family and/or other significant people that surround you in your personal life?
 Hobbies/interests?
 How do you hope I will support you and each this year?

Student Profile

Let’s create a student and school profile. This profile offers a quick way for you—and our
group—to understand your teaching situation a bit better. It will also help you begin to plan
your lessons to meet the diverse needs of your students.

Post to Discussion:
Briefly describe your students. You may give approximate numbers or percentages. And don't
worry if you don't have all this information. Simply do the best you can with what you know at
this point in the year.

Student profile: You may choose either one class or combine several of your classes.

Which class(es) are you profiling:

Number of special needs students on your roster; List the exceptionalities of each student

Approximate grade level(s) of your students

283
Briefly describe your students as people, sharing some general information that goes beyond
academic performance:

School Profile

Briefly describe your school. You may give approximate numbers or percentages. And don't
wory if you don't have all of this information. Simply do the best you can with what you know.

Again, please just use your best guess to answer the following:

School Profile: Briefly describe your school and the community it serves.

School size:

Urban, suburban, or rural:

Socio-economic level and cultural backgrounds of the students:

Academic performance level:

Insights you've had about your school:

Possible people to collaborate with at your school:

eMSS Introduction Letter

Most site administrators will be pleased and impressed to learn that you are participating in the
acclaimed nationwide eMSS mentoring program. In order to help you let your principal know
about eMSS, we have provided you with a letter of introduction. This letter may be given to
your site administrator, your department chair, or anyone else you feel might benefit from
knowing of your work with eMSS.

Even if you have already mentioned your eMSS participation to people at your school, this
letter from our Director will provide a formal introduction and give them an overview of our
program.

When you hand your site administrators the letter, you may want to ask if they will accept the
professional development hours you will earn with eMSS. Or, remember by completing the
upcoming Inquiry in March you can earn you up to 2 graduate credits (approximately $100 per
credit) from the University of California @ Santa Cruz Extension. You may check and see if these
credits would need to be approved.

284
Post to Discussion:

Please let me know that you have passed along the letter and share any comments or questions
they may have had.

eMSS-SE_introduction_letter_to_administrators 09.doc

Description Introduction Letter Download

Filesize 138 kb

Classroom Implications and Dilemmas Area

Classroom Implications and Dilemma discussion areas

I invite you to begin posting in the Classroom Implications and Dilemma discussion area. Both
are short, optional, open-ended scenarios that pose a question about a specific teaching or
content issue. They will be available for your participation throughout the spring.

You'll join with other mentees and mentors in facilitated online discussions about possible
solutions to these dilemmas. The nature and structure of each invite a wide range of ideas and
offers opportunities to exchange and contrast various perceptions.

Dilemmas almost always have multiple solutions—there is not one RIGHT answer. I encourage
your participation in any discussion that interests you, and you may contribute to as many
Dilemma discussions as you like.

Content Area and Topic of the Month

I also invite you to visit the Topic of the Month and content discussion areas below Our Place as
well.
Content area specialists and teacher leaders facilitate both areas; these areas can help you
discover the nuances to teaching the math or science to students. These are public areas where
all other mentees and mentors are welcome to post and participate in discussion and ask
questions. You will find specific strategies and get ideas in your respective content area in order
to support your students’ line of questioning and thinking.

You do not need to read ALL of these discussions. In fact, I hope that you wouldn’t even try…..it
would be information overload! Just click on topics that peek your interest or simply post a
question.

285
Helpful Hint: Use the "Watch" feature in Sakai to receive notification by e-mail for replies to
topics you are interested in (including your own postings). In any discussion worksite, click on
the binoculars icon and the word "Watch" at the top of the page.

Selecting an Inquiry

We are now planning ahead to select the Inquiry that you'll work on with a larger professional
learning community.

Each inquiry has three parts: Plan, Prepare, and Reflect. The three areas will focus what you are
specifically teaching. The Plan area will allow you to brainstorm and select which lesson you
want to develop. The Prepare section gives you a place to sketch out your lesson and invite
comments and suggestions from the larger community (other mentees and mentors) here in
eMSS. The Reflect area obviously allows you to do some self-evaluation.

Inquiries are guided discussions focusing on a teaching or content topic. Choose one that best
meets your current teaching needs and that will have a positive impact on your teaching
practice.

Remember you can earn graduate credit for your participation in the Inquiries – information to
sign up for credit will be available once the inquiry begins.

Look for the Discussion area called Spring Inquiry Registration and Overviews for information
on each inquiry.

You can read through the overviews of each inquiry in the Inquiry Registration discussion area
at the top of the Home site.

Post to Discussion:
Once you have selected your Inquiry, or if you need some guidance in selecting an Inquiry,
please reply to this prompt, and let me know your choice.

Completing a Self-Assessment

A tool that we use regularly in eMSS is the Self-Assessment. Reflecting on your practice is
essential to advancing your teaching practice.

Directions for completing Self-Assessment: Click on Self-Assessment on the left Menu bar. Click
on Mentee Getting Started Self-Assessment and reply to the questions. Please complete the
Getting Started Self- Assessment, and it is a valuable tool for assessing and reflecting on your
progress.

286
Check back in a few days, an eMSS facilitator will be reviewing your assessment and providing
you feedback.

End of Year Ideas

As the end of the year approaches, teachers have a tendency to reflect on the past year. They
think about those lessons that worked incredibly well, and the ones that weren't so
great! They think about what they will do next year with their students. They think about
the different methods that worked when teaching their students and how they will modify
them for the following year.

Post to Discussion:

What will you continue when working with your students next year?

How will you prepare for next year?

287
 Appendix G

Table G-1. Postings Made by Mentors

______________________________________________________________________________

Mentor Our Place Percentage Total Posts Difference

Percentage
Postings of Total Posts locations
other than
Our Place
______________________________________________________________________________

Mentor 1 37 65 57 20 35

Mentor 2 22 41 54 32 59

Mentor 3 61 57 107 46 43

Mentor 4 26 70 37 11 30

Mentor 5 35 36 96 61 64

Mentor 6 39 54 72 33 46

Mentor 7 43 56 76 33 43

Mentor 8 43 50 87 44 51

Mentor 9 55 82 67 12 18

Mentor 10 47 51 92 45 49

Mentor 11 32 56 57 25 44

Mentor 12 18 42 43 25 58

Mentor 13 21 32 66 45 68

Mentor 14 47 46 103 56 54

Mentor 15 40 66 60 20 33

Mentor 16 27 68 40 13 33

288
Table G-1 continued

_____________________________________________________________________________

Mentor Our Place Percentage Total Posts Difference

Percentage
Postings of Total Posts locations
other than
Our Place
______________________________________________________________________________

Mentor 17 15 25 61 46 75

Mentor 18 11 46 24 13 54

Mentor 19 42 71 59 17 29

Mentor 20 6 45 11 5 45

Mentor 21 8 80 10 2 20

_____________________________________________________________________________

289
Table G-2 Postings Made by Mentees
______________________________________________________________________________

Mentee Our Place Percentage of Total Posts Difference Percentage

Postings Total Posts locations

other than OP
______________________________________________________________________________

Mentee 1 4 100 4 0 0

Mentee 2 12 80 15 3 20

Mentee 3 6 75 8 2 25

Mentee 4 4 50 8 4 50

Mentee 5 4 100 4 0 0

Mentee 6 24 67 36 12 33

Mentee 7 5 100 5 0 0

Mentee 8 1 100 1 0 0

Mentee 9 4 100 4 0 0

Mentee 10 14 82 17 3 18

Mentee 11 12 86 14 2 14

Mentee 12 18 100 18 0 0

Mentee 13 3 100 3 0 0

Mentee 14 10 100 10 0 0

Mentee 15 13 100 13 0 0

Mentee 16 4 100 4 0 0

Mentee 17 3 100 3 0 0

Mentee 18 19 61 31 12 39

Mentee 19 2 17 12 10 83

290
Table G-2 continued

_____________________________________________________________________________

Mentee Our Place Percentage of Total Posts Difference Percentage

Postings Total Posts locations

other than OP
______________________________________________________________________________

Mentee 20 1 20 5 4 80

Mentee 21 5 83 6 1 17

Mentee 22 22 63 35 13 37

Mentee 23 1 100 1 0 0

Mentee 24 1 100 1 0 0

Mentee 25 8 73 11 3 27

Mentee 26 5 100 5 0 0

Mentee 27 9 45 20 11 55

Mentee 28 2 100 2 0 0

Mentee 29 7 35 20 13 65

Mentee 30 2 50 4 2 50

Mentee 31 10 91 11 1 9

Mentee 32 18 95 19 1 5

Mentee 33 6 100 6 0 0

Mentee 34 7 100 7 0 0

Mentee 35 5 100 5 0 0

Mentee 36 1 100 1 0 0

Mentee 37 1 100 1 0 0

Mentee 38 6 100 6 0 0

291
Table G-2 continued

_____________________________________________________________________________

Mentee Our Place Percentage of Total Posts Difference Percentage

Postings Total Posts locations

other than OP
______________________________________________________________________________

Mentee 39 7 70 10 3 30

Mentee 40 11 100 11 0 0

Mentee 41 1 100 1 0 0

Mentee 42 22 76 29 7 24

Mentee 43 2 13 15 13 87

Mentee 44 0 0 8 8 100

Mentee 45 0 0 5 5 100

Mentee 46 0 0 4 4 100

Mentee 47 0 0 4 4 100

Mentee 48 0 0 0 0 0

Mentee 49 0 0 0 0 0

Mentee 50 0 0 1 1 100

____________________________________________________________________________

292
 APPENDIX H. PROBES FOR TOPICS OF THE MONTH

March: Student Achievement

Opening Probe (posted as Read Only by NTC Staff on 2/28/2010)

“High stakes assessments. Data and accountability. (sic) This is the language that surrounds
our classrooms and our schools, particularly this time of year. The pressure that accompanies
the mandates for increased testing is taking its toll on both new teacher and their veteran
colleagues. In this climate of intense pressure and public scrutiny, it becomes especially
important for us to step back from the rhetoric and remind ourselves of the central role
assessment plays in our ability to deliver effective instruction as well as provide high quality
beginning teacher support. Assessment has significant importance for teaching and learning.
Effective classroom teachers use an array of assessment tools and strategies to better
understand their students’ academic needs, to target their instruction, to guide next steps, and
then to document their students’ achievement. Assessment data informs our instruction and
ensure that our teaching is responsive to the needs of all our students. Effective teachers know
this and seamlessly connect learning and assessing”

Subject: Prompt #1: Factors that influence student achievement (posted 2/28/2011)

“Hi Everyone Special education teachers work daily to use a variety f tools and strategies to
better understand their students’ academic needs, to individualize instruction, and to
document their students achievement”.

03-07-2010 09:14:04 Subject: March TOM Summary: Week 1

Hi, everyone! Here is a summary of your thoughts and ideas from our first week's discussions of
the March Topic of the Month. Thank you so much for your contributions and insights!!
Stephanie

In addition to high quality teachers, what other factors influence student achievement?

 Student engagement and motivation

 Family support and routines at home
 Communication between parents and teachers

293
  Consistent attendance
 School climate/a safe environment
 Previous educational experiences
 Integration of quality technology (promethean boards, power points, computer
programs)
 Teaching students at their ability level to ensure success
 Using differentiated instruction
 The attitudes of their peers
 Trust
 Creativity

Often so much rides on a single test, how can we ensure students are learning beyond a
narrow scope of skills?

 Communicate consistently with the general education teachers

 Follow the GLE's
 Teach the standards
 Monitor progress, note gaps in learning and address them
 Modify instruction to accommodate student learning styles
 Use differentiated instruction
 Recognize achievements with attention/praise
 Allow time for students to apply skills and provide guided practice
 Teach and model problem-solving

03-07-2010 09:21:14 Subject: Prompt #2: Balancing Strategies

Teachers can use a variety of strategies to assist with gathering ongoing information about
student learning and performance. Some include:

 Observing students as they work using checklists as guidelines for observation

 Asking probing questions to determine student thinking, evaluating student products
(e.g., written explanations, pictures, portfolio entries, and model graphic organizers) that
include student reasoning
 Providing thoughtful feedback that includes advice for improvement of work.Listening to
students' verbal explanations which includes "wait time" that gives students time to think
before responding
 Providing hands-on or written tasks that allow students to use inquiry skills where they
are required to speak or write
 Performance based assesments

Prompt 2
How do you balance strategies like these to inform your teaching and link to student
achievement?

294
 03-14-2010 13:31:34 Subject: March TOM Summary: Week 2

Thank you everyone for the wonderful week of discussions! Here is a summary of your
contributions to our second prompt: How do you balance strategies like these to inform your
teaching and link to student achievement?

The overwhelming consensus is: Use a variety of strategies!

Data collection strategies and advice include:

 Monitor student learning regularly

 Use checklists or note cards
 Computer programs

Assessment strategies and advice include:

 Establish instructional level conditions within the learning tasks being assessed
 Insure student success at each level by making sure it is at the students’ ability level
 Set instructional goals scaffolding on what the student knows and what he/she needs
 Spiral the lessons and return to a concept/skill to check if they remember some of the
skills
 Give immediate feedback to students
 Use a variety of assessments and that incorporate different learning styles: Individual
Learning Style Inventory was suggested
 Use lots of formative assessments, including teacher observation, portfolio entries, and
making time to listen to students' verbal explanations.
Also, teach students the importance of making an effort toward their goals.

03-14-2010 13:52:38 Subject: Prompt #3: Achievement in your classroom

Hi everyone! Thank you all so much for contributing to our discussions over the last few weeks
about factors that influence student acheivement.

For the third week of our Topic of the Month, please respond to the following:

 What does student achievement look like for the students you teach?
 How do you assess/evaluate student achievement in your classroom?

03-21-2010 10:36:04 Subject: March TOM Summary: Week 3

295
What does student achievement look like for the students you teach?

 It is different for each individual student

 They reach goals and benchmarks
 They understand a difficult concept by completing an assignment or test correctly.
 When prompts are faded, the student is able to work more independently
 When students feel successful
 They improve in point sheet scores
 They pass Proficiency Exams
 Succeeding in more general education classes
 Students track their own growth using visual charts or graphs and can see their own
progress.

How do you assess/evaluate student achievement in your classroom?

Teacher evaluations tools:

 Formal and informal testing (pre and post tests, normed/non-normed tests, curriculum
based assessments)
 Work samples
 Teacher observation
 Data collection (checklists, documenting on a teacher-made grid,
 IEP goals and objectives
 Rubrics
 Work samples
 Conferencing with students

Student self-evaluations

 Students graph totals on behavior point sheets

 Students track their own scores on curriculum-based assessments
 Student calendars
 Technology based programs with tutorials built in and immediate feedback

03-21-2010 10:36:04 Subject: March TOM Summary: Week 3

What does student achievement look like for the students you teach?

 It is different for each individual student

 They reach goals and benchmarks
 They understand a difficult concept by completing an assignment or test correctly.
 When prompts are faded, the student is able to work more independently
 When students feel successful

296
  They improve in point sheet scores
 They pass Proficiency Exams
 Succeeding in more general education classes
 Students track their own growth using visual charts or graphs and can see their own
progress.

How do you assess/evaluate student achievement in your classroom?

Teacher evaluations tools:

 Formal and informal testing (pre and post tests, normed/non-normed tests, curriculum
based assessments)
 Work samples
 Teacher observation
 Data collection (checklists, documenting on a teacher-made grid,
 IEP goals and objectives
 Rubrics
 Work samples
 Conferencing with students

Student self-evaluations

 Students graph totals on behavior point sheets

 Students track their own scores on curriculum-based assessments
 Student calendars
 Technology based programs with tutorials built in and immediate feedback.

297
 Topic of the Month April – Student Engagement

03-31-2010 12:47:43 Subject: April TOM: Student Engagement Strategies (READ

ONLY)

Student engagement in the classroom is the cornerstone of a lesson. When students are
engaged, they are eager to participate, their curiosity is stimulated, they are permitted to
express themselves creatively, and students foster positive relationships with others. Students
engaged in work that is meaningful and relevant want to learn what is being taught and are
ready to learn more. The key is giving teachers the tools, strategies and information to foster
student engagement.

The International Center for Leadership in Education states, “Student engagement is the
positive behaviors that indicate full participation by the student in the learning process. When
students are engaged, we can hear, see, or feel their motivation in completing a task. They take
pride in their work and go beyond the minimum work required. Engaged students demonstrate
a feeling of belonging by the way they act, the positive things they say about school, and
through their passionate involvement in class activities."

Student Engagement: Teacher Handbook, International Center for Leadership in Education, R.

D. Jones, 2009, p. 1.

04-12-2010 08:15:38 Subject: April TOM Summary: Week 1

It has been so interesting this week to read the different ways teachers of students with varying
needs address student engagement in the classroom. One commonality I noticed in all of your
responses is that all lessons should be planned with student engagement in mind.

How does student engagement figure into a classroom?

 Each lesson should have a component that requires active engagement- motion helps
trigger memory and helps with recall.
 Use of sensory-rich materials: manipulatives, puppets, videos, pictures, assistive
technology, and music
 Use of differentiated instruction, attending to the different learning styles of students.
 Making sure physical needs are met (body positioning).
 Using specific positive reinforcement for students who are engaged.
 Changing tone and pitch while talking

298
  Being flexible and creative in presenting information in a variety of ways.
 Keeping activities short and changing them frequently
 Facilitating socialization and interaction with peers

How can teachers determine whether or not students are truly engaged?

 Observe your students: are they actively participating?

 Walk around the classroom
 Ask questions
 Mandates vs. questioning
 Read body language (are they staring into space, doodling, heads down)?
 Look for rate of movement, vocalizations, and facial expressions.
 Assess completion of tasks

Other insights:

 Engagement of the students seems to get easier as the year goes on

 Student engagement is key to effective classroom management.


04-18-2010 10:21:26 Subject: April TOM Summary: Week 2

Here is a summary of your strategies to increase student engagement in your classrooms.

Thanks to everyone who contributed this week!

 What is an example of a student engagement strategy you use?

 What does student engagement look like in your classroom?

 Anticipatory set: Teacher excitement and engagement

 Brainstorming
 Questioning techniques (why and how questions)
 Assessing background knowledge: Star and a Wish or K-W-L chart (“Know” “Want to
Know” and “Learned”)
 Encouraging participation from all students
 Cooperative learning
 Think, Pair, Share
 Games
 Active learning involving movement
 Peer tutoring

04-26-2010 12:03:56 Subject: April TOM Summary: Week 3

299
 In what ways do the strategies you use reinforce student engagement?

 Cooperative learning: strategies are clarified from the eyes of the other students and
can engage some of the reluctant learners to become involved by seeing their peers
involved in learning.

 Insure understanding by having students explain the concepts to each other.

 Cooperative learning groups and peer-mediated interactions work well with students
diagnosed with autism, as do most engagement strategies.

 Computer-based programs that are self-paced encourage students to stay focused.

Are there any strategies that challenge your thinking?

Cooperative Learning:

 Making sure that all learners in a group understand the concepts and are giving each
other accurate information.
 Finding a balance between empowering the students and guiding them towards the
intended learning objective

Co-Teaching and collaboration:

 Requires a willingness to change teaching styles and preferences, work closely with
another adult, share responsibility, and rely on another individual in order to perform
tasks previously done alone.

The inclusion model:

 May be ineffective for students who are functioning well in the resource environment.

300
 Topic of the Month for May

MAY TOM: REFLECTING ON OUR SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES (READ ONLY)

04-30-2010 16:45:52 Subject: May TOM: Reflecting on Our Successes and Challenges
(READ ONLY)

As the school year begins to come to a close, reflecting on the year is a powerful way to
improve our own teaching practices. Reflection helps us think about what we did and the
successes and challenges from our experiences. It also helps us remember routines,
procedures, or lessons that we want to use again as well as helping us remember to make
changes if needed.

Reflection is frequently found in the professional development literature for beginning teachers
and is often described as a tool to help beginning teachers work through the unique challenges
they face. Zeichner (1992) explains that reflection is considered one of the primary tools for
facilitating the development of competence and ultimately expertise in novice
teachers. Additionally, reflection has been promoted as a ‘tool’ to facilitate learning. Atkins
and Murphey (1993) write of its importance in the integration of theory and practice. Schon
(1983) supports reflection as a tool to help teachers develop their craft as they face unique and
complex situations each day which are not necessarily solvable by technical rational approaches
alone.

Reference: Farrar, B. (Nov 2009). Elements of reflective and non reflective discourses in an
online induction program for experienced and novice science teachers. Montana State
University, Bozeman, MT.

04-30-2010 16:50:21 Subject: Prompt #1: Successes

When thinking about this school year, describe your successes with students, planning,
procedures, etc.

What made them successful?

How will you work toward taking those successful components and implementing them into
other aspects of your practice?

05-09-2010 19:41:14 Subject: Prompt #2: Challenges

In reflecting upon the school year, what were some of your biggest challenges? What made

301
them challenges? (If referring to students please be sure to respect confidentiality--no names
please.)

Think about procedures that were not in place or those that may have been ineffective. How
will creating procedures or modifying ineffective procedures improve your practice? What you
will do differently next year?

05-15-2010 16:52:31 Subject: May TOM Summary: Week 1

When thinking about this school year, describe your successes with students, planning,
procedures, etc.

Overwhelmingly, successes were measured by the achievement of students in reaching IEP

goals and /or exiting ESS.

Other successes include:

 Developing good working relationships with the families of students

 Working as a part of a team in a cooperative and collaborative manner.
 Implementing a new reading program

What made them successful?

 Learning to slow down to their pace

 Good Lesson planning
 Trying different approaches and changing routine if necessary
 Reasonable class sizes and good combinations of students
 The use of stimulus funds
 Setting behavior expectations and developing behavior strategies that work
 Paraprofessionals and regular education teachers who collaborate

How will you work toward taking those successful components and implementing them into
other aspects of your practice?

 Continuous collaboration with ESS staff

 Analyze each student evaluation to serve the student in the best setting
 Be a true resource for our regular ed teachers
 Use professional development to improve student performance and student behaviors.
 Set the expectation and let the learner know and understand those expectations.
 Break down goals to very small components when making lesson plans.

302
  Be flexible.

05-16-2010 17:49:36 Subject: May TOM Summary: Week 2

Here is a summary of the challenges you faced this year:

 Communication between all parties involved in supporting the IEP goals and objectives

 Lack of communication with general education teachers (often refused to make

modifications)

 Lack of support from the general education teachers

 Disrespect from general education teachers

 Paraprofessionals who did not stick to their schedules

 Chaos of opening a new school

 Not enough time to plan with general education teachers

 Looming lay-offs

 Making time for meetings and getting classes covered

 Low expectations from the entire school staff about what students can accomplish

 Sharing space with other classes while trying to prepare for state tests

As I have read through the challenges you have faced this school year, I just want to say that I
am a better general education teacher now than I ever would have been without special
education training and experience. You are all amazing educators and should be so proud of
what you are doing on a daily basis. I won't ever say "I don't know how you do it"....... I know
exactly how you do it and you should be the most respected teachers at your
school! Sorry..had to add my two cents!

05-16-2010 17:21:06 Subject: Prompt #3: Next year

What are some ideas you want to be sure to implement again next year or new
ideas/concepts that you want to try? How will you make sure this happens?

05-27-2010 14:51:43 Subject: Prompt #4: Final Thoughts

303
Thanks to everyone for sharing your reflections about your experiences this school year. Do
you have any final comments or thoughts you would like to make about successes, challenges,
or plans for next year? If so, we'd love to hear them.

304
 APPENDIX I. DISCUSSION DILEMMA THREADS

Summary of Test Anxiety Dilemma

02-20-2010 09:09:19 Subject: Dilemma Title: Test Anxiety

Test anxiety is a common occurrence for many students, not only special education
students. How do you support students with text anxiety? Join us for a discussion on ways to
support students with test anxiety

Darren, a beginning special education teacher, is monitoring a special education student who
works hard, completes her homework correctly, participates in class discussions, and can
answer most questions asked of her. However, when it comes to test taking, the student
generally does very poorly due to a severe case of test anxiety. Darren has checked with the
student’s inclusion teachers and counselors and finds that the student has similar problems in
most of her classes. The student, however, is often absent on test days.

The student has modifications for taking tests in her IEP, including extra time for test taking but
still freezes when a tests is on the desk. How might Darren support this student overcome test
anxiety?

Respond to the following:

 What advice would you give Darren in working with this student? What are some
strategies that could be used to reduce the student’s stress?

03-01-2010 18:45:48 Subject: Test Anxiety: Week 2

Great Discussion So Far!!!

A topic that was raised and discussed by several teachers last week was the issue of students
who express that they "don't care if they fail." There were a few descriptions of these students
and some strategies to reach them, but I felt like we could dedicate some more time to discuss
these kids.

305
Respond to the following:

Describe the behavior of a student who projects that he or she doesn't care if they fail. How
can you find out about their academic history to learn how they have reached this point?

 What are some strategies that could be use to connect to these students and change
their approach to being assessed?

03-08-2010 16:48:42 Subject: Test Anxiety: Week 3

As we enter the final week of this dilemma, I wanted to get the groups thoughts on something
many of us will be facing soon: High Stakes State Exams!

Considering our discussion so far about test anxiety, please share your thoughts on the
following:

 How do you feel the state mandated exams impact students? Has school culture
changed because of the emphasis on testing?
 Next, what strategies do you have to prepare students for these high stakes exams
that can help reduce test anxiety?

03-01-2010 18:20:03 Subject: Summary of Suggestions for Teachers to Reduce Test

Anxiety

After one week you provided ton of great suggestions that teachers can use to help reduce test
anxiety! Here is a brief summary of what you proposed:

 Use varied ways to review content to prepare students: mneumonic devices, songs, raps,
flashcards, recorded notes etc.
 Use practice tests to help teach test-taking strategies including how to highlight answers
in a passage, eliminate incorrect choices, looking for key words, using graphic
organizers, how to read directions etc. Whatever strategies you teach, practice together
until the student could perform them independently.
 Be aware of the accommodations that your student receives.
 Extended time, allow breaks, and reduce distractions
 Giving the exam page at a time or “chunking” the test (breaking into small chunks) to
help with lengthy benchmark test.
 Read tests aloud and/or Using a scribe
 Sit with the students with the most recent test and talking about what
happened. Celebrate their successes, and make any needed adjustments.
 Teach visualization and relaxation techniques
 Provide manipulatives/calculators/dictionaries if applicable (make sure that students have
been thoroughly taught how to use them)

306
  Reassure students. Just before the test and give a quick pep talk to review the game plan
and provide some encouragement.
 Allow retakes or test corrections if possible
 Remember not all strategies will work for all students; the key is having the patience and
determination to find something that will help.
 Teachers need to stay relaxed so as to not to raise to the anxiety level of students.

03-01-2010 18:23:53 Subject: Summary of Suggestions for Students to Reduce Test

Anxiety

The first week of discussion provided many suggestions students can use to help reduce test
anxiety! Here is a brief summary of what you discussed:

 Acknowledge the test anxiety

 Flip over papers and "download" key words, phrases, or mneumonic devices on the back
of the test (anything they worried about forgetting.)
Underline or use a highlighter to locate key words and numbering the steps/parts of the
directions.
 Use deep breathing, positive self-talk, and visualization techniques to relax.
 Review the entire test before beginning (if possible)
 Work on the questions they know first, and do not get stuck on a question; they can
always come back to it
 Use test-taking strategies
 Don't rush and take short breaks
 PIRATES (Prepare to succeed! Inspect all directions, Read, remember and reduce.
Answer or abandon the questions. Turn back and answer all the questions that you
skipped the first time, Estimate, Survey the test before you turn it in.
 For students with attention problems, chew gum, have a piece of hard candy, some other
snack, a water bottle or some juice. Other students may need something to "fidget" with
in order to concentrate.

307
 Summary of Overwhelmed with Paper Dilemma

03-14-2010 07:19:22 Subject: Dilemma Title: Overwhelmed with Paper

Joseph is approaching the end of his first year teaching and feeling connected to his students
and their educational needs. It is a struggle, however, day by day to put in the extra time
necessary to stay in compliance with the paperwork that is required by law. He also has to
make sure that goals and objectives are monitored and changed when necessary. Additionally,
a great deal of his time is taken up creating curriculum that addresses goals and standards.

He is feeling disorganized, overwhelmed, and does not want to spend time he is with students
filling out paper work, as he would rather spend time with the students. Lastly, Joseph has
given up many activities and interests he used to enjoy after school to work on the mountain of
paperwork he has to complete to stay in compliance.

Respond to the following:

 What ideas would you suggest for Joseph to help him get better organized with the
paperwork?
 What strategies can you offer Joseph to manage the necessary paperwork while
maintaining personal interests and activities?

03-23-2010 18:42:39 Subject: Overwhelmed with Papers: Week 2

The first week produced a great discussion about strategies for organizing the new teacher who
feels overwhelmed by paperwork, but we often need to help our stdents get themselves
organized in order to improve their success.

Respond to the following:

 What specific challenges do your students (based on their age, and support needs) have
with organizational skills?
 What strategies do you use to help your students develop organizational skills?

04-08-2010 06:26:11 Subject: Summary of Overwhelmed with Papers Dilemma

The vast majority of teachers suggested 3 strategies for dealing with paperwork:

Binders, Filing Cabinets and Calenders

Binders included:

308
  Sections for each student
 Copies of regular ed. progress
 Behavior referrals
 Health plan if applicable
 Testing accommodations page from IEP report cards
 Special education progress reports
 Keep a chart for timelines (when re-evaluations due, IEP revisions)
 A record of parent contacts (phones calls, face to face), meeting with the regular ed
teachers and any other meetings

Filing Cabinets are:

 Lockable Cabinets
 Alphabetical and properly dated files
 Keep a student portfolio full of sample work and assessments of a variety and this will
make it easier for you to keep up with progress.
 Remember student files are legal documents!
 One suggested a file drawer with Mon-Fri folders. In those folders put all the papers
that need to go home on certain days, IEPs that need to be written, forms that need to
be completed, notes on things that need to be completed, etc. Every Friday fill up the
folders for the following week.

Calenders included:

 Re evals and IEP dates

 Put all of the due dates in pen and tentative holding date in pencil.
 Set aside a certain amount of time each day/week to give attention to
paperwork. Writing and filing need to be planned for. Schedule it in on the calendar
 Schedule time for yourself or so you don't get burned out.

Other helpful hints:

 Completed the calender at start of school year

 Stagger your IEP's. If you have 6 due in May you do not have to wait to May to do all of
them. Have one in March, three in April, and two in May. Planning ahead will help you
in not becoming overwhelmed.
 Spend a lot of time getting organized at the beginning of the year and that pays off all
year.
 Have the students write their accomodations on a notecard and tape it in their
planners. Promote self-advocacy.
 Some schedule their IEPs on one day of the week (counselor does not schedule other
meetings on that day)
 Keep a "to do" check-lists for different situations that I use to ensure I remember all the
steps of different situations (new student, IEP meeting, manifestation, etc.)

309
 Keep a word document to cut & paste from for the standard parts of IEP's with blanks
where necessary---this helps me remember all the information which should be
included.
 At the start of the year, use excel to chart objectives. Set realistic and flexible
professional goals and objectives. Establish priorities.
 Organize your classroom. Improved classroom organization can save time and increase
professional productivity.
 Graph students daily activities - the percentage, date, and brief description (ex. two digit
add no regrouping). Use this data to write progress reports every 9 weeks. Also useful
for parent conferences
 'put it away or throw it away!' don't let stacks of folders and paper accumulate and
become unmanageable. Once you're finished with something, refile it, reshelve it,
return it. If it can be thrown away, get rid of it. (Lock or shred anything containing
confidential information.)
 Color coding is very helpful for organization of paperwork.

310
 Summary for Working with Students at Risk Dilemma

04-18-2010 05:47:05 Subject: Working with atrisk students at year's end

The end of the school year is not far away, and Alejandro, a special education teacher, provides
services for many students with special needs at his school. He has several students who are
experiencing very stressful situations at home. The stress of their personal lives coupled with
the hectic nature of the last few months of school are causing many melt-downs, problems
with school attendance, and apathy toward learning.

Alejandro wants to encourage them to maintain their efforts in school and continue to work
toward their goals for the remainder of the year though he knows they are overwhelmed with
stress at home. He wants some advice in balancing his expectations for them academically
along with strategies to deal with students in stress.

Dilemma response: What advice would you give Alejandro? How can he help his at-risk
students to do their best when they are facing hardships at home?

04-27-2010 13:08:18 Subject: Summary of Week 1: Working with at-risk students at

year's end

After one week of discussion, the group has come up with a lot of advice for Alejandro. The
advice focused on general strategies, specific actions, and possible support systems that he and
his students could access.

Strategies:

 Stay positive and give a specific reinforcement to each student.

 Maintain comfortable classroom routines while having the flexibility to address needs as
they arise.
 Having an open door policy where students can come and talk at any time.
 Allow students to do as much of their work at school as possible so that when they were
at home there would not be any pressure to do the homework. If possible, allow
students to stay after school in his classroom to work on homework or projects if they
want to work but just cannot focus at home.
 Remember that many of our students develop anxiety when they know summer is
coming because they would rather be in school than out for the summer/break.
 Keep in mind our kids just need to be loved and cared for and that their total person is
just as important as their academic performance.

311
  Use cooperative learning in some of your lessons, so that the load doesn't fall on one
student, but can be shared by a group.
 Give group work grades, instead of individual grades, less pressure for the student in
crisis.
 Keep the possibility for any type of failure should be minimized.
 Add activities that are fun and allow more exploration of what they have learned all
school year.
 Point out to the student all of the progress they have made throughout the year.

Actions:

 Through the end of the year make some changes he student's day and include take
specific time for each individual student.
 Keep contact with students throughout the summer by having them put their addresses
on a school postcard. Send a postcard from somewhere during the summer.
 Give students a summer calendar with something they can do each day (i.e. read for 20
minutes, write a short story, go to the library, etc.) Postcard and rewards can be used
for positive reinforcement.
 Have students keep a journal over the summer with at least one entry per week where
they have specific questions, such as, "What was the best thing that happened this
week?"

Supports:

 Engage guidance counselor or social worker on staff is working with the student.
 Start a big buddy program if possible, for the student to have another trusting person to
discuss concerns with in addition to you the teacher.
 Link young students to summer library programs or elementary school summer
programs.
 Pull in the wrap around services from the community like counseling services for the
family, family support, respite services for the family, and even a big brother or sister on
the school sight that could be a positive influence on their day.

04-27-2010 13:00:26 Subject: Dilemma Week 2:Working with at-risk students at year's
end

In addition to the struggles he has been observing in his students, Alejandro was recently
handed his own challenge for the remainder of the year: a pink slip. As his district faces budget
cuts, dozens of teachers were notified that they may not have jobs for next school year.
Respond to the following:

312
  What strategies can he use to remain a positive influence on his students while facing
his own personal challenge?
 What advice can you provide him to help meet his professional responsibilities in the
face of professional adversity?

Re: Dilemma Week 2:Working with at-risk students at year's end

Whether Alejandro returns to his school next fall or not, he is determined to finish the year on a
strong note.

Respond to the following:

 What can a new teacher do to make the last weeks of school positive and
productive?
 What are some of the fun projects or group activities you have organized that make
students feel comfortable at school even though things may not be going so well at
home?

313
 Vita

Roberta Gentry received her Bachelors of Psychology degree from Mary Baldwin College

in 1991 and subsequently worked at public and private mental health facilities and a

rehabilitation center. After completion of her Masters of Teaching degree in the fields of

special and general education in 1997, she taught in the public school setting and was a special

education administrator for 13 years. During 2010-2010, Ms. Gentry served as adjunct faculty

at Virginia Commonwealth University. Beginning fall, 2011, Ms. Gentry will be an Assistant

Professor at the University of South Carolina. Roberta is a citizen of the United States.

314