<%BANNER%>

Exploration of the Relationships between Elementary Principals', Mentors', and Novice Teachers' Beliefs and Practices in...

University of Florida Institutional Repository
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022520/00001

Material Information

Title: Exploration of the Relationships between Elementary Principals', Mentors', and Novice Teachers' Beliefs and Practices in a Teacher Induction Program
Physical Description: 1 online resource (140 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Russo, James
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: administrator, alternative, beginning, certification, elementary, induction, mentor, novice, support, teacher
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine a district-wide teacher induction program and evaluate the relationship between the believed importance and actual delivery of mentors' and principals' responsibilities in support services, as evaluated by the administrators, mentors, and novice teachers. This study also reviewed the outcome of the teacher induction program through the perspective of traditionally and alternatively certificated novice teachers. This public elementary school study was a modified replication of previous research conducted in a West Central Florida school district. Electronic copies of a survey instrument measuring the beliefs and actual delivery of induction practices were distributed to public elementary school administrators, mentors and novice teachers in one county in Central Florida. In total, 461 administrators, mentors and novice teachers at 36 elementary schools were sent the instrument. Surveys were completed by 179 participants at 36 elementary schools, a 39% response rate. The majority of respondents were Caucasian (83%); female (85%)and held a bachelors (43%), master's degree (38%), educational specialist (11%), or doctoral degree (6%). Thirty percent (30%) of the respondents were administrators, 39% were mentors, 28% were novice teachers and 3% were novice teachers seeking alternative certification. Statistical analysis of the relationship between the believed importance and actual delivery of teacher induction services in a Central Florida county was conducted. The survey asked respondents to answer 10 items about the administrator's role, 10 items about the mentor's role, and 5 items about the shared responsibility of the principal and mentor. Administrators reported that 60% of their beliefs matched the actual delivery, mentors reported 72% of their beliefs matched the actual delivery and novice teachers reported 4% of their beliefs matched the actual delivery of induction service support. The results indicate that actual delivery of induction support to novice teachers most often did not match what they believed was important. The mean scores of the novice teachers seeking alternative certification differed significantly from mean scores of traditionally certificated novice teachers in their beliefs and actual delivery of induction support services, indicating the two groups of novice teachers should be considered mutually exclusive.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by James Russo.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Doud, James L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022520:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022520/00001

Material Information

Title: Exploration of the Relationships between Elementary Principals', Mentors', and Novice Teachers' Beliefs and Practices in a Teacher Induction Program
Physical Description: 1 online resource (140 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Russo, James
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: administrator, alternative, beginning, certification, elementary, induction, mentor, novice, support, teacher
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine a district-wide teacher induction program and evaluate the relationship between the believed importance and actual delivery of mentors' and principals' responsibilities in support services, as evaluated by the administrators, mentors, and novice teachers. This study also reviewed the outcome of the teacher induction program through the perspective of traditionally and alternatively certificated novice teachers. This public elementary school study was a modified replication of previous research conducted in a West Central Florida school district. Electronic copies of a survey instrument measuring the beliefs and actual delivery of induction practices were distributed to public elementary school administrators, mentors and novice teachers in one county in Central Florida. In total, 461 administrators, mentors and novice teachers at 36 elementary schools were sent the instrument. Surveys were completed by 179 participants at 36 elementary schools, a 39% response rate. The majority of respondents were Caucasian (83%); female (85%)and held a bachelors (43%), master's degree (38%), educational specialist (11%), or doctoral degree (6%). Thirty percent (30%) of the respondents were administrators, 39% were mentors, 28% were novice teachers and 3% were novice teachers seeking alternative certification. Statistical analysis of the relationship between the believed importance and actual delivery of teacher induction services in a Central Florida county was conducted. The survey asked respondents to answer 10 items about the administrator's role, 10 items about the mentor's role, and 5 items about the shared responsibility of the principal and mentor. Administrators reported that 60% of their beliefs matched the actual delivery, mentors reported 72% of their beliefs matched the actual delivery and novice teachers reported 4% of their beliefs matched the actual delivery of induction service support. The results indicate that actual delivery of induction support to novice teachers most often did not match what they believed was important. The mean scores of the novice teachers seeking alternative certification differed significantly from mean scores of traditionally certificated novice teachers in their beliefs and actual delivery of induction support services, indicating the two groups of novice teachers should be considered mutually exclusive.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by James Russo.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Doud, James L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022520:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101122_AAAAAJ INGEST_TIME 2010-11-22T21:01:36Z PACKAGE UFE0022520_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 7897 DFID F20101122_AAABIH ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH russo_j_Page_010thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
f153528e668e0f84a6e2f75a7e501785
SHA-1
54545a20b3c939d9ce90df064ed6e147022a2265
7209 F20101122_AAABHS russo_j_Page_023thm.jpg
b150a297cdf07a790533527cc648f921
f4dd295d83661c9dcabf312c83a4e3039e494314
6837 F20101122_AAAAFF russo_j_Page_069thm.jpg
2fccb06338a03722e3181decddc3fcb4
6ac1f11ac59976d1b88968028002715e05081c41
25271604 F20101122_AAAAEQ russo_j_Page_042.tif
81f362f3ab6d65ec11b3f2dcad16139f
ed9a342fb2a45d7a8ba4fe243f175d364e3353cd
27131 F20101122_AAABII russo_j_Page_067.QC.jpg
80f3beae0e4cba1c49e5ef4858abbab4
3c7fee624150aeb5c50b9dbad4098260ec0af8a3
3071 F20101122_AAABHT russo_j_Page_072thm.jpg
a9ac9801ebc364e2d2206cf6834b442c
16d18e0807cd4be50512b825bbcf5b3d0ca10ebb
1051962 F20101122_AAAAFG russo_j_Page_109.jp2
ecc87bedcd94ce7dddd39370065187ea
b1cc4c8bb22d7ebf87aa8a0157c87022d4c1ebf5
1051963 F20101122_AAAAER russo_j_Page_099.jp2
75a17b22b4f222beff89742a5e417518
8b19527d03e34be2fd4903a7d5217ca99ccdf82f
7253 F20101122_AAABIJ russo_j_Page_047thm.jpg
283ed7b36c3e62ee54be2ee0f2bf7035
95d53a61bf68f682aec67f44c6d30a4954954a34
27813 F20101122_AAABHU russo_j_Page_120.QC.jpg
023b9c851d6a10120eadb08d617ddd60
791331419f24f62c18e75e19d2689f4c046ccd44
86113 F20101122_AAAAFH russo_j_Page_047.jpg
5088a5125b64c518a828900617fe9a8f
f7b65f84a27a8c9ebae57f4373beb6258cfb1918
31600 F20101122_AAAAES russo_j_Page_007.QC.jpg
520c67f153934020d87dc7d9736b43f1
a2f7b8c8d2326302629669dcfb61ce3bdfdaffc8
16169 F20101122_AAABIK russo_j_Page_089.QC.jpg
79b113544df78083c7c5dc34519c7f69
d2c47a9a2714fc05307eefca511ea9c2d722b504
5136 F20101122_AAABHV russo_j_Page_077thm.jpg
07106f10a1e699246369f8095a93ca27
88a9aef7cb4d674753309a054b66e6cff4b6a00b
859113 F20101122_AAAAFI russo_j_Page_125.jp2
96d7180f068c3e824dba521aaa836bc4
3281196282862ee11e0f88576b5e9cb5cfb562bd
3266 F20101122_AAAAET russo_j_Page_076.txt
69a9772c22357de9ea8a929162fc19a7
923becffd7e77391deb29896b8fc979c739a9d83
25862 F20101122_AAABHW russo_j_Page_114.QC.jpg
ba25d1471ff8c7192a3f1e2e34b290f0
64b8bc72941296df05c119c86778e61e38d8c525
2955 F20101122_AAAAEU russo_j_Page_009.txt
43411cb93db539fbc441e695cc73799d
2d3fa5d5b61bc223d085c5216112e839b365ed15
7510 F20101122_AAABJA russo_j_Page_135thm.jpg
2f4fd1633f0d335ca5c5a90d64d7c531
d08b4aa97cf4a163eb9e0259cfbc7f13585b6913
6349 F20101122_AAABIL russo_j_Page_075thm.jpg
450d12b1447b58f50eda879e514cc29c
4fda907173ac9a216918fc328fdd6bae2907f72c
25966 F20101122_AAABHX russo_j_Page_062.QC.jpg
9ae6a11651ce588d70f2e98dfcd05656
86474cf8ef823565b678bd28df86743f59671cd4
56590 F20101122_AAAAFJ russo_j_Page_023.pro
ab72976facf4bcea62c4a0d3711f4d7b
86d4d82d90417f3476a6f81f8d4b83c88e99da3a
22911 F20101122_AAAAEV russo_j_Page_129.pro
6eab816b7f45c5ad4f9b82a8a7d51253
39a1130f2714ea844990e68c9ac5f938c8607d8b
5001 F20101122_AAABJB russo_j_Page_079thm.jpg
d2e1644ebfd961cdc3f2e79c25172ed4
878c376bebada80a9588a66a6a22eca7a74b645c
6416 F20101122_AAABIM russo_j_Page_129thm.jpg
4bdcab6fc558bf1897d4a0e41cfa0b39
025a8550c3b636c3a96d4717fbb80c7e7b6e0c91
7462 F20101122_AAABHY russo_j_Page_118thm.jpg
70ba72d406273937d13891d43acd8c72
4d708bbe6a4b6d97bced30614d041cc15daa3eef
6619 F20101122_AAAAFK russo_j_Page_020thm.jpg
34210d2a76cc78db3741b34f0c02e09d
ecb80b5d64765d5200361640086299f0420f77ce
F20101122_AAAAEW russo_j_Page_067thm.jpg
1f8d5675ac55d0f9bf511a43ddb35e1e
9ad6ba7cfae81097e354c500b50bdeac9df831c6
22239 F20101122_AAABJC russo_j_Page_093.QC.jpg
24220c88ce38a234d82f9a00ba3cde1c
b6cd9f9b2106c52fbae5c2bb34fcac504dd23f93
7503 F20101122_AAABIN russo_j_Page_039thm.jpg
6036e638851aae39e5c25d6d4db877b3
88abc31a51cb2962ff19ab1c081ba8c0381d8b5a
24587 F20101122_AAABHZ russo_j_Page_022.QC.jpg
e0785e1f860c48b097b80c807e2f6d35
c85a6b525f1dcd0a514b02f630ca90f873bb2c04
32725 F20101122_AAAAGA russo_j_Page_089.pro
811bf22ca03b77f8f9c3991dee1ce19b
493e2b3fb33a1dc86b34b17987b38c05413a9db5
84160 F20101122_AAAAFL russo_j_Page_071.jpg
789f7c266de7e207d1264f470d8f79e9
aed8b4a7260f7b4c563c487b38dc276fc4b1577f
F20101122_AAAAEX russo_j_Page_083.tif
2f4a4d4255d1a9a2e126bc8a6be7b78b
064cb1fe8be206280e4d618c9e79051dcb02cfaf
6541 F20101122_AAABJD russo_j_Page_056thm.jpg
50185c6257a2243f05596384c622d668
ee8bc824247c26ba0e417f15d38adf9e962ed08a
5518 F20101122_AAABIO russo_j_Page_085thm.jpg
60480ab0e9f5ec4dcb2785d3a334ea7a
6ad41b2f6dc41ee2e99bf0dfcbda3b6bb6fe686f
1051968 F20101122_AAAAGB russo_j_Page_024.jp2
83d302bf4c31aad7464678e9c5f62a7a
5e53f572c5b1f9faa51f59f7bc074bb435c87a81
F20101122_AAAAFM russo_j_Page_016.tif
c8b5cfbfe8854d1ec8a2c787457e0d3b
59b219a59cdc16ef89328377178bca94c9de6a3a
7114 F20101122_AAAAEY russo_j_Page_017thm.jpg
c1fd2ec17e1fa63116dbf21326808fb2
49d556a7c08c3d388bdd1e8d5ffcc7cac718953f
27977 F20101122_AAABJE russo_j_Page_034.QC.jpg
625bd7d34e189b0bb39b0dfd4c2b7724
1dd0b59046ec450954474bead2bc204934da4f2e
7275 F20101122_AAABIP russo_j_Page_051thm.jpg
cec48486f09595166040960f9b28f56a
fb3803ada4172d2dd91bf8774a879820939736f8
77119 F20101122_AAAAGC russo_j_Page_006.jpg
8fc5e520bce80d40f0c85b01b97dd969
2a53ddd725dcb98903dcfe0b24aaff5e5c4e1cfb
F20101122_AAAAFN russo_j_Page_120.tif
4d2997988e89c74b1fde9dc9cbcde661
621b68325fee5d269a48038c8246fed64c2e50af
88839 F20101122_AAAAEZ russo_j_Page_110.jpg
d5fba2d84e4fb285251d596c4e284a47
2b64d65ec9051e8c5fd80a61d058c83eb4eb3843
17681 F20101122_AAABJF russo_j_Page_090.QC.jpg
318fe109d22c5e67d03cc558bf0ef2fd
13612d1999f577f97f4bbab44dfd15c689ab4c29
5272 F20101122_AAABIQ russo_j_Page_083thm.jpg
7c61dbf490f282320daeecb7291818a0
fdc43e696105e312db243036d518b913fd3822e4
2072 F20101122_AAAAGD russo_j_Page_042.txt
8f2f1337fce4a0e3c47fb7420eacadd8
ffb417d0742dba799aa3ee13ab3456a0f9eb7d3a
F20101122_AAAAFO russo_j_Page_106.tif
9990e71d8e9d390f23a5dc1d7bada544
ceb3381670993fe6d6c7f94497de0412e7943a2b
7371 F20101122_AAABJG russo_j_Page_011thm.jpg
6a7eae7b7ba8477b9be30e389f824f6b
c3491b577efb1a70d639667e18e459d2b3749325
6145 F20101122_AAABIR russo_j_Page_130thm.jpg
c95b11cc0dd1b9e454082b181280f6a6
491fbb012adf7dde05b77945e1eec7fc0a1ba791
48144 F20101122_AAAAGE russo_j_Page_057.pro
a14b0bd935c9efbe543456e0c564a907
62eda392ff3603e1ac0b8cb22e8816581b4713b8
7531 F20101122_AAAAFP russo_j_Page_024thm.jpg
e01ed467572f0d4be7e5f685b469ed52
b41c3d53b1a52fde6a4f797de192fb81d2d66ac5
6628 F20101122_AAABJH russo_j_Page_076thm.jpg
fd294169eeb110e5bb97142381c52218
8bc11f76f61d51096a3f87b8ae3b5959c827bda2
26856 F20101122_AAABIS russo_j_Page_103.QC.jpg
660de0974a1c95446dc155b361b485b7
d4cf7018f07bae04299d4391883301744bd17e0b
86483 F20101122_AAAAGF russo_j_Page_029.jpg
daa9b323a6c624cd4670d6d016845210
cbf0e96d25697bac1301cee70977ba747823ebdb
53831 F20101122_AAAAFQ russo_j_Page_025.pro
2c44ed2221e2d12399a1e8379a79579e
177175cf3380e15e2f41de921bbd348488f552fd
8663 F20101122_AAABJI russo_j_Page_001.QC.jpg
7f102a1b5eb2c632d5a6ea8842d10f42
8e5be5f55a09d6f389e4cdad7d9e5ae29553ce32
7725 F20101122_AAABIT russo_j_Page_044thm.jpg
5c975550005d5b6415e3d67f7b0cd1b9
b38acf83e0833bcd9a34bad0dda164796da5fb63
2575 F20101122_AAAAGG russo_j_Page_124.txt
3fb96dd0112e9b469502534864bc9be1
f78420b1ffba8a67683dfd3a362d3178bf1addef
2546 F20101122_AAAAFR russo_j_Page_050.txt
ee5426a42a166e1339da1eae86dc00c7
288144d74411c07432f10d8683f0a2c12bbb39c0
7368 F20101122_AAABJJ russo_j_Page_025thm.jpg
88bcb5a14e1e3f7529dc3272fdddda70
2a79a966ca5c89552371df4700cdc9fabacce966
18334 F20101122_AAABIU russo_j_Page_083.QC.jpg
0abc1c8722b0a1de47fca1547b1e4618
c868ca57a3af8bff8f74ef886e7462ed99fdcfc3
F20101122_AAAAGH russo_j_Page_005.tif
3142f6848099f23b1e9ae1bd13cacd8e
59da3a658a202bc389a028dc72888f427b252f9b
26193 F20101122_AAAAFS russo_j_Page_107.QC.jpg
f44a829d5749b2072f7b6a6290eeddd4
42b3ccd5035d90c72407d7f4458811d0384cd545
21636 F20101122_AAABJK russo_j_Page_130.QC.jpg
0c6debd8bfc50e0f16af4c0f6d56b27e
72521d1effa193dcd1c8e65b92bf287ddd4c05a8
7273 F20101122_AAABIV russo_j_Page_103thm.jpg
58c119ba3784720a4bb2cb1c58ca541a
b68132ce498117e03c53e26e3bfbda0ca72262ad
91 F20101122_AAAAGI russo_j_Page_002.txt
e5ae8c539c3ddab990b03b05603b8307
e54160b907ed074a20261f5459c056a9ee8e9934
86115 F20101122_AAAAFT russo_j_Page_106.jpg
fc7e34410a159037013568d0425924b2
acf2989a445913fd86c576910cef14c5136b9122
21584 F20101122_AAABJL russo_j_Page_013.QC.jpg
9b4e4a0054e83e7defb890285004a686
721670dda0718eb22dc18fcb17bf6164f25e9581
4835 F20101122_AAABIW russo_j_Page_015thm.jpg
6f82be79215779ec17d4e491c21de701
4e792696b564d6f4d65965970b70336ef315d98f
F20101122_AAAAGJ russo_j_Page_096.tif
89d95d77b65578b254ffe2a9b76d8cf5
6284d9dd717e1bb1ae347addfc5221d92ea84930
26371 F20101122_AAAAFU russo_j_Page_063.QC.jpg
3e3bed23d760129c789485ab2622c501
28a02afd3992cabaa30f278823953521deafe7f5
29162 F20101122_AAABKA russo_j_Page_111.QC.jpg
a21dc41c8d4168145e5e470ef2414767
db6730c76ede927a873533f2aae2fe86f857ebf3
5891 F20101122_AAABIX russo_j_Page_087thm.jpg
c6db6341baefa62ac141db2404c2aabf
e84bfc7f4533f4520b21be116388518b83792319
7467 F20101122_AAAAFV russo_j_Page_030thm.jpg
bdc1435fb9f534b257c901b9b72414ff
d95b61f9216ba62812907cc7bacc0757bd597a9a
23299 F20101122_AAABKB russo_j_Page_101.QC.jpg
9954ba1447cf2931afbbea9473dec352
2343f4fa7fff21d37dbb5c34de2f70142a1bf539
26812 F20101122_AAABJM russo_j_Page_036.QC.jpg
2bd2c37770f1ddc31531be4810868fca
bae8d48de0b6878f0eb9f11d4c952aa7c69814b8
3129 F20101122_AAABIY russo_j_Page_127thm.jpg
e7065f38d53561e02ac6b0bc83406dfc
cc6161e4557da325ce8b6223f2cf8014c433469b
131312 F20101122_AAAAGK russo_j_Page_005.jp2
48bd30004cce57e82051eff2b58c5e84
d949741040fa87e5054868f52bd6e0b13ea2c0b4
2107 F20101122_AAAAFW russo_j_Page_103.txt
81cbc3f0c5d752d722ce9e23e89cdbe3
9c96c71f4047c91e38bc35df54af2f1ae2a014b8
2607 F20101122_AAABKC russo_j_Page_001thm.jpg
8d32f31ac56739526fe7f20b7a7c7189
889b10156bc926a7f9322a5200e578163bd608fa
7775 F20101122_AAABJN russo_j_Page_111thm.jpg
b2b8ab5f45cdf7cab240c0cf52a3d9ab
8ed460a9766bec44a4bf59dbec5f9a1e9d1225a2
16384 F20101122_AAABIZ .UFE0022520_00001.xml.swp
9869cc8d7dec4c8474583f543a35ac0a
8984ed99421e129412b0dec2bae78ad1a64b56b8
F20101122_AAAAGL russo_j_Page_022.tif
993b6f14e211bc4a8fadc73e42f726b3
111cd49804b3a5173add96361c8497e7dadc461e
2125 F20101122_AAAAFX russo_j_Page_030.txt
96a7559b33290df9dfb26b8fd7b84f17
f6f575afcf331228294557780d5033632e02656b
F20101122_AAAAHA russo_j_Page_112.tif
f0221a8670e20429f63eb086e1d7492d
b2d221a3b813f5f5df7ebfe6b81f91465d16c54d
6209 F20101122_AAABKD russo_j_Page_088thm.jpg
fa483e8b4a89b28107ae074a0bcc798f
43bbb5eb24bfb02caa64c6d6580727f223f0e315
5371 F20101122_AAABJO russo_j_Page_098thm.jpg
52ce709a1f6d33286e8c67e1b2e95a94
5e78e12144c4749400228332e6bf82eb8e851075
1051974 F20101122_AAAAGM russo_j_Page_100.jp2
81e1750b5292e337bc6adb9737fcc3ae
401c01fa053737d0ff1ae44faedcc61a18fcda31
F20101122_AAAAFY russo_j_Page_032.tif
939767baac632f18b125492a9cdd85d0
1063f9df8399aa2045bb9acd88e073fbd1ed9339
1051955 F20101122_AAAAHB russo_j_Page_043.jp2
c71b91c8e50ecde7de04f5bfae4db399
7efb2c488025a47757d95612815c8bebd2a5c787
7434 F20101122_AAABKE russo_j_Page_018thm.jpg
7edf708077f783960a63486b07dcf69a
064c75a942007a1faeb354c29bd687f4c3d0edcb
27730 F20101122_AAABJP russo_j_Page_018.QC.jpg
45aa8397012f4b794730c2494c57021d
287da5601b7f2f60c39f8076358478e4610e014d
1833 F20101122_AAAAGN russo_j_Page_089.txt
338bc75082d48e4ab8512aaa08cb90cd
df21345fbaccaced58074960d2e6da1a1425d2fa
2233 F20101122_AAAAFZ russo_j_Page_120.txt
f629f4ce8415d96e9eec173a3d2c72f5
305599c0cd2abfb128192c23a2f10ed1e40a6f7f
20963 F20101122_AAAAHC russo_j_Page_096.QC.jpg
ad2c84472f705625aef83f4421d8f5fe
e2ad062c465c080626bdb481c48b39e464bd7ef3
24876 F20101122_AAABKF russo_j_Page_099.QC.jpg
922aff61da53a5f6a4b20c2e19a05ec9
e81ad4897a18e4835c2b2f4cf7a1a0cd16577e78
6757 F20101122_AAABJQ russo_j_Page_078thm.jpg
b830a62bb9ed607a80e598d349565a43
6c77c2146aa6a01adc2c5673ee19099760cc3997
724958 F20101122_AAAAGO russo_j_Page_015.jp2
64719caea759e804882e6171f42997f8
079653d9abaca717c8fb9e08250a4c61634ef9f6
2534 F20101122_AAAAHD russo_j_Page_137.txt
d100c8914d3adb6dcbb2e33dab064b21
656f4b7883f3e70ae5abe65c90ec305e60801f3a
24776 F20101122_AAABKG russo_j_Page_055.QC.jpg
d723ca8b6ea58ea6048a33e269ca37c2
d8ca6c4f5a81ae4216e455e1938be84eb9317c9e
7760 F20101122_AAABJR russo_j_Page_109thm.jpg
baefe21a62c6be0dd9f7b25f291989bb
d7091c49cc5f71754ffbd5c37f745bea799e0740
F20101122_AAAAGP russo_j_Page_039.tif
beacdc2e7e5d4a72c8a6e061958a2e33
85672fd7129dfe5db35d45559a5db82fb8b7c6b3
63563 F20101122_AAAAHE russo_j_Page_125.jpg
a60c120c4b8f7bd05c0fd50d1018f563
49420abc128caca60ecf9d1498e5fe04137a6e83
5028 F20101122_AAABKH russo_j_Page_133thm.jpg
318ab08466a7c9ff6237202cb874b85e
de346c4f7564f34b311ee312cdc8bab31b450432
7238 F20101122_AAABJS russo_j_Page_021thm.jpg
d558a7e81b33bef7103e34d84839a5ff
53f4557a8c346190eb0f8846c5bec3c242523c5b
1051969 F20101122_AAAAGQ russo_j_Page_059.jp2
504b514e1107a50a07aabe03ee39792f
06ed31b6a904ea1592a01c05b18edcbe9ef13990
51770 F20101122_AAAAHF russo_j_Page_094.jpg
e869c5b860499631daa3198f6e200021
c91a72746c66b830b0e128d0c78fcb624cc3a766
6290 F20101122_AAABKI russo_j_Page_101thm.jpg
717a14c4f8752d18b477828b0948113a
8eae8eda79b034c66969a9fe3f416318974277c5
6829 F20101122_AAABJT russo_j_Page_008.QC.jpg
e33fb01ba72277bd7ad130528d6baa80
3bfc55a936610abd1a3b2b77971473b7b32210be
4914 F20101122_AAAAGR russo_j_Page_094thm.jpg
6c10c1e1cde5677fd90969465592c8b9
0ad674970deadab949a9988044c0d1cab0ddb1e3
7500 F20101122_AAAAHG russo_j_Page_120thm.jpg
353a1ff3be0f07315bce297285511b97
6d5101896cd4c71db0c13ef22066c483c8fa8f99
26936 F20101122_AAABKJ russo_j_Page_119.QC.jpg
8fa42e17a6e71e57959bae84c0248f7e
c9050e8f7a1eee86149e7c1f5470a685fe3e02d3
20244 F20101122_AAABJU russo_j_Page_129.QC.jpg
1076c84579c2afb075093134997624df
c541405d77ec0c5f86e8eda5d8e526b310a88001
981791 F20101122_AAAAGS russo_j_Page_093.jp2
74a077a0372db30f9f677d1869ec4d11
1ec9b486bb209e21a033e0485dbec8cdd2ce200f
2025 F20101122_AAAAHH russo_j_Page_059.txt
757684f247459863ab48139c666c669d
c89b2d645badef5e8c87cb1d1632169324c76aec
6894 F20101122_AAABKK russo_j_Page_061thm.jpg
1579ce89b1cc9a3f63f19dc27a0f91ca
c304b2c0da78a52a2481a9af1d5aa086e85d946f
26767 F20101122_AAABJV russo_j_Page_070.QC.jpg
adb76dc48c3c8c1c1ead1208b7d46da4
2232ad4f643c5cd5098972d007830a59d9b1a2a9
27547 F20101122_AAAAGT russo_j_Page_038.QC.jpg
56fe286651a1c1d4c13ba1b34ff49323
25f1ef49ba983a7423f6cc7402d76b08d93eb991
7454 F20101122_AAAAHI russo_j_Page_045thm.jpg
8dd9be30803a0f75c6673b4f700c1c14
975a40d174de2ad6bb9eb41be23bf3b868c1a3d9
4909 F20101122_AAABKL russo_j_Page_080thm.jpg
bd9a41bdad68a4982914d0e386fa3f31
c30ff81282803cc04f6d07cd8e3cd965037cf551
6979 F20101122_AAABJW russo_j_Page_060thm.jpg
24b3e29b173dc657f821e3a90c423d79
d985cc520817dd83f4f9ec2f1c01bdd8b6950aa0
3224 F20101122_AAAAGU russo_j_Page_075.txt
af62aa8780adcf147ebd5ee3a6a7445f
a1583904282432d9c3cfc11a5f54c546aa2c75f5
90098 F20101122_AAAAHJ russo_j_Page_113.jpg
51bddd8141b54a1f9f7af6e9ee6e708f
1055470cc56d6ed335fff9cd44a2594d6137a3f1
7329 F20101122_AAABLA russo_j_Page_029thm.jpg
0f8f9f95d9da4b93e5899e71af7e1a23
d23ea79348cfa7d5919e9868dac9e4735e1d581a
6812 F20101122_AAABKM russo_j_Page_099thm.jpg
1d17fb83295c9c45f9389aabe137a3c5
eda14d885cefe16fb7338157e08d6dddee82482e
2521 F20101122_AAABJX russo_j_Page_048thm.jpg
46c62c3db1dd28e6b092b743c2ca37e1
cd8f3898b84d8e222f05d518fd40fb5458de741e
1051970 F20101122_AAAAGV russo_j_Page_117.jp2
638973a9bf825b64ada46cfde7d9d31b
4314cd4bc3bdb80c51ae61ea244ff153c353d06b
4559 F20101122_AAAAHK russo_j_Page_140thm.jpg
16c26487b38f6c403d10c0a7bfd37a42
0a3633111df270bf40ca5975efb747ae1ee78e3b
28582 F20101122_AAABLB russo_j_Page_100.QC.jpg
7233b77ee6a2c142cb9357634bc0890d
5111bb62b9fc001fca2be52a0a0d1de4c13cf33b
17292 F20101122_AAABJY russo_j_Page_125.QC.jpg
6adca7a0f1881dc7722724aaa0e0cd13
e2f11ce2349012c52c09a69d2f694e60b4f021ad
17038 F20101122_AAAAGW russo_j_Page_015.QC.jpg
17bbc6af705187a790c67b9f5016d73d
5f59ab9da3f8385e3576839b8d26ffa11642f07e
2885 F20101122_AAABLC russo_j_Page_134thm.jpg
a8887ed7a682e726e4e35c2e2a8b77f5
d57eb4a9c2064d471b6eb252105e7b99b46d49fc
3364 F20101122_AAABKN russo_j_Page_003.QC.jpg
9eb16bd5d4ba67e9ee6a57238807afc6
ae7844d1934cb838c793af793d137d1443bf2fb1
6187 F20101122_AAABJZ russo_j_Page_014thm.jpg
aaf62362b311ec91bc1480f095d6326f
f217375dc4a31afeede08f7c041ecf980adf4f5c
26322 F20101122_AAAAGX russo_j_Page_042.QC.jpg
a39c39453be53a5f8424ed3c2b1b6e46
ee0768e926ac49508fb8616a2d3d8ee60ea09bf9
7578 F20101122_AAAAIA russo_j_Page_104thm.jpg
c1d320c29c5a0c9057672b8804b2dd77
11c8c3f162f08e373a56bee81edb8071a722360f
1051986 F20101122_AAAAHL russo_j_Page_053.jp2
93315985bf3dc2bc2ae2e40167e9ce35
fea01d4aa66895e6e006d70d559ec14b2cc74ced
26291 F20101122_AAABLD russo_j_Page_017.QC.jpg
0e750b07758437118672e4f76e619c6e
120ba5d7c966bf0a0f5bd8c6d26b0a1032a6c659
24341 F20101122_AAABKO russo_j_Page_020.QC.jpg
2ae078237e770e67b4fbedb1b59cf39f
c8b1beb940e8b1308856c56795e2ba71082ab78a
5524 F20101122_AAAAGY russo_j_Page_081thm.jpg
b7c8dd160d8c7f747074ef5dfe2faf94
79953dcd0c7a6cb6099a8162b06322637145b798
2177 F20101122_AAAAIB russo_j_Page_092.txt
d6d2759ac17365d1951561cdf2537a69
10c007b1e1dfecfd8904d5d0534aa3da850117bf
87556 F20101122_AAAAHM russo_j_Page_040.jpg
166d1647636c0305317ae14dbf449f74
4a93943b1049f40def136534be68faad9177cde0
22357 F20101122_AAABLE russo_j_Page_092.QC.jpg
abecfb1ac9cbea2b8f521ccfd3009249
cb2ca3668d929ff3ef9bf79efc7ec855c805e544
26368 F20101122_AAABKP russo_j_Page_122.QC.jpg
db35d4674d6e3bfd041685fb574ec462
6707d20e079a5c5a8ccf5af9eedc4407df319374
1051944 F20101122_AAAAGZ russo_j_Page_110.jp2
39c49fee1e254cd3a0e7b63d84932231
d5b9d519a2c81f60591c5ab6d906956cc99c1c16
2199 F20101122_AAAAIC russo_j_Page_046.txt
510ad53796b5ff33c35871fb7174b3ac
ae74705659ffc3860031c498a9a8097a7ac4eea1
7236 F20101122_AAAAHN russo_j_Page_054thm.jpg
2e950919be5c589bd11f02cbcc6acac3
31e2af86fdca6a72fce67916f934f515fc2b5e82
24731 F20101122_AAABLF russo_j_Page_069.QC.jpg
a383ca424c6c7d2f67d6a4a197cba17e
e3239d8150f2a5761f99070b8e3c874279c4ed49
28088 F20101122_AAABKQ russo_j_Page_113.QC.jpg
4d7447449f982382e5a6bf33ec4cb815
6de6b644fd60f145a1c9f51982e4144f72bc6e6b
2216 F20101122_AAAAID russo_j_Page_113.txt
26c83978e7259d2c69bf487520c0e8ce
00b72249a10dc0f443fecd512b6f8a36239ee5f0
7093 F20101122_AAAAHO russo_j_Page_058thm.jpg
42b2da482397e95efa7e3c8eff8169a7
196bbbddc4b057a06760608a18d96bab468f8adc
10568 F20101122_AAABLG russo_j_Page_086.QC.jpg
ec95d42ffc1eb50dab98a054ea6efc97
9c2a6611044132253618affe1e977e0765ace04e
29042 F20101122_AAABKR russo_j_Page_011.QC.jpg
e819d11ad0990605c862c93831082d80
e50916d79dc61b099d8543e63705d8d81400bee9
55171 F20101122_AAAAIE russo_j_Page_019.pro
bc477b6f015d4d9226fab24702acfa09
88579dd67cf306e2b93f59bfa4791c34b5e297ac
74354 F20101122_AAAAHP russo_j_Page_014.jpg
3521744437951987c7ac54b1cdd62d9b
8433670a58472bfd83ff4af4c99b42957690b94d
7028 F20101122_AAABLH russo_j_Page_059thm.jpg
e676ce5ac6c259049191fa845a68f5f8
1c75837330b2dfdf695e2ed2acb0143612b67416
17980 F20101122_AAABKS russo_j_Page_095.QC.jpg
1a2acd91517fa649d8d3c2fcab790bc9
15b2922cb206b766acdb55d610fc6a00b7d11dfc
857376 F20101122_AAAAIF russo_j_Page_077.jp2
4acf76ecde9b0a0fb1b09e6078eb5137
ebd7292936b7dac23e4938a95ba7934f4275a1ad
54235 F20101122_AAAAHQ russo_j_Page_015.jpg
eb8224e3d636aa0d8835e3cbcd96ff36
3bf37497bf36f5b4fcef9d1b090afd74be4e81ee
6887 F20101122_AAABLI russo_j_Page_066thm.jpg
e7f6191195f50f2cf39328941235068b
74e803f70171b0eea4847c4728f7dc39a7399bc1
27811 F20101122_AAABKT russo_j_Page_135.QC.jpg
b41d6b79c66d4eea48e68f38fe2a6619
95321acd8403f2a333bea11f974be5d94afc27f3
255082 F20101122_AAAAIG russo_j_Page_048.jp2
63208533d885089c4af3032883678a04
2937e034921068a86ee7e5514aefc39586c12b62
1051976 F20101122_AAAAHR russo_j_Page_120.jp2
df3bd6cc88906c12d5266213efb9a28d
01f9e26044bef7b429ee7e5facaed8eb6ec6d67e
7367 F20101122_AAABLJ russo_j_Page_034thm.jpg
1bff90a6657018d8c09e2851e0b608c0
c372e133689c8adfb11fa9308e34b5fa7e37c654
26955 F20101122_AAABKU russo_j_Page_030.QC.jpg
15b5c3893d972dc45632cd25902d98e9
488bb4c3eaf5679c426ff7ae31cda4361646ff7c
26520 F20101122_AAAAIH russo_j_Page_106.QC.jpg
b6d481f372f0a00e313074f5ac0c3c3b
4e44d674ed5f3675f1cd4ec6584139b1e244ecb9
1013 F20101122_AAAAHS russo_j_Page_128.txt
deab949695507fe8b51a06e0f5781b64
a0cbec0e9393dbbb9d99d8b5db74275adac4ad08
7000 F20101122_AAABLK russo_j_Page_016thm.jpg
62afcbadb4f7e4b4e2b9d1b41c15011b
dc4e153495085f33d08ef2ecd4baedc09827d737
7223 F20101122_AAABKV russo_j_Page_004thm.jpg
548ef4b2819758abf6c98743351a1a85
5b7a3773bbf6385611f1a1e03dc1e4213829dd18
2767 F20101122_AAAAII russo_j_Page_074.txt
77487d241b7ef0a5417219e041be3bc7
67534574313764ab3decdad33442b2d201319e06
F20101122_AAAAHT russo_j_Page_129.tif
b94c77dc0948a657c520baae0f641068
8bdb27491af77c302e721f52e2b82ab35493fefc
14075 F20101122_AAABLL russo_j_Page_012.QC.jpg
acfee34cbfe6e44b8dd92b96301ae8eb
d2859c95ae2036725c279ee3753925e2d323533a
26070 F20101122_AAABKW russo_j_Page_016.QC.jpg
286691ad4f938faab64eaddfc033da72
983bfb26088638060b56a6b4b6669d9e38301216
25507 F20101122_AAAAIJ russo_j_Page_075.QC.jpg
78379ac0dbc616a2c78838d260361bc6
1d5ce98cb58e0c57198262bb2b588fb71090a5a4
1051977 F20101122_AAAAHU russo_j_Page_097.jp2
b8a59a5246d5f7bd3788779310610bca
a3279d8e7d21b490ce293f70e7189905551de632
28017 F20101122_AAABLM russo_j_Page_116.QC.jpg
34fd4fdd322045e288a6de237f844193
61f1452ffc1e89e39615f6926bd0ff57bb4412f6
1377 F20101122_AAABKX russo_j_Page_003thm.jpg
01b22e7c4864d09d905ae4cf47dc7382
a12ff1a44996f1a5b998808166bb77029f49e562
660827 F20101122_AAAAIK russo_j_Page_094.jp2
3464a5be29fa6de9b114040886dae853
cc883817227d08dbff16d2494fbbbe3b407bf075
56814 F20101122_AAAAHV russo_j_Page_104.pro
4f83747f6d20e0349ee043ca74c0685a
fb37663d36c638f35c1e07f748607d815b5facf7
6065 F20101122_AAABLN russo_j_Page_093thm.jpg
559e844f1730b41fec140b72ffb68a26
73f806384d648fef39119f01c3d04f0c61147d15
F20101122_AAABKY russo_j_Page_058.QC.jpg
1362984901e510ba2ccf13477d3479d3
1dec429f669b7207aa9924435de0fcc05d2efdb4
4304 F20101122_AAAAIL russo_j_Page_007.txt
c4df84c4c328d2f6db07a4cd846e24e3
b4063573b3f58985066ddc9c337d7ea624c606f1
23465 F20101122_AAAAHW russo_j_Page_049.QC.jpg
46f2916dff43cc58b0d9cd1a0c68b0b1
66ebc3ddd08d67b62ba3c1d09408f41e2e869fc0
28106 F20101122_AAABKZ russo_j_Page_050.QC.jpg
62d1474558367b844eb72e5b187566d4
cfd40a9e9105a4a8ae60b41083a88f8048d05d60
1637 F20101122_AAAAHX russo_j_Page_094.txt
d6d043d2345400805e7711b38b12c368
296fe244d3864cf575dba361e66c66aa0d985b23
7136 F20101122_AAAAJA russo_j_Page_122thm.jpg
c0857bc1f5db200ef314d64bd334cd74
32d6eb5ce65be781fc148ff32d43694bc9cfbdd6
7481 F20101122_AAABLO russo_j_Page_100thm.jpg
7f2830687ef5b55c9518e45c14a4f386
c93fbc275894384a0c38cb6320c544ca6b7ca231
1051914 F20101122_AAAAIM russo_j_Page_039.jp2
3b91e4a5e3708aa3a9949068a396bce3
5e84313c9814f2cd2bca6fd5dcfe7163dbdaf587
26067 F20101122_AAAAHY russo_j_Page_053.QC.jpg
c20e390c155c2bf788536a0c549f7006
57de1f189be7ded011503e24afec0246bcbd4899
1051930 F20101122_AAAAJB russo_j_Page_047.jp2
1d875e14b1e5f3fdfd9f38e57a00de1f
65b63170be33f76cb0de4d9a9b51d8af9e93dfcd
25412 F20101122_AAABLP russo_j_Page_076.QC.jpg
8bc2d1a6dfc2c76cc66c0fcdee276b42
40e37478f48c1938151025eac54c830e64e51d4e
892436 F20101122_AAAAIN russo_j_Page_083.jp2
27948e70d8f57100206ac7c32e9ec25a
b1b7665531e5dad29eb57a6d1d1175a6eb1a1dc5
F20101122_AAAAHZ russo_j_Page_087.tif
538d88a4d7fdbe137d76a963c5729bfb
3b551a4af9746ae89721361ec860ea376a6a2dac
28190 F20101122_AAAAJC russo_j_Page_127.jpg
3cbe74fde399d06f3554710cada568cd
1e2beb0654a4943976d1215e2e63285cbf42fad4
4088 F20101122_AAABLQ russo_j_Page_012thm.jpg
0e6278142f2c76517cd3fabfc893b1d6
0e41491f7293c3f1a1baa3e278038ee91ee14749
54735 F20101122_AAAAIO russo_j_Page_047.pro
9cddc5e39d0764b80816b8ca74e1515d
0afeec47b183e2e0f097950467be36258f30e430
1051965 F20101122_AAAAJD russo_j_Page_105.jp2
493292eb849e1d7b68b7bb9de2b05539
4da2d8c6e70f2f03943eceb2adc1fba3707ed901
208944 F20101122_AAABLR UFE0022520_00001.xml FULL
3bca2f0e5107382f4bddd4d5065b0ed5
6e597fa186f51da16428a6f72666509f3e2a6a53
51461 F20101122_AAAAIP russo_j_Page_004.pro
ba1ca9841a1ae04e2b6b362e14efd052
dfc5ad7ce6d6895259e37f6d78934f9316a13d26
6048 F20101122_AAAAJE russo_j_Page_096thm.jpg
81ff1999bd09e1f4407c1c4c08595583
90f3ca63ad32c8a5a92a9254de8103518311361c
25549 F20101122_AAABLS russo_j_Page_023.QC.jpg
45341f6276c82b95324b0915e0f88330
7f223565b91ac17667b3cae095b7dd556515e1ad
1051927 F20101122_AAAAIQ russo_j_Page_066.jp2
fd59ab9dc35cef1bb5303c38b9e3e947
4a9ccf05ddb99d1a1667b1bf4cb2e01b10894667
7392 F20101122_AAAAJF russo_j_Page_038thm.jpg
09ac520df74e66babd8ee6c6784210a7
4b3e0637c021a586cdd44818086f2f02a56e12c4
28110 F20101122_AAABLT russo_j_Page_032.QC.jpg
925b104bdd79a9753fd0b2193e813ed6
7c7a2aac091616d3501349517e905c3784f06db1
F20101122_AAAAIR russo_j_Page_125.tif
dba0069fdb9a70f60ad214faba085bde
04515589eb66a9671416c8723acca882ec2909fe
F20101122_AAAAJG russo_j_Page_069.tif
10420859c7ebc93bf2515a9d02d53fb0
e6681a38399483170f2dc7067741f312b8776568
27442 F20101122_AAABLU russo_j_Page_046.QC.jpg
df1524f275fb75eff6cfb6bb4e2c1ce6
e70300d16c93824278c28ee2306b812082169ea2
49526 F20101122_AAAAIS russo_j_Page_140.jpg
db700593f1225309d2a46bd2f0931357
36053808c91a3bdc997434f4c4b2c919b4a58458
89975 F20101122_AAAAJH russo_j_Page_108.jpg
49d389f491aee6feeaa25bc6380e1c9d
bbac6624526770f7a4018bd55712358b1deebc2a
5626 F20101122_AAABLV russo_j_Page_082thm.jpg
fea3f46fdfbe6f6dd89b8bacc8064493
4bb595600d1ec64532078c03391eac30f2363a36
1954 F20101122_AAAAIT russo_j_Page_020.txt
522e0f31caefb98af8ebfb92f02d5d08
a1c990c75b41dd5931eeb6a5c5194f1f52dd38f1
7170 F20101122_AAAAJI russo_j_Page_112thm.jpg
5ad35514d53405844bd6cc3d5965f9e1
8075c7917842f1edde6fd9630298437b2b9c236d
5344 F20101122_AAABLW russo_j_Page_095thm.jpg
3ecc0dc35c483b01085b3d6197208f3f
f965e82446facf8ffb65a54bc124f51d71258548
81979 F20101122_AAAAIU russo_j_Page_060.jpg
518ab4bbde1a18bc506f19e93db58b70
1ea42a10ef7b1d379b5b53135f11ac96948aac46
53964 F20101122_AAAAJJ russo_j_Page_063.pro
8d99dc3a140a73b5553b2a3c86ebbb8b
8ba27ad936674e561289bd40efd739c22711f610
10284 F20101122_AAABLX russo_j_Page_127.QC.jpg
adb6740f9fba6f8832aba7e5e3b0bb41
2fa7caff4cabe2d41608dbd119411bfac8289a36
990 F20101122_AAAAIV russo_j_Page_132.txt
e1411ac30a9daf6a418d795594b4e9d8
385ee4af1f610264722538c5a9fb53e2c361291b
1051958 F20101122_AAAAJK russo_j_Page_045.jp2
553051d69271d78f2887d3e2271d64b0
6b91e3f50b6734ec9280b116ce9441a86f6ffed5
F20101122_AAAAIW russo_j_Page_007.jp2
bfba95b5109de265013c5876c5d840ac
cdf9e59b76e7ea643236226d983a00b6b4ab84b9
7518 F20101122_AAAAJL russo_j_Page_041thm.jpg
de9b56ce125964f8e61dc849970eff73
1fe41f5370da2a97a387478253f3720aac404b1f
35853 F20101122_AAAAIX russo_j_Page_012.pro
344a415ed8daafe5100458d972d00273
91b42f6071f55b113e8c436faf9139862f640d40
1280 F20101122_AAAAKA russo_j_Page_015.txt
558d7c3549e87c605d1ee5bc87810d1e
8b2fcb6a91581942c53e33bf0caea3d7add135f9
3151 F20101122_AAAAJM russo_j_Page_123thm.jpg
234364f8b54fef6c4ee2a7ea5a77612c
fc132c66c4594e82226b72ba2686d1f7695e909b
F20101122_AAAAIY russo_j_Page_095.tif
d16d3b2d47a2cec827c54b87ad1f4d7c
d93df014cd6ff294d8cb44a2b645098c15a56a3a
53662 F20101122_AAAAKB russo_j_Page_106.pro
735de556add0988b4de09cca2950331b
09e4b4ec57f830e5c162e37b7a875d0ae6134d4d
18510 F20101122_AAAAIZ russo_j_Page_139.QC.jpg
62fa73097459801cdad19a8e8d733a7d
7913b4ad17cca91d983ec73f08891b119d8c0480
44355 F20101122_AAAAKC russo_j_Page_084.pro
94f6c8bbde0c2dee06c145de2b983885
ee279d0abd6674c3004b8920547040ac729e9170
6958 F20101122_AAAAJN russo_j_Page_062thm.jpg
2fa9ae9eb65e53292f0fbbb6753d4a31
e8c98a83b1780139bf1e0c11f4c09456deaf36ea
F20101122_AAAAKD russo_j_Page_122.tif
504766d8c9f194b408c6fe59d761c9ff
b7e97a07eb894ee3f405d9c478bda85aa0a5a7ed
F20101122_AAAAJO russo_j_Page_134.tif
d59f5651390b4e9959842c35706c9cf8
ff4379eab89fed6e458b80439f257b316b35d1b0
60050 F20101122_AAAAKE russo_j_Page_135.pro
181a315fce9803296b511e3763a9bd30
338a8de4cc737d4ca59093a400400fd84035618b
F20101122_AAAAJP russo_j_Page_008.pro
4107585f2f86de1981fd245e082b2f44
ea9ad8c466fcdb605a459be3b915c5ac8449916f
26354 F20101122_AAAAKF russo_j_Page_115.QC.jpg
b0ac5bb08d109e135005c4c281dd069c
757abbc4cd87cb20bf769539a8d2367366315ef7
19509 F20101122_AAAAJQ russo_j_Page_128.QC.jpg
8fe35ac0d539174e3d0eeebfff147118
949aa54d1dd8985032a8a2b797b03f9696d9ae08
28492 F20101122_AAAAKG russo_j_Page_109.QC.jpg
5d0b3da0f61740654ad0befd0e1d2a4d
310182cd7e7a8ce40eda68ee9148950863ac07ce
F20101122_AAAAJR russo_j_Page_023.jp2
333ec65aacbd72d7bad6c9c0a37d594a
4cb827b219293f7e83d84a6b5a56592c1999ed86
37113 F20101122_AAAAKH russo_j_Page_073.pro
d2de33ed8bf073409df061b60066bcb1
412dd7865ca6a5c2b5ed23dcf20372cec1d1b95d
83419 F20101122_AAAAJS russo_j_Page_042.jpg
3e73c380f4073c7551c693dfd5efea82
76419b30d0ff3db5305d37b75823ddf633147069
F20101122_AAAAKI russo_j_Page_111.tif
966a80c39816268e0f0e9fdd1938428d
53787e7f26a7d67d8a7b0496e86591f72c5eb00f
89744 F20101122_AAAAJT russo_j_Page_041.jpg
7dbb90d5f5cb7b7f9da882b4626ba0a5
37c52493c43f8418f50d5e41899a8d9a3d386208
2162 F20101122_AAAAKJ russo_j_Page_027.txt
5d9221fe60c363e12e6fe125dfb1318d
245a5debe5c92df64543604085791e0795cd9a9c
2198 F20101122_AAAAJU russo_j_Page_032.txt
3f3b8e4bf75fa764ad304b677a805161
79220f098ac1eb2a8b2ffc0e07566fccfcc6b801
61258 F20101122_AAAAKK russo_j_Page_136.pro
fc6b655433776ac8a6272a57bdaf2c00
8653fb8f32529feb6e164d5cac53b95ce11bf9d9
56099 F20101122_AAAAJV russo_j_Page_018.pro
e37feddf527daa4a5703fc22e4ce2a56
e3a781890ce41ecc0c5b25a9342038ee27697d5a
F20101122_AAAAKL russo_j_Page_063.tif
0749d6329ce257e1f98a0aa933c39557
61ac917ac23fca0a2d4e96b51b64ddb59663ff3c
5965 F20101122_AAAAJW russo_j_Page_132thm.jpg
ff900e42af35502b6f97924bee635b3d
1edd078f9348c16b61b6042a7692d1edd1fb3bdc
10261 F20101122_AAAALA russo_j_Page_003.jpg
56c67963726c4cdfc1619374b6bb9484
23ba8b0f766424436af2f9d85dd6e898e2420799
6780 F20101122_AAAAKM russo_j_Page_022thm.jpg
a65aba6083c2fc876868ef9dcd749bed
2b8679badb983cade282867adb7283aa53bf44d4
F20101122_AAAAJX russo_j_Page_101.tif
8622c42900a8201bae3da713bf02a525
3b1cfb946e38fb2174cd6c466d22410b932e6a77
81520 F20101122_AAAALB russo_j_Page_004.jpg
6dcb8264fde47a79113bc1aa790ab61f
7e09069a78d9ec4f874dd4b143ad146245a7352e
1433 F20101122_AAAAKN russo_j_Page_026.txt
061b0f3a4a64a4a3da349ea52724d4d6
388783435b412d91b1f5d2ae54156782624a4477
F20101122_AAAAJY russo_j_Page_002.tif
5f397d7ea24a47cea660ee81ff912b86
e499f6b9f9a359191a8e3e0e5aab3355763b366f
16723 F20101122_AAAALC russo_j_Page_005.jpg
d4d89ad88ccbdbf244445f05a976bd1a
c035845808d53216e292ef9b2e54355caf843db3
F20101122_AAAAJZ russo_j_Page_038.tif
ca8605d0c89bd188386ffbb30403af46
549e9a817181b2390fe8f752199cb5a7835d9176
136062 F20101122_AAAALD russo_j_Page_007.jpg
247206c8e73f695e8a78078d520b9f22
272727c891fbeb24eb93a383b5d7adad33a0bb7f
77771 F20101122_AAAAKO russo_j_Page_088.jpg
d5067956cfd70c7fd6917b797ebb0a26
4cf87f8a47ee71c450c685b1170ea9683bda53a1
22180 F20101122_AAAALE russo_j_Page_008.jpg
8e51d1f5499fbb69e4427c86fbac476c
137f6c1dfb472bdd8fdd7d02074e5a6e1eab2228
F20101122_AAAAKP russo_j_Page_060.jp2
045953753a14383b06967556daca9fe5
9d6f64ad1d7680f61a949c7d883666ad12f6e49b
93857 F20101122_AAAALF russo_j_Page_009.jpg
cb71072935b3934c40bc5412d4a71a76
a604347720c7460581e96ab5e26b2ec748d88c75
53317 F20101122_AAAAKQ russo_j_Page_053.pro
556b12dadcc13eb63241632f82eaf5d1
f9850d1842c504eabd7aef2842c6ae6cd36ac831
115839 F20101122_AAAALG russo_j_Page_010.jpg
68f03799112619f6bfde5a6aca661949
c1486e01dc2db1e6cfb720891e2d929c87de87b0
4718 F20101122_AAAAKR russo_j_Page_125thm.jpg
d50fda54dd8a820518bf268f6181defb
0474d9e38125f501aa6a13765f719b94a158e150
108126 F20101122_AAAALH russo_j_Page_011.jpg
a5f28259e283f1fbc9230d270d3f651f
7574d19a697fe352b49f4b2564bb8581fe6a6d9a
372985 F20101122_AAAAKS russo_j_Page_072.jp2
324299c3128a687a3c68c40c3896ae73
f7264c8267ef6245a3e4837448c65fd3fac7dde8
49726 F20101122_AAAALI russo_j_Page_012.jpg
b21ba1e5f8685e459d161adf79f53120
adeb9a6956591fd42d691bf67783dcb5b4e02c62
1051953 F20101122_AAAAKT russo_j_Page_054.jp2
1945f8c0090d9e3460befaf38cae1eb0
32bb3842755d2b03606cdd5507ca2a44cd1477aa
73903 F20101122_AAAALJ russo_j_Page_013.jpg
ac9564138c344df0c93040e8886cb5ec
00a5c6e998e83afe98b9bf85e615d8dfb9e0943a
98143 F20101122_AAAAKU russo_j_Page_138.jpg
87d7e2b529887ed14e742e1364e0cd75
976bd473fbb26cd665f105d5ffca1139729cf01c
83968 F20101122_AAAALK russo_j_Page_016.jpg
86fcea47a8ba93e4580ac19dec8116ee
9418f4a9b19b11beb7e6945d88492f0c6ec4e32f
161352 F20101122_AAAAKV UFE0022520_00001.mets
25bff2b4d1e66d9538a75ef8207662cc
1f0ac5d52dc47e60163d7799c24c930d28b15b6f
87265 F20101122_AAAALL russo_j_Page_019.jpg
5c7b188628c25e2a396373546852c827
09a36d36984617e0a7fe027b097556bc23101e53
77021 F20101122_AAAALM russo_j_Page_020.jpg
e0146df7152af974f2057affcd1dbae3
6ca3f713f91186c8df8c210ceec077987ec579d1
87332 F20101122_AAAAMA russo_j_Page_037.jpg
d7267318972bd5a2edd7a3b08c99e517
6a87cd2922de2c6ebe4595379f05fa14a75d629a
83234 F20101122_AAAALN russo_j_Page_021.jpg
59a0673dc6c85ffb3870e0261c2f9183
f96e432e80b067e08fa5736d5af92546e3b78733
30687 F20101122_AAAAKY russo_j_Page_001.jpg
ab118db28c70d82868ad87b8be8954b0
75055be209ba531e772bb89ca90004415088035d
87350 F20101122_AAAAMB russo_j_Page_039.jpg
3eb6c1a818679d01b3121f4a7135387d
e65271fbf8509d6cadc22d0437cc4bd4b49d1e9e
84197 F20101122_AAAALO russo_j_Page_022.jpg
e2679e6fcb84831466cdd7c23feb56ae
cd024521facf775160815cb12f7dca67748a0aeb
10219 F20101122_AAAAKZ russo_j_Page_002.jpg
d1ed412a82706503a7161d9009b0dcde
ed9efd2834a4ef7a5a0b60d45bfa1ae6cf4cacac
86232 F20101122_AAAAMC russo_j_Page_043.jpg
446a9ee9b9913218dfe59368979e2985
230e0d437ad1005fcb829706e64428973a66b055
88243 F20101122_AAAAMD russo_j_Page_044.jpg
370c245a1059b3aeb566e24c243b5ff9
b2b152e0e7bf97c88b3cf5d6fe872f889f014ba0
90056 F20101122_AAAALP russo_j_Page_023.jpg
a85a654b2d504a8af0f7b2540791c843
d8d44c3bb43c9a7457267140a203e1588591ef9a
86912 F20101122_AAAAME russo_j_Page_045.jpg
0541f30046662a42435ed8e1aae10653
2516cf0544f5d6a49e4248bf72f9c0fc4b21367c
87431 F20101122_AAAALQ russo_j_Page_024.jpg
0d070b9f7cdac0075d0874af526565fe
bd27e3a6b319828ecb9ef9be043765ba0229ccdb
87173 F20101122_AAAAMF russo_j_Page_046.jpg
2d7cc66f1e356fb520560510090fdf80
5dea9d8aa7019cfef2e75b3da4055108ad1b3966
85426 F20101122_AAAALR russo_j_Page_025.jpg
4bd2af83b65f36022d066e2017bb04cd
cb654e325ae92db4a098406ee4d56faafcbfe703
23910 F20101122_AAAAMG russo_j_Page_048.jpg
aadf9ebfbfcdb84dede0efced40ce539
604a5abccda037accba16ca4bd2e394da2856069
58674 F20101122_AAAALS russo_j_Page_026.jpg
a32f25924a2f9f325eff8730341082a4
aaf64d405d8a4180290964e8d7c01a0b6233b658
80327 F20101122_AAAAMH russo_j_Page_049.jpg
1d3f8edf23ec18b1c9623624805a458f
fcae3fc6044577137ba8b40d51e4f6174a578615
81605 F20101122_AAAALT russo_j_Page_027.jpg
49afacda67e3c8dfea8add960b904b26
1cb5d2059c8537e3e34e6b99121206b8903ab0f7
93607 F20101122_AAAAMI russo_j_Page_050.jpg
424a1aab76a3269d913f76e56856eeba
c734900f1ce9cce085d43e6e1db29ecbf982d69b
78235 F20101122_AAAALU russo_j_Page_028.jpg
e1a1dfd15fc7af987ffcd7db0da05fb9
096a89314aab20755d2a6de6cfb45972def9f3b8
75587 F20101122_AAAAMJ russo_j_Page_052.jpg
cabb4e822ff44624da7a22a85740f888
1602fbd91c06996989230b8e9afb763939578432
84974 F20101122_AAAALV russo_j_Page_030.jpg
a1ff180cbdec06a3b5fc0ac5cf6613b4
0ae6e3b1d80282b59486f2ce1d2ce7d276081b86
82834 F20101122_AAAAMK russo_j_Page_053.jpg
20ea2833585831c35b9edfc702207e2b
b9af352a13897ab0c643327d5e8d19e349b9be38
83583 F20101122_AAAALW russo_j_Page_031.jpg
bda3670e64cdb7ea83a363a603643d7b
6d1c0b488d62a55e377192625ceb2940f3a70bb6
84795 F20101122_AAAAML russo_j_Page_054.jpg
5f47e127bdf945b0d5e34e0b2b5a075c
ba2975e743276b0b46c57c43d43f4f7865bc9989
65012 F20101122_AAAANA russo_j_Page_073.jpg
6d9377aac09caff0946c31f4b395d410
e71dd4892c184592c93ce70759ac7d415774ade1
80160 F20101122_AAAAMM russo_j_Page_055.jpg
6ce38d96bd4ed13cea5033172751a6d5
cabe160eb58dd5742b17e7ddab5005f3282f349b
88275 F20101122_AAAALX russo_j_Page_034.jpg
ba495522229e485876b542e0efcd3f30
5413d889795e4652844098b5870dfd52f4d486f1
91467 F20101122_AAAANB russo_j_Page_074.jpg
a89d4ede22a807764c49315e261d3cb1
6e6f2b026cfb1f5ba48de1efa771ff68ed721e2f
77534 F20101122_AAAAMN russo_j_Page_057.jpg
5222d0577f69e5e21f3293afb3868ba1
d3f1f918ab5a150dab6f5ebfea08388ab7056e1d
79741 F20101122_AAAALY russo_j_Page_035.jpg
ec6646d0b6a4b19b10c47355ae626643
5668881cc41519dd178a68606e2e84b0522386b3
90999 F20101122_AAAANC russo_j_Page_075.jpg
de747706230232d47d60238bd3ab0c22
794419dd9d7792ede579cf8caf88c5f8b247af93
81063 F20101122_AAAAMO russo_j_Page_058.jpg
bf190834b55d7b676a6344518f1a8277
56309efe1d85222be187533102c49cf2e5ff6f8d
85659 F20101122_AAAALZ russo_j_Page_036.jpg
5e8780e70436543ae790d9a32bb8f796
13ba4e3071dad152d46a2ba18cdbfd68c2a0e289
90414 F20101122_AAAAND russo_j_Page_076.jpg
7b1eb983d39632d6385d3fefb216b71b
e9770f7ad2d393166c8e855678d00cffafef1c2c
79665 F20101122_AAAAMP russo_j_Page_059.jpg
07f99f51de3be02aa4232c4cd7aaf286
78cb8abb65435526540dc73952ea141f5fe52a49
65217 F20101122_AAAANE russo_j_Page_077.jpg
05635d784551df15642b70fa4997dc6b
b5438d11a68c7ab8d9a193fe3a4239598f8d0155
92065 F20101122_AAAANF russo_j_Page_078.jpg
535598f5c8f73046b63b9e17c70c81aa
528a2ade4fa71c5fb858b04a8938293b721b0cf2
78581 F20101122_AAAAMQ russo_j_Page_061.jpg
277a5a326cae8668720b305cceefad3e
516e9117b7e20250922b0b33363580238d3ef570
63641 F20101122_AAAANG russo_j_Page_080.jpg
e676b6e8b4d197fda0ee6242b48e308d
424887f4300a4867913bb84301a180a99ca48370
84534 F20101122_AAAAMR russo_j_Page_062.jpg
d3aecb3cfb5b333b2e9789b32e5f00c1
f44480a239533c4b2ae06b3127565bfe718a38f2
71778 F20101122_AAAANH russo_j_Page_081.jpg
03909d94ba6fd9016ea2f7ec9a8f2db6
ff39270e3325a625ef799ba68760d82137ce3a04
84678 F20101122_AAAAMS russo_j_Page_063.jpg
9257951adec41b0f4b8fc2887f7d4a98
319afda4b4eca8e243061cbb1de9fb4d7c8b8c0e
74596 F20101122_AAAANI russo_j_Page_082.jpg
fbd8c1b0105667e3877044730c3c482f
b9720c1fa2e9a2d6885b0add5da5cc5c24277926
82109 F20101122_AAAAMT russo_j_Page_064.jpg
6d1bc83d875c3e1f9bfb715a246c37dc
1dd66ab070ff8a834f7924cf11ae423bbd418781
71406 F20101122_AAAANJ russo_j_Page_084.jpg
4513ec2e313ebdc948e8f8076def7720
dd656047b3889d358c055a8eec2a2aa4667b5e38
81901 F20101122_AAAAMU russo_j_Page_065.jpg
155195d2237e964bfc860e74596ddd82
14716b2d980b738ef71bb0e64cb643f56533cd8d
79245 F20101122_AAAANK russo_j_Page_085.jpg
8ddeda6c76c4850584dd6dc04746b5cf
322b97bc4555a095538fcc87bde187bcc0a0d666
78517 F20101122_AAAAMV russo_j_Page_066.jpg
18955b51c8d01128546314f859346aca
edbc7aa0686d3743d978465419460055c4fd8188
71193 F20101122_AAAANL russo_j_Page_087.jpg
fa21952539892427d36280558a785f75
f33f366a85f3aaa31ee11b3e0c1e0f02347481b2
87720 F20101122_AAAAMW russo_j_Page_067.jpg
c9b1389b087dc0b6e5b2c517dd09f6d5
6d797648726bbb89a85891fe9dcd602e763fb999
52854 F20101122_AAAANM russo_j_Page_089.jpg
a8049fed9557b6f3f937d5504273e4c1
045ac90888ddf1ad1fd6407f5966b3abdb7a5075
88330 F20101122_AAAAMX russo_j_Page_068.jpg
cb892402c21b15f234ad04502492b80f
68bbb40175e4c71ff7fe72d5775c50638a8001e1
82084 F20101122_AAAAOA russo_j_Page_105.jpg
d418d5dc911791d4cf0f481cad4f31a0
821cd2087d41a57e9cdee01116dd430f165613e9
63279 F20101122_AAAANN russo_j_Page_090.jpg
15cff30e0c1b65ad719bc426ee7bb10d
5029711249d4c59aa984b65b9ca299b651e3ecdd
79288 F20101122_AAAAMY russo_j_Page_069.jpg
cff364ebd41ec9b7f38c7e1982d026fd
0372720d063618a452622d9ce64bcf56fe809c2b
84113 F20101122_AAAAOB russo_j_Page_107.jpg
ac82ddf8a0ca2128e3475413ce1a0366
a91c70566b9dc1dab2c35955f0ce0028fac3d8ef
28203 F20101122_AAAANO russo_j_Page_091.jpg
0ef61d53a22d1f35f3c50e03cca76c9e
83e6855fb30ad0c28f54ad938bc6b501a1041954
31240 F20101122_AAAAMZ russo_j_Page_072.jpg
8e52fff016f9e0f8a5668446b990120a
adf2d72d5248030b85cdc206d17a8e31788d0909
91770 F20101122_AAAAOC russo_j_Page_109.jpg
1eb6ffb255ab85633414ae5574cfd41f
28262d68a2e380feaa819d13f39652455a6a1979
74788 F20101122_AAAANP russo_j_Page_092.jpg
e3b676495641698895effa9efd2565a1
861ee96d8d462847c69776b3fc441f8d09ee4738
92915 F20101122_AAAAOD russo_j_Page_111.jpg
eafac07d6ab52aed4a3b479fe43da229
0e1c65ac8801918ce3057186b2ad1869f7b60b11
72496 F20101122_AAAANQ russo_j_Page_093.jpg
722973578ff134997f9d5882f0e672e5
2f3698276b426f1066061d195848fee7ada4cdde
84405 F20101122_AAAAOE russo_j_Page_112.jpg
390b3a7760cb4831b34f1ef492b6b6c4
c6e84d5ee02049eb6184c0c2c36898c091a13c02
82835 F20101122_AAAAOF russo_j_Page_114.jpg
378981441ee84ac25625ac47f5f026ca
6c4db6dfb04ad7b3439108320a9c55117aa09a89
64131 F20101122_AAAANR russo_j_Page_095.jpg
59dfa870a8214ec78a9cdcc7b9ce757b
745c4e558449233b6acc29bb303c2312913576d0
84967 F20101122_AAAAOG russo_j_Page_115.jpg
215346e0c4176296355b6efd244b6e59
14905712146c7986ee7c27268665b9ab99b4b88c
87724 F20101122_AAAANS russo_j_Page_097.jpg
abbf9b1b80e4078aba59d44b0bd99ad5
41c8e62ef2f6851f41a2c913e6d6d9e10a8a1d0c
88599 F20101122_AAAAOH russo_j_Page_116.jpg
571771db24ae9964727e027d27b37dca
99274a6df5d9e732240c578cef7f65a5535ab22d
66748 F20101122_AAAANT russo_j_Page_098.jpg
a6f685c528d35e43f6c18098599f87d5
e96e1587487e5d0878fdbc89a383ebe76a87f9b1
86722 F20101122_AAAAOI russo_j_Page_117.jpg
db8f1d0c69b87bdf3fc9bb795e6ae8e8
7956ef721f96a5aa6560928c4f169fa12a5ee2c2
89172 F20101122_AAAANU russo_j_Page_099.jpg
78d32f0b328091cea0a8ad08bf3e2838
59c3ac35b85896d4b0e3989d67093010f2a57b0d
87816 F20101122_AAAAOJ russo_j_Page_118.jpg
501c3846d76a65e301cbf9af2e456546
bdc0d015db37932bd05b783a27989f298e38134c
96423 F20101122_AAAANV russo_j_Page_100.jpg
6b17f04a185b7018cd2cc729e075fafd
7d09b3e51bff1c28914f70ce4847804f0b7c6b46
84227 F20101122_AAAAOK russo_j_Page_119.jpg
3c210976131bd525f5e198f4f9d727db
d1e58e1a5eac3a87fce85e69fc4b46dec0c5a836
73076 F20101122_AAAANW russo_j_Page_101.jpg
d4703cf3c6d510759fd69cde8f23d0a2
fa83dfeb4b4652dffc57a0fae9e3a1ebfba7f982
87806 F20101122_AAAAOL russo_j_Page_120.jpg
a91ed0a0b9f09207d0990bc396767d67
76d63ad323c19a08479a242feadbfa0ddc8b46f9
89058 F20101122_AAAANX russo_j_Page_102.jpg
54c7d540c95169c3aa9e339cc575f678
b5efe159578d48a50b6603145e8021eb2aa45a51
60896 F20101122_AAAAPA russo_j_Page_139.jpg
2094863a0dcbeacdeebf13ce650268fb
99cc83643674196f88f233e0a3762e48787dd145
80641 F20101122_AAAAOM russo_j_Page_121.jpg
d2f44a90291aced508471af06d3e4bd0
75c0fb7bd5679634462091d80cf6e8c5c4a1709f
84652 F20101122_AAAANY russo_j_Page_103.jpg
e858c1f9f4d7e24ac9e14a3492e96f80
61866b36a8e60c0abfbce3391aae039ac92ef00f
28679 F20101122_AAAAPB russo_j_Page_002.jp2
44f561702c6bf58eafe271222eafe0a3
2e37e705dfa98935a19ed2981b306b0f439336b2
F20101122_AAAAON russo_j_Page_122.jpg
4944cf078abb665a1dfeee832f57b42b
4f1abec04f37ffd780d8cac80aaf9cb7f593c2d9
89379 F20101122_AAAANZ russo_j_Page_104.jpg
b24bfc8c7dd83df4e415d6dccdcd2dee
48b077c938f5eda5dd9be1c112d160d08fdbbd0b
33157 F20101122_AAAAPC russo_j_Page_003.jp2
3314c7074fac977be4e90df14b09fb26
49c886210e16ab0d9431ea42f612567e8759aa21
32714 F20101122_AAAAOO russo_j_Page_123.jpg
cf31786918823e727df2eed1fe773ce5
3b46682bb0fbd6fc9111e2e555b45bcc75e233a6
F20101122_AAAAPD russo_j_Page_004.jp2
86d1a6080672ee61478ad5ac35583b9e
be7f8becba74759ce347f4c70ce3e3d3a51ef68a
84910 F20101122_AAAAOP russo_j_Page_124.jpg
aa6f2edc81f355df25281d823a8d9875
b046ce217a92238e3fe8e1909e281f276dbf54df
445818 F20101122_AAAAPE russo_j_Page_008.jp2
075d9a5b9157a44e313650479e879c2b
6896f558278d42f7dbe5828feec7c5fc8d202419
26774 F20101122_AAAAOQ russo_j_Page_126.jpg
00cd78630917917129d0b90a103ed842
da54f89140f74d34f5b884ce0b67fbaa6c32ec35
F20101122_AAAAPF russo_j_Page_010.jp2
dadc86d7ad0d315d75d96ffe499c7e2c
aef43023040b15c2814c49848e6d1028a8c21c62
57382 F20101122_AAAAOR russo_j_Page_128.jpg
4cf4a3b16b26f04dd2f1a532980cddb3
98abd643d1a6e0e86601c9a89a5459bf9dadc3c8
1048446 F20101122_AAAAPG russo_j_Page_013.jp2
9fe94d6cf0f6efe02aa72ea5d368bae3
416d56032884a6f3723bcd119a4d9c64be124beb
998183 F20101122_AAAAPH russo_j_Page_014.jp2
1420893ae7b27e73ff7287f0a91ec6aa
3207f5b04e5cbc5259f64811778bada73abb0a66
66093 F20101122_AAAAOS russo_j_Page_130.jpg
957fac2df4125028d992eedf7b6af290
43e89285db76a59e339b44dc0bb8d605852abb95
1051984 F20101122_AAAAPI russo_j_Page_016.jp2
0a21bcdda8b047443892658d8b50a5cc
6ec1c802486af27c4c904488bd5a3c7bc4ccf81a
50631 F20101122_AAAAOT russo_j_Page_131.jpg
e41c5cbf107e6b423b80351d952ba1fa
00c264a66391806757f911bb17224a1f214687ae
1051873 F20101122_AAAAPJ russo_j_Page_017.jp2
fdbb87c260fda50bfa710528f43d86cd
b68b6e1848b385dac8c38e1e31a7973f1cd8fb37
54769 F20101122_AAAAOU russo_j_Page_132.jpg
e9872419b5596ad39634477621401801
25c1c5adc1f646e7b167c7979e91bc8d82226eaa
1051957 F20101122_AAAAPK russo_j_Page_018.jp2
a22440a6364bdd3be967d664af9dd0f1
700dc055163dfcd1b5142281683c714b94da258e
47707 F20101122_AAAAOV russo_j_Page_133.jpg
7419f5522428e62181666e302f7dfeff
a0527b8c6e422d8f17e6cd13e5018b44329bf50f
F20101122_AAAAPL russo_j_Page_019.jp2
f8d668df1c27bf9177710cc44c40f8b4
1857cddea85f60be3d82bf787c03bd968f3c8267
28884 F20101122_AAAAOW russo_j_Page_134.jpg
28d5770b588cc176888bfb25b8ab9f95
01f96036711c53c0365bf0c33c1b4b033e84a18a
1051980 F20101122_AAAAQA russo_j_Page_041.jp2
f5900a23f3a9d11330ea2cbf26e28f05
f6db386d467d3c08d4abd57328476bde344812aa
F20101122_AAAAPM russo_j_Page_021.jp2
596b9ba144f8845d8db67e3feb84d5cf
2e715ba5af7f35d53bf5267d3ada3f6f54fb51b2
91685 F20101122_AAAAOX russo_j_Page_135.jpg
59df7d0648f140c4ca079cc52945366c
7470f1bd8a5a3f702c049a5fbde08fd8a6185023
F20101122_AAAAQB russo_j_Page_044.jp2
adf6834617971568c46b468143d8e1c1
2595b8dbe5aba5edd4e14e42652a04ad9fc993e8
F20101122_AAAAPN russo_j_Page_025.jp2
9f4e4a1f11e7ca0b536c0ddfe7e253e7
f73c0281f8da463b2e1fe6da978fffa1af6b2e6b
93638 F20101122_AAAAOY russo_j_Page_136.jpg
c0a047ba1bdab561c6eb76e50cf05c2a
73fada2e430e1e61066f1c1da9b11fb3ee0e013d
1051972 F20101122_AAAAQC russo_j_Page_046.jp2
7635fab2b9e707c5ae12b3c0a35e52ed
5b50149124ac96c5795d7ec5fa6ec02f13ddc69f
805586 F20101122_AAAAPO russo_j_Page_026.jp2
8816ac856d1dcec94ad44517e93c4ddf
77446fbf035d0387e8bc383c03a957bbdcbdb3d3
93730 F20101122_AAAAOZ russo_j_Page_137.jpg
0468175ab17bd59b95435eac2a457e13
ac71cc3f5c1ea974662ee5fe22425aaf950bbd96
1051966 F20101122_AAAAQD russo_j_Page_049.jp2
07c0319a3a69cfaef18c0b0a7c20f0f8
ada1a45600881b8d066a207e8418df62347ef366
1051982 F20101122_AAAAPP russo_j_Page_027.jp2
dbe4893c346c5f2922ced02eef0beade
ac94fbfc523ea04fc265f99294b849fa425765ea
1051904 F20101122_AAAAQE russo_j_Page_050.jp2
8336036141db2b38e1d79ced6887ed79
e7937afdd25353a7bba72fa377f4e5e68887db73
F20101122_AAAAPQ russo_j_Page_028.jp2
ff4f9c548dec4ca18f668ce8d4da1921
2a3fb37108a7c9e9556de844d22712c0f7de9fb8
1051960 F20101122_AAAAQF russo_j_Page_051.jp2
5e1398a0fce4d3c27a86cdea01bbc1e3
efc8a5a023179cd8a9eea6241c82207c505e961b
1051985 F20101122_AAAAPR russo_j_Page_029.jp2
2492d66ae7d6e724bd57665383d7c2cd
57d3535448695a4a66559a4bf3fdd2d4d088cc27
F20101122_AAAAQG russo_j_Page_052.jp2
58895b801f0c8bb54609103d6278296e
e2ef74c44c4e8e3316e11a4385fc9f6e9c29b1fb
1051973 F20101122_AAAAPS russo_j_Page_030.jp2
911d0c87bb9f0d33cf5d396a711ba202
d31bf434099533b87fa94bb8241e461e37f23fb2
1051916 F20101122_AAAAQH russo_j_Page_055.jp2
a8568e90d9655b46aebf6ed93da20796
e21d42808cbac2b2409fdd4e9617c2de60dae21f
1019173 F20101122_AAAAQI russo_j_Page_056.jp2
b986ae02814d65159ffb553aad01a936
a65c7560fd8417e5f02621b3f027de3bb533a8ba
1051950 F20101122_AAAAPT russo_j_Page_032.jp2
4c98a7d738061e83930f9772f74d1996
2c88d80b864a4e960b3332a867f33ea564064f3b
F20101122_AAAAQJ russo_j_Page_057.jp2
6414ace33e3f2f8eec1284e21ab1800a
776298fb66f6cdd7f1bd985e0c233d9786ee4895
1051981 F20101122_AAAAPU russo_j_Page_033.jp2
99abf2d680c394a6e4981b2681ddd6a7
bc4d7e4049fb075a6b1f1264fe66096f9f4916d3
1051954 F20101122_AAAAQK russo_j_Page_058.jp2
da11931d2b7599473761739cc3b8db67
d90ac179aad7bded80d22b5fec553612b8b27b1f
1051971 F20101122_AAAAPV russo_j_Page_034.jp2
b6bac0e76c34bc90b326ecb7714b06f9
06f4b73ed4a4033f014d7233228daf415a7eb9ba
1051983 F20101122_AAAAQL russo_j_Page_061.jp2
a559d06900d18dd13754dbd0c36cd46e
79efe2ad589cfb511bd08975245d5ce761965214
F20101122_AAAAPW russo_j_Page_036.jp2
f0da4efed750d81e37edf4115cee61c0
465d2ed8b80824358460c443372d2de0659e95b0
1051952 F20101122_AAAAQM russo_j_Page_062.jp2
0c120dd8ed0a39b076528925af4a7b5d
0aa87d0a8bde0cff17aac2e20ce76f66b9019f42
1051902 F20101122_AAAAPX russo_j_Page_037.jp2
6cd366de41a5260b61b6e0d8f79a0efd
9a4d100a56ee58043d54ee39c98f93019551706b
1023816 F20101122_AAAARA russo_j_Page_082.jp2
df59dd4e2bbd681accbe0a3cb2c0178d
d538e43293f8db85e92607a773bfe4609b711e47
F20101122_AAAAQN russo_j_Page_063.jp2
c195d7cdb3ff09df662a7d5920351369
ea7bd9152321c58de9000d07a8b4714e588e9dd3
1051897 F20101122_AAAAPY russo_j_Page_038.jp2
359a6f63d6baf4754676a6660622def0
c091aebb9f46acc7a7f0b0c52c021a996d7c1e4a
963472 F20101122_AAAARB russo_j_Page_084.jp2
8913ba9fe348c959c5d518b2c5cb5f23
480a8945dab06e1d746565e8ad9bf1bddf0c5fd0
F20101122_AAAAQO russo_j_Page_064.jp2
ead74ee03e55213d315b0240a7714a4f
b5fefc521b7341893745449af1c55a97390a21b4
1051948 F20101122_AAAAPZ russo_j_Page_040.jp2
f611181f8787c4f85e12db84f8db2c50
ec12a87b7930d2a13f9374d00c2673f223a0b0fb
1051949 F20101122_AAAARC russo_j_Page_085.jp2
8729d9473b14b41cf8054d3f803b5e87
7827257856a0df07f6fff2045d62707ce7061174
F20101122_AAAAQP russo_j_Page_065.jp2
aaafcb942ed33565025d633c898074f6
297ad25f23b8d04fcff5d54b1f15f9434f16023a
912212 F20101122_AAAARD russo_j_Page_087.jp2
08ad25169ec35dd4ca39a38cd740b474
5147c96749ddb185d06f7175d8feceaf3b6f8648
F20101122_AAAAQQ russo_j_Page_067.jp2
73d875f61768a32dffd42d2d9664fedc
557b042f04c4d82711dcaf719125b684d32896d1
784821 F20101122_AAAARE russo_j_Page_090.jp2
4898e90cdf5efe2e75e6cbf91e5e2651
f352fa3be57a38a4a39900a3ed4a2b18021fc312
F20101122_AAAAQR russo_j_Page_070.jp2
69867ccbdc451b719430db6a170e14ba
d6e220b16e89c56b27924b7e55f96cd1eb779135
271626 F20101122_AAAARF russo_j_Page_091.jp2
275609ed26dbbc0160d190b3dd30e874
f42ed6599c30964454b69db1fa45f53711096ffd
1051967 F20101122_AAAAQS russo_j_Page_071.jp2
c3b3dc45e2d8631890c7c0cc0dfe5322
0672ff32ce8d3293e6e8d533ef0456e74aed875b
908711 F20101122_AAAARG russo_j_Page_092.jp2
b192d407dc0e1e22f73433bb0bfce8f3
fd69b810d232d3ad4f67004d2861e4932ac1d843
804863 F20101122_AAAAQT russo_j_Page_073.jp2
7e0995d3a90f761e1cd48d7f156f43a5
acd0aff3a9ec453803b6f6ac38fb56d6635d6a40
796156 F20101122_AAAARH russo_j_Page_095.jp2
a4316830b9c77fc1ed38044eec43dec0
f8be0bb30d8c673bb9df060e9989b8e116bdc3a9
899349 F20101122_AAAARI russo_j_Page_096.jp2
4e936e2b496c88e967b2962078da92c7
3e3b844d7c167bf209601a49a50feab65e0e3eb3
887894 F20101122_AAAARJ russo_j_Page_098.jp2
d4d15d2823020bc8e7cd2541127c121c
ae4679f48270669f948dd4280e0e28ebebb966eb
1051940 F20101122_AAAAQU russo_j_Page_074.jp2
908f73578d510b2089bf6aad067b7c32
e500392773d9caa429d5a14030ea9f654222215e
1051964 F20101122_AAAARK russo_j_Page_102.jp2
ccc71b83036353beb39a51c4a4ac4950
4875c0147214199974310b093f2db604ac47064f
1051925 F20101122_AAAAQV russo_j_Page_075.jp2
3ce766f80fd8e18c5653545013263f73
2e0cbc6bb89eae27ff40135df2d391e637018cf2
F20101122_AAAARL russo_j_Page_103.jp2
f2b3ba8e868f72e272ef3913bff41b8c
bb4bbe8e6e2322731179c4ccb2c90a9673bfaaf4
F20101122_AAAAQW russo_j_Page_076.jp2
62b484622e6746f1f3c8d964f061320f
b5cf8f27070fdfdab82094d90cd3d7e8fd6b173d
1051939 F20101122_AAAASA russo_j_Page_124.jp2
07b24edb3c75fa74b5b0d6729c0a9265
3af099b1800a34ad51b495881d5a6165a6638ff6
F20101122_AAAARM russo_j_Page_106.jp2
3c4560366323330933ffa7f17e03b3f0
e3d176b30a40baca638f0a13f233b14cb05b6fe1
1051924 F20101122_AAAAQX russo_j_Page_078.jp2
40876a3671526aeb67f80a1454f7ae1d
c7a206622edbc1ad65b1e6d7264c89d4490b0001
276231 F20101122_AAAASB russo_j_Page_126.jp2
a2f4366b89dc9ce1621d5b76e8e46a7a
678f8fcc8d213d5588bbbca43162060cdb04ddf0
F20101122_AAAARN russo_j_Page_107.jp2
e807ee384ad68c1dc6e6629942d073ff
620ccd235873879466f055a4cf38da35ef80d10d
915561 F20101122_AAAAQY russo_j_Page_079.jp2
1bf047c00336946d1bd2e62813c2c770
abcce4dc7b7df72f13b4b9ae165b3410b66dd7e6
316792 F20101122_AAAASC russo_j_Page_127.jp2
b38e2f3de0b393e020cc9f17d8f5bfda
c270fa090373f42ab343c1fae74e46f3667d87b0
F20101122_AAAARO russo_j_Page_108.jp2
7e8951778597af23541520e3fe993274
a4a5e32c6a2e2cc15d749c5afbfe3390b7b264d6
957036 F20101122_AAAAQZ russo_j_Page_081.jp2
b5d27d0f6aa926babfd74938a1f8a359
ad38a673e3009f6e20736ca2379c1a8ee3935f5c
766830 F20101122_AAAASD russo_j_Page_128.jp2
619e95f139daedcb89bcddf45ce83a86
33a2a3a10c553a5df78da4fec1514d8ef409efb3
F20101122_AAAARP russo_j_Page_111.jp2
4fbbf280dcdf024fd992cd070c09fd2b
94a5ee90434193b1262a461f45ce7d9c9b6b7f7f
904558 F20101122_AAAASE russo_j_Page_130.jp2
37ad61362f075048361364e0ad82b02a
a61bcbd23df06cc449e4406d9c666b5c8f3b5ea6
F20101122_AAAARQ russo_j_Page_112.jp2
5b2f4cf4836a171b40db0d933e18abe8
4b165122dfc9d35a57ae1d5e399df7842b4cf313
621724 F20101122_AAAASF russo_j_Page_131.jp2
9bbbaa94aa2bfa64da981f919a10a4f0
deeefebfa7468871a0ddce83fb4eeedb737062f9
1051935 F20101122_AAAARR russo_j_Page_113.jp2
159c2845649b92337ec02a9887a16659
9bfca00b09ac49007c16ff192ae9fdb54038d7ae
710298 F20101122_AAAASG russo_j_Page_132.jp2
e2d841df894bccc89c2a0bd2fd0f3d1e
e2bb2fe40cf7787e81e44fa08a43c1820b38d5fe
1051891 F20101122_AAAARS russo_j_Page_114.jp2
4af9babf8432166d63a4bbb6b7cfeb4e
24bac4e751afee06c4e8c54152af887a01c900e6
626181 F20101122_AAAASH russo_j_Page_133.jp2
733acc0452500fd84a90f8505bcb84f9
45ecd482b271f8d34e6af30af9b0417d974410c5
F20101122_AAAART russo_j_Page_115.jp2
51977454c73c5bd02b49ae9364410ac6
02fcf7bc37626f94a29826e86bca497080f55849
320394 F20101122_AAAASI russo_j_Page_134.jp2
6d5c4c26ac885cd11d070d4c91f4072b
9102d9e9cc1e20815139181a95b1bdc3b4147a2f
F20101122_AAAARU russo_j_Page_116.jp2
5c8ddb6ede65b89daf7d0804d4866e18
81b0aaec72f24772883b54341594df858f869015
F20101122_AAAASJ russo_j_Page_136.jp2
08118fb60d44f5eeb16c5f654da203ba
f0d8b02219ec3778763f0a5107ed34b2a06b2e3b
1051956 F20101122_AAAASK russo_j_Page_137.jp2
eaa328086bcf10c4fbf5cc36f83db3c4
e034c8b04833950d7a453dbb7c13f20c4b46f84c
F20101122_AAAARV russo_j_Page_118.jp2
f8d543980218d7217d71db826f821b93
e2e55346607505b3d2dec333c3813986bcfa0b5f
1051929 F20101122_AAAASL russo_j_Page_138.jp2
9c89f2f8215b5e89d3de51c8d141c0f4
11d8edb0007a6aa94acfa843e665049cfa86281d
1051975 F20101122_AAAARW russo_j_Page_119.jp2
661c717211e0d09056686247e5cbb19d
8069a7bee07e53d0bce5a2079b247a30eed2dc8d
640066 F20101122_AAAASM russo_j_Page_140.jp2
768ae2993c51e06172da1329c9121423
060cd8c2d3953da09265f708adb55892e23a71d9
F20101122_AAAARX russo_j_Page_121.jp2
0d758738582bd3754b7bb6da2d12032c
1aabee338378e69090a41b704a6af9e08ea10dcf
F20101122_AAAATA russo_j_Page_021.tif
53b17424eb2279b66af91878de59c237
bda00edc5df5fd7f5a5a23cdbac73c808aa4efaa
F20101122_AAAASN russo_j_Page_001.tif
805765c861efde612c443494a79e5cb6
8768ae6df8a64a118d429c49c2259f3fbf5fbea1
F20101122_AAAARY russo_j_Page_122.jp2
8083ca908b8e159bae4fcf0a86c687ae
a13f5d5676b05619c449c96a4b3625209d3f935e
F20101122_AAAATB russo_j_Page_023.tif
0b1036e222ed8b52fa4efa1a7456b2d7
2a15f3dc470c6afe60b5bcb79b929f174fdb59b1
F20101122_AAAASO russo_j_Page_003.tif
dbe8f8cd41acd91a51f28bad6bdc9097
1ffa675b201234de9bb766306effad6d5dd070d5
391775 F20101122_AAAARZ russo_j_Page_123.jp2
b699db0c4ab3f844baf48cc9670682a2
15a41f3b278ecb96543724a134dc98d2bb0f7a45
F20101122_AAAATC russo_j_Page_024.tif
ba29bdcef187bd24e3c8a759d1d604b8
68ffbd6a2122a656177696458f3b61be694b63d2
F20101122_AAAASP russo_j_Page_004.tif
8cc6ed44b36a2d6d320b2e174038011b
3984f193e9a6b7be6d573d33f52dc27c7f11ef64
F20101122_AAAATD russo_j_Page_025.tif
3b13f66ba6b3002e264aa521cfb29246
c65bd7b7ccb3f97ebd24bebc33522c9182ccee64
F20101122_AAAASQ russo_j_Page_007.tif
c1f9c818b19d74dbcdd0f88cabda5598
01a1f89376e20c2fe59928973e74ddff1e38d060
F20101122_AAAATE russo_j_Page_026.tif
f70a9748ba4b2e5095efac9145cd29db
9a6674e41738e67751cb9315c98378312f7e2f95
F20101122_AAAASR russo_j_Page_008.tif
e2e9fc1aaae4a4b4ae598702fd6863f8
32522e729687aa2d945c505a89c37800345306da
F20101122_AAAATF russo_j_Page_027.tif
4732998103f9c790494e9360d6dcbe83
ac110c38a790aeffffe8e5e5fd4e0b263d45ab25
F20101122_AAAASS russo_j_Page_009.tif
0cef16c7381372e842425cf98559b1fe
c9c2c29183e195ce32ece75903ece4be5bd26aee
F20101122_AAAATG russo_j_Page_028.tif
36fe9b59456c29fc2dbee9d5fff982a7
ad1dbaa62774190d12bda2707433f9bd363d7f20
F20101122_AAAAST russo_j_Page_010.tif
9a411fc880892aa3ef63fab878382c5c
3db5a11ed4cda90622bdd51597b3989bab17503f
F20101122_AAAATH russo_j_Page_030.tif
4d1318111cc7a5b7fa83634b0f644e65
30460d1d82b7a400e64b15dfb5df6bcc8be1d8d8
F20101122_AAAASU russo_j_Page_011.tif
1fccc33cbae018c2ac929a79cc0dbe7b
dd389e7eef3815e6a0d8dc76591520f9ad21fb33
F20101122_AAAATI russo_j_Page_031.tif
34b28f979b268737a77d23fb3356c0cc
21b08d561a6855bad0c077356f847643527747ca
F20101122_AAAASV russo_j_Page_012.tif
39f9e7845f68f46ac716de9a47d1515e
bbe49417071658f991c7e142639a325ed5a0581c
F20101122_AAAATJ russo_j_Page_033.tif
4d5ac5581c5746cf6c294e5aa1fe6b38
a266777d635d3665d4301d225c020b01caac7c1d
F20101122_AAAATK russo_j_Page_036.tif
0f105a11c812ae5665a27bd4a2b76ed5
37b0073aa01b013ce9daca45eea953621df8a6e3
F20101122_AAAASW russo_j_Page_013.tif
09d63475c18ed4517b4c692ce62d9bff
a27a7f7f7e537840409a1b0e4f995aedee3e9898
F20101122_AAAATL russo_j_Page_037.tif
8cb00a410bfda95d5a3c541c0a5599de
a6efffdcd45f1ae307b24c9f3267491b809bf3d9
F20101122_AAAASX russo_j_Page_014.tif
cae42407e376b7e6d3cf9d748531b203
eb3684bb659d91b33f53548188293ba64f625c45
F20101122_AAAAUA russo_j_Page_055.tif
453e09ec701b52ff6a165e999bc132b2
bc46aade2362a547be59f4c9be0078496588f760
F20101122_AAAATM russo_j_Page_040.tif
0dc6bca715f5c21596b9cfe4be8f6391
c654e042e176ddf685777b84708fb5e78cfe9d6f
F20101122_AAAASY russo_j_Page_015.tif
6ebbf253932111d7e4d8eec97bf7b671
9c155659eb88de2219294b766ddde8b6d823618a
F20101122_AAAAUB russo_j_Page_056.tif
6d2140ccad09642982688cbf38393cf1
6dfdd7fd8c274ab891380c1f340c408341843a7c
F20101122_AAAATN russo_j_Page_041.tif
20104312f1ce454075ca30d9a108ad4f
c3cc6d43fefba4080fd3d7c7b216bf7a52db4c86
F20101122_AAAASZ russo_j_Page_018.tif
49c4aeb2d836aecac184014368f1c3f0
84930d8322b233bc23cd50d8ee03c74a171077ee
F20101122_AAAAUC russo_j_Page_057.tif
7174f128dd5992a57842746bdf2f688f
a51a4b199b1fd9c11762f396ab3ed4c42685eb73
F20101122_AAAATO russo_j_Page_043.tif
e2d58c50665a17e2c25af890b0c1af2b
16f69fc59721b970e47ab4e23ee2904456e62317
F20101122_AAAAUD russo_j_Page_058.tif
a2b95fd232669ba2f043f2955c9068f7
e37aca390c6868337eaa66a15a11a68c342f6027
F20101122_AAAATP russo_j_Page_044.tif
e498f1b1aa0bcdb7c134cb85b0fa9df2
d6245d149f68b562ee388d5dc5cd15344016d28e
F20101122_AAAAUE russo_j_Page_059.tif
92891794f09f33857da8b496c7237945
b703f8ef19c6bb3d874151796f1edef98c4952e0
F20101122_AAAATQ russo_j_Page_045.tif
765bf64223139134fb6434ef271290f1
97b4544458ac54decd226a7486d4220e0f341664
F20101122_AAAAUF russo_j_Page_060.tif
1fa6fb11c1ff8337170e754b41ac4072
4c9324a09d79bd1c7700d188278b39676ed02809
F20101122_AAAATR russo_j_Page_046.tif
5e964d87d2db4adb7722cc8e130c3043
571c08f114e66749e0f2df2cecadb3f9c5a0a2f9
20195 F20101122_AAABAA russo_j_Page_131.pro
99ea3061469ea64d4ec92e03f415bc24
d38f49cdd3eed85f42eafbf4508e6e84e8953e00
F20101122_AAAAUG russo_j_Page_061.tif
d74f288c01889872f88ba4bd00e2282e
8d31e1ef2563b519095c360010cb72d6ff45f470
F20101122_AAAATS russo_j_Page_047.tif
e2f8cd7e1136a39c17b6738ce3218a82
fcd22848860fdd5043aca10aa21dd4c27b539485
24135 F20101122_AAABAB russo_j_Page_132.pro
9e3a4400218770b32a2d7adc1c739b19
7d475b7b82510a09d0cf2a8e3ee290927ff22044
F20101122_AAAAUH russo_j_Page_062.tif
4ea29a3d7e66d55948ff5da6243f52d0
f142015d04dbaeebacf1dc6f62c04841c5a9833a
F20101122_AAAATT russo_j_Page_048.tif
6133a704308560ce5fc0d85b4e00ff16
e01af33b96103a623888a3d2897f6f20f0c5f3ad
25302 F20101122_AAABAC russo_j_Page_133.pro
622d13638428f16311bdab913c606162
f45b62aa888756886dde4cb5df792c52a4ae831e
F20101122_AAAAUI russo_j_Page_064.tif
ced76b1d8aeb3cfd0218407cbade4f0e
55b1c7da3f847f84f8e993ceec15b6df978d5fa0
F20101122_AAAATU russo_j_Page_049.tif
c3deeeeabe1713988a65b82af941a644
f70aaeeb0a84a82ecd2bc16da938ba78573579a1
F20101122_AAAAUJ russo_j_Page_065.tif
13857c686415138be250369812881e3e
ffa417032279019c4ad5fc0ab6968b7eb591fecc
F20101122_AAAATV russo_j_Page_050.tif
52c975bd9bcc383df2d700457bb1b489
1ab0c3b1ce62f6f299296b52992e042eb9beab9f
60725 F20101122_AAABAD russo_j_Page_137.pro
557161ecc0eba7a8932c8f10ffb4eb0b
2e1d721d9a55457827af7b9941c0f0d6b7ac60cc
F20101122_AAAAUK russo_j_Page_066.tif
5e58eedece919754419882b0a61587f0
1f9bf78b853d69bad19668211184fb55f1b0ad18
F20101122_AAAATW russo_j_Page_051.tif
5dd05a3e3e9076be977a5027c3a7c6f5
6f082378505753069d77871942f65b2e81b591f2
63590 F20101122_AAABAE russo_j_Page_138.pro
b10213c9d2e6f9381de458f661a1f62c
74827bb9702b4f9f58e2fb6ced8e9b570b421a12
F20101122_AAAAUL russo_j_Page_067.tif
c4421c7161b9ed03c338ab6685e5649a
258e1001f036cda3a7dcbc50e7e8774397e2b38d
37140 F20101122_AAABAF russo_j_Page_139.pro
de0668a8d4e10c40155aa5b69bc602c4
adffd157cff21e84646f17f1d44487aa263fd418
F20101122_AAAAVA russo_j_Page_088.tif
00392371da1b23a6b2235b67a3c637a8
cae206a201dbab3dc3839cbce67c1421028ab896
F20101122_AAAAUM russo_j_Page_068.tif
97f785c491d3daa74b024d3215b1a80b
e67a057b738ec154b35eb9223821d3047300a4d2
F20101122_AAAATX russo_j_Page_052.tif
be09af60fde6c47d18c5ab6b254a94fa
c424d193db25b5deb427cf15d20dda2ce07c8e45
27833 F20101122_AAABAG russo_j_Page_140.pro
a350fdf456a9b163c3f7f7b1b6bf5e00
7c39cdca3da0595e820378039790afcfd8efeb3f
F20101122_AAAAVB russo_j_Page_090.tif
cf2148861481c9d5987c61bd9583f549
dc9bdeee7821dc6e6090503869513261d0d2bf2b
F20101122_AAAAUN russo_j_Page_070.tif
007df75f68a130d28da97258231a94e5
36da428262cbd4b13a409756e92179406bbfdc6f
F20101122_AAAATY russo_j_Page_053.tif
02f51ef4583396437c3f00dbe385770e
fb5f6bf53a4a8146d46221a5559aa943ce6c0f62
562 F20101122_AAABAH russo_j_Page_001.txt
1aa2bd07458ef9f11c8a468bf20d649e
16bd7c05f6e8e7872033f6cf566ac8a44f9c69ad
F20101122_AAAAVC russo_j_Page_091.tif
0080a4b2d15eecb3bef90bd91381d4cc
c3ae7185024cf8a4e33b966e70fdad7702882c1e
F20101122_AAAAUO russo_j_Page_071.tif
878f465f204bb21b73073e9ae06fab5a
a4658923bc3779a1129eee5f191c903542b0b8b8
F20101122_AAAATZ russo_j_Page_054.tif
6f1a1456d3d6e02c1a117d93d431d384
45655f41c856431c7fb316612892075d9e55c987
104 F20101122_AAABAI russo_j_Page_003.txt
c2e3a9a9168016983e1c5594c9c3a3a6
c38aa3ed455bfb4a7197bac0bcc1ed8e7d096f87
F20101122_AAAAVD russo_j_Page_092.tif
085302c9c617e8ccb9e2639f3bf612dc
aa8c124ccaa349a3abbd2099d688071e9b952964
F20101122_AAAAUP russo_j_Page_072.tif
296df3207ddc26888669703236a5d637
f6c97d244b38f27fcd5d0aea2c9b389d0a0907e4
2066 F20101122_AAABAJ russo_j_Page_004.txt
af29b0d3a38ff2e84a0a9f447867c06f
39db05562f2d2aeec5c8bafba8f87b022988019e
F20101122_AAAAVE russo_j_Page_093.tif
1008245e6bd028c14ade6295341dddc9
a69cab033b0911f43d9e7c722d5542408d5c9161
F20101122_AAAAUQ russo_j_Page_075.tif
6ca554b8217487771da42a28dd39338c
153a6f356e59c7c8fb661fc059589df18e5a696a
235 F20101122_AAABAK russo_j_Page_005.txt
c3f4f8eb2c06663c025b4fe397a21279
18b4d2c624c269597e9b810ea2c157a1a108e3f7
F20101122_AAAAVF russo_j_Page_097.tif
e869045fc1aa37552c89c232b2adb0e8
25c3a6fab42756d54f6abfb17216ec99b9d48274
F20101122_AAAAUR russo_j_Page_076.tif
7493f1647ca373c0e2975039ff180d09
b8ac53c40544b06fda67bf3c9bfd20d1722b7f42
2099 F20101122_AAABBA russo_j_Page_031.txt
31e0559b75b14af2e2e55a85a1d67512
e266cbea5191440a312ed834cad18b25c9283db1
3341 F20101122_AAABAL russo_j_Page_010.txt
928ec4b9d6f790e1964940451f82ded6
0e01dcee8f0374b8b5aadf3c76b5e99dd0b41009
F20101122_AAAAVG russo_j_Page_098.tif
cb0f46235ad524ea5f03e3571188e984
bbe0873c5d95e432196e92285233677d1a1c526c
F20101122_AAAAUS russo_j_Page_077.tif
cea9f2627f41480475614dfa567a162d
cb10deccf2474d9fad58cee5a5891df848570139
2153 F20101122_AAABBB russo_j_Page_033.txt
b954d28388267b01d543fac1dab9c6c0
013fce7f065b22e90f08e3c26ba88577cafbd6c7
3280 F20101122_AAABAM russo_j_Page_011.txt
444861ebff928cfe147a6e53ba098c18
c859ec199df6bd641253cafef5918d06604b761f
F20101122_AAAAVH russo_j_Page_099.tif
b26262668e178335d6d3c3e58a6ec88c
2117282c1581fa21e29158008be6575331247c69
F20101122_AAAAUT russo_j_Page_078.tif
bd91ba372e6fdb9edb6e7b2b6fd93dd1
81a5e4699371924ead5ff0191f452878c44aa569
2210 F20101122_AAABBC russo_j_Page_034.txt
f4210695e267f213e1f962f2d94d8b4e
88d59406919dbdd0d97ba2962b95e41ec1fd837b
1432 F20101122_AAABAN russo_j_Page_012.txt
5af0ab22cf17e5d4d7b394328c37a64a
6d229eeb62fce70518f09f00057ae9a77ba8c7a9
F20101122_AAAAVI russo_j_Page_102.tif
a1eb3091412d442e1458bd2f8292c817
761ec7b5f9bc1f593da367818498a29571c31a26
F20101122_AAAAUU russo_j_Page_079.tif
79fcd40c7e1e9e228bd060bab386bdd5
be2b93d77dc372e0a436525e57134693d428d378
2015 F20101122_AAABBD russo_j_Page_035.txt
1beb7c5bd0285490f05ec1f82f00b339
20af5ea25152f887cd48079c660a9d368fd6c076
1953 F20101122_AAABAO russo_j_Page_013.txt
46f08b0fe96d858673196a77ed0096c6
756dbae46dfb5ad7e6eac2db1900cbac1bf4cbd3
F20101122_AAAAVJ russo_j_Page_103.tif
739cb0f178d5f2275493e5d15deeba8d
201779d9e92d32dd301ef61f5728d78e20eb6100
F20101122_AAAAUV russo_j_Page_080.tif
d22237e59b13cd5ef47585ad23c4cba2
1088e596a4a82dcd3683fe9012e98d3772bfa0bb
1899 F20101122_AAABAP russo_j_Page_014.txt
a1afbafd5fe2a98c57295f8ea3ecafcc
4dd1f6cbf8a527e1f5b7a241da1be9da05ab5b3e
F20101122_AAAAVK russo_j_Page_104.tif
97b1e9f4667101251c03b502acb8202c
5a02cc0771f34c2c2767beb1a807a2c4ca9fac3d
F20101122_AAAAUW russo_j_Page_082.tif
6f7475f3bc322216d62155f3e6780d27
2ca34f92df20dda10ed4eb6427cd133dd3f13cc0
2130 F20101122_AAABBE russo_j_Page_036.txt
120256f4ed31ca7568edf07ec3bb7575
5a90fae74bef1da75c16f2c6b36d4f17512f0a33
2149 F20101122_AAABAQ russo_j_Page_016.txt
6309fc81aaf3cdb6658a7f844681dab1
0017e09016119534d4473bd7b66602540ca7ebb1
F20101122_AAAAVL russo_j_Page_105.tif
1d9ae517a8a83505201f9a41ae36e8f2
bcb4c331b9523780f981aa309e85c57036c7f5b0
F20101122_AAAAUX russo_j_Page_084.tif
59f284375336144ccba268998faa470b
67f5943eb9f667a84e881eccfdf3649951de9d0d
2208 F20101122_AAABBF russo_j_Page_037.txt
77365674f4a0c1bd8306dbc9fefb1194
905d39f0f9565952eb73f0ed433ecd46eae41349
2040 F20101122_AAABAR russo_j_Page_017.txt
ff34be9b69bb7e807f90c984a1c40ca5
58f9ca60c5696b6db3cc921b4015828a6280e5e5
F20101122_AAAAVM russo_j_Page_107.tif
d986f2c0e93df9e1f44d8d127d4c5673
189361a7b4ebfbe1a5f3be5de35053054ea70c03
2154 F20101122_AAABBG russo_j_Page_038.txt
d7b0fe1b6a8059ff0b95d68d434a99e9
f73afd2170770e0d50d531b63dc5287195627eea
F20101122_AAAAWA russo_j_Page_126.tif
ef67e4d595a43b23ecdb2e717d1262fe
c74545239d195c81db1afa2bd08d39a1dcdf562f
2239 F20101122_AAABAS russo_j_Page_018.txt
e1ab0ba7a7a5cbfbbc0ffd1edd901b2c
ff524a4ec6c534e05005a923ae131b9905f6046c
F20101122_AAAAVN russo_j_Page_108.tif
216223372bc21b2b1e6cde7b7357c203
7c9e2fd6cd98a579661784d6af59d65de132cd80
F20101122_AAAAUY russo_j_Page_085.tif
3c903afd1ab5468045eb2b877ff3fae0
356bf309a16d6c4a66b1e3b940dafafb452b0ee0
2217 F20101122_AAABBH russo_j_Page_040.txt
132c3e977b97343817feefb40d5f9f23
ecccc9a01529ba3bdf5c59315da58b981d69e92b
F20101122_AAAAWB russo_j_Page_127.tif
a6997ad9ee3fa0b9cabff4d941c0b2f2
1a82a92a8373b3f43c658eb85a2f127d75f9240a
2200 F20101122_AAABAT russo_j_Page_019.txt
6116ab0ea6c14ad13e78e55f8c5d0e51
487137a31b8d754056306539e6ebbae6739127aa
F20101122_AAAAVO russo_j_Page_109.tif
49a6abdeab4bf05f183a308b0a293f20
38cb9420674505482ac9480a4ed56533fceeee5a
F20101122_AAAAUZ russo_j_Page_086.tif
4fe5cba62d6330b83adfbb5272f71b02
f87666b8329532fccb893ea8fe9b585c365f5eee
2241 F20101122_AAABBI russo_j_Page_041.txt
785e001744ccc340e2f8d02b46962913
41ff18e0ccd47859c38b9a0874d555750846db74
F20101122_AAAAWC russo_j_Page_130.tif
40b079f6d508d24a5f42f9e844c163aa
451e01f2093e59552bd7a7e6fc04e8d14c4e1469
2368 F20101122_AAABAU russo_j_Page_022.txt
f9d351e92ce1f0cab3728effb484b46f
092f557c5f3aa5d4e83b732ea7a2ae60f213622c
F20101122_AAAAVP russo_j_Page_110.tif
e7f65382072f7e5e7371b4d7379620d5
7aa0125b0b4f2d4a35c1396bb0e083a6ce6427dc
2159 F20101122_AAABBJ russo_j_Page_043.txt
a978d94d162a06347f2a1440cd32d8f8
f33060fc9d71cbc7fca6b5cebd6fbf43f556c5cf
F20101122_AAAAWD russo_j_Page_131.tif
416bd28b4821eaf0bcb6c1b35d0b2a7d
d37b4ababd6584645f953647291d20e8406e9320
2432 F20101122_AAABAV russo_j_Page_023.txt
b75e86ac77cf3db2186e536667a40d2b
1805d42e03b5602776f1c5f8c6456a407090c0f3
F20101122_AAAAVQ russo_j_Page_113.tif
b1e2e472082246ed34b2f0ec6b0ccc7e
70e5ed6d34d243ffe6ebde55f80ff315222e8241
439 F20101122_AAABBK russo_j_Page_048.txt
b4316de045130ee4e4cceb500926e9a6
acb620afb7ef0d8d87b3cc134ae893ba447c46f2
F20101122_AAAAWE russo_j_Page_132.tif
89d8b4f83292d98a1f247924251ade3a
ad7acf97bbd2b23b0775e8c85f510400203dceea
2195 F20101122_AAABAW russo_j_Page_024.txt
b79f4b9ac13734a6b87dbd9f14628304
b2958257c9ccdf144b55646784fa6ae516f93ac0
F20101122_AAAAVR russo_j_Page_114.tif
61f5e8d4db65cb4d316bed08fee73fcb
1ce1b93595b1ca3b70f364e4bfbaf762d726af64
1975 F20101122_AAABCA russo_j_Page_069.txt
6ccb0a39b92b93bb32eaf9872f40f39e
ea12c634bb6631423a42d38fbd882935d2df568f
2269 F20101122_AAABBL russo_j_Page_049.txt
c2c93860f0dc3e50fa9bc0e90e86071b
7f5b0c0f082d14f2db36cdfbb632b55114690fdc
F20101122_AAAAWF russo_j_Page_135.tif
73f3c318487e12388b5dd444a4938bdc
b8d136bd8323d58680c8e7dd6778bf3c4da750dc
2122 F20101122_AAABAX russo_j_Page_025.txt
be0f082e7fab48fd42bebeef0cf97ff3
eaadab21109630200814d0c1ba52c82c357f4017
2124 F20101122_AAABCB russo_j_Page_071.txt
4bf0a253755e377eae3755439eab3b10
dbad8ce982ae0cabbdf2ecf9def9c9efd7231bfb
2129 F20101122_AAABBM russo_j_Page_051.txt
4445b327b52f25eb8464937f497e88d9
7f0675490eaf540272812fa54fc5c2d0d4017551
F20101122_AAAAWG russo_j_Page_136.tif
ac5a0350a2d50eb51d03a39122a304bf
2e9cdaf9246795b629b13d6b76d368d1f5e29963
1948 F20101122_AAABAY russo_j_Page_028.txt
6d6980be7ada3276838643ec99385a9a
7d21eb881460b1aa67ee65b19fbc86fa63d9ce46
F20101122_AAAAVS russo_j_Page_115.tif
c24bbb69763f46e655f91a8c989015c9
7a470f87f7a65b87f2fef96e144c04cbfe9752f7
625 F20101122_AAABCC russo_j_Page_072.txt
ccca80b6188ced020492403c5742a7ae
0f17dcfbdd866cf97b3ef0bb92302cc06b4e354c
F20101122_AAABBN russo_j_Page_052.txt
8280f5e9c92247d93eb5c2f122d0c917
20ace7c09f199b7bdded3df6d2b2d71d34c5193d
F20101122_AAAAWH russo_j_Page_138.tif
85275cdc7081dde0ca54a6d41c09c956
57fa1e30d16a4b1f11b8e7c23bf77219fdf73656
F20101122_AAABAZ russo_j_Page_029.txt
3171bcb7fd7aff04f016fe5f7cb77d7a
9139618242bb65c7b0d4e5d4c9f915bc42139143
F20101122_AAAAVT russo_j_Page_116.tif
52e0b10c22ee33ec589a93134578ad4c
63316f009dcc12eeef47ac1423859c82fa7aad59
1789 F20101122_AAABCD russo_j_Page_073.txt
61510774fd01d59b980729d6d3c37d05
25c3d9f65906981684ebbc3c5dcdc4b4db168857
2143 F20101122_AAABBO russo_j_Page_053.txt
8a3c4c58bdb2fc434d4024f2cc46e2ae
d1a5b1a5d978c829769565948bb44570fabf2b0b
F20101122_AAAAWI russo_j_Page_139.tif
69f9021a26230504ead2919c19c62bb9
abb9d12d9b0d528e68cf23e2bce449521c31df7c
F20101122_AAAAVU russo_j_Page_117.tif
e4ace959c8ffd7f03ab5ef9a898d80fb
385a4d7f9687d30c62d445a7fa417fe862250ca7
1687 F20101122_AAABCE russo_j_Page_077.txt
7a5518003ec3adacd298025c57adef12
0ded3bcc2fb10ed7c8560317e5471d64db73b53d
2151 F20101122_AAABBP russo_j_Page_054.txt
3e3460de714e7bb72ee269423150cd3f
aba91b3b2f00f12016a1d827d32b05fde683a690
F20101122_AAAAWJ russo_j_Page_140.tif
4b92728d7559e4106fd837df3bd9ecbe
ee9978482a785f9d62a196876943dda80b45ad73
F20101122_AAAAVV russo_j_Page_118.tif
082487b0e0cf810de49ea425b0308e9a
5c8261f1eb671a17b605b13ed6a162c494a541aa
2013 F20101122_AAABBQ russo_j_Page_055.txt
a55f83411e6a9c4135b39c57b39e5c66
79d7649a8d97b8c50a0b915db49fa15108e75504
963 F20101122_AAAAWK russo_j_Page_002.pro
1a4b5f3500c2d570b10c427a25fd3972
789de11b4624706b78239591a93da95ab5213cf7
F20101122_AAAAVW russo_j_Page_119.tif
76fcca6179c4359bbd5c89c0cf6c50f5
9ea6f3a98f2ace335280b2eaea4ea90862add46c
3312 F20101122_AAABCF russo_j_Page_078.txt
be0d370d28053995134512e81e1f0058
c8bc918a907b233ef5461a66855e02d79cb47ceb
1821 F20101122_AAABBR russo_j_Page_056.txt
8123002f841d5b8fdb1d48350197d6fe
2fb44ce40dfd987c08ea6721c67466be1cf64394
1299 F20101122_AAAAWL russo_j_Page_003.pro
118ace8550ef932b2aed5a3f8d8f5ffa
cbe7744e468c161ebc15a876c065473e15498648
F20101122_AAAAVX russo_j_Page_121.tif
df39626109e41388a8b0ef372ececb16
b8fee3ed764d7e80fd8e15b6ff56d3827d8c970f
2437 F20101122_AAABCG russo_j_Page_079.txt
db13cbd933a202fa815c808f152d29e8
9ef285273a255b229bcffce476d3e35eed33d99a
55856 F20101122_AAAAXA russo_j_Page_032.pro
ce2b3e3e16f88d3b53f529e0b5cd9337
e21277d662edd40194a6ff12af8e75ceb10a7052
2048 F20101122_AAABBS russo_j_Page_057.txt
60d232fad2e1281dcc4afb8a95745a03
ff7bd84a0e30a767cf6ce11133b8e2930c0e63f3
5697 F20101122_AAAAWM russo_j_Page_005.pro
726f05719599151458d06e8551179f51
2c150ab3f7f932a1fb99dbfe7913c71484de31e3
F20101122_AAAAVY russo_j_Page_123.tif
65797b2c32c4dc68ff536da90b5c3a8e
46ddee18bfde3ece2c1319b6e4f899aa5a70d592
2146 F20101122_AAABCH russo_j_Page_080.txt
62e97c2b1aba6dc86507226d4e5aac13
237b71b888b733f34be9c1173b5d0c1a1edc2333
54755 F20101122_AAAAXB russo_j_Page_033.pro
28aa0d3cefc6a6b3f22e046d70675f15
0d59524bdaff19ffddaaf5770752ddada41b8e27
F20101122_AAABBT russo_j_Page_058.txt
5eb412544d13d120928d4fc47689af95
ccb4a9b028a64601e049570a3421a807cbd03554
103271 F20101122_AAAAWN russo_j_Page_007.pro
3a41305456a208f04303ba813111449f
0e994fc57dd8ab1ea8b0a97a3ac0fb714b1ad790
2213 F20101122_AAABCI russo_j_Page_082.txt
5d40c01adf48462b219eb35495782c20
c5ec867f41bd81c144540a3563961b781c0b95f2
56194 F20101122_AAAAXC russo_j_Page_034.pro
87cac6fd286ddfec929df2045baed453
4b84a8b193bbba758d4af8632c9392c13026abe1
2077 F20101122_AAABBU russo_j_Page_060.txt
6c26c5111c211b4e84e4f934819af597
faa4766d1e90536667418d10475541b5b6ff5e87
75344 F20101122_AAAAWO russo_j_Page_009.pro
3a79dac459dd3894ea5b20e8bbadf514
ee631b4c81537014d856d79d4679a433dab12e6d
F20101122_AAAAVZ russo_j_Page_124.tif
99c1e983c6725e7e99484c9c1a07d834
0f3a627025ea60522a9fb0b6610a833cf676435f
1885 F20101122_AAABCJ russo_j_Page_083.txt
5ac7204ae81292ad07ee710fb137b4c1
a98765afd1a628cdabe7f65f116504e6838b0b5f
50347 F20101122_AAAAXD russo_j_Page_035.pro
91164bd000991503a087182b5c160a50
218fec7fb8afda82307be7a5787959e453f45c58
1967 F20101122_AAABBV russo_j_Page_061.txt
4d89e448861def3555e6c62415147f67
e90e3af4a255421a6c19a40a9e4a239449bf7902
48167 F20101122_AAAAWP russo_j_Page_013.pro
524352b6a0a8a330004ca300aa26c4ae
ef0d4ee95dc12aa7ee68763b0dbb344ad8efc893
2161 F20101122_AAABCK russo_j_Page_084.txt
85459a60269f7b11f6f59cf35accddf4
8ce5a5b6ca6744bdd1e588fab40c70118909ed92
54266 F20101122_AAAAXE russo_j_Page_036.pro
9f777d7ab4033d11f1fc75c59d04b60f
33fab71ecde4b38917911fe2772b31812fcd399b
2152 F20101122_AAABBW russo_j_Page_062.txt
0cf546ac1d2ebac82807a7ad311434dd
5053470e6f0c66912f57ba62c796d659c506e066
42682 F20101122_AAAAWQ russo_j_Page_014.pro
c7a0e4431277f13f9ee9c61e1cd3bc7a
513187bdf3ed85da80fdf6009f7ea09e5f4aa1fc
2185 F20101122_AAABCL russo_j_Page_085.txt
0328513d41f75defe7dda18a7e8a7999
26687756fa9a0a8f7fdaf31d54be9f716c7f16af
56302 F20101122_AAAAXF russo_j_Page_037.pro
5144ba5872e7d6c65ca4120d4ee662f6
78b8066bb7ea42b062787036ed77b22bd7b10739
2178 F20101122_AAABBX russo_j_Page_063.txt
702d151a5b15c29ed7e35f95d26016e6
46086aa62406d5b4d827fdf251bd78f9a58cf74f
52512 F20101122_AAAAWR russo_j_Page_016.pro
838e3ad7e8da5db524e31ac5d79b4c07
aa867bb8687d4cf5c0615d49c39f76941ab92332
2117 F20101122_AAABDA russo_j_Page_106.txt
6fe9b95d3a3511be735d17f29373b1b3
93549f916e4e86d75838016e1b97674e4c5d3f0d
900 F20101122_AAABCM russo_j_Page_086.txt
6d36f05f70345bd69e4aac23b61acae2
f312ca5f28a63b5db208d2581bf7d0dea2182364
54758 F20101122_AAAAXG russo_j_Page_038.pro
434b0ced0a1e56e4c7574e32188e04ae
6470960089165d1821ddb747a85c7e3a77c2aa2e
2020 F20101122_AAABBY russo_j_Page_065.txt
48717830f2c9aac14c38be8514ee9221
8027179208c6ca871db32ab843a9f443a533937b
52636 F20101122_AAAAWS russo_j_Page_021.pro
d662603dbad2316d11222ffd5ec94152
a43ba5dcb6dd53a7614523bde7ac0005e9f8876b
2138 F20101122_AAABDB russo_j_Page_107.txt
72c3930ab3e559bce8a45a15c66ccac6
f8d6c982c24c1c825ee3bc5b2c649ddfef834b24
2062 F20101122_AAABCN russo_j_Page_087.txt
3fb078642d8002a2846c6f7e5e305f57
990b9e55bbab835c081155ff0b5c2e4ccf48aab3
55514 F20101122_AAAAXH russo_j_Page_039.pro
2ddd823ac233e101f8bcb2b6bd75c9a0
e582eb45895b2cf81a12b9eb935b2f5bc2648944
2256 F20101122_AAABBZ russo_j_Page_067.txt
cd6b9ae32259b286e8a6aa49640226c7
7801cc4128c1353a84ee86a89abe51ca4ebb740e
56282 F20101122_AAAAWT russo_j_Page_022.pro
b6e243f9a9bbb4c9d709d7d5c506cf8d
4c038d86e083fae8cbca621c0b289b924c7af84b
F20101122_AAAAAA russo_j_Page_104.jp2
715392973366d049fe7f12f13ffedeb0
e67fdcc5d0aef612312a2b4950ae38dc3039ab6e
F20101122_AAABDC russo_j_Page_110.txt
2c7bd879e272154bd6fab5aefa3a094e
71f70dce9b26aacc7a07a13879df53f10e7ab2b1
3522 F20101122_AAABCO russo_j_Page_090.txt
88cd03fc3c038151df8c3ee662db786b
773ffd5a2021a063c58f45dfcfa10422470152af
56314 F20101122_AAAAXI russo_j_Page_040.pro
0fbdc56969048d20d2a89f6a02cec8ec
8d2d7da25a4f6f0a8a2cb3bc638c4cf534988cdf
36001 F20101122_AAAAWU russo_j_Page_026.pro
e4eb2d028932810467a7990e1fc47db2
59433ca676f5a768ab9c9b9875bef23d83d098c7
20404 F20101122_AAAAAB russo_j_Page_082.QC.jpg
1ecad552f82bd2666f533bcd9ce82dfd
e59465fc23eafb79cf66b5cc16f4321aa9b8a83a
2316 F20101122_AAABDD russo_j_Page_111.txt
c07b5b13641bc945cfd6c461d57334dd
ea24afcb807178755a699783017a44409e0132e1
57262 F20101122_AAAAXJ russo_j_Page_041.pro
6586c1021fac83f9ad56d0960ca9685f
c03aee3dca065c3ab0159c787bb011d3bdeba54f
51482 F20101122_AAAAWV russo_j_Page_027.pro
cda5027e661ab7bf5578fdc93286d062
2ca0af11c1cf2f7efb1b50786adb89853ddc64b7
2173 F20101122_AAAAAC russo_j_Page_108.txt
e88b956476db5de84ff617b4d05bcf5c
de2d6a0da01777503c08dab27176e788914a2922
F20101122_AAABDE russo_j_Page_112.txt
bffacd82f9986004c4c7442280b40306
bda958738ff572487c91ccea4501d8602f2a1123
1144 F20101122_AAABCP russo_j_Page_091.txt
8269096e614fc14fd64e4c63eabbc530
99447a09f60f7a1de23d49e9e5e1b30eb0a1991a
52459 F20101122_AAAAXK russo_j_Page_042.pro
454ae3b40c0d224933675183cc7257ef
9f1587e78525635b738bb089717d775ec8bec60a
49301 F20101122_AAAAWW russo_j_Page_028.pro
e306c941cfe9d73b931431c9ae669dad
91ad5336a250f84318be1cf4151b51fb1db7b5a6
86345 F20101122_AAAAAD russo_j_Page_038.jpg
48567c09d5481068076f956acd4a2cbe
b33f26301289562c2b0430cb6a134d45b39528b3
2140 F20101122_AAABDF russo_j_Page_115.txt
d194ecc92e8e0610cd0751f07d7cf3c4
ddaccbf9499db356ee485aede56c82d457602820
2353 F20101122_AAABCQ russo_j_Page_093.txt
943b18d2eb736b6092da50773300761c
95ec649a3ebc8ddfce4a5bf1f0e673cdf143b17d
54806 F20101122_AAAAXL russo_j_Page_043.pro
690898e3b4a1f23dd733812ae0cdbe45
4f793a06766c2a069d850921de4ac7b0a781b375
53920 F20101122_AAAAWX russo_j_Page_029.pro
cb15ad3f469a732fb9928777fe140ae5
95408acbde895a9a049b496ad8904e386a1d9b89
3613 F20101122_AAABCR russo_j_Page_095.txt
819a1a165baf56d4de52dbd92a976052
aa8c7ba9bc8c37aa51ef449d26b3b7965b400b9a
55522 F20101122_AAAAXM russo_j_Page_044.pro
ad45839d249e43e80ea18c5e9e0a6b95
eacbba0317f2b17559f85ca5a1ab36f0cf9d2e5a
54232 F20101122_AAAAWY russo_j_Page_030.pro
e15710ec4dbc5791ab8a05955acb1e49
412433f89d7921ca79a8ed67ac68b7078bf0703c
F20101122_AAAAAE russo_j_Page_022.jp2
9053d246b699c0e2aad57a6c65de0614
1fc5869ff6cf6437b1f849e5adc8640eae2752e9
2250 F20101122_AAABDG russo_j_Page_116.txt
b968aa07aa0339bc1e322ed6ad5a1b57
7c0a77738c0d5c076cfc58a9592f9205e4ae1b62
51126 F20101122_AAAAYA russo_j_Page_065.pro
3cd83d7300b3c47849c0b95b70cb7553
8955532b2f25121d7d6b0f6b5e1266e38e8f035f
2337 F20101122_AAABCS russo_j_Page_096.txt
75dcfcd4b90b94c8789e6e05609662ed
ece6536af521e0d931a5d4cc260d5285a3cbb8c2
55536 F20101122_AAAAXN russo_j_Page_045.pro
7fc630b81de1fd68d331c4f032a116a0
03af78eb51270e8362b1ce3b90524ff0e4dfd90e
53502 F20101122_AAAAWZ russo_j_Page_031.pro
18db773a8230b40bfda8063575cbb80a
b90d82929623cf77d4413c69d15a8a65a2b42157
56592 F20101122_AAAAAF russo_j_Page_067.pro
65bda6c7d0da6774f33269fa0b1bd860
f3763bd6b0196f80ac769e11d7503876953bc990
2132 F20101122_AAABDH russo_j_Page_117.txt
741ab4f2f6f1b0af958755be239be4d4
d11eeb53f830e8b2b9cafe89acdb80a5b72c6a16
49615 F20101122_AAAAYB russo_j_Page_066.pro
d189b34829e155d82655da1e6cbb9233
61fca6d1365fe25cbe1785f953ed039a4171bd17
2879 F20101122_AAABCT russo_j_Page_097.txt
68357c32cdb06cb9ca5b93e548bdc3f7
1b445902ec6c23e21548ed166c72dc912414bebd
55887 F20101122_AAAAXO russo_j_Page_046.pro
1f03edcd9bb2c83cf997f8672d9ea16f
ebb9c5820dd0ecf15e63db9ca15627b8a5f13f66
10204 F20101122_AAAAAG russo_j_Page_001.pro
7ceb21cdc9dfcef4b2301b4edc73aaff
e999c7a27a05424c0d41523aaca20226b69db6da
F20101122_AAABDI russo_j_Page_118.txt
03342329d5bfafd384dd5220ab8776b5
0b4a4b40a37d65d1e738791b228ea127be8b6759
49721 F20101122_AAAAYC russo_j_Page_069.pro
2a5865104acc8195dc335223eed631af
08e9d90170f8df23cb54c906074338f5550012db
2059 F20101122_AAABCU russo_j_Page_098.txt
c844e789b0da86f7b77f7c19515efac2
e4a8bcdcb279fbb043089ea8eff775ae47164b46
11005 F20101122_AAAAXP russo_j_Page_048.pro
47d06ee3a354ec905b45faf49f4f178d
cdfdd3c6edf059c4779360854665378d8a11bd8d
2789 F20101122_AAAAAH russo_j_Page_091thm.jpg
95ffdb20b9b8c3c62143947633b60ed3
64b34e5d345457680a7967ecd8a38398af04637f
F20101122_AAABDJ russo_j_Page_119.txt
0acf54c3ed8b7f00588e6c021209b9c1
3f038be563dc30a79cee9d8dd20ea67d8879f6a0
53241 F20101122_AAAAYD russo_j_Page_070.pro
ed57afe81592fd196225d660b33b16f2
af5b4bfaa96202eaf928bc931e217911b2bd09eb
F20101122_AAABCV russo_j_Page_099.txt
8062812c838648fb36cb5ac2e992fdd9
109ccafd08e6f1066b1d2e5859805d46e5a4d7e5
53016 F20101122_AAAAXQ russo_j_Page_049.pro
870f3c0e444ed86969918a07c26d46c4
72bbaaf97aa33f3df094217dc926d242f448db85
1051979 F20101122_AAAAAI russo_j_Page_035.jp2
f239bd5f01c14ca5f00f9a9d29e7cf5c
484a20f34f4acbec1a8956794234ec9c58915197
2047 F20101122_AAABDK russo_j_Page_121.txt
0ecc5467ad751c193928f8def2fe9d59
1f243b319b31bd1a5040b891387e1705c617d218
54107 F20101122_AAAAYE russo_j_Page_071.pro
d1d7c0d45d8eb95f03361097f9721924
d8a7dcf7553d85f55c3b13a1570859ac664cf0c3
2515 F20101122_AAABCW russo_j_Page_100.txt
ccabcd22de7be4a226517bd3d2733be4
856dcab36fcb843699ba161c3c4f1c772e78f0c2
54561 F20101122_AAAAXR russo_j_Page_054.pro
d5ec31144da443adb3371532209c4883
58f74d6f58e67fab42d4a8f389082daa295d4cc7
5210 F20101122_AAABEA russo_j_Page_090thm.jpg
3996341839065e19cf80e91f3c942690
cac53d712de2f577f4ee8a0cc18c887f1b9fc477
48510 F20101122_AAAAAJ russo_j_Page_052.pro
793567fe31d521fe99e11b0ffc4cbaf2
71b5fd8fe2e155e168debdfe098349f73ddffa40
2314 F20101122_AAABDL russo_j_Page_122.txt
bf540332ca595519bc90e307f57921e5
2b9326847dd9e08438f1571e1576e8ea213f3b50
15715 F20101122_AAAAYF russo_j_Page_072.pro
eedba555b0e6cde15ee6e5fd77615569
57426df5ba10c8bd2ef1b272210da7238be95315
1762 F20101122_AAABCX russo_j_Page_101.txt
82ee5576434973e4b4ed60f610e17c14
f3665ca859f80303fbd60db3fb0ae7a4726da0e3
50205 F20101122_AAAAXS russo_j_Page_055.pro
eb4fb4130b6e14b133784a1ee0f58dac
573e2944b689c9e8201696cbb4a086a87f61163e
21969 F20101122_AAABEB russo_j_Page_014.QC.jpg
b3b3c121eaf796c24db8a344770b545d
f0249bf7aa2a30c677f893ea4af99de5304ea3d7
28281 F20101122_AAAAAK russo_j_Page_044.QC.jpg
82223614932000730a08e90e595c3756
bb0acb1b1abfaa2c2e88b99b181434c2f9c6d75f
684 F20101122_AAABDM russo_j_Page_123.txt
5b04b493303c82c078fb7c201638256e
c429a0beb460c21b957d76918d05aab1398c3d0f
63172 F20101122_AAAAYG russo_j_Page_075.pro
d5b3adb57d562e979ea41e51430c4fa9
4bdd303dcc859a4799538859c0a3a35d61cf9d5e
2234 F20101122_AAABCY russo_j_Page_104.txt
5d5607ee7011357449350ec12de7f208
82a788ecea916c5a8768745a908084de0ece3b45
45776 F20101122_AAAAXT russo_j_Page_056.pro
a000ea0ee43650a7a0975ee892730f30
6e3bee72a99ca47134abe735f4a990d0d814c708
43681 F20101122_AAAABA russo_j_Page_087.pro
559b5cba58a79b8a840b6067c458a0c2
62af980fd0e69b8dabcbb235d099d1eda26b060a
5265 F20101122_AAABEC russo_j_Page_073thm.jpg
1242b20d472f7c817b5aa30625b04776
57448a29c2840e3d1399edd82f8f1e64966622e1
F20101122_AAAAAL russo_j_Page_128.tif
5bb22b7e6a8174b27343d824d6e3d9cf
3583a4bcd1f87b7b943c02207dc1c44346e6db1a
1456 F20101122_AAABDN russo_j_Page_125.txt
f364b33c1b17c7e380bf0f3b7eada881
66acb7d82a7315e0c5650744d5909ddd4d20b99e
63390 F20101122_AAAAYH russo_j_Page_076.pro
5778a9f90fe5b1202aef452e009928b4
1a4f3ebf0686a90448bd19eda60af562d2f250c5
F20101122_AAABCZ russo_j_Page_105.txt
075603fe38f7ad6125a11bb3cd48f5e7
a33aeaba57a2baf192192754d8ca03634936e537
50854 F20101122_AAAAXU russo_j_Page_058.pro
694fea7f64ba980bb14c90b35b880c4f
11c1a46f88134b0c1d3054b11d8bfb988ec880ba
84845 F20101122_AAAABB russo_j_Page_010.pro
2d697a098a273be1f29c4b3f2a515a36
61a56f8395fe6b52edb0555befddc1cfa6fcfa8c
7555 F20101122_AAABED russo_j_Page_019thm.jpg
1b057c682d8bfa1923ee4aad012ca16d
9866388af75353e0505b166937c89ba500ed82f9
73056 F20101122_AAAAAM russo_j_Page_056.jpg
a2c698e84f03a571c6d64a2fb08de3dd
c03e65941e719b3c691597d9c2a638d4ba5654fb
530 F20101122_AAABDO russo_j_Page_126.txt
3b656a1e70bdef1c857c5b967bfcca90
97044dac4281836d090ae3d75b642678ae8d5a5b
38120 F20101122_AAAAYI russo_j_Page_077.pro
5ace25543375bca3ec1047037d29c851
0a617386cd2e8ecca3d0700b4514f01aa684290e
50616 F20101122_AAAAXV russo_j_Page_059.pro
6e7d6a0a919475d69c54c682f47ac4b3
d03f9abc279020057ea5c1d8fe3034914ce70bc4
2204 F20101122_AAAABC russo_j_Page_044.txt
0067c1c5b5f0edb07f653054e8e4c8c0
e07278fb068644094450dadeafe6b774228ff7a2
26132 F20101122_AAABEE russo_j_Page_031.QC.jpg
d769f70dede551df4d7696bc9fd2afc9
8e5a37164792e684b7d3fa332d510dd3982cd5f5
994146 F20101122_AAAAAN russo_j_Page_088.jp2
947cf07bda8bc0b7fadda3cc88618827
ad008ab06a0c92c6171e0031485406e84b02037f
651 F20101122_AAABDP russo_j_Page_127.txt
a8ab18448bd4f807207f16c0c327bbdb
24bf25cfb320f7df51d704e06ebaedd773fc8acc
64106 F20101122_AAAAYJ russo_j_Page_078.pro
52609792fe665649e5379ff7ebd35d6c
87d38af2c95a93b90b74c96e917e11168e58a407
52006 F20101122_AAAAXW russo_j_Page_060.pro
80697b3172000ee7ff126db15e4c03f8
58d66f69147e614f0a61412e75b8b1e202cb7ee9
F20101122_AAAABD russo_j_Page_017.tif
bbb62722e351f31bbdabdd5bf1728d82
187fef4ec989825ae681b738b957872433bcd163
25591 F20101122_AAABEF russo_j_Page_004.QC.jpg
70aefbe5eac9006f9e3d383ea82c825e
0391d500e34ecb7df90bd8b6257afdd9a1cae7e8
51944 F20101122_AAAAAO russo_j_Page_017.pro
e21c3f15fec85e0ed4f41a263d4ba9e3
24750a6b6baa17a974a05128c883c93f18cde45d
912 F20101122_AAABDQ russo_j_Page_129.txt
10b2bf8e90e69fdd8ef1237498e88d43
7cd5a3f2b1b1570c6ab36e45f1a9a96e330e2639
47501 F20101122_AAAAYK russo_j_Page_079.pro
a89f40f1a177510c8089fb9c8d6cd6cf
5c69f2dae847f0dcde7ad195a0189479ee5d2c31
6064 F20101122_AAABEG russo_j_Page_131thm.jpg
0aea8b45cd6425ca7ce067b3ace3b4d8
5127e75038d6ab4d57a6e0045180e9f6a2a64156
49206 F20101122_AAAAXX russo_j_Page_061.pro
15d272148318eb280e28f73563fbb9e1
19b8439e017f8a04fde2300ce960b243e87a2876
7202 F20101122_AAAABE russo_j_Page_043thm.jpg
d259eb6e88a841b7955cc354d847c775
7093113a2959041f5d50d3da28b0730d2aaa6046
27957 F20101122_AAAAAP russo_j_Page_045.QC.jpg
c8f3ed16cbca699eb7ae7d4adc8ebfea
bbd69b3cf102ad7f913442d998856aa3eab71484
1298 F20101122_AAABDR russo_j_Page_130.txt
e859c7333fc33b6bc12386f413787f2c
5a2f5e0d600311672fd227954f39f10b582685ee
40130 F20101122_AAAAYL russo_j_Page_080.pro
02b793e56816709707f057cf2116e88b
56eeb0d7deef824747a8b3799262507574a57cc1
53278 F20101122_AAAAXY russo_j_Page_062.pro
264e3972bd69f1237d28956c776da8bc
f57952e69a37f65aa606276e92438b063798ee1c
F20101122_AAAAAQ russo_j_Page_100.tif
8d4de197176b6ae15be6978cd77b5a69
1540822c15b99f66cfa2c4e111eb0af7d1f90c65
44149 F20101122_AAAAZA russo_j_Page_101.pro
2ec634335aeee6b93115666e62e29671
aef2607a5f94fc514ba6ebc4efc8ea16886cd371
860 F20101122_AAABDS russo_j_Page_131.txt
580e06ac3089e02397d2b34d4e683923
a8a4ef6fb07bb575e78cfd25a8b47b5989c1ca81
46289 F20101122_AAAAYM russo_j_Page_082.pro
531e1d62797ec3ec8292d1938dfe8de9
7b82c597e3516235a4a134185d428371c328a02a
19131 F20101122_AAABEH russo_j_Page_073.QC.jpg
0a2c46baabb1d730a75e0e14df6ab3b8
381d8a9a27982194ec53e11af997a362c04f8fc1
52031 F20101122_AAAAXZ russo_j_Page_064.pro
68077d44a8b4ef69c634a5be05cda2b6
c9b6bb55edd0bd88763d9cfe0cb7f418d7f79acd
26680 F20101122_AAAABF russo_j_Page_051.QC.jpg
62901d8d1803aae47754767c43d1f1d8
7569dfb4a90b7d86e0a5a2cc17066b494609d4ab
11831 F20101122_AAAAAR russo_j_Page_134.pro
77e6ea2183693f334f322ddacd496c55
ccb6a3d7b006a5428832332fbf107a9e0b6e10af
56842 F20101122_AAAAZB russo_j_Page_102.pro
43e537bae8fe5f4fcbedf6015c8a47bf
c24c04903ff73ffcc2276b661ed328df292d283c
1149 F20101122_AAABDT russo_j_Page_133.txt
9160ffa20f167d2feb5e1818b790c8af
5eaecbc600f24bf3c44b48b52414218ff432ccfd
40220 F20101122_AAAAYN russo_j_Page_083.pro
0e23b640e75eb77b6cf4ddeb9d35b277
d4acfc1617140ab7346cb7519bc2e2675914c2da
7175 F20101122_AAABEI russo_j_Page_028thm.jpg
68d992243738d72d2b67e33290a1af4f
6c05c6286e98e8edac5335730a80a6072cd9feab
15316 F20101122_AAAABG russo_j_Page_133.QC.jpg
a80ba9b179feb18c9fb0c67f45d2f090
59d53061930a0c9ec29ae8f0fcf5e22f665db265
F20101122_AAAAAS russo_j_Page_029.tif
94c07b1878ec0011bd7cb6b25c8c6fb7
209080592f2c419ee71784d49f7cb62ac37d3b18
53339 F20101122_AAAAZC russo_j_Page_103.pro
175dadce91ba2f66066e04e375b39c08
9e26bd60abdd1b8c5a45ef36a885c5244b5a30b5
481 F20101122_AAABDU russo_j_Page_134.txt
fbd0c808684a9034578e33b64814dab8
9043bb969d7c2c6da1f59a93b4091173a2716d40
48165 F20101122_AAAAYO russo_j_Page_085.pro
7c97805af5ca92637c179ab20fb513d4
773b04c115eea8f0818d0cf93aa3d61944691829
7072 F20101122_AAABEJ russo_j_Page_121thm.jpg
561f0a7886b6060df1683cb6d38a1737
aecb32588ceacf6cff67bbc6eaaf98ded1d5f567
F20101122_AAAABH russo_j_Page_002.QC.jpg
1bafcff107a074eb4f2ef1a00e2e40a6
01433ea04695f3eed559c3b623a21451d0262d73
F20101122_AAAAAT russo_j_Page_006.tif
2b8ffa7089990b35b491e76506e16e48
19d7cd01c0f59f51084bc6c0540d759e535985fc
54457 F20101122_AAAAZD russo_j_Page_107.pro
02f6065aeac8bc0d6a487c949a7956e6
757c2bd3ada31aa3be868ece70cb644a0e393e91
2479 F20101122_AAABDV russo_j_Page_135.txt
b2c41bd4344e2778681282c27a91077d
5f693cf2779f2e3994d04653f7385293d1f090cc
19236 F20101122_AAAAYP russo_j_Page_086.pro
d607aaf4cd5c578ef8b5398ff08f4b9f
ac11147cd2d9d13220392f8b8da21ce97ac16ff7
24271 F20101122_AAABEK russo_j_Page_052.QC.jpg
c398aa12df93f7a7629fd1327a5767ba
6d655097d507861acdb3826d180e1bf4d45a5b63
71457 F20101122_AAAABI russo_j_Page_096.jpg
5f25d003223c714a1693e78f2c0362ec
68f56d3025ea8b8429d623f134e0aab677135b93
7256 F20101122_AAAAAU russo_j_Page_031thm.jpg
3f768c01420c6d3824c31286b9c9acae
cdab54d908f1d6a5d9cfec66638d8aefa1103bc1
54976 F20101122_AAAAZE russo_j_Page_108.pro
2cfce1b0d4688b5cd959cb1afb83f756
8c68501736ffd6daf568683717f9b215582b4e64
2508 F20101122_AAABDW russo_j_Page_136.txt
bc420ff2080a7bfbb4d019626f989994
29bf736efec729894e0a8c257afa3a71742335d8
47270 F20101122_AAAAYQ russo_j_Page_088.pro
0d925bb15fb20a76c5fcb128783d738b
5027093eb4acbde3ae0f8f73d0fcd97318ae56bd
7222 F20101122_AAABFA russo_j_Page_042thm.jpg
d4b9b8180caccd18ee8199d5da082deb
befd75e337540d3709650eb9b87c442c768f93ac
23620 F20101122_AAABEL russo_j_Page_057.QC.jpg
7ef816fd478d6981909cd4f98e1ea4eb
6c814fd4278f5323bb0349c462357a929752d55a
F20101122_AAAABJ russo_j_Page_133.tif
60ed569feb2d7613517f74717aaa223c
3834b3f547afeb253aa3ba798b91dc227923d753
7149 F20101122_AAAAAV russo_j_Page_053thm.jpg
e3ae88506f444397f841bb48637cf0bd
6a9377e4c3029b4c0ee6c7efef48f559ba0b10cc
57480 F20101122_AAAAZF russo_j_Page_109.pro
207c01b687daa36c15361f1867cbb77d
edd03859fc13d9ce4783dd40e8be3cfd31a498a8
1532 F20101122_AAABDX russo_j_Page_139.txt
e56b984fcf5f0e2cd23480dc5439b3c7
1314d73bda93e99c4a8cd60c790d6fcbff0f0fc7
52897 F20101122_AAAAYR russo_j_Page_090.pro
e3a5754faf3c5d1090f44de79a3b75a9
b5c37ad9c63638c5d52b38d53d7cacdc0ddc5a25
23141 F20101122_AAABFB russo_j_Page_056.QC.jpg
45cdbb8d11cfbdc2d7d249fdf70df256
6b5ba8aa72e3e374b93b4e3aa04f9f7370f61af7
26848 F20101122_AAABEM russo_j_Page_117.QC.jpg
c0605fac9ab1f6505a5c9c26e31d0ac3
29cf6bdf81e249d1142a3a9bbc55be8b5a7c0e02
2271 F20101122_AAAABK russo_j_Page_109.txt
fe346fed581b6bc025bf104dabcc8a49
ed8d549a662f1d743a479ec0c2372ad13732d456
F20101122_AAAAAW russo_j_Page_034.tif
e26dad5abb5c729d5bbc0dd1cbccdfe2
ddda66e83b0f2f7d0a9ccca8fab53a234073a504
55851 F20101122_AAAAZG russo_j_Page_110.pro
7e6fc421932536d20261b9bd3c50dd4f
1e90ebc2d4826a0dd39d6339a493b11a59e43d3d
1154 F20101122_AAABDY russo_j_Page_140.txt
e56419c12c23db18c27f2a42893fcd0e
60fdabd37e866e8cee50e42b80106bb2d70f8545
17113 F20101122_AAAAYS russo_j_Page_091.pro
2aee445a5a6abf65e27216b53197fb9e
0ded81a9ed5209594938360466bc66a85d51808b
19225 F20101122_AAABFC russo_j_Page_079.QC.jpg
832b51e732ff5d53964bdb90d3175c31
018dc099103e90239822ee8288cdea566ca33cf3
27829 F20101122_AAABEN russo_j_Page_037.QC.jpg
a247146a34de0d684ae0645d7c65e2a9
4a316bca9ff3fd919689c684ddf2f9f752b1b7d8
7440 F20101122_AAAABL russo_j_Page_117thm.jpg
400db334376a236a93d5d9dc04b8159a
45f5e374e196ec4cc4eae44c64be096ced87e7b5
86693 F20101122_AAAAAX russo_j_Page_033.jpg
c4826efab20f585e8fe564f0b363d1af
4bf21cfbaaf58e897440d88fd5db4bd2988c662a
58914 F20101122_AAAAZH russo_j_Page_111.pro
0b61a78e50fb8a50bee617bf6b98e232
a1cb55f93bccd11de4cd6a17995a05e2c5e0e3eb
1160834 F20101122_AAABDZ russo_j.pdf
79c6b80d74e942b720008ba00d51bbe3
ec2888231be221ec289fbbc5c6a4dd45f922e6aa
43647 F20101122_AAAAYT russo_j_Page_092.pro
1e1c90878dbd94cb51e3e93a4e5a7f3f
2cbe14b5a257e605db9588c6ab7e6e7496a0427b
F20101122_AAAACA russo_j_Page_081.tif
90130d1aaf717e9e07bffe712f13c790
be3a2929ce70d0e02c0e16c00500d8d0b3ddd970
7497 F20101122_AAABFD russo_j_Page_116thm.jpg
af92e9d6e85eabf8442eecc85e10059b
8798f37fabd0580e77bc675a8ac3a422dcffc6ad
27790 F20101122_AAABEO russo_j_Page_108.QC.jpg
d3141f363de156786590e13e221078a5
248ad98a7f93540dc8247dd6ba9ca662de0d98f6
27588 F20101122_AAAABM russo_j_Page_118.QC.jpg
5d4884e153fb238a695afc53c2845e65
42df23a2108c6d8349f9e623418bd01c3e277bd3
F20101122_AAAAAY russo_j_Page_037thm.jpg
f1de29646e68489ee7b41f72ca2a56a6
aa64bd81fe982f05c598a927922f9f856a0042da
54679 F20101122_AAAAZI russo_j_Page_112.pro
c63dc55acb0f62455b435c04d5338c2f
a3e15b3d55904b1eb603c76c3e029210b86b9e9c
46956 F20101122_AAAAYU russo_j_Page_093.pro
acc81e2c3d553d31264f1f78ae0ced9f
59f49473251621acc6f5cb240da526e3bd77f729
F20101122_AAAACB russo_j_Page_064.txt
2be645a583f2ad105e66487d7779492b
64466202b9a6c4fb8bd16be8163148583553b6ea
21349 F20101122_AAABFE russo_j_Page_085.QC.jpg
52f91b102939111e169f67079daee6e5
900962e4da92bff7d600438faba4e8679465b90e
F20101122_AAABEP russo_j_Page_064.QC.jpg
287312c2a8c0177cd35f3323c54ca1c0
6a351b43fda91c43b77423f860186a4d5364666b
756 F20101122_AAAABN russo_j_Page_008.txt
779ed8d66a23e1472a10d87da62694ff
d9f7e224b8010c2c47f24c30519a684b6ce947f9
2601 F20101122_AAAAAZ russo_j_Page_138.txt
6d43e89c408d3626ad8ddf23c639ccfd
46169fbac604d323c731128b7079d49d4b2b6fed
56145 F20101122_AAAAZJ russo_j_Page_113.pro
a46ad03466a385da0ce143f8f027308a
c2dd98176ff66d27888dd9191029555c6429c1d6
53468 F20101122_AAAAYV russo_j_Page_095.pro
b7ff246621ed594613a0a70f9f9942e2
e3acb98a9b28cdef7a8b3e431385a9c217abac49
66213 F20101122_AAAACC russo_j_Page_083.jpg
fbe2b8a63ecad1cc958ad43b60ec582a
15b0fb26bbb017b3ff0135f269f4798364a41de5
27178 F20101122_AAABFF russo_j_Page_019.QC.jpg
8bd127b75521fc96f539975bd1185e83
61a1fe37557345865762f82691cb06c114e6e80b
25194 F20101122_AAABEQ russo_j_Page_097.QC.jpg
8a14a6e3ad458d9bc6297698d2264e84
88713ebaa3992ca278e0c6537999ffa4c287ae1b
26510 F20101122_AAAABO russo_j_Page_112.QC.jpg
39e7a4590330bc19acd9d656a43d28e2
e529282db848dd9d36ce315bb750bc23d45e0cda
53137 F20101122_AAAAZK russo_j_Page_114.pro
75d6804d67743906441d7a7291698f4e
633ec1fa2adf3611b83808f72fed0748e53c83d9
47224 F20101122_AAAAYW russo_j_Page_096.pro
595cd970e82c2e1c89f140b4665fac15
31dc577c1fd7e694df09319ade5cf23b602b3e0f
1051943 F20101122_AAAACD russo_j_Page_011.jp2
fb55dd269a96ab82caec0598975a9f7c
adebdc51bb37aedb8dc142a2c969b10cd30fa40a
7783 F20101122_AAABFG russo_j_Page_136thm.jpg
8457494ab826fc14845bc1df12009716
3bc35d57cc189a8cde0bb7021aafcde3518825a7
25479 F20101122_AAABER russo_j_Page_028.QC.jpg
27bbd7ed40d7a417fa42b0ac919d6674
be95f52e070b00ae2fc8d9647f3b7e1898838672
25746 F20101122_AAAABP russo_j_Page_027.QC.jpg
f41b1961bd668689c070cf5829afc4c8
4bccca1f05d4796ba0e830a2ecfac37058a89725
54536 F20101122_AAAAZL russo_j_Page_115.pro
4ea5e7b03eecf59dd88001a3a98e784c
cbee328f4362fe410eb847748d14dc8e8d0d30b6
61084 F20101122_AAAAYX russo_j_Page_097.pro
0fdcaef1274591f60f7d48934f654106
c2d3a61e6639a7f312fb6eb29dd8e36b7ae34c66
F20101122_AAAACE russo_j_Page_089.tif
a3d5a4761031c7784914a3ded0550740
79e7f592f23362340647e5362bd988382c819f1f
19824 F20101122_AAABFH russo_j_Page_006.QC.jpg
0d73dbf24ca25030dd69b2b6121fdacc
aee2b1fa751708f70d76320b0065d1272b68e840
7169 F20101122_AAABES russo_j_Page_107thm.jpg
58bac41f99713b7df6bc8cddc9c34be0
a747831ba190ed1085452e1e9e9c36fabc25db71
2131 F20101122_AAAABQ russo_j_Page_070.txt
49be41ba2ac65fb44864d671285ef3c0
884eed70bba9424e320293065fb4e56ecb09cd9b
56156 F20101122_AAAAZM russo_j_Page_116.pro
16e56d8ac299b19a426fa1930b27d5ea
456df6d1174df738ad1544b48209de11f066888e
56642 F20101122_AAAAYY russo_j_Page_099.pro
c4290ecff3310853651daf9e3f7deee6
110e74720678378934e0514743e8f1841e7d799e
18883 F20101122_AAAACF russo_j_Page_026.QC.jpg
997a47c9e2b4d5661b562f1a4b1f8afb
fe7eb37420ae3e5710db327a08c6839c78d4f27d
15495 F20101122_AAABET russo_j_Page_140.QC.jpg
cfa8a5a97b7773d5d51e60797810d206
543ae0640312f77abf1c4257e62ff79c49ccecd8
F20101122_AAAABR russo_j_Page_020.jp2
ec000f0fae89c7a6ef6813c70cf01014
c905b78c0087c4c94dffce1da9cd4b6ea0a62ca0
54364 F20101122_AAAAZN russo_j_Page_117.pro
1349d3db09e9fc5648ffeb0b0db8ac80
3fe9894a9b19ec2094e40fddb455996dda5fd70c
61786 F20101122_AAAAYZ russo_j_Page_100.pro
440a122d0a5b0fb636bc5812d748a293
e44ee7212ceba44cfd075edf05a4ce648555527b
5859 F20101122_AAABFI russo_j_Page_092thm.jpg
7b6f66e95f07384178722bcd63ebffed
2c2bd9b62a12b375cd10799a24f9200a9a2dcfac
7016 F20101122_AAABEU russo_j_Page_055thm.jpg
733d48535f62c5ec025e5eebe43cae73
33d4990e7dfb5c2b16e40e175e49565987691efd
F20101122_AAAABS russo_j_Page_073.tif
147283540233aa5d849fb4c6a3cb2b4c
9b485c465ed7767b759838bb91daf33bc53f5b25
56044 F20101122_AAAAZO russo_j_Page_118.pro
53f9041ad83e86afad78de7d34df023e
178bcaef591a97705d3814ee56c4069a0ca2047b
6826 F20101122_AAAACG russo_j_Page_057thm.jpg
f081e87bdd50c5266b86e0190906e894
dcd1c03ed516715d0ea5f10d62d3c06407d395d5
5903 F20101122_AAABFJ russo_j_Page_128thm.jpg
a8b7b07a7f97fe6f81a4e1ce04afb621
0cd15f6368715ac5aefd72503388a958347d2b40
1355 F20101122_AAABEV russo_j_Page_002thm.jpg
91c21ccb8654e27d47756fae6441de25
6b495f7a5b8156c4061d6e3a29d5e03b51b099b1
25047 F20101122_AAAABT russo_j_Page_059.QC.jpg
d8a7d51dbac6b30d112c069de66ec61e
b87a3fd7cbe07ab02b2c681e478de5de47dc7807
53717 F20101122_AAAAZP russo_j_Page_119.pro
7b4bd91da2e2189c5c6a0bdb1fc2540e
35fe290f7892ac9edb5382f6e3f51c5bc13704b6
1998 F20101122_AAAACH russo_j_Page_005thm.jpg
06da1e21b3701ee7afe86271cbe69436
5d1700ac4c4cb25891450b6153ca8b1675883df2
6988 F20101122_AAABFK russo_j_Page_064thm.jpg
a64a3bc9da0aec438f93952463347c77
30385c47564f513a01072b0485b7d173116cfb7d
25051 F20101122_AAABEW russo_j_Page_060.QC.jpg
fa9479320e346dc1a2756749cc52743e
acbda916891332ef1fa7a71eeaeabda8817be401
2230 F20101122_AAAABU russo_j_Page_047.txt
f6e4bf3a94c6984f3fa7d89120aeb06f
9016d43de098d476c3390972c00445f625796472
57009 F20101122_AAAAZQ russo_j_Page_120.pro
9673e5461846bb2dc15b1560d26323e1
9adeb48a3faf5a615122de17b98039a65a32a8e1
7107 F20101122_AAAACI russo_j_Page_114thm.jpg
0ce8e79c9e512799d2d29f4e2e5be8e2
1c42a73cc377512d59bced14ec19b375887bb791
27186 F20101122_AAABGA russo_j_Page_043.QC.jpg
6b6e668561c7bb3884c13fdbd8e4368b
58ac7df3fb7e7173f6c6735a14679846d746f4d7
6476 F20101122_AAABFL russo_j_Page_097thm.jpg
dc4127e5152e82d914b6dbd84d4fd025
bd740e5cb2e9f1e3cceb47baf2c9ada0e04efc0c
5403 F20101122_AAABEX russo_j_Page_084thm.jpg
da0dc1cc669c846f024043ec22cbc791
6e9a7912d1c6f4564467cbf26f8a8a0fb7f1bbb9
F20101122_AAAABV russo_j_Page_033thm.jpg
e07bbb07ba6738d50b2f6ba65d9400d3
e6bcd3090a22c868d65f7c275421548efb74215f
51352 F20101122_AAAAZR russo_j_Page_121.pro
7f4a3afaa066e436b7d300c875f8bc01
34c31b4938e7333d15c2ca35eb59a5c555564b7a
5814 F20101122_AAAACJ russo_j_Page_005.QC.jpg
65cec9551cd07b2e9e8091810caca30e
5890e4394c95eba1b82c79acefd0195f3e2f2f6d
25598 F20101122_AAABGB russo_j_Page_035.QC.jpg
c696282d676428a19b4db2f6ed64bcd8
170fc68d22db1405e8675d4fe319565d648503d5
7332 F20101122_AAABFM russo_j_Page_032thm.jpg
a1aab160aea048337805305d74c4de5a
9d561baa14e4a789e3cd41e25aa969a8aeaf9b40
7156 F20101122_AAABEY russo_j_Page_105thm.jpg
d838ba6792c85e4283afdc8bc7b49c4b
6656db0c53402a9a76bee4df38dce8703444bd2a
59514 F20101122_AAAABW russo_j_Page_074.pro
fc1d571548674c9c2726f2306d7de74a
e529623acf442fed68acdf8d191075d95277d5eb
55370 F20101122_AAAAZS russo_j_Page_122.pro
26ca5c909ae5cdff3713090125deaf0c
36a01a1b0e92604ebab2b27b5d619b7adc93277d
F20101122_AAAACK russo_j_Page_006.jp2
00b82cc9f30fcad790d258d10ef9ab55
730d33887a8a1745d0a8af34cc107741224bbaf9
25553 F20101122_AAABGC russo_j_Page_065.QC.jpg
c501c75ad4cd82643b3455f70129d7aa
2a88b537761f05d524e0cacb65b93ca0d0e4a5e5
6536 F20101122_AAABFN russo_j_Page_052thm.jpg
8327107d5a600024651725aae6c47d6e
a44db596fab9bf7b68060e60f690268895cb3d91
7361 F20101122_AAABEZ russo_j_Page_068thm.jpg
8f7e1bebf5a9dea26e563420e87fba7e
92fa8b9438bb9117c1024fd86eff3b9068ca5d06
871420 F20101122_AAAABX russo_j_Page_139.jp2
3759570900d094d60ba94957ac0d955d
4bc8d767249efecdaef2da058c285858c21b8d6f
17249 F20101122_AAAAZT russo_j_Page_123.pro
9d496af132e7688d33e2c309f220be58
a4ba57e0bc2551f9c648f76298613cb8a5d00c1b
48587 F20101122_AAAADA russo_j_Page_020.pro
0fe86c389b1d01d0e276e12c7343dcb8
9224812b66c60b845ab84ec8eaf04665d2a451d8
7026 F20101122_AAAACL russo_j_Page_009thm.jpg
1968e5d1470b3ecbd0d32868308d2953
94a9dd450a4d72d815c9e89be5545300b1fb933e
19063 F20101122_AAABGD russo_j_Page_132.QC.jpg
b72b8e74cd21cde5018b6630b1c06138
9674f3c38a35c942f2f64cc076c5fc58a8b549ad
27696 F20101122_AAABFO russo_j_Page_039.QC.jpg
36f230456a5051cb11432e16fb44ab1e
f3e3708b3dc1a3809501c0c9b08584ab9e4ed8db
7079 F20101122_AAAABY russo_j_Page_027thm.jpg
0b9f6986215534477e45e354248bcacc
fa65af92c84d2fac98638ddfa5b36c3f8e9892be
61944 F20101122_AAAAZU russo_j_Page_124.pro
c0bab925d0ff3b827f970a072d1bfb9e
df822acdad9e9103b4b2057ff3ecd9fd9266ff7d
F20101122_AAAADB russo_j_Page_009.jp2
90b9bdba5f0116198bcb081db7ec8b7f
c2ce45cf68bf633ee942c7333e312cca84172aed
62480 F20101122_AAAACM russo_j_Page_050.pro
943478eb4b7e4f5b346b290033e9ce36
8f53fce217be29c7cc563044cdb0ff6dcc744bad
F20101122_AAABGE russo_j_Page_138thm.jpg
830173c1cbb9da915ddfd30e2fbf123b
93d84b2d398a645de64ce35c85dadf0ec6da98da
5407 F20101122_AAABFP russo_j_Page_006thm.jpg
3bed6c25aa81ffcedfde7de17b838488
d81c77d5c8d7d961d9abfe452b9e907744811be8
F20101122_AAAABZ russo_j_Page_135.jp2
6eb8d6af34320062c3ef9db9baaa9617
598b3d669fbe665c609e552d7d0964bee8f901c1
36582 F20101122_AAAAZV russo_j_Page_125.pro
cbeae5dc710e4445efd3fd1bba22e26b
a55bdfe3ac8baec128b113938bd72e3b633153ff
307587 F20101122_AAAADC russo_j_Page_001.jp2
f1484ef699e9c534dc9c5d62ea51c9c5
f0f5f16d84c9579d044bfadcbfbbcf3d279e72ec
57453 F20101122_AAAACN russo_j_Page_068.pro
b7567c48050f9a98c88dbcaf618a4253
3000d84f4c1f532e751c5db2ec92bd9cbded1fbd
F20101122_AAABGF russo_j_Page_113thm.jpg
542cb308c035bf1b6374c4c5bdb5d1ee
7c7db85d342c66216850e49fd0bca8733886a7e9
28411 F20101122_AAABFQ russo_j_Page_041.QC.jpg
e8b025b59fe27699d0bac12c2ff8f3d4
fa49a7a22126ee88fa5ca6bca76d6447ed98a53d
10147 F20101122_AAAAZW russo_j_Page_126.pro
7f2e4d340b0ec2c55712412076b0fb0b
0b81ff72bf0389621866d589dfb8b21cac9432e9
2260 F20101122_AAAADD russo_j_Page_068.txt
0673e7638ab397e095fb187dd69fe653
74e8caa876b1bba189d568522dc90abf2ab57216
3179 F20101122_AAAACO russo_j_Page_086thm.jpg
c2c7cf36ac1104ab5894441c91d905a5
25ac20949e9d5e6add805e9383222b25e6e06920
7258 F20101122_AAABGG russo_j_Page_119thm.jpg
c2f9be823b35f505f2d4d83708d34878
f59523d2530cbd840604b3dd6eec36688b0b6a5e
7187 F20101122_AAABFR russo_j_Page_070thm.jpg
388fe4987bc0ac4aed1f83cdff7bd242
4a19ed8dfe0b5ab014076e44c3ea36c9d5b0974c
13192 F20101122_AAAAZX russo_j_Page_127.pro
3120c87e2467369da7bf3a028a6c2679
a8f1208c6c6f6d8d8f3938e9e99c4c7cd478196f
F20101122_AAAADE russo_j_Page_020.tif
2a0a893c2e983c491755092bf1eed101
1e5b6157e9fd8f15d6d63f2a3c9e3bde1aee6889
F20101122_AAAACP russo_j_Page_094.tif
690c5f5ca466ca05d66e93f31317f5db
e3eb93614c2ea25adbec1c4513b3d1ab87c06af0
28044 F20101122_AAABGH russo_j_Page_136.QC.jpg
979a5c29248610558197d40a4dd7f553
3c62679d6745f7ddf920cc23f4f7786b13b6bc7c
26827 F20101122_AAABFS russo_j_Page_029.QC.jpg
fd0a8f907495a31b60e5fbf3abfc1ac6
3013432c65db7b8f68911e72ed326f4ef24fe3b8
24757 F20101122_AAAAZY russo_j_Page_128.pro
8cce98353c479f4eda2955dc85e8d422
e55fc3eab213056e2e881a4011829b15631fb492
7547 F20101122_AAAADF russo_j_Page_048.QC.jpg
84fb1c71a972fa809c0288590842a427
8da01643363311f274de6c8c3f772e09b12db787
2211 F20101122_AAAACQ russo_j_Page_045.txt
fa6cbb29d7c79e5ca64ff512e77b4e0b
9f1fb641f7c69c5b616bcc4d612ff1ab396b17b1
28043 F20101122_AAABGI russo_j_Page_040.QC.jpg
a21001bb985525abab92318b91a31d66
03c1b6a039d3db6a1533fda9764c8dd77b151a06
27781 F20101122_AAABFT russo_j_Page_033.QC.jpg
b91b9072542781005e7cd08f6a87c072
6617e496496fe9947b7eae5a3857d05617245f1d
32240 F20101122_AAAAZZ russo_j_Page_130.pro
2ae633349470d167aa232eb48025b766
c46b9233ff3597c2c80d54605ca165950ea51a5f
87648 F20101122_AAAADG russo_j_Page_032.jpg
ff2f40aa98ed29ca139f3048bd74c97f
dcc7e2f199bbad509e4af638df8f9c58e262b020
23190 F20101122_AAAACR russo_j_Page_088.QC.jpg
33ca01c1af7d17c890760076de99ad94
697a15f249fb690e0f622bcd7d9a85c8a8d6590d
7625 F20101122_AAABFU russo_j_Page_040thm.jpg
b41888f73d45a45cd759f04bf58bbbb4
ff3a271d98a10e7f03995a1551c6dcc8b41e8c5b
51878 F20101122_AAAACS russo_j_Page_105.pro
733bebcaa3da45903df1703e845e8333
d55d4ef2f9c2e8add069c8426ccdd9eb5670f67f
18532 F20101122_AAABGJ russo_j_Page_131.QC.jpg
e09043fce42f61141f472ab42a9ebb56
263ed05ea3e19cbef01e46ec2d73dacbee4e3d2a
25336 F20101122_AAABFV russo_j_Page_121.QC.jpg
43dacc51ab74489978172a53554c7f9c
0ec3520db7ad8f41c0e3366be1a449cc633cbc86
2046 F20101122_AAAADH russo_j_Page_081.txt
49975a41c2badfd884134887e0d964b7
904166bf26658e4719dedcada5881b98ca80b767
F20101122_AAAACT russo_j_Page_039.txt
27e723e88a8c3a38706a41bcd2da489e
174d7b2c89d4379f793b12b335c694df858c0f75
10703 F20101122_AAABGK russo_j_Page_123.QC.jpg
7173d9813340de86ede4b9e59e9f77c7
f6c8b9348ee382d5f7b35509160a708d694eb998
7289 F20101122_AAABFW russo_j_Page_108thm.jpg
0b3d5d4118f4ac90a2690eeb3b292038
681eaa97be54e981fafd8babcd3a367b3e82aa22
F20101122_AAAADI russo_j_Page_069.jp2
253cec017a94d671b72a6afff8ebca0e
f8307b084864dd7619a02ee0cf711324497b5ac9
27518 F20101122_AAAACU russo_j_Page_138.QC.jpg
3b3ef9cdead9f9fe2a3cbc7a7fd811bb
1ad55466608fb235f9374fee0e799f0e3c6c27f1
27676 F20101122_AAABHA russo_j_Page_137.QC.jpg
bac99cd1a0bf2c868a5f80e61e76e54c
c98c488fb46757226eaee5ad9b54940555f64cdd
7502 F20101122_AAABGL russo_j_Page_046thm.jpg
97eabf3f45092f7c7b9fd90520065ef2
1a9f65dc905b92e795ef15ecff36b3228c497909
7050 F20101122_AAABFX russo_j_Page_115thm.jpg
8587ace801df4b7943f4832320106a75
c70a7b686067834d154e8ff47f85b2f736b52a3b
43763 F20101122_AAAADJ russo_j_Page_098.pro
b2656730bfe5544c9b4c9b774cf34889
3d244a08b2c225120300114c6489f91a8af3facd
3993 F20101122_AAAACV russo_j_Page_006.txt
fefc8ec2b318564f9e0c7e14f6308147
af1ae84a7d5c240c614e42bc387cc5131472efdb
6791 F20101122_AAABHB russo_j_Page_049thm.jpg
99e2918a9e444a1ab2850653682280c6
bbfb022e77d898d7202ba9af6fda9e1f60386f94
7637 F20101122_AAABGM russo_j_Page_137thm.jpg
b4685e6662f92cb73a5b9577d84b62a1
8c9a4296c910b5076721fff475ffa3f8a001751d
4992 F20101122_AAABFY russo_j_Page_089thm.jpg
55b0baf2a5732c1b91660ebcdfd9069d
07cb339b172890343f9a57ab86d1494c09f8d007
F20101122_AAAADK russo_j_Page_035.tif
f5a5220791280cd3cae65e3b375e965b
749f0651aeede3b66291e02a6b9a88dcd1602856
1051919 F20101122_AAAACW russo_j_Page_068.jp2
ea29a7ebf1980208566d0f00f91cc943
67d53e9b36ca837251cfafb147250a2bd312f9c9
F20101122_AAABHC russo_j_Page_036thm.jpg
947f99cd88ce749b8b13ffa96947de44
76a5875b80e2a7e7149c722961f9b844f0e0d4d9
18111 F20101122_AAABGN russo_j_Page_080.QC.jpg
8249976f70673aba32b4c54895e860af
13ef76a32828e9680c0639b4129a283de14e9b00
21502 F20101122_AAABFZ russo_j_Page_087.QC.jpg
fe65ec95bf40a72b3314c50b66f1c915
412dee7fde9b99d306b6bf50d5c7528ae50738d2
31178 F20101122_AAAAEA russo_j_Page_094.pro
2be28dfad8c9b03c84c8bda5535bdbcf
1aa58cc7f5ad393f6cc4cfd6471228747ca5ef41
36394 F20101122_AAAADL russo_j_Page_086.jpg
2a07139a8cc4fb2bfdbf64214176e449
16fa34f5a9f84ef71443011524cdc2d9dcb8408c
53155 F20101122_AAAACX russo_j_Page_051.pro
620a2cabfba69042a4564e4bc2a9600a
1e7c4401bbfd74b81700b5de63cb81b07633cb52
6860 F20101122_AAABHD russo_j_Page_035thm.jpg
61741d92e96048a7fed376982f18b168
55f72d0312735a5bd6c6a83642acd0b0a911eee7
27619 F20101122_AAABGO russo_j_Page_102.QC.jpg
83eb3cce960e49d281aa1a0f85f9e666
b4daf52369acf2009efc2a2139cd947ba098a1d2
F20101122_AAAAEB russo_j_Page_088.txt
eba77e9fbc0b4273bb1260cda1d78c8b
3551ab81040103e96abb9cf1c2e5d76203ad6348
58753 F20101122_AAAADM russo_j_Page_129.jpg
c8e807e92441593783048c3f5f7c09d4
5cd24bacae2ec1843ea31731434232675cef38a8
2244 F20101122_AAAACY russo_j_Page_102.txt
98cd5084b32aa5056059bf7a6130c647
fe40bb5e0a9e7bb1920e093ee23264398291a917
26971 F20101122_AAABHE russo_j_Page_009.QC.jpg
bb45a39abd388bdfad37d715643bc2b4
65427e7f1b4087eda5f40b3b6c14a7f592ea2602
20262 F20101122_AAABGP russo_j_Page_081.QC.jpg
1d2757a96df2ced990066ece373d69ae
4a74c04f45f69fd575664dd76e37ab258c664f6e
F20101122_AAAADN russo_j_Page_031.jp2
cd26f11277b6c3e2573e3d022b508394
5d3fd4c6b6fcc7b419e2c39035bbdb85b1c9d77a
F20101122_AAAACZ russo_j_Page_019.tif
61da2214cf423bea855d918d7e9866d9
4c77a02aed32981fa75572b9734503c659868ce6
43654 F20101122_AAAAEC russo_j_Page_081.pro
489dbcec5dd5893386b8b80aa3c54405
2ff75504c369801f9c5060a6d4f2023b35a3c262
10124 F20101122_AAABHF russo_j_Page_072.QC.jpg
c42263dca39eee460d84f070303b383b
fa4755702e86d01331c655e03e3aa4248732899d
23173 F20101122_AAABGQ russo_j_Page_124.QC.jpg
08f3cceb44e6fd92adf031bb16e1d87d
00807f62cf73a70c9206217e27f890bf85e736a6
662330 F20101122_AAAADO russo_j_Page_089.jp2
622fe6eacffae638c52d50ef9d682b30
18a2412592c3a07baee36f1db59d11a68fa400dc
69503 F20101122_AAAAED russo_j_Page_079.jpg
b41f2fd1b590af70327ae9a4c2d9d952
dbc824b7abe4f0ba52c52d52a74a8fbbfdc83488
F20101122_AAABHG russo_j_Page_065thm.jpg
ecac48b4895ecd980e4bd2e3d6238d44
a2cb1de3b09e70acb0525389391ee6f69127ff3d
5890 F20101122_AAABGR russo_j_Page_124thm.jpg
871533f151064f924f9e655f27a1a9fb
fbdf7f24722ce1cb9bf6a9143b97bc6a987de2b6
26916 F20101122_AAAADP russo_j_Page_025.QC.jpg
8dc17608c0af2e8ff67b7c1025a5e0e9
f6d916650103eb7ec0b9abacfb883320d47a5dda
24655 F20101122_AAAAEE russo_j_Page_066.QC.jpg
3d70fa413131f83a7a40060b51554ea9
b852990aaa7c957a5b616c887b889f2db74e7a11
3218 F20101122_AAABHH russo_j_Page_126thm.jpg
06f2734cd7f5c5b631b4db808603acbf
619b29e2e9ea17d91953572111b2ab6da29e6448
7230 F20101122_AAABGS russo_j_Page_106thm.jpg
2b6d20076be161f5bb15dee7c1f9bb90
725b68ffe995c5b1b31ca7562a2eae8de87189f4
F20101122_AAAADQ russo_j_Page_012.jp2
79a60f59007931d38930f03d3f7084f3
becfd36fbc4b7f643b65bfe1a610efb473f04d47
32149 F20101122_AAAAEF russo_j_Page_015.pro
92ac6fe41418091967ef16b26c215dbc
7e40a124bf966515576b03bace9f841179a4ba11
27817 F20101122_AAABHI russo_j_Page_110.QC.jpg
cdf2b8bff5bde14a984887156543404b
7d142c8c99bd16f8e54baaa57d34d5b407904e46
7334 F20101122_AAABGT russo_j_Page_071thm.jpg
657d014d5879ed20d029f57a64b540ef
97f914562a43ab4b45f8b018dd4e9d5c41a37403
826964 F20101122_AAAADR russo_j_Page_080.jp2
a4a66eebffd3e4c6b5a153a4c1bc6aac
8cdef9be6837e2523871ab6c74cf5fafb217566c
440667 F20101122_AAAAEG russo_j_Page_086.jp2
433997f4e73b8a2369838ca37025c1d1
ad5e67968401ef1ac82d0c9da4a69fcf71f7461b
9354 F20101122_AAABHJ russo_j_Page_126.QC.jpg
123e688466530a5beee62e647ddfba22
9701f4b8f393a544a3ecf514aa85cf23dfe41034
28373 F20101122_AAABGU russo_j_Page_104.QC.jpg
c2283751ded0f66af13c7d59057d0ee7
66999791743d1d76a4e34b5f8a1a775314aac43e
5284 F20101122_AAAADS russo_j_Page_139thm.jpg
9b5a8b2a446a694f4898d4a7652774c1
9cbaabcdd4b6259c37aca87237ffab32bdb9aeee
83154 F20101122_AAAAEH russo_j_Page_011.pro
0185af5d4f6ff52466b923bb21b1dec0
7eaf85a16ac484488db5753a24d8953b8fd04cb8
25647 F20101122_AAABGV russo_j_Page_078.QC.jpg
d3a26c25b06508c41e290c77f7c95e2b
977c00db6401bd9eda04832704df98a67fb5a7d1
1984 F20101122_AAAADT russo_j_Page_066.txt
5b1e8ca064e0f6bd3878ff4c217629a9
0a36f699b032c634df366a44bc8e70bca3f074b6
24771 F20101122_AAABHK russo_j_Page_061.QC.jpg
ec141458dcbaafdd08097b62b4eeaf6a
b2e7e28f6044e283b518924be4f60fdd553fbdb3
27711 F20101122_AAABGW russo_j_Page_024.QC.jpg
b647d309f6f3da0db4b796d892ecbcaa
4b7b1e8b69c87577aa548ee748a18d8cdc67340f
F20101122_AAAADU russo_j_Page_137.tif
3a759bca6bb3ad9af12c99295cc3fd30
165cb452c113c149470ca97156e74973005df19f
87707 F20101122_AAAAEI russo_j_Page_018.jpg
3ba5023109a98415d118f0dadb4de0da
af2b4b755e5ee30bb99f74d8a0e7946173b6a3e7
8194 F20101122_AAABIA russo_j_Page_091.QC.jpg
39593ea1ff6d81c75e881eb6e0907a7c
f4b5affd4cdb24bc3d92c379518c7edfcbe76461
7590 F20101122_AAABHL russo_j_Page_102thm.jpg
e622131e4966d2b716fa7b3814aa6c32
dd07fbc16252ab1cf8cb28f90c3e326922f1da67
19839 F20101122_AAABGX russo_j_Page_084.QC.jpg
cc268328597942471985550bbd98668a
9a6f03a288bfde89fd38c394963aa9a35b663fb3
83004 F20101122_AAAADV russo_j_Page_017.jpg
981c5c3e110d51c2c5bb4b540380ada3
542ac77a1296d05b2f25ec2b3566afdbea5a40b2
26413 F20101122_AAAAEJ russo_j_Page_047.QC.jpg
edf9030f59c0f9f4240a2d8f4579835f
9ea1eac9789c7d43cac6ef52a3664e27b9b1f5ac
27185 F20101122_AAABIB russo_j_Page_054.QC.jpg
4dad451f7471283f243e190fb1544dce
c1fea07a7574b8c4679c695b4bac90891ecde9db
26123 F20101122_AAABHM russo_j_Page_021.QC.jpg
445e059435f2710604cfa7e5005f69bc
ff695a2879ab40a68066f9b15c416909fc6b36a0
31464 F20101122_AAABGY russo_j_Page_010.QC.jpg
7afb0a2a06f9f9400f8b70f0a9f066ba
579a167beeb3b6823a00f100fb7abb8bdf813938
2097 F20101122_AAAADW russo_j_Page_114.txt
4092b8943df0790965c952036d5a669f
ed73ecdc7c090b2909d7280a42c62bc1523431db
743035 F20101122_AAAAEK russo_j_Page_129.jp2
805651a71903c86f817960fe942813a6
c1d6ee598ef0b7377c74251c5089e6fe7b5899fa
5338 F20101122_AAABIC russo_j_Page_026thm.jpg
395c3d39eaaa7a3c95db742dffd73862
5a8ab25a46937d76928240ef6470e82b92bb3607
6827 F20101122_AAABHN russo_j_Page_074thm.jpg
ac9d7945e33ec00b5b75d6a762aba6c3
4af1affb1fc61b58039b4aee309947a9f744c357
18898 F20101122_AAABGZ russo_j_Page_077.QC.jpg
6473cfc88d04192b406bd66248a6ebb3
a9e4eeb90085473ce333c7bcb4107423a79ccdcf
99289 F20101122_AAAADX russo_j_Page_006.pro
e510463a8f6d48cd699c9bc60619866c
53e6ca0f26cd47125608f4766b57d639d992d780
83930 F20101122_AAAAFA russo_j_Page_070.jpg
8f2b986eeec8e9567beae16a8c12fa5d
aa4357c21f70f2e5d6c234022c9189adbbdc4e07
55969 F20101122_AAAAEL russo_j_Page_024.pro
3e88c9861ea80dc314ea8e9d09f17d6a
ac09bb0a5f47f2e408e968eaf0f126def68679fe
19150 F20101122_AAABID russo_j_Page_098.QC.jpg
4d9d6fe31e91a2129cb65767c10592eb
5d48b06b638e0dfe32ba4d16d06b0ed86d3720d2
6308 F20101122_AAABHO russo_j_Page_013thm.jpg
da7ab721ef4988a9fe13811daa593a76
ef1fe22e4ba5df1ba2fbbb5d90695eaebe637f92
7877 F20101122_AAAADY russo_j_Page_134.QC.jpg
fc78f3860c7e5caa2432a22dd8b116f0
205c050176bb4448d0b3204c300aa9bc8fdb92ce
992038 F20101122_AAAAFB russo_j_Page_101.jp2
3584397045bd5b2b6191b0e3b35c32e6
4ce3e9101aae43072b196cfc96af5398a530122b
F20101122_AAAAEM russo_j_Page_074.tif
05f9f60abb3927c38555dd346f0de420
98090dae7478abf09d303222af02a91dbccafe72
26316 F20101122_AAABIE russo_j_Page_074.QC.jpg
c879a565d6a795bd5525dc30841d9d3d
9022c3d348b117265a01f496f52e5f69017415c1
F20101122_AAABHP russo_j_Page_008thm.jpg
19ab6243c4948ee45194f829acf9ff01
d55ea92db59b1dae207ba755aa13b71c1267a40e
1051978 F20101122_AAAADZ russo_j_Page_042.jp2
2a9c77ad2d859ef95efe52966106d758
add2967352d9501a24bb99f41f49fff521dafbbd
25905 F20101122_AAAAFC russo_j_Page_105.QC.jpg
a09237799a90cd8960a6c9ed943e3afe
6904b5bd26dfa74baa4f3853619a3c3375c04118
2104 F20101122_AAAAEN russo_j_Page_021.txt
8865f6507beebcc1aa8f0c6a906b2623
b2811ac49b895f3a88e971b3c9e489ef134b343e
27535 F20101122_AAABIF russo_j_Page_068.QC.jpg
e4815f12737867d72566142d8b5eb31d
ac9b68c4e7b6ef632d301e77c82d0de16977c281
7339 F20101122_AAABHQ russo_j_Page_110thm.jpg
03e72aefccfd1608e7dede4b7f5dcee2
a232df062c61749c765325bd79aab8f422f7df9f
82204 F20101122_AAAAFD russo_j_Page_051.jpg
19c4f3a0782e5f82f41b4519a2ba3afb
1bb6e958e84074b28807bbb22cb7cb56d3b77d09
7575 F20101122_AAAAEO russo_j_Page_050thm.jpg
f6f476d3075909404d8043d778df59f8
3d9b6844cd3cb03cdf88f3cd2b637b27fa4856dc
7509 F20101122_AAABIG russo_j_Page_007thm.jpg
050a5441eb9c4a99d98f4d19cead79cc
5fe5b82e711664b3954a83b40c6aadfe1564f64d
7402 F20101122_AAABHR russo_j_Page_063thm.jpg
a6c71b215d9c1614acf404097572b37c
88d43ac1132beac6a1c2de3fcd76eedaab935ed5
26918 F20101122_AAAAFE russo_j_Page_071.QC.jpg
9867bea45b0192671a3080fa22798229
969e7ea35a5b00ff70d26f1491f4de97d4a37289
16245 F20101122_AAAAEP russo_j_Page_094.QC.jpg
019d82c06f014ddc2011f2a5d5807615
62789878f23b17f5be33f03f4d2ac90384c5bfd6







AN EXPLORATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS',
MENTORS', AND NOVICE TEACHERS' BELIEFS AND PRACTICES IN A TEACHER
INDUCTION PROGRAM




















By

JAMES VINCENT RUSSO


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008
































2008 James Vincent Russo

































To my wife, Lesley, and our son, Parker









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I owe much of who I am today to my parents who helped me realize that I could achieve

anything I put my mind to. It was their role in my life that taught me if you sit and wait nothing

will fall in your lap.

Although she would not accept this compliment, my wife, Lesley, is the reason for my

success over the past 10 years. Her love and support has allowed me to realize and pursue my

dreams. She has encouraged me to chase those dreams, and this doctoral program was a huge

piece of that goal. I thank God for allowing Lesley and me to continue to be together on this

earth.

The birth of our son, Parker, has changed my life. I am thankful for each day that I spend

with him. Parker is too young to talk, but he has already taught me what is really important in

life. If you fight hard enough, you can achieve anything. Miracles are not granted, they are

achieved. Parker has caused me to be a different person today, and I am better for it.

I would like to acknowledge the University of Florida East Coast Cohort. This collective

group of people had a major impact on my personal success and taught me many lessons about

educational leadership. The special relationships I have made will last a lifetime. I would like to

thank Dr. Brandy Kamm, Dr. Drew Hawkins, and Dr. Carol Kindt for their continued support

and friendship. I could not have finished this dissertation without them.

My journey at the University of Florida began many years ago at a meeting with Dr. Doud.

From the first moment I met Dr. Doud, to our relationship today, he consistently challenges and

pushes me to grow professionally and personally. This is the reason Dr. Doud is my Chair and a

major reason this dissertation sits complete. I would like to deeply thank Dr. Doud for not only

helping me attain this goal of a doctorate but also for being an empathetic listener, a teacher, and

a motivator throughout my schooling at UF.









I would also like to thank my committee, Dr. Clark, Dr. Behar-Horenstein, Dr. Bondy and

Dr. Gratto. The input of these professors was vital throughout the dissertation process and during

my final evaluation.










TABLE OF CONTENTS


A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

L IST O F T A B L E S .............................................................................................

L IST O F T E R M S ......... .............. ........................................ ...........................13

ABSTRAC T ................................................. ............... 14

CHAPTER

1 IN T R O D U C T IO N ......................................................................................................16

Induction Practices ..................................................................... ........ 18
A alternative C certification ................................... .................... .... 19
Teacher Support ................................................. 20
State ent of the Problem ..................................................................................................21
P u rp o se o f th e S tu dy ...................................................................................................2 2
R e search Q u e stio n s............................................................................................................ 2 2
D elim itatio n s ................................................................................2 3
L im itatio n s o f th e S tu dy .........................................................................................................2 3
S ig n ifican ce o f S tu d y ........................................................................................................ 2 3

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................ .........27

Introdu action ................... ...................2...................7..........
R ecruitm ent and R detention ............................................................................................... 27
A lternativ e C certification .............................................................................. 30
Indu action P program s ........................................................................32
B beginning T teacher Support .............................................................................................. 35
Mentor's Perceptions of Their Roles ................................ ....................... .....35
A dm inistrative R ole.......................................................40
Novice Teachers' Needs and Perceptions............................................ 44
N ovice Teachers' B eliefs and Practices ....................................................... 45
S u m m ary ................... ...................4...................7..........

3 D E SIGN OF THE STU D Y ..............................................................49

M e th o d o lo g y ...........................................................................................................................5 0
P o p u latio n ......................................................................................................................... 5 1
Procedure for D ata C collection ............................................................52
In stru m entation ......... ................................................................53
D ata A n aly sis ................................................................................................. ...............5 5

4 R E S U L T S ......................................................................................................................... 5 7



6









R espon se R ate.......................................................57
D em graphic Inform action ............................................................................ ....................57
Research Questions........... ........................ .. .... ...... .... .......... 58
Short A n sw er R espon ses ............................................................................. .....................70

5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. ............... 99

Sum m ary of F findings ............... .... ............ .. ........... .... ................... 100
Research Question 1: What is the Level of Agreement among Administrators'
Ratings Regarding the Importance of Teacher Induction Program Services,
Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?.............................100
Research Question 2: What is the Level of Agreement among Mentor Teachers'
Ratings Regarding the Importance of Teacher Induction Program Services,
Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?.............................102
Research Question 3: What is the Level of Agreement among Novice Teachers'
Ratings Regarding the Importance of Teacher Induction Program Services,
Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?.............................102
Research Question 4: What is the Level of Agreement among Administrators'
Ratings Regarding the Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor
Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?............... .............104
Research Question 5: What is the Level of Agreement among Mentor Teachers'
Ratings Regarding the Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor
Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?............................105
Research Question 6: What is the Level of Agreement among Novice Teachers'
Rating Regarding the Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor
Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?................................... 106
Research Question 7: What is the Level of Agreement among Administrators'
Ratings Regarding the Importance and Delivery of Teacher Induction Program
Service, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?.............108
Research Question 8: What is the Level of Agreement among Mentor Teachers'
Rating Regarding the Importance and Delivery of Teacher Induction Program
Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and the Mentor/Principal Responsibilities? .......109
Research Question 9: What is the Level of Agreement among Novice Teachers'
Rating Regarding the Importance and Delivery of Teacher Induction Program
Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities? ...........110
Research Question 10: What is the Level of Agreement between Alternatively
Certificated Novice Teachers' Ratings Regarding the Importance and Delivery of
Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and
M entor/Principal R responsibilities? ................................................ ........................ 111
Research Question 11: What are the Differences between Alternatively Certificated
and Traditionally Certificated Novice Teachers' Rating Regarding the
Importance and Delievery of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor
Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities? .............. .... ...............113
C onclusions.............................................................116
Im p licatio n s ................ .... ...... .... .............................................................1 18
Recom m endations for Further Research ........................................ ......................... 121
S u m m a ry ................... .......................................................................... 12 2









APPENDIX

A LETTER OF INVITATION ........................................................... .. ............... 124

B QUESTIONN AIRE REVIEW PANEL ...............................................................................125

C TEACHER INDUCTION/SUPPORT PROGRAM SURVEY ........... .............. 126

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ............................ ...................................................... ..................... 135

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ............................ .................................................. ................... 140












































8









LIST OF TABLES


Table

4-1 R espon se R eturn R ate............................................................................... ..................... 73

4-2 Demographic Information (Part I) (N=179) ................................... .......... ......... ...... 73

4-3 Response Rate of Position Status (Part I) (N=179) ......................................................73

4-4 Mean Scores of Administrators' Beliefs (Part II A) about Own Responsibility (N=42).....73

4-5 Mean Scores of Administrators' Beliefs (Part II B) about Mentor Responsibility
(N = 4 2 ) ................... .............................................................. ................ 7 4

4-6 Mean Scores of Administrators'(Part II C) Beliefs about Shared Responsibility
(N = 4 2 ) ................... .............................................................. ................ 7 4

4-7 Mean Scores of Mentors' (Part II A) Beliefs about Administrators' Responsibilities
(N = 52 ) .............. .............. .............................................................. ..... 74

4-8 Mean Scores of Mentors' (Part II B) Beliefs about Own Responsibilities (N=52).............75

4-9 Mean Scores of Mentors' (Part II C) Beliefs about Shared Responsibilities (N=52) .........75

4-10 Mean Scores of Novices' (Part II A) Beliefs about Administrator Responsibilities
(N =40)............................................................................. .................. 75

4-11 Mean Scores of Novices' (Part II B) Beliefs about Mentor Responsibility (N=40) ...........76

4-12 Mean Scores of Novices' (Part II C) Beliefs about Shared Responsibility (N=40).............76

4-13 Mean Scores of Administrators' (Part III A) Rating of the Delivery of Their Own
R responsibilities (N =40) .................. .................. ................................ ... ..........76

4-14 Mean Scores of Administrators' (Part III B) Rating of the Delivery of Mentors'
Responsibilities (N=40)............... ................................ .........................77

4-15 Mean Scores of Administrators' (Part III C) Rating of Delivery of Shared
Responsibility (N=40) .................. .......... ............ ...................... 77

4-16 Mean Scores of Mentors' (Part III A) Rating of the Delivery of Administrator
R responsibilities (N =50) .................. .......................................... .... ........ .... 78

4-17 Mean Scores of Mentors' (Part III B) Rating of the Delivery of Their Own
R responsibilities (N =50) .................. .................. ................................ ... ..........78

4-18 Mean Scores of Mentors' (Part III C) Rating of Delivery of Shared Responsibility
(N = 5 0 )............... ................................ .............................................. 7 8









4-19 Mean Scores of Novice Teachers' (Part III A) Rating of Delivery of Administrator
R responsibilities (N =40) .................. .................. ................................ ... ..........79

4-20 Mean Scores of Novice Teachers' (Part III B) Rating of the Delivery of Mentor
R responsibilities (N =40) .................. .................. ................................ ... ..........79

4-21 Mean Scores of Novice Teachers' (Part III C) Rating of Delivery of Shared
R responsibilities (N =40) .................. .................. ................................ ... ..........80

4-22 Correlation of Administrators' Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II A) and the
Actual Delivery (Part III A) of Their Responsibilities (N=42) ............................................80

4-23 Correlation of Administrators' Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II B) and the
Actual Delivery (Part III B) of Mentors' Responsibilities (N=42)........................................81

4-24 Correlation between Administrators' Ratings of Importance (Part II C) and the
Delivery (Part III C) of Shared Responsibilities (N=42)........................................................81

4-25 Correlation of Mentors' Ratings regarding the Importance (Part II A) and the Actual
Delivery (Part III A)of Administrators' Responsibilities (N=52) ..................................82

4-26 Correlation of Mentors' Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II B) and the Actual
Delivery (Part III B) of Their Own Responsibilities (N=52) ...........................................82

4-27 Correlation of Mentors' Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II C) and the Actual
Delivery (Part III C) of Shared Responsibilities (N=52)................................ ............... 83

4-28 Correlation of Novice Teachers' Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II A) and the
Actual Delivery (Part III A) of Administrators' Responsibilities (N=40).............................83

4-29 Correlation of Novice Teachers' Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II B) and the
Actual Delivery (Part III B) of Mentor Responsibilities (N=40) ................. ..................84

4-30 Correlation of Novice Teachers' Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II C) and the
Actual Delivery (Part III C) of Shared Responsibilities (N=40)........................................84

4-31 Correlation of Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' Ratings Regarding the
Importance (Part II A) and the Actual Delivery (Part III A) of Administrator
Responsibilities (N=5) ...................................................... ......... ................. 85

4-32 Correlation of Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' Ratings Regarding the
Importance (Part II B) and the Actual Delivery (Part III B) of Mentor Responsibilities
(N = 5)..... ....... .................... ............................................................. 85

4-33 Correlation of Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' Ratings Regarding the
Importance (Part II C) and the Actual Delivery (Part III C)of Shared Responsibilities
(N = 5)..... ....... .................... ............................................................. 86









4-34 T Tests for Independent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively
Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Ratings Regarding the Importance of
A dm inistrator R responsibilities ....................................................................... ..................87

4-35 T Tests for Independent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively
Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Ratings Regarding the Importance of Mentor
R e sp o n sib ilitie s .......................................................................... .8 8

4-36 T Tests for Independent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively
Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Ratings Regarding the Importance of Shared
R espon sibilities... ................................................................................... 89

4-37 Reported Means for T-Test for Independent Groups Regarding the Importance ...............90

4-37 C continued ................... ........................................................ ................. 9 1

4-38 T tests for Independent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively
Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Ratings Regarding the Actual Delivery of
A dm inistrators R esponsibilities................................................................... .....................92

4-39 T Tests for Independent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively
Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Ratings Regarding the Actual Delivery of Mentor
R espon sibilities... ...................................................................................93

4-40 T Tests for Independent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively
Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Ratings Regarding the Actual Delivery of Shared
R espon sibilities... ...................................................................................94

4-41 Reported Means for T-Test for Independent Groups Regarding the Actual Delivery of
Administrator, M entor and Shared Rsponsibilities ..................................... .................95

4-4 1 C continued ................... ........................................................ ................. 96

4-42 Overall, What Do Administrators Feel is the Most Valuable Component of the
Teacher Induction Program ?............................................................................. 96

4-43 Overall, What Do Mentors Feel is the Most Valuable Component of the Teacher
Induction Program ? ........................................................ ............ 96

4-44 Overall, What Do Novice Teachers Feel is the Most Valuable Component of the
Teacher Induction Program ?............................................................................. 96

4-45 Overall, What Do Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' Feel is the Most
Valuable Component of the Teacher Induction Program? .....................................................97

4-46 What Aspects of the Teacher Induction/Support Program Would Administrators Most
Like to See Changed, A adapted or Im proved? .........................................................................97









4-47 What Aspects of the Teacher Induction/Support Program Would Mentors Most Like
to See Changed, A dapted, or Im proved? ..................................................... .....................97

4-48 What Aspects of the Teacher Induction/Support Program Would Novice teachers
M ost Like to See Changed, Adapted, or Improved? ................................... ..................97

4-49 What Aspects of the Teacher Induction/Support Program Would Alternatively
Certificated Novice Teachers Most Like to See Changed, Adapted or Improved? ..............97

4-50 List the Three Most Important Things Administrators Need From a Teacher
Induction/Support Program ......................................................................... ....................98

4-51 List the Three Most Important Things Mentors Need From a Teacher
Induction/Support Program ......................................................................... ....................98

4-52 List the Three Most Important Things Novice Teachers Need From a Teacher
Induction/Support Program ......................................................................... ....................98

4-53 List the Three Most Important Things Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers
Need From a Teacher Induction/Support Program ............................................................ 98











Administrator


Alternative certification




Attrition


Certification


District staff


Induction program


Mentor


Nontraditional certification



Novice teacher

Principal


Retention


Staff development


Teacher literacy


Traditional certification


LIST OF TERMS

The principal or assistant principal who functions as executor to
the school's novice teacher induction program.

The license issued to a person who has attended and graduated
from a university and received a bachelor's degree or higher, has
obtained a temporary teacher certificate, and is seeking a
permanent education certification.

A reduction of the teaching workforce because of reasons other
than termination.

A license which authenticates and bestows the rights and privileges
to teach.

Administrators and resource personnel whose assignments are at a
district level.

An organized system of strategies and services designed to orient,
support, and retain novice teachers.

An experienced teacher or other experienced professional charged
with helping a novice teacher.

The license issued to a person who has attended a university-but
did not receive a degree in education-or who is teaching out-of-
field.

K-12 instructors who are in their initial year of teaching.

The principal or assistant principal who is assigned the primary
role as executor to the school's novice teacher induction program

A teacher's continued employment within the public school
system.

Any training-formal or informal-given to educators to expand
their knowledge and foster coping strategies of their craft.

The teacher's ability to transfer theory into performance, resulting
in concrete classroom instruction.

The certification held by a teacher who has attended and graduated
from a university with a degree in education in the area he or she
currently teaches.









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education

AN EXPLORATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS',
MENTORS', AND NOVICE TEACHERS' BELIEFS AND PRACTICES IN A TEACHER
INDUCTION PROGRAM

By

James Vincent Russo

August 2008

Chair: James L. Doud
Major: Educational Leadership

The purpose of this study was to examine a district-wide teacher induction program and

evaluate the relationship between the believed importance and actual delivery of mentors' and

principals' responsibilities in support services, as evaluated by the administrators, mentors, and

novice teachers. This study also reviewed the outcome of the teacher induction program through

the perspective of traditionally and alternatively certificated novice teachers.

This public elementary school study was a modified replication of previous research

conducted in a West Central Florida school district. Electronic copies of a survey instrument

measuring the beliefs and actual delivery of induction practices were distributed to public

elementary school administrators, mentors and novice teachers in one county in Central Florida.

In total, 461 administrators, mentors and novice teachers at 36 elementary schools were sent the

instrument. Surveys were completed by 179 participants at 36 elementary schools, a 39%

response rate.

The majority of respondents were Caucasian (83%); female (85%) and held a bachelors

(43%), master's degree (38%), educational specialist (11%), or doctoral degree (6%). Thirty









percent (30%) of the respondents were administrators, 39% were mentors, 28% were novice

teachers and 3% were novice teachers seeking alternative certification.

Statistical analysis of the relationship between the believed importance and actual delivery

of teacher induction services in a Central Florida county was conducted. The survey asked

respondents to answer 10 items about the administrator's role, 10 items about the mentor's role,

and 5 items about the shared responsibility of the principal and mentor. Administrators reported

that 60% of their beliefs matched the actual delivery, mentors reported 72% of their beliefs

matched the actual delivery and novice teachers reported 4% of their beliefs matched the actual

delivery of induction service support. The results indicate that actual delivery of induction

support to novice teachers most often did not match what they believed was important. The mean

scores of the novice teachers seeking alternative certification differed significantly from mean

scores of traditionally certificated novice teachers in their beliefs and actual delivery of induction

support services, indicating the two groups of novice teachers should be considered mutually

exclusive.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Soaring teacher attrition rates combined with the changing growth of the student

population pose a staggering challenge to schools in the U.S. To combat high teacher attrition

and retain educators, support has expanded for teacher training programs (Halford, 1999),

additional money has been allocated for teacher training (Berry, Hopkins-Thompson, & Hoke,

2002), and the focus of such training has shifted to include alternative certification routes

(Johnson, Birkeland, & Peske, 2005). These efforts have been put in place to answer the claims

that educational retention and teacher training are disjointed (Darling-Hammond, 1996). Many

states and localities have launched induction programs to combat attrition and provide

instructional support for novices (Archer, 1999).

Although formalized induction programs have taken shape in Florida school districts,

many of these programs fail to assess or meet the needs of novice teachers. Thus, attrition rates

as high as 50% within the first five years are still being reported (Halford, 1998; Ingersoll &

Kralik, 2004; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). In a study conducted in one Florida school district,

Castorina (2003) concluded that the majority of novice teachers left their position because they

felt induction services did not match their expectations. The attrition rate of teachers is highly

correlated with their need for emotional support and encouragement along with formative

appraisal of progress from their mentors and principals. Teachers who receive high levels of

substantial assistance and perceive that their expectations are being met are more likely to

experience greater job satisfaction and school commitment (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Littrell

& Billingsley, 1994; Ponticell & Zepeda, 1997).

Induction programs help novice teachers connect their university or pre-service training

with their first instructional assignment, while delivering an experience that meets the needs of









beginning teachers (Blair-Larsen & Bercik, 1992; Carter & Francis, 2001; Littrell & Billingsley,

1994; Ponticell & Zepeda, 1997). Without support deemed effective by teachers and mentors,

many beginning teachers will never fully develop their craft. Those teachers who do return for a

second-year are unlikely to grow professionally (The Southeast Center for Teaching Quality,

2003). Training is incomplete when it ceases once a teacher accepts an academic position. New

teachers, including those who complete teacher education programs, need continuous support

throughout their first years of teaching (Berry et al., 2002; Carter & Francis, 2001; Johnson &

Birkeland, 2003).

Proper funding is necessary to sustain induction support for novice teachers. The

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provides funds for districts to develop

induction programs that assist teachers in their formative years. Millions of dollars have been

allocated for these programs, yet results are disappointing. The James B. Hunt Institute for

Educational Leadership and Policy (2004) and Berry and Hirsch (2003) estimated that an

investment between an $8,000 and $11,500 per beginning teacher is lost when a teacher leaves

the profession. The exodus has resulted in a continuing need for more teachers, monetary

investments consistently squandered, and districts resorting to placing personnel into positions

for which they have not received formal educational training. High attrition rates and the

difficulty of recruiting qualified candidates equate to more than 82% of urban districts in the

U. S. allowing people to teach without normal teaching certification (Tetzeli, 1993). New

alternative certification routes are now being investigated. Carlos Ponce, the former Chief

Human Resource Officer for Chicago public schools, reported that the small number of qualified

candidates in the United States caused Chicago to begin recruiting overseas (Archer, 1999).









Induction programs have become required for teachers who hold a temporary certificate or

seek eligibility for alternative certification. Such novice teachers are often deficient in experience

working with young people. They must learn to manage standards-based lessons, teach in ways

that reach diverse students, and adjust to the daily routines of school life (Berry et al., 2002;

Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). Investment in induction programs and practices need to be made

wisely if states wish to retain their workforce.

Induction Practices

Follow up support to teacher training-teacher inductions programs-are vital to novice

teachers' satisfaction of career selection and keeping new instructors from leaving the teaching

profession. A well-crafted induction program can improve teaching quality, increase retention

rates, and decrease the overall cost of recruiting, preparing, and developing new teachers

(Humphrey et al., 2000; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Littrel & Billingsley, 2004). Yet only 19%

of educators nationally reported participation in an induction program and a mentoring

relationship with another teacher during their first year of teaching. Of teachers who were

mentored at least once per week, 70% reported it improved their teaching significantly (NCES,

1998). The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) Executive Summary (2000)

concluded that the attrition rate of new teachers who participated in an induction program was

15% within the first three years of teaching, compared with 26% for teachers who did not

participate in an induction program. Novice teachers who experienced induction activities

received help from mentors who assisted them with the multiple demands that teachers face.

Teachers are expected to know how to plan standards-based units and translate subject

matter knowledge into curriculum appropriate for students. Teachers are also expected to adapt

their curriculum toward diverse learners, such as students with special needs, limited English

proficiency, different learning styles, and a wide range of family and community circumstances.









Publication of students' test scores for stakeholders and evaluating administrators to see

(Johnson & Birkeland, 2003), increases the demand for teachers with increased levels of

knowledge. This demand for qualified teachers has been hindered by high attrition rates and

inconsistencies within teacher training programs. The problem is so severe that school districts

have begun recruiting individuals outside of teacher education programs.

Alternative Certification

American schoolchildren are never sent home because of the lack of qualified teachers.

School districts simply hire the next person down the list (Tetzeli, 1993). Fast-track or alternative

certification programs have become widespread as a way for people with bachelor degrees to

enter the profession without teacher training (Berry et al., 2002; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003;

Johnson, Birkeland, & Peske, 2005). The Southeast Center for Teaching Quality (2002)

confirmed that "many of the least prepared teachers begin their career in schools that house our

nation's most disadvantaged urban and rural students" (Berry et al., 2002, p. 3). Teach for

America (TFA) and other similar programs allow candidates with a four-year degree a quick

route into the classroom. Many of these alternative certification routes allow training to be

completed in one summer. Within the confines of their own four walls, these teachers are left to

succeed or fail (Finn & Madigan, 2001; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Johnson, Birkeland, &

Peske, 2005). Similar to this, Ingersoll and Kralik (2004) describe this educational practice as

one that "cannibalizes its young and in which the initiation of new teachers is akin to a sink or

swim, trial by fire, or boot-camp experience" (p. 2). To assist with training of both alternative

certification and traditionally certificated teachers, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2001)

has added funds.

The No Child Left Behind Act mandated that by the academic year 2005-2006 every

public school will have highly qualified teachers. Legislation provided monetary support, but did









not specify how these programs should be implemented. To offer additional assistance, the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act allocated $2.85 billion to fund state teacher

development systems (Berry et al., 2002). Florida, along with many other states, has dedicated

more than $1 million to mentoring programs (Halford, 1999). These efforts demonstrate progress

toward financing teacher training and quality teaching, but the standards for what qualified

teachers need to know continues to rise.

Teacher Support

Halford (1999) identified increased support as an approach to alleviate the inadequate

training for novice teachers. This notion gained popularity with legislators resulting in the

mandate of district-created induction programs. Many novice teachers, however, find such

programs inadequate for reducing stress and bridging the gap between their university training

and their first jobs (Blair-Larsen & Bercik, 1992; Littrell & Billingsley, 1994; Ponticell &

Zepeda, 1997).

Darling-Hammond (1995) believes the continuous change in course mandates, curriculum

guidelines, and standardized tests could not produce greater student learning and understanding

without investing in teacher support. State universities have currently followed this line of

thinking in Florida by mandating internship programs, or on-the-job training, to create a

seamless transition for novice teachers. If this pre-service support continued after graduation,

teachers could gain access to pedagogical information about the nature of learning and student

development. Novice teachers would be enabled to connect theory with classroom practice.

However, once novice teachers reach the classroom and support is removed, they find that time

constraints often clash with idealistic concepts learned in the pre-service practice environment.









Statement of the Problem

All educators should be continuous learners, with training that enables them to succeed.

Many staffing problems result from a high attrition rate, with a large numbers of experienced

teachers retiring early (Ingersoll, 2001a). To compound the problem, 30% of the nation's

teaching force is over 50 (Young, 2003); experienced teachers who felt a lack of support have

left the profession, and first-year teachers are becoming overwhelmed and exiting in droves

(Coppenhaver & Schaper, 1999). This makes it increasingly important to know how successful

beginning teacher programs are, and how the district's allocation of funds to support such

programs should be invested. To ensure beginning teacher success, staff development should

provide increased support and development for neophyte teachers, including effective mentoring

and support from administrators. Yet the NCES (2000) reported a decrease in staff development

opportunities. Most beginning teachers indicated frustration with the lack of support from school

administrators and mentors, poor student motivation, and lack of teacher influence over school-

wide and classroom decision-making (Ingersoll, 2003; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Littrell &

Billingsley, 1994). To combat these issues, "More dollars are being invested in beginning

teachers than ever before" (Berry et al., 2002, p. 4). Yet the question arises regarding the quality

and effectiveness of such programs.

Halford (1998) and Ingersoll (2001a; 2002) reported induction program inadequacy by

stating that 30% to 50% of teachers leave in the first five years, and the exodus was even higher

in some school districts with lower socioeconomic status. About 33% of new teachers in the

United States leave the profession in the first few years. Teacher turnover averages 15.7%, which

is nearly 5% higher than the attrition of non-teaching occupations (11%). The challenge of

supporting teachers effectively remains a critical issue.









Purpose of the Study


The purpose of this study was to examine a district-wide teacher induction program and

evaluate the relationship between the believed importance and actual delivery of mentors' and

principals' responsibilities in support services, as evaluated by the principals, mentors, and

novice teachers. This study also reviewed the outcome of the teacher induction program through

the perspective of traditionally and alternatively certificated novice teachers. Eleven research

questions examined these issues.

Research Questions

1. What is the level of agreement among administrators' ratings regarding the importance of
teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

2. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers' ratings regarding the importance
of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

3. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers' ratings regarding the importance
of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

4. What is the level of agreement among administrators' ratings regarding the delivery of
teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

5. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers' ratings regarding the delivery of
teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

6. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers' ratings regarding the delivery of
teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

7. What is the level of agreement among administrators' ratings regarding the importance
and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and
mentor/principal responsibilities?

8. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers' ratings regarding the importance
and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and
mentor/principal responsibilities?









9. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers' ratings regarding the importance
and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and
mentor/principal responsibilities?

10. What is the level of agreement between alternatively certificated novice teachers' ratings
regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor
responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities?

11. What are the differences between alternatively certificated and traditionally certificated
novice teachers' ratings regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction
program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities?

Delimitations

1. The data were collected from public schools. Results and conclusions do not necessarily
apply to non-public schools.

2. The study was limited to data gathered during the 2006-2007 school year. Conclusions
and generalizations made from this study may therefore not be able to be generalized to
other time periods.

3. The study focused on novice teachers and mentors from one Central Florida school
district.
Limitations of the Study

1. The study assumed that the induction process offered by this Central Florida school
district followed state guidelines.

2. The study assumed that all participants provided honest and accurate self-evaluation.

3. All administrators, first-year teachers and mentors involved in this Central Florida school
district's induction program were provided an opportunity to respond to this survey.

Significance of Study

"United States teacher education has historically been thin, uneven, poorly financed, and

recruitment is distressingly ad hoc" (Darling- Hammond, 1996, p. 194). Florida's beginning

teacher training programs are considered piecemeal and underdeveloped (Feimen-Nemser,

1999). Efforts to redesign teacher training ultimately requires rethinking teacher preparation and

professional development, not reformulating the status quo. Knowing this, a decade ago Darling-

Hammond (1996) set an audacious goal in the hope of challenging education professionals. She









claimed that within 10 years the United States would provide all students with access to

competent, caring, and qualified teachers. As this optimistic challenge drew to its conclusion in

2006, veteran teachers continued to retire, teacher attrition rates continued to be an issue and

teacher support programs have not addressed the needs of our new recruits.

Sixty-five percent (65%) ofU. S. teachers with less than three years experience claim to

have been part of an induction program. However, only 19% received support from school level

personnel (NCES, 1998). Novice teachers value induction practices that include a mentor, time

for professional development, and observational feedback (Haugaard, 2005). Although content

knowledge can quickly be attained, pedagogical knowledge often takes additional training.

Teachers without continued support develop ineffectiveness in areas of classroom management,

lesson planning and ability to develop rapport with students and parents (Chisena, 2002;

Haugaard, 2005; Spindler & Biott, 2000; Torff & Sessions, 2005). These studies intimated that

novice teachers rarely received training in areas they believed were most needed and valuable.

Beliefs are strong predictors of human behavior and are perceived as personal knowledge. The

beliefs of the teacher will indicate what type of program and support is important. Addressing a

teacher's needs with feedback enables that teacher to gain confidence and reaffirm his or her

abilities (Littrell & Billingsley, 1994; Pajares, 1992).

Novice teachers experience problems when the beliefs they developed during their

university-based teacher preparation stand in contrast to the work environment they encounter in

their first teaching assignment (Halford, 1998; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). Too often, they find

themselves trying to survive their first years with little support from the school district or from

school-based personnel. In addition, several fast-track, or alternative certification programs, have

provided a route for instructors with no pre-service training to enter the profession (Johnson,









Birkeland, & Peske, 2005). Without proper support, many novice teachers become frustrated

semi-skilled labor, demonstrating little more than the ability to use a few simple routines and

tricks of the trade (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Johnson, Birkeland, Peske, & Munger, 2005). To

help prevent such occurrences, administrators must gain understanding of an effective teacher

induction process.

Support of novice teachers from school-based administrators and mentors often determines

if novice teachers stay in the profession (Farkas, Johnson & Foleno, 2000; Johnson & Birkeland,

2003). Although most school districts utilize some type of induction program, the educational

field continues to experience high attrition due to the lack of support and the inability to

positively influence novice teachers' on-the-job stressors. Castorina (2003) reported the lack of

high quality induction practices resulted in a school district losing nearly 100% of its novice

teachers. Thus, it is not only important that districts deliver training and support, but that the

support and training meet the needs of the participants. Clarity of supporting roles assists in the

development of teacher induction programs, enabling teachers to experience greater job

satisfaction and allowing administrator and mentor roles to be defined (Johnson & Birkeland,

2003; Littrell & Billingsley, 1994; Ponticell & Zepeda, 1997).

The disassociation of induction practices from pre-service training-and the inability for

mentors and administrators to relieve novice teachers' stressors once they arrive in the field-

makes instructional positions unattractive, which causes further attrition. This mass departure

has resulted in a growing number of novice teachers entering classrooms with temporary

certifications (NCES, 2000) and looking for support in their formative years.

To combat the high quality teacher shortage, teachers must be trained effectively,

supported when they enter the profession, and ways found to increase their retention. Quality









support of teachers will assist in the reduction of attrition and further attract new recruits to the

educational arena (Johnson, Birkeland, Kardos, Kauffman, Liu & Peske, 2001). Continued

investment in teachers seeking alternative certification solidifies the need for school districts to

understand the type of support that needs to be provided. This study provides insight to help

school districts understand the types of support that are necessary to create a successful teacher

induction program.

This study adds to the research of Castorina (2003) by examining differences between

first-year alternatively certificated, and first-year traditionally certificated teachers' beliefs about

the delivery and importance of teacher support services. It also expands the size of the

populations, while focusing only on the uniqueness of public elementary schools. The study

presents evidence of the support services that are needed as well as evidence of the effectiveness

of support services already provided. The study concludes with analysis of three open-ended

responses that help expand knowledge and explanation of important district and school level

issues that the survey may not address. Results of the study will inform elementary school

principals and district level personnel about how teacher induction programs, and their roles in

them, can be improved.









CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

This chapter presents a review of the professional literature and results of studies on

teacher recruitment and retention, alternative certification, and induction programs as they relate

to the teaching profession. Included in this review are the roles of a mentor and a description of

administrative roles to support beginning teachers and the importance of such support, along

with novice teacher's needs and perceptions of support and the importance of their beliefs, and

an overview of induction program research. A brief summary concludes the chapter.

Recruitment and Retention

A major goal for administrators and mentor teachers should be to help beginning teachers

remain in the profession (Johnson, 2001). Darling-Hammond (2003) added, "To reduce high

teacher turnover rates that impose heavy costs on schools, [education professionals] must ...

insist on effective teacher preparation and provide support for new teachers" (p. 1). Teacher

training programs produce more highly qualified teachers than should be necessary, yet

educators cannot keep them in the profession. Ingersoll (2002) reported that 14% of teachers

leave after one year, 24.4% leave after two years, 32.6% leave after three years, 40.4% leave

after four years, and almost half (50%) leave the profession after five years. Not only are first-

year teachers leaving the profession, but experienced teachers are also exiting in droves

(Coppenhaver & Schaper, 1999). Halford stated, "Nearly two million new teachers are projected

to enter U. S. schools in the next decade, and the challenge of supporting them effectively has

become a critical issue" (1998, p. 34). Turnover for teachers is 5% higher per year than non-

teaching occupations. In addition, Berry and Hirsch (2003) estimated a loss of thousands of

dollars per teacher who leaves the profession in the first few years. Most of the educators









leaving the profession come from schools difficult to staff. Teacher turnover is almost 7% higher

in low income public schools (Ingersoll, 2001a). As a result, poor children are far more likely to

be taught by inexperienced, under prepared, and non-certificated teachers (Berry & Hirsch,

2003).

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) reported a significant shortage of quality

teachers (Tetzeli, 1993). Only 28% of teachers currently in the field agreed they would enter

teaching if they had the choice again (Gruber, Wiley, Broughman, Strizek, & Burian-Fitzgerald,

2002). Al Shanker, former AFT president, believed public education combated the increased

student populations by hiring the next able body down the list (Tetzeli, 1993). Finding quality

teachers in the United States has become so difficult that American school districts have begun

to search beyond the borders to find quality teachers (Archer, 2001). The Houston Independent

School district is one of many U. S. school districts that travel overseas to hire teachers (Archer,

1999). The Houston school district in 1999 claimed that it found more of the teachers that it

needed in Moscow than it found in Texas during the last three years. Although the National

Education Association voiced that this is the wrong direction for education to head in order to

achieve excellence, Congress has already made it easier for foreign teachers to get temporary

visas (Archer, 1999).

The continued public focus on educational excellence has made keeping quality teachers in

the classroom a priority among policymakers. As a result, two broad approaches have been

identified: (a) increasing teacher salaries and (b) addressing inadequate support for novices

(Halford, 1999). Support for both approaches is gaining increased popularity with legislators and

county-created teacher induction programs.









As of 2000, only 5% of teachers strongly agreed that they were satisfied with their salaries

(Gruber et al., 2002). Other negative factors making support for teachers even more vital include

rising school violence, overcrowded schools, and inadequate public appreciation for the work

done by teachers. Poor working conditions and lack of on-the-job training and support are

primary factors for the exodus of novice teachers' from the profession. Regardless of these

negative factors, Singh and Billingsley (1998) stated that teachers who encounter stronger

disposition toward teaching and support to remain in the profession are more likely to continue.

Research conducted by the Project on the Next Generation of Teachers suggested that "the key to

addressing shortages lies not in attractive recruitment polices but in support and training for new

teachers at the school site" (p. 1). Of the teachers involved in the study, most reported that

although they were once eager to teach, they found that they needed much more support and

direction than was provided by their current schools (Johnson et al., 2001).

Florida has adjusted its retention focus by distributing additional funds to support teacher

incentives and increase support programs. Berry and Hirsch (2003) discussed how states have

offered 10% to 12% pay increases for teachers who become certified by the National Board

Certified Teacher (NBCT) Program. In addition, Halford (1999) reported that Florida already

allocated more than $1 million toward teacher support programs. These funds added to the

NBCT program, granting teachers another 10% pay increase as an incentive to mentor and

support beginning teachers within the school system. Novice teachers are offered incentives such

as housing, health club memberships, loan forgiveness, and bonuses. Despite such programs

teacher attrition rates continue to soar. Although such enticements increase the supply of new

teachers to schools, they do nothing to guarantee that novice teachers remain. Such short-term









responses to long-term challenges bring to light and question the effectiveness of current support

practices (Johnson et al., 2001).

Alternative Certification

Alternative Certification conflicts with the push for high quality teaching. "Within this

context, state policy makers and program directors face the challenge of designing and

implementing appealing, fast-track preparation programs that will also ensure teacher quality"

(Johnson, Birkeland, & Peske, 2005, p. 72). Persons who seek temporary certification in Florida

only have to meet minimum state requirements. Requirements for a three-year teacher

certification are only a bachelor's degree with a 2.5 GPA and to pass a background check. Once

they are in the classroom teaching children, they must pass the National Teacher Exam, Florida

Professional Education Test and the College Level Academic Skills Test (Baines, McDowell, &

Foulk, 2001). Alternatively certificated teachers in Florida are granted complete control over a

child's education, but they are not required to have any previous classroom training. They are not

only employed and elevated to a full instructor, but they receive full benefits and the same status

as teachers with often twice their educational training. These teachers are expected to teach and

to have as much knowledge as traditionally certificated teachers after as little as a two-week

crash course.

Finn and Madigan (2001) reported some Florida educational leaders feel minimum

requirements should be removed entirely. They suggested that we lose a huge number of

nontraditional teacher candidates because of our "hoops and hurdles and red tape" (p. 29). The

tightening of teacher requirements and training does not necessarily mean higher achievement

for students. Many school districts have begun to widen the pathways into the profession by

experimenting with private alternative certification programs. Johnson, Birkeland, and Peske

(2005) reported on fast-track programs which are completed in one summer. Candidates in these









programs expressed they would not have been able or willing to enter the profession if the

certification timeline was longer. These ultra-condensed programs can be provided by the state,

but they are often provided by private vendors as a less expensive alternative. Teach for America

(TFA), which places liberal arts graduates in poor inner city schools, and Troops to Teachers,

which places military veterans in classrooms, are now working with the public system to provide

alternative certifications. More than 90% of principals were satisfied enough to hire more

teachers from both of these programs and 60% were retained for at least a second year of service

(Finn & Madigan, 2001; Tell, 2001).

Johnson and Birkeland's (2003) qualitative study examined a program that duplicated the

training model of TFA. They showed an investment of nearly $20,000 per alternative

certification teacher, but offered little follow-up once they reached the classroom. These teachers

were placed in areas they did not feel qualified to teach, and often received a higher workload

than a traditionally certificated teacher. In spite of the large amount of money allocated to the

training of these teachers, almost half left the profession after one year in the classroom. They

were also three times more likely to change schools. Because of prior career experience,

alternatively certificated teachers were believed to have had a lower tolerance for unsupportive

school situations. These teachers thought they were not placed in situations where effectiveness

could be achieved. The commonality among training programs is that most novice educators

need support in order to remain in the educational field. Once the extrinsic or monetary

incentives are gone, novice teachers need to make an intrinsic connection to remain in the field.

States have now begun to debate the idea of whether they should decentralize or centralize

alternative certification control in order to meet the demands of alternately certificated teachers.









Johnson, Birkeland, and Peske (2005) studied the decentralized and centralized programs

of three states. Each state represented a different level of centralization or decentralization. The

centralized programs were able to pull from a larger pool of candidates with higher credentials.

They were also able to offer a wider variety of certifications. However, these candidates were

not, and could not be, guaranteed jobs. The decentralized or local programs had a higher success

rate of filling jobs, but they had limitations on the areas of expertise in each subject they could

offer. Gaps in training were reported in all of the programs. Quality was treated as an

afterthought rather than a process. The research implied that the best solution was for the state

and local agencies to work together. A selectively decentralized model could allow for both state

and local agencies to do what they do best. Additional research suggested that not only should

the agencies work together, but that the length and quality of training programs continue to be an

issue.

Johnson, Birkeland, Peske, and Munger (2005) studied a sample of 13 alternative

certification program sites in four states. They found additional evidence that fast-track program

incentives brought many professionals into teaching that would not have otherwise had the

opportunity in enter the field. The difficultly for program administrators was an inability to

deliver the promised quality of training. The teaching candidates reported major gaps in their

training, lack of knowledge of how to teach their subject, mismatched student teaching

placements with untrained mentors, and inadequate follow-up support once they began teaching.

Induction Programs

Furtwengler (1995) conducted an analysis of state induction programs. Of the 34 states that

were determined to have policies for beginning-teacher induction, common trends in each state

included the use of support teams, provision of teacher mentors, development of training

programs for participants, and determination of evaluation decisions for certification. The state









of Florida passed legislation in 1982 that required and funded Florida's Beginning Teacher

Program, or Professional Orientation Program. Each district became responsible for

implementation of the program and for gaining annual endorsement by the Commissioner of

Education. The supporting staff was defined as a principal, peer teacher, and another professional

educator. Both formative and summative assessments should be conducted, using the

recommended Florida Performance Measurement System. Feimen-Nemser (1999) investigated

Florida's program and found that the training programs were piecemeal. She also discovered that

induction practices varied enormously stemming from Florida's decentralization.

Johnson (2001) believed that instructional practices cannot be grasped through pre-service

classes and student teaching. Support must continue throughout the first year and be part of an

ongoing process of development. The fact many teachers remain past the first years is a tribute

toward their desire to teach, not to the received support. Stansbury (2001) stated, "An induction

program aims at supporting beginning teachers who have completed their professional

preparation, using assessment strategies to inform support" (p. 1). Ponticell and Zepeda (1997)

added that planned induction activities with mentors, department chairs, and administrators

should be geared to help beginning teachers make the transition from student teacher to teacher

of students. These activities should help novice teachers make connections with information

sources and build a support network for problem-solving. Florida has mandated that all districts

have a specific plan of action. However, what constitutes a minimally acceptable program has

not been established (Baines et al., 2001).

Spindler and Biott (2000) suggested that support for novice teachers should include:

(a) obtainment of an induction tutor (mentor), (b) observation of beginning teacher instructional

practices, (c) observation of experienced teachers, (d) a formal review of the novice teacher's









progress conducted with a mentor, and (e) professional development based on the beginning

teacher's needs. Although 28 states have instituted some form of induction program, the level of

participation varies greatly. For example, 10 states (not including Florida) do not fund the

program fully and do not mandate school district participation (Halford, 1999).

Torff and Sessions (2005) continued examination of the effectiveness of teacher training

programs. Three hundred school principals were asked to give their perceived causes of teacher

ineffectiveness. The results concluded that, although content mastery could be achieved in a

short amount of time, pedagogical knowledge was not reached. The teachers experienced threats

to effectiveness in the skill areas of classroom-management, lesson-implementation, lesson-

planning, and rapport with students. The authors reported that the results implied teacher training

programs centered on content knowledge and lacked pedagogical focus. The data also supported

the need to not shorten programs any further or reduce rigor for convenience.

An effective induction program not only provides support for beginning teachers, but

provides training to help mentors develop their skills in this role. The mentor teacher should be

allotted time to meet with his/her novice teacher to analyze teaching and problem-solving skills.

In turn, the beginning teacher should be given time to observe the mentors' teaching practices

and reflect on what they do in their classrooms (Stansbury, 2001). Such additional visitation time

is usually not mandated, and must be provided through leadership support.

Chisena (2002) researched the new teacher induction program in Orange County, Florida

outlining the elements important for a successful induction program. A survey was given to 285

first-year teachers to identify induction activities that they perceived as the most helpful and

relevant to their success as teachers. Curriculum, students, parents, and staff were the four

subgroups selected to determine the importance of support. Results indicted that the five most









important induction support topics included: (a) motivating students, (b) student discipline,

(c) establishing professional relationships with other teachers, (d) establishing effective

communication with parents, and (e) communication about student progress with parents. The

majority of the teachers reported that they were not provided assistance in these important areas.

In addition, neither principals nor university staff were viewed as an integral source of

assistance.

Beginning Teacher Support

Mentor's Perceptions of Their Roles

Support provided to beginning teachers is important to the quality of their short and long-

term professional success. Carter and Francis (2001) suggested, "Mentoring is one such form of

professional support that has received widespread attention in the literature and which has been

implemented in a number of teacher education and induction programs during the past two

decades" (p. 249). Mentoring is often used to deal with issues of skill, classroom development,

and the articulation of school norms.

Researchers sometimes believe the term mentor is an ambiguous synonym for teacher

tutor, professional tutor, or host teacher. Saunders and Pettinger (1995) described a mentor as

someone who contributes and plays a role in the training, supervision, or assessment of a student

teacher. Spindler and Biott (2000) continued the ambiguity by using a more global definition that

a mentor is anyone who is involved with the development of a beginning teacher, but an

"Induction Tutor" is the member who is tagged with the responsibility of coordinating guidance

and support. Thus, it is increasingly important for programs that aid beginning teachers to clearly

define roles of the mentoring teacher. When the principal communicates clear expectations for

the beginning teacher and the mentor, teachers experience a greater professional commitment









(Singh & Billingsley, 1998). The principal's role, as related to beginning teachers, will be

discussed later in this review.

In Florida schools, mentors have an important role in the induction process that expands

the definition even further. An induction mentor or peer teacher, as termed by a Central Florida

county, aids in the supervision of teachers who have a bachelor's degree, but do not have a

teaching certificate from a Florida university or a university that is recognized by Florida. This

school district also assigns mentors at the school level for all novice teachers. However, the

mentors' roles were not defined. Florida Department of Education (FDOE) guidelines for

selecting mentors require that they meet one of the following three criteria. First, a mentor can be

selected because he/she has a Professional Service Contract (PSC) and has completed a clinical

education program. Second, a mentor may be selected if he/she has a PSC and also has

completed a FDOE course in Florida Performance Management System (FPMS), a state

approved evaluation system. Third, a teacher can be selected by possessing a PSC and training as

a supervisor of interns. All three methods of selection must be accompanied by a principal's

recommendation. In addition, mentors are given a $1,200 yearly stipend if they are aiding a

novice teacher in obtaining alternative certification.

It is important for the mentor pairing to be a cohesive match. Carter and Francis (2001)

emphasized the importance of the mentor and mentee developing commonalities beyond a

stipend or the receipt of a certification. Forming a relationship beyond basic day-to-day routines

is termed a multi-dimensional mentor. A mentor who merely gives information is functioning as

a transmitter of teacher professional learning, which Carter and Francis's (2001) research defined

as a "uni-dimensional approach" (p. 250). Ballantyne and Hansford (1995) and Ponticell and

Zepeda (1997) both state that uni-dimensional mentoring can constrain the learning of beginning









teachers rather than reinforce reflective practice that results in creating professional connections.

Carter and Francis (2001) were suspicious of mentoring that lacked essential workplace

connections. "When workplace learning is grounded in a constructivist epistemology, it has the

capacity to generate a dynamic, interactive learning process that has the potential to challenge, if

not transform, the status quo" (p. 251).

A mentor acts as a gateway to a novice teacher's job satisfaction. A novice teacher who

interacted with his mentor on a regular basis viewed the school professional climate more

favorably. Within the workplace, the mentor should be viewed as a critical friend rather than a

superior. However, Carter and Francis (2001) emphasized that "the separation of mentor and

supervisor roles is less critical than the degree of personal compatibility between beginning

teacher and mentor" (p. 258). Greater success was reported when a formal mentor was assigned

to a novice teacher who shared commonalities with them. Spindler and Biott's (2000) on-the-job

training research, also reported that formal meetings can have less effect than informal contact.

Beginning teachers resent being the object rather than the partner in the process (Zepeda &

Ponticell, 1998). "Mentoring should be regarded as a strategy to provide professional and

personal support to beginning teachers outside the school's line management structure" (Carter

& Francis, 2001, p. 254). It is important for the mentors in a district level program to be aware of

their roles and to accentuate daily guidance, along with summative and formative evaluations.

Ballantyne and Hansford (1995) further defined the mentors' multi-dimensional approach

in describing a mentor as a buddy. They reported that mentors should provide novice teachers

with what they require to be successful in varying degrees. These areas are personal support,

task-related assistance and advice, problem-related assistance and advice, critical reflection, and

feedback on practice. Personal support encompasses Carter and Francis' (2001) characteristics of









effective mentoring. This mentor role entails the attributes of approachability, friendliness,

openness, interest in development, and also emphasizes the importance of compatibility between

novice teacher and mentor. Novice teachers find comfort and reduction in their stress level by

having access to someone to talk to, and ask for advice and assistance. "A buddy mentor is able

to offer empathy and reassurance based on shared difficulties, as well as the benefits of greater

experience" (Ballantyne & Hansford, 1995, p. 3). A buddy mentor is described as a teacher who

simply shows the novice where things are located and assists the primary mentor when he is not

a teacher from the campus (Stansbury, 2001). However, an off-campus mentor may cause a poor

affiliation and further confusion and create undue stress for the novice.

Castorina (2003) reported that mentors felt a 10- to 15-year difference in age was

unimportant. Carter and Francis (2001) supported Castorina's findings and noted that the age and

experience differences in a mentoring relationship should not be too great. Rather than age and

status, the physical location, and ease of mentor access has considerable impact on the

effectiveness of the pairing. Ponticell and Zepeda (1997) agreed, citing examples of effective

novice teaching programs using proximity and content area to drive mentor partnering.

Stansbury's (2001) evaluation of The Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program

showed that teachers with four or five years of experience made excellent support providers. The

experience these teachers lacked was compensated for by a fresh understanding of the obstacles

that novices face. This relevance aided in the mentors' understanding of what new teachers need

to know and be able to do.

Task-related assistance should begin in the first weeks where the mentor becomes multi-

dimensional, thus helping the novice teacher develop his instructional role in the workplace. The

mentor embarks on helping the novice teacher with daily school routines, assisting the novice









with student progress reports, covering school-based requirements, cooperative planning, and

modeling effective teaching behaviors (Ballantyne & Hansford, 1995). When the mentor works

on tasks along side the novice teacher, it presents an opportunity to initiate collegial activities

and model grade-level planning. This helps novice teachers accomplish teaching-related work

with feedback from lead teachers on current lessons and units being planned (Stansbury, 2001).

Ponticell and Zepeda (1997) extended the notion that it is important for teachers at this stage not

to neglect attention to classroom issues and fixate on "the way we do things around here" (p. 9).

School culture issues are addressed through interaction with mentors who are already part of the

school's teaching community.

Established cultures, along with classroom difficulties, are barriers that a novice teacher

quickly encounters. To address some of these barriers, Ballentyne and Hansford (1995)

suggested that problem-related assistance should begin after four weeks. Castorina (2003)

proposed that support should begin during preplanning. Both findings concur that help for novice

teachers should begin very close to the beginning of a school year. At this point the mentor

begins to explore instructional problems and possible solutions with the novice teacher. Early

intervention helps combat the increasing source of concern the beginning teacher may have

about individual student learning and behaviors and about where to find assistance.

DeJong's (1997) "learning process perspective" (p. 461), described as a training method,

allows the novice to obtain the necessary skills to become as independent as possible. The

support provider should help the novice teachers identify their strengths and better develop their

teaching practices (Stansbury, 2001). This feedback helps improve the novices' skills, allowing

the improvement to continue after support is withdrawn. Once support is removed, teacher

thinking or "teacher literacy" can continue (Boreen & Niday, 2000, p. 2). Teacher literacy allows









for the practitioner to transfer theory into performance, sifting through educational jargon and

understanding expectations which result in concrete teaching in the classroom.

Critical reflection and feedback on practice give the novice teacher a chance in the latter

phase of induction to analyze success and failures. Reflection allows for self-learning during

which the novice can determine both the competencies to be gained and the strategies to acquire

those skills. Reflective supervision serves as a catalyst for novice teachers to have the courage to

look into their own classroom practices and change what is considered less effective (Brownlee,

Dart, Boulton-Lewis, & McCrindle, 1998; Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998). In turn, the novice teacher

begins to see how he can incorporate how he wants to teach rather than how he had to teach to

get through the year (Ballantyne & Hansford, 1995).

Mentors have reported that novice teachers often wanted to hide problems they were

having. Mentors used their own shortcomings to ease the novice teachers' stress levels. This aids

the teacher training process, allowing for a joint effort in which both the mentor and novice

teacher improve together (Johnson, 2001; Spindler & Biott, 2000). The mentors share in the

challenging timetables, sometimes shouldering much of the novice teachers' responsibility,

and-in many instances-increasing their time commitment an extensive number of hours. Most

mentors believed that novice teachers who initially showed limited skill can learn to improve

(Saunders & Pettinger, 1995). It is the mentor's role to provide the level of assistance the

beginning teacher requires. Novice teachers were more responsive to being provided appropriate

levels of assistance rather than being told what they needed to do (Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998).

Administrative Role

Principals can feel isolated-caught in the chain of command between students, teachers,

parents, and the district office. They can become overwhelmed by too many people clamoring

for their attention (Bolman & Deal, 1993). However, the need for principal support for novice









teachers is documented throughout research. A principal's concept of teacher tasks plays an

influential role in making decisions, and that concept can have a positive or negative effect on a

teacher's behavior and learning (Ballantyne, Thompson, & Taylor, 1998). Singh and Billingsley

(1998) summarized, "Principal support appears to be important to teachers' general well-being"

(p. 9). Well-being was defined by Littrell and Billingsley (1994) as "teacher stress, personal

health, job satisfaction, school commitment, and intent to stay in teaching" (p. 7). Principals who

address this need develop teachers who are more likely to be satisfied with their work. Zepeda

and Ponticell (1998) reported that novice teachers also look for empowerment from their

principal. "The principal is regularly in my classroom to observe and interact with the children

and me. This is important. Both the principal and I have seen strengths, concerns addressed,

and progress made" (p. 4). The message sent from the principal to a novice teacher can aid in the

necessary developmental process from content knowledge to quality teaching practice. Johnson

(2001) agreed that a clear message expressing the value and overall need for the beginning

teacher should come from the principal. Principals need to exert management skills and

emotional support to provide teachers with a sense of belonging, while understanding the

importance of their role (Littrell & Billingsley, 1994). Ballantyne et al. (1998) suggested that

principals reflect on their personal views on teaching expectations. "Becoming cognizant of their

personal myths" (p. 9) will enable the administrator to take a more consistent approach and

further meet the needs of a beginning teacher. Often administrative managerial techniques place

novice teachers in content areas without regard to their qualifications (Ingersoll, 200 b).

The requirements of novice teachers are sometimes ignored. Principals often lack

understanding of their roles in regard to the importance of easing new teachers into their

profession (Johnson, 2001). The principal must be in sync with what the novice teacher needs.









It is the principal's duty to avoid burdening beginning teachers with unnecessary tasks. Novice

teachers should be encouraged to learn, but they should not develop cognitive overload by

enrolling in every professional development opportunity. Although a common practice within

school systems, principals should avoid: (a) assigning beginning teachers the most challenging

students, (b) scheduling separate preparations in secondary schools, or (c) combining classes in

elementary schools. The principal must also shoulder the responsibility of preventing

enthusiastic novice teachers from volunteering for too much responsibility (Stansbury, 2001).

Administrators must avoid the pitfalls of using novice teachers as inexpensive after-school

labor (Ponticell & Zepeda, 1997). Avoiding this kind of situation can be achieved by

administrators encouraging veteran teachers to take on additional responsibilities. However,

Ponticell and Zepeda reported that the principal needs to keep the new staff members involved in

"learning opportunities" (p. 9) by inspiring them to attend school-related activities to learn more

about the school's culture and characteristics. This type of administrative support helps novices

create a sense of belonging, interact with students outside of the classroom, and be exposed to

the informal structures of the school's community without feeling the burdensome responsibility

or obligation of assigned duties at these events. The principal's emotional support motivates

novices to a higher level of performance and involvement, while decreasing their health-related

problems and increasing their commitment toward teaching (Littrell & Billingsley, 1994). When

principal leadership is strong, teachers are more likely to be professionally committed (Singh &

Billingsley, 1998).

Ponticell and Zepeda (1997) demonstrated the impact of administrative support through

their research conducted on three high schools. Two schools that were deemed successful









reported administrators as encouraging and emphasized formative interaction and observation. In

turn, both the novice teachers and administrators reported high levels of satisfaction and skill.

The principal's support encourages commitment of novice teachers' to the profession, and

his/her bolstering directly influences peer support. Mentors are less likely to aid beginning

teachers if perception of their principal's leadership is poor. The support shown by

administrators has the strongest correlation between assistance and teacher performance (Singh

& Billingsley, 1998).

Singh and Billingsley's (1998) research showed little correlation between the number of

years a teacher has been in the profession and his overall commitment toward teaching. The

education level of the teacher exerted a slightly negative relationship, leading one to believe that

teachers with more education exhibited more resistance to leadership. While 42% of Florida

teachers felt their principals were supportive, only 9% of Florida teachers remembered

discussing instructional practices with their principals. Urzua (1999) noted that principals

sometimes have high, although possibly unrealistic, expectations of recent university graduates,

and they start the school year with expectations of supervising novice teachers. Yet principals

quickly become overextended, overworked, or overwhelmed by their duties. As a result, the

principals rely on mentors or assistants to cover duties such as instructing novice teachers. Doud

and Keller (1998) reported training or staff development as a principal's lowest priority.

A mentor's ability to cooperate with principals regarding the training of novice teachers

was dependant on the principal's support and ability to evaluate fairly. "The principal

leadership/support not only influenced professional commitment directly, but it also affected

professional commitment indirectly through peer support" (Singh & Billingsly, 1998, p. 8). This

study concluded that principals play a vital role in novice teacher support and mentor









effectiveness. Littrell and Billingsly (1994) attested that a higher level of support is perceived by

beginning teachers within a school where its leader emphasizes "camaraderie and optimism" (p.

7) and interacts frequently with all members of his staff

Novice Teachers' Needs and Perceptions

The needs of novice teachers and those preparing to enter the field must be addressed.

With the growth in student population, the public school system cannot afford to continue to lose

new members within its ranks (Johnson, 2001). Halford (1998) reported that novice teachers'

classrooms often become "dumping grounds" (p. 33) for students with behavioral difficulties,

attendance issues, and learning deficiencies. Ponticell and Zepeda's (1997) study showed many

novice teachers were left to flounder in the midst of extremely difficult assignments. Johnson

(2001) stated that in most fields the tougher assignments go to those with experience. Why

should teaching be different? Some of the greatest challenges for first-year teachers are

classroom management, student motivation, dealing with individual differences, assessment, and

getting along with parents (Baines et al., 2001; Haugaard, 2005). These areas have been readily

addressed through staff development. However, the NCES Teacher Survey on Professional

Development and Training (1998) detected only slight increases in many of these areas. More

teachers-who did not attend staff development-felt confident in the area of maintaining order

and discipline. It was not determined what level of understanding these teachers had in

classroom management, which may explain this result. Dissimilarly, Haugaard's (2005) recent

study reported 80% of novice teachers felt that classroom management was an extremely

important topic for induction programs.

The 110 teachers surveyed in Haugaard's (2005) study valued the support of 10 topics at

89% or above. These 10 topics included: (a) student discipline plans and classroom management,

(b) accessing resources, (c) curriculum assistance, (d) procedures for the first days of school,









(e) student assessment, (f) reading instruction, (g) district policies and procedures, (h) lesson

planning and preparation for instruction, (i) instructional techniques, and (j) parent

communication methods. These teachers also reported that the four most valuable ways of

delivering these support topics were: (a) teaching coaches, (b) release time for professional

development activities, (c) observation feedback from mentors or administrators, and (d) teacher

mentors. Haugaard concluded that the participants were satisfied with the induction-support topic

assistance or training received. However, only 63% of the novice teachers reported receiving

assistance from a teaching coach. A teaching coach or mentor was reported as the most valued

resource for a novice teacher. In addition, almost a quarter of the respondents did not receive

support with classroom management, which was the top-rated support topic.

The Schools and Staffing Survey 1999-2000 (Gruber et al., 2002), shows that support of

Florida's new teachers is ahead of the U. S. average in all areas except for extra classroom

assistance, where Florida fell 2% below the national average. In relation to the national average,

Florida's common planning time is 9% above, seminar time for beginning teachers is 18%

above, regular supportive communication is 9% above, and mentor time is 5% above. Yet only

38% of Florida teachers felt their mentors were helping significantly. This data indicate novice

teachers are being allotted time, but they may not be getting the support they need. This could be

explained by Singh and Billingsley's (1998) research that found that time must not be the only

ingredient, but that support must also include discussion, assistance with instruction, and help

with discipline.

Novice Teachers' Beliefs and Practices

MacNab and Payne (2003) reported that school experiences dictated novice teachers'

beliefs about instruction. Seventy-one percent (71%) of beginning or alternatively certificated

teachers responded to questions about their beliefs about teaching mathematics. Through a









survey and qualitative questioning, MacNab and Payne determined that past negative or positive

experiences reflected the novice teachers' current feelings. The nature of teachers' beliefs, their

antecedents and influences, and their effects on classroom practice are very revealing.

Brownlee et al. (1998) examined graduate students who recently completed a degree in

education. They found that novice teachers, who leave university training programs, depart with

beliefs that can be described as naive or informed. Nafve beliefs have no evidence of theoretical

knowledge and may lack understanding. Informed beliefs reflect a theoretical connection and

demonstrate understanding. Novice teachers who received theoretical classroom training, had an

on-the-job experience, and who utilized methods of reflection demonstrated an increased level of

informed beliefs. The authors determined that whether naive or informed, beliefs are a strong

predictor of teaching behavior, thus impacting student achievement.

Paj ares (1992) examined teachers' perception and reported that beliefs of the teacher will

indicate what type of program and support is important. Beliefs are strong predictors of human

behavior and are perceived as personal knowledge. Zepeda and Ponticell's (1998) study of

teachers' needs supported this pattern of thought, concluding that supervision is best when

teachers receive validation, empowerment, a visible presence, and coaching.

Novice teachers feel that validation is obtained through the feedback received from a

mentor or supervisor. Zepeda and Ponticell (1998) pointed out that positive feedback helped

teachers gain confidence while reaffirming their abilities. This interaction assists in the

validation of the teachers' self-confidence and beliefs about their role in the school system. The

"dog and pony show" (p. 5), in which the supervisor makes the evaluation based on a checklist

of boxes, was of little value and provided scant professional growth. Novice teachers felt more

personal gains were achieved when the only evaluation process was not structured around









mandated guidelines and "two yearly performances" (p. 5). The evaluation process for teachers

should be empowering and simulate instructional growth. Assistance they receive should help

the novice teachers take control of their own knowledge, skills, and ability to improve. Teachers

who received encouragement to reflect on their own classroom practice felt a sense of power and

awareness. This was achieved with the aid of properly used assessment techniques.

Although teachers viewed instrumental support as important, their testimonials favored

receiving more informational support (Littrell & Billingsley, 1994). It is therefore important for

the mentor, as well as the principal, to evaluate the support that novice teachers require and use

an instrumental approach to obtain information. Unfortunately, mentors often do not provide the

support that teachers believe they should receive and feel is so important.

Zepeda and Ponticell (1998) made a strong connection with supervisors who took time to

complete frequent summative and formative observations and coached the novice along the way.

One respondent in their study stated:

[My supervisor] was there for me and helped me through any problems that I had. I was
successful because I felt [my supervisor] was on my side to assist me with concerns ....
interested in what I was accomplishing and eagerly involved in what students were
accomplishing .... then provided evidence of my and my students' success. (p. 4)

This formative approach satisfies the need for a novice teacher to receive a visible presence

while encompassing the necessity for teachers to receive coaching. The mentor or supervisor

works alongside the novice teacher to provide assistance that is particular to his/her classroom

situation.

Summary

Research indicates that, without support in their beginning years, novice teachers will not

fully develop and will continue to leave the profession. Once the teacher reaches the classroom,

vital sources of support should come from administrators and support personnel in the form a









mentor. Major components for teacher induction success were reported to be follow-through and

focus on areas that novices believed were beneficial. Most research indicated that the areas of

focus were discipline, curriculum, instructional feedback, and communication. If the novice

teacher believed that these areas were being properly addressed, they achieved job satisfaction

and connection to the workplace.









CHAPTER 3
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to examine a district-wide teacher induction program and

evaluate the relationship between the believed importance and actual delivery of mentors' and

principals' responsibilities in support services, as evaluated by the administrator, mentor, and

novice teacher. This study also reviewed the outcome of the teacher induction program through

the perspective of traditionally and alternatively certificated novice teacher.

Data was obtained from K-5 novice teachers, mentors and principals using an electronic

survey. The survey was based on the following research questions.

1. What is the level of agreement among administrators' ratings regarding the importance of
teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

2. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers' ratings regarding the importance
of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

3. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers' ratings regarding the importance
of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

4. What is the level of agreement among administrators' ratings regarding the delivery of
teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

5. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers' ratings regarding the delivery of
teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

6. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers' ratings regarding the delivery of
teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

7. What is the level of agreement among administrators' ratings regarding the importance
and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and
mentor/principal responsibilities?









8. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers' ratings regarding the importance
and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and
mentor/principal responsibilities?

9. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers' ratings regarding the importance
and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and
mentor/principal responsibilities?

10. What is the level of agreement between alternatively certificated novice teachers' ratings
regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor
responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities?

11. What are the differences between alternatively certificated and traditionally certificated
novice teachers' ratings regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction
program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities?

Methodology

To answer these research questions, a survey adapted with the permission of Dr. Susan

Castorina (2003) was used. This research was a descriptive quantitative study designed to

measure the relationship between the beliefs of the administrators, mentors, and novice teachers

and the delivered services of a Central Florida teacher induction program.

The survey was separated into four parts. Part I of the survey used demographic questions

to help identify the participants. Part II of the survey asked the participants to rate the importance

of support services that their teacher induction program provided. This section was separated into

3 parts. Part II A asked the importance of support services related to teacher induction program

beliefs about administrator responsibilities. Part II B asked the importance of support services

related to beliefs about mentor responsibilities. Part II C asked the importance of support

services related to beliefs about mentor/principal responsibilities. Part III of the survey asked

participants to rate, based upon personal experiences, their level of satisfaction with delivery of

support services in their school. Part III A sought the level of satisfaction of delivery of support

services related to administrator responsibilities. Part III B sought the level of satisfaction of

delivery of support services related to mentor responsibilities. Part III C sought the level of









satisfaction of delivery of support services related to mentor/principal responsibilities. Part IV of

the survey asked participants to answer four open-ended questions in reference to personal

beliefs about the teacher induction program.

Population

This quantitative study used the population and setting as they were in order to report an

accurate description of the induction practices as they naturally occur. Tuckman (1999) stated

that the population, "the target group ... the type of people the researcher is interested in

studying" (p. 283), is addressed through the selection of a sample drawn from a school district.

The sample for this study included all K-5 elementary first year teachers, their mentors, and the

building principals and assistant principals designated to monitor the teacher induction program

in a Central Florida county school district (n = 179). This study examined the satisfaction levels

of participants in an induction program in an urban Central Florida county school district. The

district includes 37 elementary schools. The 36 schools sampled have been in operation for a

minimum of one year and have experienced faculties. To reduce the sampling and coverage

errors, all K-5 administrators, mentors and first-year novice teachers for the school year 2006-

2007 were given the opportunity to participate in the study, thus increasing the ability to estimate

with considerable precision (Dillman, 2007).

A list was obtained from the examined school district which contained the names of

elementary administrators, mentors, and first-year teachers. The U. S. school mail address and

email address for each person was obtained from the school district's website. One elementary

school was omitted because it was in its first year of operation. Each building principal was

contacted via phone to ask for their school's participation in the study. The survey was sent to

461 administrators, mentors and beginning teachers at 36 elementary schools in one Central









Florida County School District. Participants were given the option to not respond to any

questions they did not want to answer.

All administrators held current Florida educational leadership certificates and were trained

about the induction process. Mentor teachers held current Florida teacher certification, a

professional service contract (tenure), and were provided opportunities to receive district level

training and support as needed. Preplanning training was mandatory for all district employees.

All teachers who participated in the district's induction program received support provided by

the school district. If traditionally certificated, novice teachers held a Florida teaching certificate;

a Florida temporary teaching certificate was held by those participants who were alternatively

certificated. For alternative certification teachers, successful completion of the district teacher

induction program is necessary to receive a five-year professional teaching certificate. All

participants held at least a bachelors degree; however, some have degrees in fields other than

education.

All participants received the Internet survey questionnaire through both the U. S. Mail and

their school district email accounts. Open-ended questions provided space for comments and

encouraged subjects to develop their thoughts on the survey items. All participants responded to

the same survey: 29 items that concerned both beliefs about teacher induction and delivery of

teacher induction services.

Procedure for Data Collection

Prior to the collection of data, all essential paperwork was submitted and approved by the

University of Florida Institutional Review Board (UFIRB) to conduct the research. The

researcher also submitted necessary information to the Central Florida school district for

approval of the study.









Confidentiality was provided through the use of anonymous surveys. Security and

confidentiality issues associated with electronic technologies raise issues of trust, which are

beginning to be addressed by researchers (Dillman, 2007). The consent was determined once the

participant read the approved letter explaining their rights and clicked, "I agree." The online

survey allowed all responses to be directly uploaded to a secure web site and then to an SPSS

program. This method secured the identity of each participant.

Participants were given four weeks to respond to the survey; the deadline was stated at

least twice. An initial letter was sent to each participant, with a follow-up letter 2 weeks later.

Two follow-up emails were also distributed; one email three days after the original mailing and

another three weeks later. The web address which led to the electronic survey accompanied all

letters and emails.

Instrumentation

The researcher adapted an induction survey with permission from its creator, Dr. Susan

Castorina. The questions consisted of statements representative of subsets of components of

quality induction plans as described in the literature. A 10-point Likert scale was used, as it was

preferred during the original piloting of the survey (Castorina, 2003). The statements were

interpreted only by the category of the provider: administrator responsibilities, mentor

responsibilities, and shared responsibilities. The items within each subset were randomly

intermixed. Mean scores less than 5 were considered low. Moderate scores were those between

5.0 and 7.4. Scores above 7.4 were considered high.

The survey was field tested by a panel of 7 district personnel, who were former

administrators, classroom teachers, and mentors. The district personnel were asked to review the

clarity of the questions, the perceived comfort level in responding to the question, and the

accuracy of terminology used. To reduce measurement error and control threats to validity, the









researcher received direct feedback about the clarity of the survey (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister &

Zechmeister, 2000; Dillman, 2007). The researcher utilized recommendations of the panel for

wording changes where appropriate in the instrument.

Castorina's survey produced high reliability coefficients that matched with showing high

internal consistency. Cronbach's alpha (reliability coefficient) was used to measure the

relationship of each indicator. If the relationship is high, the researcher can claim reliability.

Alpha coefficient ranges can be scaled as high (greater than + .75), moderate (+ .50 to + .74), and

low (less than + .25 to + .49). Reliability is the level of accuracy or consistency of data as

reported from an instrument over a period of time, therefore showing test stability where similar

results are reported for similar data (Norusis, 1994; Tuckman, 1999). Reliability ensures that if

the researcher conducted this study again, similar results should occur and the item responses

should be consistent across constructs (Creswell, 1994).

In this study, multiple questions were used to control for consistency of reporting attitudes.

Anytime a questionnaire requires self-reporting an issue of "showing one's self in the best light"

(Tuckman, 1999, p. 256) or social desirability bias can emerge. Self-serving bias, a threat to

internal validity, "is more likely to occur when one rates one's own behavior than when one rates

other's behavior" (Nauta & Kluwer, 2004, p. 464). To control for this bias, the research about

quality induction programs and how the data will be analyzed was not revealed to the

participants. The survey also allowed each group (administrator, mentor, or novice teacher) to

report how they felt the other groups delivered services.

A survey was used to provide access to what is inside a person's head. This questionnaire

allowed the investigator to measure what someone knows (knowledge or information), what

someone likes and dislikes (values and preferences), and what someone thinks (attitudes and









beliefs) (Tuckman, 1999). The survey design enabled the researcher to generalize from a sample

to a population so that an inference can be made about the population (Babbie, 1990). Survey

research is designed to be analyzed in a manner that requires a comparison. When relationships

are not being analyzed between variables, the reason for the results cannot be determined

(Tuckman, 1999).

Data Analysis

Demographic information was added to the original survey to identify alternatively

certificated teachers and to further describe the participants. The survey was reformatted for

online implementation. Descriptive statistics were used to uncover characteristics of the sample

populations. Questions 1-6 were analyzed for means and commonalities between like groups.

Questions 7-10 were compared using Spearman's p. Questions 7- 10 were also evaluated for

their significance levels (one-tailed). Significance is another measure for reliability.

"Significance testing compares the means relative to the degrees of variation among scores in

each group to determine the probability that the calculated differences between the means reflect

real differences between subject groups and not chance occurrences" (Tuckman, 1999, p. 282). If

the null hypothesis, which states there is no correlation between rank pairs is rejected, then the

alternate hypothesis is favored. This means the ranked pairs are positively (or negatively) related.

Question 11 compared beginning teachers who were traditionally and alternatively certificated

using an independent samples t-test. The Levene's Test of Variance was used when necessary to

make a needed adjustment when an equal variance could not be assumed between two

independent samples. Content validity was ensured through the research review in which

conformation of the themes were represented in each question. "A test has content validity if the









sample of situations or performances it measures is representative of the set from which the

sample was drawn" (Tuckman, 1999, p. 202).

Spearman's p was used to measure the correlation of beliefs of the administrators, mentors,

and novices in relation to their practices. When dealing with two ordinal variables that are

greater than 10, the Spearman rank-order correlation is the most appropriate to use. According to

Tuckman (1999), "Spearman's p is a test used to compare two sets of ranks to determine their

degree of equivalence" (p. 314). Spearman's p results were displayed as a range between -1 and

+1, thus measuring direction and strength of a correlation. Spearman's p will also report an alpha

reliability coefficient. This is the alpha significance level that is used to reject the null hypothesis

at 0.05. The confidence level for rejection of the null hypothesis is 95%, meaning there is a 5%

chance to falsely reject the null.

An independent samples t-test was used to compare the two types of novice teachers that

took part in this study. This test "compares the two means to determine the probability that the

difference between them reflects a real difference between the groups of subjects rather than a

chance variation" (Tuckman, 1999, p. 300). When using an independent t-test, an assumption is

made that the variances are relatively similar. The Levene test was used to determine if the

variances were equal or unequal. If the variance was determined to be unequal, the necessary

statistical adjustments were made, and equal variances were not assumed. Responses to open-

ended questions were analyzed inductively to identify common themes. A tally system was used

to record the number of times a theme occurred









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Upon competition of data collection, the data were analyzed to determine the effectiveness

of a district-wide teacher induction program by assessing the congruence of mentors' and

principals' perceptions about their roles in delivery of support services, as evaluated by the

administrator, mentor, and novice teacher. Data also revealed the success level of actual delivery

of induction support services through the perspective of the novice teacher. Differences between

alterative certification teachers and traditional certification teachers were examined. Open ended

responses were analyzed for common themes.

Response Rate

Surveys were completed by 179 participants at 36 elementary schools for a 39% (179 of

461) response rate and a completion rate of 76% (146 of 195) when the online survey was

viewed (Table 4-1).

Demographic Information

Demographic data is summarized and reported in Table 4-2. The 179 participants included

153 females and 21 males; 5 respondents did not answer the questions about gender or

race/ethnicity. On the survey 18 male participants described themselves as White; 0 as Black; 2

as Hispanic and 1 as Multi-racial. The hundred fifty-three (153) females included 130 Whites, 11

Blacks, 10 Hispanics, 10 Multi-racial and 1 Other. Five participants did not respond to the

question about race/ethnicity. Participant ages ranged from 21 to 63. Seventy-seven (77) of the

participants held a bachelors degree; 68 a masters degree; 19 an educational specialist degree and

11 a doctoral degree. Four participants did not answer the question about their highest level of

education. Responses of professional status are reported in Table 4-3. Respondents included 50

administrators (30%); 64 mentors (38%); 47 beginning teachers (28%), and 5 novice teachers









pursuing alternative certification (3%). The latter figure represents 100% of the teachers

pursuing an alternative elementary certification in this Central Florida County School District

(Table 4-3).

Research Questions

Q 1. What is the level of agreement among administrators' ratings regarding the
importance of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and
mentor/principal responsibilities?

Administrators were asked to rate 25 items using a 10-point Likert scale, with 10

representing the highest perceived importance, and 1 representing the lowest perceived

importance. The Cronbach's Alpha (reliability coefficient) was a = .894, indicating a high level

of agreement among administrator beliefs about the importance of their own responsibilities,

mentor responsibilities and shared principal/mentor responsibilities for teacher induction.

The mean score of administrators' beliefs about their own responsibilities ranged from

3.86 to 8.78 (Table 4-4). The belief that the mentor should be 10 to 15 years older than the

mentee was rated lowest at 3.86. Item #7 (the belief that the administrators' should provide

frequent observations/feedback) and item #2 (the belief that the mentor should be in the same or

related field as the novice) were rated highest at 8.78 and 8.76 respectively.

Table 4-5 presents the mean scores of administrators' beliefs about the importance of

mentor responsibilities for teacher induction toward novices. The mean scores ranged from 7.79

to 9.12. All areas were considered highly important by elementary school administrators. Areas

which encompass lesson planning (#14), tracking of student progress (#19) and classroom

management (#20) were rated as the most important.

The mean range of scores of administrators' beliefs about shared principal/mentor

responsibilities toward novice teachers (Table 4-6) ranged from 8.48 to 9.10. This indicates that









administrators believe that their role and that of the mentors' are both instrumental to beginning

teachers as related to items 21-25.

Q2. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers' ratings regarding the
importance of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and
mentor/principal responsibilities?

The mentors were asked to rate 25 items using a 10-point Likert scale, with 10

representing the highest perceived importance, and 1 representing the lowest perceived

importance. The Cronbach's Alpha (reliability coefficient) was a = .910, indicating a high level

of agreement among mentor beliefs about the importance of administrator responsibilities, their

own responsibilities, and shared principal and mentor responsibilities for teacher induction.

Mentors reported means ranging from 3.92 to 9.27 regarding their beliefs about

administrators' responsibilities (Table 4-7). Item #6, belief that the mentor should be 10 to 15

years older than the novice, was rated low indicating this age difference was not believed to be

important. Items #3 and #9 were rated as moderate, indicating mentors did not feel strongly that

teaching styles should be similar or that administrators needed to have a weekly "walk-through."

Item #2, (mentors should work in the same or a related field as the novice) was rated as having

the highest importance (9.27).

Rating their own responsibilities for teacher induction, mentors felt that they were all

highly important (Table 4-8). Means ranged from 8.54 to 9.06. Providing assistance in

developing lesson plans in compliance with the Sunshine State Standards (#14) was deemed the

most important item (9.06).

Table 4-9 reports mentor beliefs about the responsibilities they share with administrators.

Means ranged from 8.54 to 9.29, indicating that mentors believed all areas of responsibilities

shared with administrators were important.









Q3. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers' ratings regarding the
importance of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and
mentor/principal responsibilities?

Novice teachers were asked to rate 25 items using a 10-point Likert scale, with 10

representing the highest perceived importance, and 1 representing the lowest perceived

importance. The Cronbach's Alpha (reliability coefficient) was = .884, indicating a high level

of agreement among novice teacher beliefs regarding the importance of administrator

responsibilities, mentor responsibilities, and shared administrator and mentor responsibilities for

teacher induction.

Table 4-10 reports the level of importance that novice teachers assign to administrator

responsibilities in relation to their teacher induction training. The mean scores ranged from 3.88

to 8.85. Novice teachers rated 6 of 10 items as highly important. Items #3 (mentors should have

similar teaching style), #9 (weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers from administration) and

#10 (provides guidelines for scheduling observation and consultations) were rated as moderately

important. Items #9 (weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers from administration) and #6

(mentors should be 10- 15 years older than the novice) were both rated by novice teachers as

having the lowest importance with mean scores of 5.80 and 3.88 respectively.

Mean scores of novice teacher beliefs about mentor responsibilities for teacher induction

(Table 4-11) ranged from 6.53 to 8.71. Novice teachers felt all areas were highly important

except item #16 (mentors should provide assistance with room organization). That item was

viewed as moderately important (6.53).

Table 4-12 shows how novice teachers rated the responsibilities shared by mentors and

administrators. The mean scores ranged from 7.62 to 8.31, indicating that all of these items were

viewed as highly important in district induction practices.









Q4. What is the level of agreement among administrators' ratings regarding the delivery of
teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

The respondents were asked to rate 25 items using a 10-point Likert scale, with 10

representing complete satisfaction with the delivery of induction support service, and 1

representing complete dissatisfaction the with the delivery of induction support service. The

Cronbach's Alpha (reliability coefficient) was = .980, indicating a high level of agreement

among administrator beliefs about the delivery of administrator responsibilities, mentor

responsibilities, and shared administrator and mentor responsibilities for teacher induction.

Tables 4-13 and 4-14 summarize the mean scores of administrators' ratings for the delivery

of their own and mentor responsibilities for teacher induction. Administrators only rated item #2

(mentor in the same or related field as novice) as being delivered at a high level (7.73). The

remaining items in regards to their own delivery of teacher induction services were rated as

moderate, with means ranging from 5.92 to 7.41. Item #6, placing a novice teacher with a mentor

10-15 years older, held the lowest administrative importance for delivery of service.

Administrators' reported the delivery of mentor teacher induction responsibilities as moderate,

with means ranging from 6.54 to 7.26.

Table 4-15 shows how administrators rated the delivery of shared administrator and

mentor responsibilities for teacher induction. Items #24 (welcomes questions and gives

nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses) and item #25 (keeps novice teachers up to date on

training opportunities/development) were reported to be delivered at a high level. The other 3

items in this domain were reported as delivered in the moderate range.









Q5. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers' ratings regarding the delivery of
teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

The respondents were asked to rate 25 items using a 10-point Likert scale, with 10

representing complete satisfaction and 1 representing complete dissatisfaction the with the

delivery of an induction support service. The Cronbach's Alpha (reliability coefficient) was c =

.976, indicating a high level of agreement among mentor beliefs about the delivery of

administrators' responsibilities, their responsibilities, and shared administrative and mentor

responsibilities for teacher induction.

Table 4-16 reports how mentors rated the delivery of administrator responsibilities. The

means ranged from 5.81 to 8.06. The mentors reported moderate (6.46-7.19) delivery of items #1

(administrators assign mentors prior to preplanning), #3 (mentors were assigned with similar

teaching style), #6 (mentors should be 10-15 years older), #8 (administrators provide guidelines

for observations/feedback), #9 (administrators provide novices with weekly "walk-through"

feedback), and #10 (administrators provide guidelines for scheduling observations and

consultation). Items #2 (assigned mentors are in the same or related field as the novice), #4 (the

mentor is in close proximity to the novice), #5 (mentors assigned have the necessary specialized

expertise), and #7 (administrators provide frequent observations/feedback) were all rated at a

high level of delivery. Item #6 (mentor is 10-15 years older than novice) rated the lowest level of

delivery (5.81).

The mentors rated satisfaction with their own delivery of teacher induction support

services as shown in Table 4-17. The mentors' rated themselves as providing a high level

delivery of the following items: #13 (providing assistance locating books and materials), #14

(providing assistance in developing lesson plans in compliance with the Sunshine State









Standards), #18 (providing examples of measurement tools), #19 (providing assistance with

implementation of appropriate tools for tracking and defining pupil progress), and #20

(providing assistance in establishing efficient classroom routines and rules). The mentors rated

the remaining items of the domain as delivered at a moderate level (7.04-7.23).

Table 4-18 reports the mentors' rating of their responsibilities shared with administrators.

The means ranged from 7.29 to 7.98. The mentors' only rated item #24 (welcomes

questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses) as delivered at a high level (7.98).

The results indicated the remaining items were viewed as delivered moderately.

Q6. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers' ratings regarding the delivery of
teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

Novice teachers were asked to rate 25 items using a 10-point Likert scale, with 10

representing complete satisfaction and 1 representing complete dissatisfaction with the delivery

of an induction support service. The Cronbach's Alpha (reliability coefficient) was c = .978,

indicating a high level of agreement among novice teacher beliefs about the delivery of

administrator responsibilities, mentor responsibilities, and shared administrator and mentor

responsibilities for teacher induction.

Table 4-19 reports the novice teachers' mean ratings for delivery of induction services by

administrators. The means ranged from 5.32 to 8.50. Items #2 (mentors were assigned in the

same or related field as novice) and #5 (the mentor has the necessary expertise) were rated

highest (8.50 and 8.15). Items #1 (mentors were assigned prior to preplanning), #3 (mentors were

assigned with similar teaching styles), #7 (administrators provide frequent

observations/feedback), #8 (administrators provide guidelines for observations/feedback) were

all rated as moderately delivered (6.18-6.97). Items #9 (administrators did a weekly "walk-









through" for novices) and #10 (administrators provide guidelines for scheduling observation and

consultation) were also viewed as moderately delivered with mean scores of 5.32 and 5.95

respectively.

The mean scores of novice teachers' rating of delivery of mentor responsibilities for

teacher induction (Table 4-20), ranged from 5.51 to 6.85. In this domain, all of the areas were

viewed as being moderately delivered by the mentors. The standard deviations exceeded 3.0,

indicating a larger variation in mentor support received by each novice teacher than reported in

previous domains.

Table 4-21 shows the results of novice teachers' rating of the delivery of shared

administrator and mentor responsibilities for teacher induction services. The teachers rated all

areas as moderately delivered by their administrator and mentors, with means ranging from 6.08

to 7.23. The standard deviations also exceeded 3.0, which indicated a variation in the level of

support received on each elementary school campus.

Q7. What is the level of agreement among administrators' ratings regarding the
importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities,
and mentor/principal responsibilities?

The first section of research question seven evaluates the correlation between

administrators' ratings regarding their perceived importance of induction activities, and the

actual delivery of their responsibilities. Of the 10 items shown in Table 4-22, five were found to

have a significant relationship: items #2 (mentors should be in the same or related field), #5

(mentors should have the necessary specialized expertise), #8 (administrators provide guidelines

for observation and feedback), #9 (administrators conducted a weekly "walk-through" for novice

teachers), and #10 (administrators provide guidelines for scheduling observation and

consultations). Items #1 (mentors assigned prior to preplanning), #3 (mentors with similar









teaching style), #4 (mentors are assigned with close proximity to their mentees), #6 (mentors 10-

15 years older than novices) and #7 (administrators provide frequent observations and feedback)

were not found to have a significant relationship.

Table 4-23, shows the comparison of administrators' rating of importance to the delivery

of mentor responsibilities for teacher induction. Significance was found for seven of the 10 items

including items #11 (greets novice at preplanning), #12 (expedites orientation/preplanning

activities), #13 (provides assistance location books/materials), #14 (provides assistance in

developing lesson plans in compliance with Sunshine State Standards), #15 (provides training for

parent communication), #16 (provides assistance with room organization) and #18 (mentors

provide examples of measurement tools). Items #17 (mentors provide training on record

keeping), #19 (mentors provide assistance with the implementation of appropriate tools for

tracking and defined pupil progress) and # 20 (mentors provides assistance in establishing

efficient classroom routines and rules) were found not to be significantly correlated.

The correlation between administrators' rating of importance and the delivery of shared

mentor and administrator responsibilities toward teacher induction training is shown in Table 4-

24. Although all five items were rated as highly important by administrators, three showed a

significant correlation. They were items #21 (provides training in how to best handle classroom

disturbances), #24 (welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses), and

#25 (keeps novice teachers up to date on training opportunities/development). Items #22,

(provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental formative feedback) and #23 (provides

opportunities for the novice teacher to make observations of other teachers) were found not to be

significantly correlated.









Q8. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers' ratings regarding the
importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities,
and mentor/principal responsibilities?

The first section of research question eight, examines the correlation between mentors'

rating of importance about administrators responsibilities for teacher induction services, and the

mentors' perception of the delivery of such services. Although the mentors rated each of these

items highly, table 4-25 reports a significant relationship between 5 of 10 items. Significance

was found for items # 2 (mentor in the same or related field as novice), #3 (mentor with similar

teacher style), #4 (mentor in close proximity), #6 (mentor 10-15 years older than novice), and

#10 (provides guidelines for scheduling observations and consultations). Items #1(mentors

assigned prior to preplanning), #5 (a mentor should have the necessary specialized expertise), #7

(administrators provide frequent observations and feedback), #8 (administrators provide

guidelines for observations and feedback) and #9 (administrators conduct a weekly "walk-

through" for novice teachers) were found not to be significant.

Mentors' rating of the importance and delivery of their responsibilities for teacher

induction showed significance in 9 of 10 items (Table 4-26). Item #11 (the mentor greets the

novice teacher at preplanning) while viewed as important, was not found to correlate with its

actual practice.

Mentors' ratings regarding the importance and actual delivery of teacher induction

responsibilities shared with administrators were found to be significant in 4 of 5 belief items

(Table 4-27). Item #22 (provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental [formative]

feedback), was rated as highly important, yet did not correlate with the delivery of this induction

practice.









Q9. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers' ratings regarding the
importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities,
and mentor/principal responsibilities?

The correlation of novice teachers' in their ratings regarding the importance and actual

delivery of administrators' responsibilities for teacher induction is shown in Table 4-28. Of the

10 questions, only one-#2: Mentor in the same or related field as novice teacher-was found to

have a significant relationship. A significant correlation was not found in items #1 (mentors

assigned prior to preplanning), #3 (mentors with similar teaching style), #4 (mentors in close

proximity), #5 (mentors has necessary specialized expertise), #6 (mentors 10-15 years older than

novices), #7 (provides frequent observations/feedback) #8 (provides guidelines for

observations/feedback), #9 (weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers), and #10 (provides

guidelines for scheduling observation and consultations).

The correlation of novice teachers' ratings regarding the importance and actual delivery of

mentor responsibilities is shown in table 4-29. Although 9 of 10 items in this domain were

viewed as highly important induction practices by novice teachers (item #16 was viewed as

moderately important), none were found to have a significant relationship.

Table 4-30 shows the correlation of novice teachers' rating regarding the importance and

the actual delivery of teacher induction responsibilities shared by administrators and mentors. All

five items were reported as highly important by novice teachers; however none were found to

have a significant relationship to the actual delivery.

Q10. What is the level of agreement between alternatively certificated novice teachers'
ratings regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction program services,
mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities?

The correlation of alternatively certified novice teachers' ratings regarding the importance

and actual delivery of administrators' responsibilities for teacher induction services is shown in









table 4-31. Two (2) of the 10 beliefs were found to have a significant relationship. They were

items #6 (mentor 10-15 years older than novice) and #10 (provides guidelines for scheduling

observations and consultations). Items #1 (mentors assigned prior to preplanning), #2 (mentor in

the same or related field as novice), #3 (mentor with similar teaching style), #4 (mentor in close

proximity) #5 (mentor has necessary specialized expertise), #7 (provides frequent

observations/feedback), #8 (provides guidelines for observations/feedback) and #9 (provides

guidelines for scheduling observations) were found not to be significant.

The relationship of alternatively certificated novice teachers' ratings regarding the

importance and actual delivery of mentor responsibilities is shown in table 4-32. Item #16

(provides assistance with room organization) was found to have a significant negative

correlation. This indicates that the independent variables are moving in opposite directions, as

one increased the other decreased. The remaining items were found not to have significant

relationships. All items indicated that the rating of importance did not match the delivery of

induction services to alternatively certificated novice teachers.

The correlation of alternatively certificated novice teachers' ratings regarding the

importance and actual delivery of shared mentor and administrator responsibilities is shown in

table 4-33. Of the five items, #21 (provides training in "how best to handle classroom

disturbances") resulted in a significant negative correlation. This indicates that the independent

variables are moving in opposite directions, as one increased the other decreased. The remaining

items were found not to be significant. All items indicate that the rating of importance did not

match the delivery of induction services to alternatively certificated novice teachers.

Q 11. What are the differences between alternatively certificated and traditionally certificated
novice teachers' ratings regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction
program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities?









A t-test for independent groups was used to analyze the data for differences in means. This

research question examined two groups: Novice teachers who were seeking alternative

certification and novice teachers who received their degree within the field in which they

currently teach. Table 4-34 shows the results of the independent samples t-test for novice

teachers' and alternatively certificated novice teachers' ratings regarding the importance of

delivery of administrator responsibilities for teacher induction. Of the 10 items, two were found

to have significantly different means. Items #9 (administrators conduct weekly "walk-through"

for novice teachers) and #10 (administrators provide guidelines for scheduling observations and

consultations) were found to be significant at p<.05.

Table 4-35 shows the results of the t-test for independent samples of novice teachers' and

alternatively certificated novice teachers' ratings regarding the importance of mentor

responsibilities in teacher induction. Of the 10 items, only #14 (mentor provides assistance in

developing lesson plans in compliance with Sunshine State Standards) was found to be

significant (p< .01).

Table 4-36 shows the results of the independent samples t-test of novice teachers' and

alternatively certificated novice teachers' ratings regarding the importance of shared

responsibilities for teacher induction. None of the items was found to be significant.

The independent samples t-test of novice teachers' and alternatively certificated novice

teachers' ratings regarding the actual delivery of administrator responsibilities for teacher

induction is reported in table 4-38. Two (2) of 10 items, #3 (administrative assignment of

mentors with similar teaching style) and #7 (administrators provide frequent

observations/feedback) were found to be significant at p<.01 and p<.05 respectively.









Table 4-39 shows the results of the independent samples t-test for novice teachers' and

alternatively certificated novice teachers' ratings regarding the actual delivery of mentor

responsibilities for teacher induction. Six of 10 items were found to be significant. Items #13

(provides assistance with the location of books/materials) and #16 (provides assistance with

room organization) were significant at p< .05. Items #12 (expedites orientation/preplanning

activities), #14 (provides assistance in developing lesson plans in compliance with Sunshine

State Standards), #19 (provides assistance with implementation of appropriate tools for

teaching/defining pupil progression), and #20 (provides assistance in establishing efficient

classroom routines/rules) were found significant at p <.01.

The independent samples t-test of novice teachers' and alternatively certificated novice

teachers' ratings regarding the actual delivery of administrator and mentor teacher induction

services is reported in table 4-40. Items # 21 (provides training in "how best to handle"

classroom disturbances) and #22 (provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental

[formative] feedback), were both found to be significant at p< .05.

Short Answer Responses

Participants were asked to answer 3 open-ended questions at the conclusion of the survey.

The responses were separated into four groups: administrators, mentors, novice teachers and

novice teachers seeking alternative certification. The most common themes for item #26: "What

do you feel is the most valuable component of the teacher induction program?" are summarized

for (a) administrators (Table 4-42), (b) mentors (Table 4-43), (c) novice teachers (Table 4-44)

and (d) novice teachers seeking alternative certification (Table 4-45). The importance of having a

strong mentor relationship (someone to be there) with the novice teacher exceeded the combined

importance of the other themes for administrators, mentors, novice teachers and novice teachers









seeking alternative certification. One alternative certification teacher reported she never met her

mentor, while another reported she co-taught with her mentor for the year.

Administrators, mentors, novice teachers and novice teachers seeking alternative

certification responses' to open-ended question #27: "What aspects of the teacher

induction/support program would you most like to see changed, adapted, or improved?" These

responses were tallied, and the most frequent themes are reported in Tables 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, and

4-49 respectively. Administrators' responses reflect a concern for program consistency and fiscal

support. Mentors reported a need for clarification of teacher induction guidelines and how the

selection process of mentor/mentee relationships was conducted. Also expressed was the

mentors' need for early assignment, more frequent meetings with mentees, and an increased

fiscal support to provide them with more time to meet with their mentee. Novice teachers'

responses were primarily focused on their need for more interaction with feedback and follow-

through from mentors. Novice teachers seeking alternative certification reported that

communication and the handling of paperwork (assessment, educational plans, lesson plans)

were their primary concerns.

Question #28 requested administrators, mentors and novice teachers to "List what they

believed were the 3 most important things they need from a teacher induction/support program."

Responses from each group are reported in Tables 4-50, 4-51, 4-52 and 4-53. Although several

common themes were mentioned between each group, there was not an agreed upon top choice.

Administrators reported their need for district level support, consistency and a common checklist

of what training areas should be covered, fiscal support for mentors to provide substitute days

and for the mentors to be trained. Mentors reported their greatest need was to make sure they

were being consistent with observations and in giving immediate and meaningful feedback. To









accomplish this, they also expressed need for more fiscal and administrative support. Novice

teachers' most common theme was the need for understanding of record keeping required by the

district and school. They also emphasized the need for parent communication/classroom

management training, and observations with immediate feedback. Novice teachers seeking

alternative certification expressed a need for paperwork and classroom management training,

good communication and model teaching examples from mentor, and clear expectations and

emotional support from the mentor and administrator.









Table 4-1. Response Return Rate
Sent Viewed Surveys returned All questions answered Response rate
461 195 179 146* 179/461= 39%
* Participants were invited to skip any questions they did not want to answer

Table 4-2. Demographic Information (Part I) (N=179)
Sex White Black Hispanic Mult Other NR Bachelors Masters Ed. Doc NR
S.
Male 21 18 0 2 1 0 5 14 2 0
Female 153 130 11 10 1 1 72 53 17 11
No
report 5 5 4
NR= not reported

Table 4-3. Response Rate of Position Status (Part I) (N=179)


Administrators Mentors Novice teachers


Novice teachers
seeking alternative
certification


NR= not reported


Table 4-4. Mean Scores of Administrators' Beliefs (Part II A) about Own Responsibility (N=42)


Belief items
Mentors assigned prior to preplanning
Mentor in the same or related field as novice
Mentor with similar teaching style
Mentor in close proximity
Mentor has necessary specialized expertise
Mentor 10-15 years older than novice
Provides frequent observations/feedback
Provides guidelines for observations/feedback
Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers
Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and
consultations


Mean
8.02
8.76
6.07
8.00
8.64
3.86
8.78
8.60
8.33
8.32


Std. deviation
1.93
1.49
1.64
1.45
1.43
2.04
1.13
1.25
1.51
1.35









Table 4-5. Mean Scores of Administrators' Beliefs (Part II B) about Mentor Responsibility
(N=42)


Belief items
11 Greets novice at preplanning
12 Expedites orientation/preplanning activities
13 Provides assistance locating books/materials
14 Provides assistance in developing lesson plans in compliance
with Sunshine State Standards
15 Provides training for parent communication
16 Provides assistance with room organization
17 Provides training on record keeping
18 Provides examples of measurement tools
19 Provides assistance with implementation of appropriate tools for
tracking/defining pupil progress
20 Provides assistance in establishing efficient classroom
routines/rules


Mean
8.50
8.40
8.43
9.02

8.81
7.79
8.88
8.95

9.10

9.12


Std. deviation
2.03
1.59
1.58
1.16


1.38
1.68
1.05
0.99

0.91

1.23


Table 4-6. Mean Scores of Administrators'(Part II C) Beliefs about Shared Responsibility
(N=42)


Belief items
21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom disturbances"
22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative
feedback)
23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make observations
of other teachers
24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely
responses
25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training
opportunities/development


Mean
9.10
8.90

8.48

9.10

8.57


Std.
deviation
1.10
1.05

1.45

1.01

1.35


Table 4-7. Mean Scores of Mentors' (Part II A) Beliefs about Administrators' Responsibilities
(N=52)
Belief items Mean Std. deviation
1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning 8.29 2.19
2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice 9.27 1.22
3 Mentor with similar teaching style 6.35 1.96
4 Mentor in close proximity 8.37 1.67
5 Mentor has necessary specialized expertise 8.38 1.78
6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice 3.92 2.82
7 Provides frequent observations/feedback 8.29 1.84
8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback 8.14 2.09
9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers 6.94 2.74
10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and 7.90 2.21
consultations









Table 4-8. Mean Scores of Mentors' (Part II B) Beliefs about Own Responsibilities (N=52)
Belief items Mean Std. deviation
11 Greets novice at preplanning 8.77 1.92
12 Expedites orientation/preplanning activities 8.54 2.00
13 Provides assistance locating books/materials 8.81 1.79
14 Provides assistance in developing lesson plans in 9.06 1.35
compliance with Sunshine State Standards
15 Provides training for parent communication 8.73 1.51
16 Provides assistance with room organization 8.12 1.90
17 Provides training on record keeping 9.00 1.24
18 Provides examples of measurement tools 9.02 1.48
19 Provides assistance with implementation of appropriate 8.98 1.42
tools for tracking/defining pupil progress
20 Provides assistance in establishing efficient classroom 8.96 1.53
routines/rules

Table 4-9. Mean Scores of Mentors' (Part II C) Beliefs about Shared Responsibilities (N=52)
Belief items Mean Std. deviation
21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom 8.69 1.46
disturbances"
22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental 8.60 1.52
(formative feedback)
23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make 8.71 1.87
observations of other teachers
24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, 9.29 1.05
appropriate/timely responses
25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training 8.54 1.80
opportunities/development

Table 4-10. Mean Scores of Novices' (Part II A) Beliefs about Administrator Responsibilities
(N=40)
Belief items Mean Std. deviation
1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning 8.15 1.83
2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice 8.85 1.44
3 Mentor with similar teaching style 7.08 2.02
4 Mentor in close proximity 8.30 1.56
5 Mentor has necessary specialized expertise 7.98 1.82
6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice 3.88 2.42
7 Provides frequent observations/feedback 7.68 1.99
8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback 7.54 2.30
9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers 5.80 2.73
10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and 6.68 2.36
consultations









Table 4-11. Mean Scores of Novices' (Part II B) Beliefs about Mentor Responsibility (N=40)
Belief items Mean Std. deviation
11 Greets novice at preplanning 7.82 1.86
12 Expedites orientation/preplanning activities 7.71 1.64
13 Provides assistance locating books/materials 7.97 1.79
14 Provides assistance in developing lesson plans in 8.53 1.39
compliance with Sunshine State Standards
15 Provides training for parent communication 7.61 2.27
16 Provides assistance with room organization 6.53 2.63
17 Provides training on record keeping 7.97 1.94
18 Provides examples of measurement tools 8.37 1.51
19 Provides assistance with implementation of appropriate 8.71 1.27
tools for tracking/defining pupil progress
20 Provides assistance in establishing efficient classroom 7.89 2.29
routines/rules

Table 4-12. Mean Scores of Novices' (Part II C) Beliefs about Shared Responsibility (N=40)
Std.
Belief items Mean deviation
21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom 8.28 1.57
disturbances"
22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative 8.00 1.84
feedback)
23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make 7.62 2.31
observations of other teachers
24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely 9.08 1.16
responses
25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training 8.31 1.72
opportunities/development

Table 4-13. Mean Scores of Administrators' (Part III A) Rating of the Delivery of Their Own
Responsibilities (N=40)
Delivery items Mean Std. deviation
1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning 6.40 2.16
2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice 7.73 1.87
3 Mentor with similar teaching style 6.53 1.77
4 Mentor in close proximity 7.28 2.15
5 Mentor has necessary specialized expertise 7.41 1.87
6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice 5.92 2.02
7 Provides frequent observations/feedback 6.93 2.21
8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback 6.60 2.37
9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers 6.33 2.49
10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and 6.82 2.65
consultations









Table 4-14. Mean Scores of Administrators' (Part III B) Rating of the Delivery of Mentors'
Responsibilities (N=40)


Delivery items
11 Greets novice at preplanning
12 Expedites orientation/preplanning activities
13 Provides assistance locating books/materials
14 Provides assistance in developing lesson plans in
compliance with Sunshine State Standards
15 Provides training for parent communication
16 Provides assistance with room organization
17 Provides training on record keeping
18 Provides examples of measurement tools
19 Provides assistance with implementation of appropriate
tools for tracking/defining pupil progress
20 Provides assistance in establishing efficient classroom
routines/rules


Mean
6.95
6.95
7.21
7.26

6.72
6.54
6.95
6.87
7.03

7.26


Std. deviation
2.42
2.32
2.22
2.25

2.36
2.14
2.11
2.38
2.32

2.49


Table 4-15. Mean Scores of Administrators' (Part III C) Rating of Delivery of Shared
Responsibility (N=40)


Delivery items
21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom
disturbances"
22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative
feedback)
23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make
observations of other teachers
24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely
responses
25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training
opportunities/development


Mean
7.25

6.93

7.10


7.83

7.63


Std.
deviation
2.28

2.27


2.13

2.17

2.39









Table 4-16. Mean Scores of Mentors' (Part III A) Rating of the Delivery of Administrator
Responsibilities (N=50)
Delivery items Mean Std. deviation
1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning 6.46 3.07
2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice 7.86 2.37
3 Mentor with similar teaching style 6.67 2.23
4 Mentor in close proximity 7.64 2.23
5 Mentor has necessary specialized expertise 8.06 1.98
6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice 5.81 2.88
7 Provides frequent observations/feedback 7.40 2.21
8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback 7.19 2.45
9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers 6.76 2.55
10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and 7.12 2.60
consultations

Table 4-17. Mean Scores of Mentors' (Part III B) Rating of the Delivery of Their Own
Responsibilities (N=50)
Delivery items Mean Std. deviation
11 Greets novice at preplanning 7.06 3.22
12 Expedites orientation/preplanning activities 7.04 3.13
13 Provides assistance locating books/materials 7.73 2.70
14 Provides assistance in developing lesson plans in compliance 7.60 2.62
with Sunshine State Standards
15 Provides training for parent communication 7.10 2.79
16 Provides assistance with room organization 7.00 2.71
17 Provides training on record keeping 7.23 2.64
18 Provides examples of measurement tools 7.63 2.52
19 Provides assistance with implementation of appropriate tools 7.67 2.26
for tracking/defining pupil progress
20 Provides assistance in establishing efficient classroom 7.60 2.56
routines/rules

Table 4-18. Mean Scores of Mentors' (Part III C) Rating of Delivery of Shared Responsibility
(N= 50)
Std.
Belief items Mean deviation
21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom 7.29 2.42
disturbances"
22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative 7.48 2.23
feedback)
23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make 7.33 2.20
observations of other teachers
24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely 7.98 2.30
responses
25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training 7.46 2.33
opportunities/development









Table 4-19. Mean Scores of Novice Teachers' (Part III A) Rating of Delivery of Administrator
Responsibilities (N=40)
Delivery items Mean Std. deviation
1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning 6.70 3.01
2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice 8.50 2.29
3 Mentor with similar teaching style 6.97 2.81
4 Mentor in close proximity 7.50 2.90
5 Mentor has necessary specialized expertise 8.15 2.29
6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice 7.51 2.77
7 Provides frequent observations/feedback 6.45 3.28
8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback 6.18 3.36
9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers 5.32 3.12
10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and 5.95 3.32
consultations

Table 4-20. Mean Scores of Novice Teachers' (Part III B) Rating of the Delivery of Mentor
Responsibilities (N=40)
Delivery items Mean Std. deviation
11 Greets novice at preplanning 6.68 3.04
12 Expedites orientation/preplanning activities 6.55 3.03
13 Provides assistance locating books/materials 6.78 3.24
14 Provides assistance in developing lesson plans in 6.41 3.29
compliance with Sunshine State Standards
15 Provides training for parent communication 6.21 3.08
16 Provides assistance with room organization 5.51 3.36
17 Provides training on record keeping 6.38 3.31
18 Provides examples of measurement tools 6.85 3.12
19 Provides assistance with implementation of appropriate 6.60 3.41
tools for tracking/defining pupil progress
20 Provides assistance in establishing efficient classroom 5.90 3.42
routines/rules









Table 4-21. Mean Scores of Novice Teachers' (Part III C) Rating of Delivery of Shared
Responsibilities (N=40)
Std.
Delivery items Mean deviation
21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom 6.45 3.25
disturbances"
22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative 6.18 3.38
feedback)
23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make 6.08 3.19
observations of other teachers
24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely 7.23 3.26
responses
25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training 7.03 3.10
opportunities/development

Table 4-22. Correlation of Administrators' Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II A) and the
Actual Delivery (Part III A) of Their Responsibilities (N=42)
Spearman
Correlation Sig.
1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning 0.15 0.17
2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice 0.27 0.05*
3 Mentor with similar teaching style 0.21 0.10
4 Mentor in close proximity 0.06 0.36
5 Mentor has necessary specialized expertise 0.32 0.03*
6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice 0.13 0.23
7 Provides frequent observations/feedback 0.20 0.12
8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback 0.33 0.02*
9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers 0.45 0.00**
10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and 0.40 0.01**
consultations
*= significance < .05
**= significance < .01









Table 4-23. Correlation of Administrators' Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II B) and the
Actual Delivery (Part III B) of Mentors' Responsibilities (N=42)


11 Greets novice at preplanning
12 Expedites orientation/preplanning activities
13 Provides assistance locating books/materials
14 Provides assistance in developing lesson plans in compliance
with Sunshine State Standards
15 Provides training for parent communication
16 Provides assistance with room organization
17 Provides training on record keeping
18 Provides examples of measurement tools
19 Provides assistance with implementation of appropriate tools
for tracking/defining pupil progress
20 Provides assistance in establishing efficient classroom
routines/rules
= significance < .05
= significance < .01


Spearman
Correlation
0.49
0.40
0.34
0.33

0.33
0.36
0.21
0.27
0.06


0.01 0.47


Table 4-24. Correlation between Administrators' Ratings of Importance (Part II C) and the
Delivery (Part III C) of Shared Responsibilities (N=42)
Spearman
Belief items Correlation Sig.
21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom 0.35 0.01**
disturbances"
22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative 0.21 0.10
feedback)
23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make 0.15 0.18
observations of other teachers
24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely 0.34 0.02*
responses
25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training 0.31 0.03*
opportunities/development
*= significance < .05
**= significance < .01


Sig.
0.00**
0.01**
0.02*
0.02*

0.02*
0.01**
0.11
0.05*
0.37









Table 4-25. Correlation of Mentors' Ratings regarding the Importance (Part II A) and the Actual
Delivery (Part III A) of Administrators' Responsibilities (N=52)


Belief items
1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning
2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice
3 Mentor with similar teaching style
4 Mentor in close proximity
5 Mentor has necessary specialized expertise
6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice
7 Provides frequent observations/feedback
8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback
9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers
10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and
consultations
*= significance < .05
**= significance < .01


Spearman
Correlation
0.16
0.38
0.37
0.31
0.19
0.34
0.19
0.07
0.17
0.26


Sig.
0.13
0.00**
0.00**
0.02*
0.10
0.01**
0.09
0.32
0.12
0.04*


Table 4-26. Correlation of Mentors' Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II B) and the
Actual Delivery (Part III B) of Their Own Responsibilities (N=52)
Spearman
Correlation Sig.


11 Greets novice at preplanning
12 Expedites orientation/preplanning activities
13 Provides assistance locating books/materials
14 Provides assistance in developing lesson plans in
compliance with Sunshine State Standards
15 Provides training for parent communication
16 Provides assistance with room organization
17 Provides training on record keeping
18 Provides examples of measurement tools
19 Provides assistance with implementation of appropriate
tools for tracking/defining
pupil progress
20 Provides assistance in establishing efficient classroom
routines/rules
significance < .05
= significance < .01


0.14 0.17
0.26 0.04*
0.37 0.01**
0.37 0.01**


0.30
0.32
0.25
0.27
0.26


0.02*
0.01**
0.04*
0.03*
0.04*


0.31 0.02*









Table 4-27. Correlation of Mentors' Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II C) and the
Actual Delivery (Part III C) of Shared Responsibilities (N=52)


Belief items
21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom
disturbances"
22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental
(formative feedback)
23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make
observations of other teachers
24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental,
appropriate/timely responses
25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training
opportunities/development
*= significance <.05
**= significance < .01


Spearman
Correlation
0.41


Sig.
0.00**


0.15 0.16

0.30 0.02*

0.40 0.00**

0.48 0.00**


Table 4-28. Correlation of Novice Teachers' Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II A) and
the Actual Delivery (Part III A) of Administrators' Responsibilities (N=40)
Spearman


Belief items
1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning
2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice
3 Mentor with similar teaching style
4 Mentor in close proximity
5 Mentor has necessary specialized expertise
6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice
7 Provides frequent observations/feedback
8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback
9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers
10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and
consultations
*= significance < .05
**= significance < .01


Correlation Sig.


0.24
0.42
0.12
-0.05
0.07
-0.12
-0.15
-0.02
-0.08
-0.11


0.07
0.00*
0.24
0.39
0.33
0.23
0.19
0.45
0.31
0.26









Table 4-29. Correlation of Novice Teachers' Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II B) and
the Actual Delivery (Part III B) of Mentor Responsibilities (N=40)
Spearman


Belief items
11 Greets novice at preplanning
12 Expedites orientation/preplanning activities
13 Provides assistance locating books/materials
14 Provides assistance in developing lesson plans in
compliance with Sunshine State Standards
15 Provides training for parent communication
16 Provides assistance with room organization
17 Provides training on record keeping
18 Provides examples of measurement tools
19 Provides assistance with implementation of appropriate
tools for tracking/defining pupil progress
20 Provides assistance in establishing efficient classroom
routines/rules
significance < .05
= significance < .01


Correlation Sig.
0.01 0.48
0.09 0.29
0.10 0.27
-0.08 0.31


0.07
0.24
-0.01
0.19
0.17


0.34
0.08
0.48
0.13
0.15


0.09 0.30


Table 4-30. Correlation of Novice Teachers' Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II C) and
the Actual Delivery (Part III C) of Shared Responsibilities (N=40)
Spearman
Belief items Correlation Sig.
21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom -0.09 0.29
disturbances"
22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental -0.15 0.18
(formative feedback)
23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make -0.10 0.27
observations of other teachers
24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, 0.18 0.13
appropriate/timely responses
25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training 0.14 0.19
opportunities/development
*= significance < .05
**= significance < .01









Table 4-31. Correlation of Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' Ratings Regarding the
Importance (Part II A) and the Actual Delivery (Part III A) of Administrator
Responsibilities (N=5)


Belief items
1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning
2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice
3 Mentor with similar teaching style
4 Mentor in close proximity
5 Mentor has necessary specialized expertise
6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice
7 Provides frequent observations/feedback
8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback
9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers
10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and
consultations
*= significance < .05
**= significance < .01


Spearman
Correlation
-0.16
0.79
-0.79
-0.15
0.29
0.80
-0.30
-0.30
-0.75
1.00


Table 4-32. Correlation of Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' Ratings Regarding the
Importance (Part II B) and the Actual Delivery (Part III B) of Mentor Responsibilities
(N=5)


Belief items
11 Greets novice at preplanning
12 Expedites orientation/preplanning activities
13 Provides assistance locating books/materials
14 Provides assistance in developing lesson plans in
compliance with Sunshine State Standards
15 Provides training for parent communication
16 Provides assistance with room organization
17 Provides training on record keeping
18 Provides examples of measurement tools
19 Provides assistance with implementation of appropriate
tools for tracking/defining pupil progress
20 Provides assistance in establishing efficient classroom
routines/rules
significance < .05
= significance < .01


Spearman
Correlation
-0.05
-0.79
-0.79
-0.79


-0.69
-0.80
-0.54
-0.13
0.75


-0.74 0.08


Sig.
0.40
0.06
0.06
0.40
0.32
0.05*
0.32
0.32
0.07
0.00**


Sig.
0.47
0.06
0.06
0.06

0.10
0.05*
0.17
0.42
0.07









Table 4-33. Correlation of Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' Ratings Regarding the
Importance (Part II C) and the Actual Delivery (Part III C) of Shared Responsibilities
(N=5)


Belief items
21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom
disturbances"
22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental
(formative feedback)
23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make
observations of other teachers
24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental,
appropriate/timely responses
25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training
opportunities/development
*= significance < .05
**= significance < .01


Spearman
Correlation
-0.92


Sig.
0.01**


0.61 0.14

-0.26 0.33

-0.30 0.31

-0.35 0.28









Table 4-34. T Tests for Independent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively
Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Ratings Regarding the Importance of
Administrator Responsibilities


Levene's
Test
Sig.


1 Mentors assigned prior
to preplanning

2 Mentor in the same or
related field as novice
3 Mentor with similar
teaching style
4 Mentor in close
proximity
5 Mentor has necessary
specialized expertise
6 Mentor 10-15 years
older than novice
7 Provides frequent
observations/feedback
8 Provides guidelines
for
observations/feedback
9 Weekly "walk-
through" for novice
teachers
10 Provides guidelines
for scheduling
observation and
consultations
*= significance < .05
**= significance < .01


0.10 Equal
Unequal


t-
value

-0.06
-0.05


Sig.
(2-
DF tailed)


0.95
0.96


Error

0.89
0.97


95%
Confidence
Interval
Upper Lower
-1.85 1.75
-2.55 2.44


0.53 Equal -0.91 38 0.37 0.69 -2.03 0.77
Unequal -0.97 5 0.37 0.65 -2.26 1.00
0.08 Equal 0.56 38 0.58 0.97 -1.43 2.51
Unequal 0.39 4 0.72 1.40 -3.20 4.28
0.55 Equal 0.76 38 0.45 0.75 -0.94 2.09
Unequal 0.64 5 0.55 0.90 -1.77 2.92
0.10 Equal -0.55 38 0.58 0.88 -2.26 1.29
Unequal -0.50 5 0.64 0.98 -3.01 2.04

0.10 Equal 1.27 38 0.21 1.15 -0.87 3.78
Unequal 1.83 8 0.11 0.80 -0.40 3.32
0.82 Equal -1.11 38 0.27 0.95 -2.98 0.87
Unequal -1.02 5 0.35 1.03 -3.72 1.61
0.56 Equal -1.32 37 0.19 1.09 -3.66 0.77
Unequal -1.62 6 0.16 0.89 -3.62 0.72

0.34 Equal -2.00 38 0.05* 1.26 -5.06 0.03
Unequal -2.12 5 0.08 1.18 -5.49 0.46

0.03 Equal -2.77 38 0.01 1.04 -4.99 -0.78
Unequal -5.37 15 0.00* 0.54 -4.03 -1.74









Table 4-35. T Tests for Independent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively


Certificated Novice Teachers'
Responsibilities


(N=5) Ratings Regarding the Importance of Mentor


Levene's 95%
Test t- D Sig 2- Confidence
Sig. Value F tailed Error Interval


11 Greets novice
at preplanning
12 Expedites
orientation/
preplanning
activities
13 Provides assistance
locating
books/materials
14 Provides assistance
in developing lesson
plans in compliance
with Sunshine State
Standards
15 Provides training for
parent
communication
16 Provides assistance
with room
organization
17 Provides training on
record keeping
18 Provides examples of
measurement tools
19 Provides assistance
with implementation
of appropriate tools
for teaching/defining
pupil progression
20 Provides assistance
in establishing
efficient classroom
routines/rules
= significance < .05
*= significance < .01


0.87 Equal
Unequal
0.85 Equal
Unequal


0.20 Equal
Unequal

0.05 Equal
Unequal



0.35 Equal
Unequal

0.94 Equal
Unequal

0.83 Equal
Unequal
0.45 Equal
Unequal
0.04 Equal
Unequal



0.40 Equal
Unequal


-0.23
-0.19
-1.01
-1.08


-1.39
-1.87

-2.33
-4.68



-0.84
-0.95

-0.07
-0.07

-0.77
-0.73
-0.05
-0.06
-0.54
-0.85



-0.11
-0.13


0.82
0.86
0.32
0.33


0.17
0.10

0.03
0.00*



0.41
0.38

0.95
0.95

0.45
0.50
0.96
0.95
0.59
0.42



0.91
0.90


0.90
1.14
0.79
0.74


0.85
0.63

0.63
0.31



1.10
0.96


Upper Lower
-2.04 1.62
-3.20 2.78
-2.39 0.80
-2.63 1.05


-2.91
-2.68

-2.75
-2.12



-3.14
-3.28


1.28 -2.68
1.26 -3.25


0.94
0.99
0.74
0.58
0.62
0.39



1.11
0.93


-2.62
-3.24
-1.53
-1.42
-1.58
-1.22



-2.38
-2.39


0.54
0.31

-0.19
-0.81



1.31
1.45

2.51
3.08

1.18
1.80
1.46
1.35
0.92
0.55



2.14
2.15










Table 4-36. T Tests for Independent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively
Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Ratings Regarding the Importance of Shared
Responsibilities
Levene's 95%
Test Sig. 2- Confidence
Sig. t-value DF tailed Error Interval
Upp Low


21 Provides
training in "how
best to handle"
classroom
disturbances
22 Provides
frequent
observations
with
nonjudgmental
(formative
feedback)
23 Provides
opportunities
for the novice
teacher to make
observations of
other teachers
24 Welcomes
questions/gives
nonjudgmental
appropriate/
timely
responses
25 Keeps novice
teachers up to
date on training
opportunities/
development
*= significance < .05
**= significance < .01


0.41


0.71


Equal
Unequal


Equal
Unequal


0.79 Equal
Unequal




0.09 Equal
Unequal




0.70 Equal
Unequal


er er
-1.42 37 0.16 0.74 -2.56 0.45


-1.64
-1.32
-1.10


0.15
0.20
0.32


-0.39
-0.39


-1.09 37
-1.87 11


-0.96
-0.76


0.64
0.87
1.04


-2.63
-2.91
-3.87


0.53
0.62
1.58


0.70 1.12 -2.71 1.83
0.71 1.12 -3.29 2.41





0.28 0.55 -1.72 0.52
0.09 0.32 -1.31 0.11


0.34
0.48


0.82
1.04


-2.46
-3.52


0.88
1.94









Table 4-37. Reported Means for T-Test for Independent Groups Regarding the Importance
of Administrator, Mentor, and Shared Responsibilities
Novice teachers Mean Std. Dev Std. Error
Item 1 Traditional 8.15 1.83 0.31
Alternative 8.20 2.05 0.92
Item 2 Traditional 8.77 1.46 0.25
Alternative 9.40 1.34 0.60
Item 3 Traditional 7.14 1.88 0.32
Alternative 6.60 3.05 1.36
Item 4 Traditional 8.37 1.52 0.26
Alternative 7.80 1.92 0.86
Item 5 Traditional 7.91 1.80 0.31
Alternative 8.40 2.07 0.93
Item 6 Traditional 4.06 2.48 0.42
Alternative 2.60 1.52 0.68
Item 7 Traditional 7.54 1.96 0.33
Alternative 8.60 2.19 0.98
Item 8 Traditional 7.35 2.33 0.40
Alternative 8.80 1.79 0.80
Item 9 Traditional 5.49 2.65 0.45
Alternative 8.00 2.45 1.10
Item 10 Traditional 6.31 2.29 0.39
Alternative 9.20 0.84 0.37
Item 11 Traditional 7.79 1.80 0.31
Alternative 8.00 2.45 1.10
Item 12 Traditional 7.61 1.66 0.29
Alternative 8.40 1.52 0.68
Item 13 Traditional 7.82 1.83 0.32
Alternative 9.00 1.22 0.55
Item 14 Traditional 8.33 1.38 0.24
Alternative 9.80 0.45 0.20
Item 15 Traditional 7.48 2.32 0.40
Alternative 8.40 1.95 0.87
Item 16 Traditional 6.52 2.67 0.46
Alternative 6.60 2.61 1.17
Item 17 Traditional 7.88 1.93 0.34
Alternative 8.60 2.07 0.93
Item 18 Traditional 8.36 1.58 0.27
Alternative 8.40 1.14 0.51
Item 19 Traditional 8.67 1.34 0.23
Alternative 9.00 0.71 0.32









Table 4-37. Continued
Novice teachers Mean Std. Dev Std. Error
Item 20 Traditional 7.88 2.37 0.41
Alternative 8.00 1.87 0.84
Item 21 Traditional 8.15 1.58 0.27
Alternative 9.20 1.30 0.58
Item 22 Traditional 7.85 1.76 0.30
Alternative 9.00 2.24 1.00
Item 23 Traditional 7.56 2.34 0.40
Alternative 8.00 2.35 1.05
Item 24 Traditional 9.00 1.21 0.21
Alternative 9.60 0.55 0.24
Item 25 Traditional 8.21 1.65 0.28
Alternative 9.00 2.24 1.00










Table 4-38. T tests for Independent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively
Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Ratings Regarding the Actual Delivery of
Administrators Responsibilities
Levene's Sig. 95%
Test t- (2- Confidence
Sig. value DF tailed) Error Interval


1 Mentors assigned
prior to preplanning
2 Mentor in the same or
related field as novice
3 Mentor with similar
teaching style
4 Mentor in close
proximity
5 Mentor has necessary
specialized expertise
6 Mentor 10-15 years
older than novice
7 Provides frequent
observations/feedback
8 Provides guidelines
for
observations/feedback
9 Weekly "walk-
through" for novice
teachers
10 Provides guidelines
for scheduling
observation and
consultations
*= significance < .05
**= significance < .01


0.60 Equal
Unequal
0.30 Equal
Unequal
0.91 Equal
Unequal
1.00 Equal
Unequal
0.48 Equal
Unequal
0.35 Equal
Unequal
0.58 Equal
Unequal
0.43 Equal
Unequal

0.60 Equal
Unequal

0.40 Equal
Unequal


1.88
2.07
-0.73
-1.13
3.20
2.85
-0.24
-0.22
-0.46
-0.61
-0.07
-0.06
2.02
2.30
1.75
2.06


1.17 36
1.32 6

1.58 36
1.86 6


0.07
0.09
0.47
0.29
0.00*
0.04
0.81
0.84
0.65
0.57
0.94
0.96
0.05*
0.06
0.09
0.08

0.25
0.24

0.12
0.11


1.40
1.27
1.10
0.71
1.21
1.36
1.40
1.57
1.11
0.85
1.34
1.81
1.51
1.32
1.57
1.33


Upper Lower
-0.20 5.46
-0.53 5.79
-3.03 1.43
-2.42 0.82
1.42 6.32
0.36 7.38
-3.18 2.50
-4.42 3.73
-2.76 1.73
-2.55 1.52
-2.82 2.62
-4.89 4.69
-0.02 6.11
-0.21 6.30
-0.44 5.93
-0.51 6.00


1.49 -1.28
1.32 -1.51

1.56 -0.69
1.33 -0.78


4.77
5.00

5.64
5.73









Table 4-39. T Tests for Independent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively
Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Ratings Regarding the Actual Delivery of
Mentor Responsibilities
Levene's Sig. 95%
Test t- (2- Confidence
Sig. value DF tailed) Error Interval


11 Greets novice at
preplanning
12 Expedites
orientation/preplanning
activities
13 Provides assistance
locating
books/materials
14 Provides assistance in
developing lesson plans
in compliance with
Sunshine State
Standards
15 Provides training for
parent communication
16 Provides assistance
with room organization
17 Provides training on
record keeping
18 Provides examples of
measurement tools
19 Provides assistance
with implementation of
appropriate tools for
teaching/defining pupil
progression
20 Provides assistance in
establishing efficient
classroom
routines/rules
*= significance < .05
**= significance < .01


0.82 Equal
Unequal
0.45 Equal
Unequal

0.48 Equal
Unequal

0.13 Equal
Unequal



0.20 Equal
Unequal
0.15 Equal
Unequal
0.13 Equal
Unequal
0.69 Equal
Unequal
0.30 Equal
Unequal



0.11 Equal


1.50
1.45
2.67
3.16

2.14
2.38

3.95
6.87



1.26
1.65
2.35
3.44
1.45
1.80
1.60
1.74
3.30
4.70


0.14
0.21
0.01*
0.02

0.04*
0.06

0.00*
0.00



0.22
0.15
0.02*
0.01
0.16
0.12
0.12
0.14
0.00*
0.00


2.81 37 0.01*


1.43
1.48
1.35
1.14


Upper Lower
-0.76 5.04
-1.64 5.93
0.88 6.32
0.81 6.39


1.48 0.17
1.33 -0.15


1.34
0.77



1.46
1.12
1.52
1.04
1.56
1.26
1.46
1.35
1.46
1.02


2.57
3.60



-1.12
-0.83
0.49
1.17
-0.90
-0.79
-0.62
-1.02
1.85
2.41


1.51 1.18 7.30


Unequal 4.58 10 0.00 0.93 2.17 6.31


6.17
6.49

8.00
6.98



4.81
4.51
6.65
5.97
5.42
5.30
5.30
5.71
7.75
7.19










Table 4-40. T Tests for Independent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively
Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Ratings Regarding the Actual Delivery of


Shared Responsibilities
Levene's
Test
Sig.


21 Provides training
in "how best to
handle" classroom
disturbances
22 Provides frequent
observations with
nonjudgmental
(formative
feedback)
23 Provides
opportunities for
the novice teacher
to make
observations of
other teachers
24 Welcomes
questions/gives
nonjudgmental
appropriate/timel
y responses
25 Keeps novice
teachers up to
date on training
opportunities/dev
elopment
*= significance < .05
**= significance < .01


Sig.
(2-
t-value DF tailed)


1.00 Equal
Unequal


0.67 Equal
Unequal



0.59 Equal
Unequal




0.31 Equal
Unequal



0.73 Equal
Unequal


2.37 38
2.51 5


2.37
2.70


0.02*
0.05


0.02*
0.04


0.95 38 0.35
0.85 5 0.43


1.51 38
1.22 5



1.43 38
1.55 6


0.14
0.28



0.16
0.18


95%
Confidence
Error Interval
Uppe Low
r er
1.47 0.51 6.46
1.39 -0.01 6.98


1.53
1.34


0.54
0.31


6.72
6.95


1.53 -1.63 4.55
1.71 -2.97 5.88


1.53
1.90



1.46
1.35


-0.79
-2.68



-0.88
-1.28


5.42
7.30



5.05
5.45









Table 4-41. Reported Means for T-Test for Independent Groups Regarding the Actual Delivery
of Administrator, Mentor, and Shared Responsibilities
Std. Std. Error
Novice teachers Mean Deviation Mean
Item 1 Traditional 7.03 2.96 0.50
Alternative 4.40 2.61 1.17
Item 2 Traditional 8.40 2.39 0.40
Alternative 9.20 1.30 0.58
Item 3 Traditional 7.47 2.48 0.42
Alternative 3.60 2.88 1.29
Item 4 Traditional 7.46 2.88 0.49
Alternative 7.80 3.35 1.50
Item 5 Traditional 8.09 2.38 0.40
Alternative 8.60 1.67 0.75
Item 6 Traditional 7.50 2.64 0.45
Alternative 7.60 3.91 1.75
Item 7 Traditional 6.85 3.20 0.56
Alternative 3.80 2.68 1.20
Item 8 Traditional 6.55 3.34 0.58
Alternative 3.80 2.68 1.20
Item 9 Traditional 5.55 3.15 0.55
Alternative 3.80 2.68 1.20
Item 10 Traditional 6.27 3.32 0.58
Alternative 3.80 2.68 1.20
Item 11 Traditional 6.94 2.98 0.50
Alternative 4.80 3.11 1.39
Item 12 Traditional 7.00 2.87 0.49
Alternative 3.40 2.30 1.03
Item 13 Traditional 7.17 3.14 0.53
Alternative 4.00 2.74 1.22
Item 14 Traditional 7.09 2.93 0.50
Alternative 1.80 1.30 0.58
Item 15 Traditional 6.44 3.14 0.54
Alternative 4.60 2.19 0.98
Item 16 Traditional 5.97 3.29 0.56
Alternative 2.40 1.95 0.87
Item 17 Traditional 6.66 3.34 0.57
Alternative 4.40 2.51 1.12
Item 18 Traditional 7.14 3.09 0.52
Alternative 4.80 2.77 1.24
Item 19 Traditional 7.20 3.15 0.53
Alternative 2.40 1.95 0.87









Table 4-41. Continued


Novice teachers
Traditional
Alternative
Traditional
Alternative
Traditional
Alternative
Traditional
Alternative
Traditional
Alternative
Traditional
Alternative


Mean
6.44
2.20
6.89
3.40
6.63
3.00
6.26
4.80
7.51
5.20
7.29
5.20


Std.
Deviation
3.29
1.64
3.09
2.88
3.25
2.74
3.14
3.63
3.09
4.09
3.09
2.77


Std. Error
Mean
0.56
0.73
0.52
1.29
0.55
1.22
0.53
1.62
0.52
1.83
0.52
1.24


Table 4-42. Overall, What Do Administrators Feel is the Most Valuable Component of the
Teacher Induction Program?
Administrators' common themes Tally marks
Mentor relationship (confidence, dialogue, support and follow- 23
through)
Mentor in close proximity and grade level 4
Frequent observations 4
Classroom management/parent interaction 2

Table 4-43. Overall, What Do Mentors Feel is the Most Valuable Component of the Teacher
Induction Program?
Mentors' common themes Tally marks
Mentors relationship (support, dialogue, frequent interaction) 29
Someone to answer questions 8
Bookkeeping, materials, record keeping, progress monitoring 3
Classroom management 3

Table 4-44. Overall, What Do Novice Teachers Feel is the Most Valuable Component of the
Teacher Induction Program?
Novice teachers' common themes Tally marks
Someone to "be there" 20
Similar expertise and proximity 4
Time to observe others/classroom management 4
Testing, scheduling, bookkeeping 3


Item 20

Item 21

Item 22

Item 23

Item 24

Item 25









Table 4-45. Overall, What Do Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' Feel is the Most
Valuable Component of the Teacher Induction Program?
Novice teachers seeking alternative certification
common themes Tally marks
Strong mentor relationship (patient, approachable) 3
Classroom management 1
Never assigned a mentor 1

Table 4-46. What Aspects of the Teacher Induction/Support Program Would Administrators
Most Like to See Changed, Adapted or Improved?
Administrators' common themes Tally marks
District-wide continuity (checklists, mentor training) 10
Stipends for all mentors creating formal induction for all novice
teachers 8
Dollars to support the induction program (substitutes to observe
other teachers, meet with mentor) 7
Training in curriculum, understanding data, differentiated
instruction 3

Table 4-47. What Aspects of the Teacher Induction/Support Program Would Mentors Most Like
to See Changed, Adapted, or Improved?
Mentors' common themes Tally marks
Consistency (program guidelines and partner selection process) 17
Mentor assigned before preplanning 10
More frequent mentor/mentee meetings and observations 9
Money to support the program (paid mentors, sub days) 8

Table 4-48. What Aspects of the Teacher Induction/Support Program Would Novice teachers
Most Like to See Changed, Adapted, or Improved?
Novices' common themes Tally marks
More interaction, feedback, and follow-through from mentors 11
Preplanning meeting 5
Help with bookkeeping and record keeping 4
Mentor in same school and area of expertise 3

Table 4-49. What Aspects of the Teacher Induction/Support Program Would Alternatively
Certificated Novice Teachers Most Like to See Changed, Adapted or Improved?
Novice teachers seeking alternative certification common themes Tally marks
Communication 3
Handling of paperwork (assessment, educational plans lesson 3
plans)









Table 4-50. List the Three Most Important Things Administrators Need From a Teacher
Induction/Support Program.
Administrators' common themes Tally


marks


Consistency of implementation/district level support (checklist of 16
what should be covered)
Dollars to support mentors and sub days 10
Skilled mentors (trained and willing) 8

Table 4-51. List the Three Most Important Things Mentors Need From a Teacher
Induction/Support Program.
Mentors' common themes Tally marks
Support from mentors-observations/feedback (immediate and 21
consistent)
Procedures, planning, assessment, and record keeping 9
Dollars to support program (stipends, sub days) 8
Administrative support 8

Table 4-52. List the Three Most Important Things Novice Teachers Need From a Teacher
Induction/Support Program.
Novices' common themes Tally marks
Understanding of grade book, planning, recordkeeping, and 17
materials
Parent communication/classroom management 12
Observation with immediate feedback 10

Table 4-53. List the Three Most Important Things Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers
Need From a Teacher Induction/Support Program.
Novice teachers seeking alternative certification common themes Tally marks
Paperwork and classroom management training 4
Good communication and model teaching examples from mentor 3
Clear expectations and emotional support from mentor and 2
administration









CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this study was to examine a district-wide teacher induction program and

evaluate the relationship between the believed importance and actual delivery of mentors' and

principals' responsibilities in support services, as evaluated by the administrators, mentors, and

novice teachers. This study also reviewed the outcome of the teacher induction program through

the perspective of traditionally and alternatively certificated novice teachers. The research

specifically addressed the following 11 questions:

1. What is the level of agreement among administrators' ratings regarding the importance
of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

2. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers' ratings regarding the
importance of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and
mentor/principal responsibilities?

3. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers' ratings regarding the
importance of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and
mentor/principal responsibilities?

4. What is the level of agreement among administrators' ratings regarding the delivery of
teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

5. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers' ratings regarding the delivery
of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

6. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers' ratings regarding the delivery
of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal
responsibilities?

7. What is the level of agreement among administrators' ratings regarding the importance
and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and
mentor/principal responsibilities?

8. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers' ratings regarding the
importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities,
and mentor/principal responsibilities?









9. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers' ratings regarding the
importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities,
and mentor/principal responsibilities?

10. What is the level of agreement between alternatively certificated novice teachers'
ratings regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction program services,
mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities?

11. What are the differences between alternatively certificated and traditional certificated
novice teachers' ratings regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction
program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities?

Summary of Findings

The focus of this study was on the appraisal of teacher induction services provided to a

Central Florida county's elementary novice teachers. Teacher induction has been defined as

support necessary to complete novice teachers' instructional training, facilitate a change from

student teacher to teacher of students, and build a support network for problem-solving (Baines

et al., 2001; Johnson, 2001; Stansbury, 2001). For the purpose of this study principals and

administrators refer to building principals or assistant principals assigned to teacher induction

tasks, mentors refer to an experienced teacher assigned to provide support to the novice teacher,

and novice refers to a first year elementary school teacher.

Research Question 1: What is the Level of Agreement among Administrators' Ratings
Regarding the Importance of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor
Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?

The first 25 items presented in the survey asked the administrators' to rate personal beliefs

about their own responsibilities (Part II A), mentor responsibilities (Part II B) and responsibilities

they shared with mentors (Part II C) related to teacher induction services. In Part II A,

administrators viewed 8 of 10 items as highly important, 1 as moderately important (mentor with

similar teaching style) and 1 (an age difference of 10-15 years between mentor and mentee) of

low importance, thus signifying agreement that the services are necessary for novice teachers

success. Administrators agreed that 9 of the 10 administrative support items were important to









the success of novice teacher participants in a teacher induction program. Prior research

indicated that the 10-15 years age difference between mentor and mentee would be rated low

(Ponticell & Zepeda, 1997; Carter & Francis, 2001; Stansbury, 2001; Castorina, 2003). However,

this item was left in the survey to protect against acquiescence response bias (Tuckman, 1999),

which is true throughout the study.

Part II B results show that administrators rated all 10 items regarding mentor

responsibilities for teacher induction services as highly important (mean scores ranged from 7.79

to 9.12). Responses suggest that administrators view the mentors' most important role as the

transfer of information about building and district procedures. These results concurred with

research identifying efficient classroom routines/rules or classroom management as among the

highest needs of a novice teacher in a high quality teacher induction program (Banes et al., 2001;

Castorina; 2003; Haugaard, 2005).

Part II C of the survey found administrators reporting all 5 items of shared responsibility as

highly important to effective teacher induction. These results support prior research that

classroom management and communication between the mentor, mentee and administration is

vital to the retention and successful empowerment of a novice teacher (Banes et al., 2001;

Castorina; 2003; Haugaard, 2005; Littrell & Billinsley, 1994; Stansbury, 2001; Zepeda &

Ponticell, 1998).

Combined with the high level of alpha reliability (c= .894), principals accepted 24 of 25

components (Part II A, Part II B & Part II C) as important components of a quality teacher

induction program.









Research Question 2: What is the Level of Agreement among Mentor Teachers' Ratings
Regarding the Importance of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor
Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?

Mentors rated their beliefs about administrators' responsibilities (Part II A), personal

responsibilities (Part II B) and responsibilities that they share with administrators (Part II C)

regarding teacher induction services with responses to the first 25 items presented in the survey.

Part II A found that mentors believed that 7 of 10 items were highly important (mean scores

ranged from 7.90- 9.27) teacher induction services. Part II B reported that mentors perceived all

10 items related to their own responsibilities in a teacher induction program as highly important.

The same was true of all 5 items reported in Part II C regarding beliefs about the responsibilities

they shared with administrators for quality teacher induction.

These results agree, except in the areas of weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers, and

assigning a mentor with similar teaching style, with previous research about the important

elements of the mentors' role in a teacher induction program (Banes et al., 2001; Carter &

Francis, 2001; Castorina, 2003; Haugaard, 2005; Littrell & Billinsley, 1994; Ponticell & Zepeda,

1997; Stansbury, 2001; Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998). The mean scores and high alpha reliability

(a=.910) indicates agreement among mentors in their beliefs of the importance of the

components of a quality teacher induction program.

Research Question 3: What is the Level of Agreement among Novice Teachers' Ratings
Regarding the Importance of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor
Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?

Novice teachers rated their beliefs about administrators' responsibilities (Part II A),

mentors' responsibilities (Part II B) and responsibilities that administrators and mentors share

(Part II C) related to teacher induction services in their responses to the first 25 items presented

in the survey. The analysis of mean scores and a high alpha reliability (a=.884) indicate









agreement among novice teachers regarding the elements of a quality teacher induction program.

Novice teachers reported 6 of 10 items about administrators' responsibilities (Part II A) in a

quality teacher induction program as highly important. Three (3) were rated moderately

important, and 1 was rated as having low importance. Elementary novice teachers believed the

most important items were having a mentor in the same or related field as novice (8.85), having a

mentor in close proximity (8.30), and having mentors assigned prior to preplanning (8.15).

Responses to Part II B indicate that novice teachers agreed that 9 of 10 items regarding

their beliefs about mentor responsibilities for teacher induction were highly important with mean

scores ranging from 7.54-8.85. Novice teachers believed that mentors who provide assistance

with implementation of appropriate tools for teaching/defining pupil progress and who provide

assistance in developing lesson plans in compliance with Sunshine State Standards were of

greatest value.

All items regarding responsibilities shared between administrators and mentors were rated

as highly important by the novice teachers. Principals and mentors who welcome questions/give

nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses to the novices received the highest mean score

from novices (Part II C).

Novice teachers agree that 24 of the 25 items related to quality teacher induction program

were highly or moderately important. These results indicate to district and school personnel what

first year teachers in this Central Florida county believe are important to their success. Beliefs

are strong predictors of human behavior and perceived as personal knowledge (Pajares, 1992).

Novice teachers, mentors and administrators all agreed that highly important elements in

teacher support from a mentor include: teaching in a related field (content area), working in close

proximity, assignment made before preplanning, ability to identify the proper resources and









assist in how to align curriculum with the standards and that the mentor should be a peer or

supervisor that is approachable and provides immediate feedback (Brownlee et al., 1998;

Castorina, 2003; Haugaard, 2005; Littrell & Billingsley, 1994; Singh & Billingsley, 1998;

Spindler & Biott, 2000; Stansbury, 2001, Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998).

Research Question 4: What is the Level of Agreement among Administrators' Ratings
Regarding the Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor
Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?

Administrators rated 25 survey items for the actual delivery of their own responsibilities

(Part III A), mentor responsibilities (Part III B) and responsibilities that they share with mentors

(Part III C) related to a quality teacher induction program. Agreement among administrators was

demonstrated through an analysis of mean scores and a high alpha reliability (ca=.980). Part III A

shows administrators were highly satisfied with the assignment of mentor in the same or related

field as the novice teacher (7.73). The mean scores of administrators' ratings of mentor

responsibilities (Part III B) show none of the teacher induction services were being delivered at

more than a moderate level of satisfaction (6.54-7.26). The means reflected in Part III C indicate

that administrators rated 2 of 5 items as delivered with a high level of satisfaction (7.63 and

7.83). Although early questions in this study reveal (with the exclusion of assigning mentors with

similar teaching style and a mentor who is 10-15 years older than novice) that administrators

believed these items were highly important to a quality teacher induction program, only 3 of the

23 items were perceived as being delivered at the same high level.

Administrators were found not to be highly satisfied with the delivery of 23 of the 25

teacher induction practices in this Central Florida county. The highest level of satisfaction

reported was the shared administrator and mentor responsibility of welcoming questions and

giving nonjudgmental, appropriate and timely responses (7.83). Previous research found this a









key component of teacher induction (Brownlee et al., 1998; Castorina, 2003; Haugaard, 2005;

Littrell & Billingsley, 1994; Singh & Billingsley, 1998; Spindler & Biott, 2000; Stansbury, 2001,

Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998), and aligned with the high importance administrators place in this

area. The mean scores of delivery were consistently lower than administrators reported their

rated importance of quality teacher induction services earlier in this study.

Research Question 5: What is the Level of Agreement among Mentor Teachers' Ratings
Regarding the Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor
Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?

Mentors rated 25 survey items assessing the actual delivery of administrator

responsibilities (Part III A), their responsibilities (Part III B) and responsibilities that they share

with administrators (Part III C) in relation to a quality teacher induction program in a Central

Florida county. Agreement among mentors was demonstrated through an analysis of mean scores

and a high alpha reliability (ca=.976).

Mentors reported that administrators delivered 3 of 10 items at a high level of satisfaction

(Part III A). The remaining 7 items were reported as being delivered with a moderate satisfaction

level (5.81-7.40).

Mentors reported that they are highly satisfied with the delivery of 50% (5 of 10) of their

responsibilities in a quality induction program (Part III B). Room organization (7.00) received

the lowest score on its actual delivery. Part III C indicated that mentors viewed 1 of 5 items as

having a high level of delivery. Mentors' agreed they were highly satisfied with the delivery of

welcoming questions and gives nonjudgmental appropriate and timely responses (7.98) in this

domain.

Although mentors believed that all of the items (excluding administrative responsibilities

of weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers, assigning a mentor with similar teaching style,









and assigning mentors 10-15 years older than the novice) were highly important to the success of

a quality induction program, only 9 of the 22 items were actually delivered at the same high

level. Thus, mentors may be aware of the types of services necessary for novice teachers, but are

not highly satisfied with the actual delivery of those services. Mentors reported the most

satisfaction with services they were solely responsible for delivering.

Administrators, mentors and novice teachers all believed that welcoming questions and

giving nonjudgmental, appropriate and timely responses was the most important service to a

quality teacher induction program (9.10 or higher), which matched the mentors high level of

satisfaction of its delivery (7.98). Openness, approachability, friendliness, interest in

development and finding comfort to reduce stress characterizes an effective mentor (Carter &

Francis, 2001).

Research Question 6: What is the Level of Agreement among Novice Teachers' Rating
Regarding the Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor
Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?

Novice teachers rated 25 survey items assessing the actual delivery of administrators'

responsibilities (Part III A), mentor responsibilities (Part III B) and the responsibilities that

administrators and mentors share (Part III C) in a teacher induction program in this Central

Florida county. Agreement among novice teachers was demonstrated through an analysis of

mean scores and a high alpha reliability (ca=.978).

Novice teachers were highly satisfied with the delivery of 4 of 10 items for which

administrators are responsible (Part III A). Administrators were reported by the novice teachers

to assign mentors in the same or related field as the novice (8.50) and assign a mentor with the

necessary specialized expertise (8.15), at the highest level of satisfaction. The novice teachers

reported they were moderately satisfied with the remaining 6 items. Part III B asked novice









teachers to rate their level of satisfaction with the actual delivery of mentor responsibilities. The

novice teachers report they were not highly satisfied with the delivery of any induction services

provided by a mentor in this Central Florida county. The 10 items were all rated with a moderate

level of satisfaction (5.51-6.85). Novice teachers also reported they were not highly satisfied

with delivery of any of the quality teacher induction services shared by administrators and

mentors (Part III C).

The results indicate that novice teachers were highly satisfied with delivery of just 4 of the

25 items even though they reported earlier in this study (Part II A-C) they believed that 21 of the

items were highly important to a quality teacher induction program. One (1) of the 4 items

(mentors 10-15 years older than novice) was rated as being delivered at a high level, yet was

view by administrators, mentors, novices and prior researchers as not an important part of a

teacher induction program (Littrell & Bilingsley, 1994; Brownlee et al., 1998; Singh &

Billingsley, 1998; Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998; Stansbury, 2001, Castorina, 2003). This indicates

that a common practice of this Central Florida county induction program may not be necessary to

meet the needs of beginning teachers.

The three items that novice teachers were highly satisfied with, administrators assigning

mentors in the same or related field as the novice, mentor having the necessary specialized

expertise, and mentor being assigned in close proximity, were all rated by novices as being

highly important to their training. Novices also believed that mentor responsibilities and shared

administrator/mentor responsibilities reported in Part II B and C (excluding provides assistance

with room organization) were highly important, yet none of these items were delivered with a

high level of satisfaction. The standard deviations in these two sections were larger than other

areas (3.03 to 3.42), which may indicate some inconsistencies in the delivery of teacher









induction services. Additional stress, lowerjob satisfaction, and school commitment can be

affected when the needs of novice teachers are not aligned with induction services (Littrell &

Billingsley, 1994; Singh & Billingsley, 1998; Carter and Frances, 2001; Stansbury, 2001;

MacNab & Payne, 2003). Research indicates the importance for teacher induction practitioners

to be cognizant and consistent with application of their personal beliefs so that they are more

enabled to meet the needs of novice teachers (Ballantyne et al., 1998; Littrell & Billingsley,

1994).

Research Question 7: What is the Level of Agreement among Administrators' Ratings
Regarding the Importance and Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Service, Mentor
Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?

Administrators rated 25 paired survey items describing the importance and actual delivery

of their responsibilities (Part II A & Part III A), mentor responsibilities (Part II B & Part III B)

and shared administrator and mentor responsibilities (Part II C & Part III C) related to a Central

Florida teacher induction program. Analysis of this data indicated a significant correlation

between 15 of the 25 paired items. Such correlation between the believed importance and actual

delivery indicated a homogeneous relationship between what is important and what services are

being received. Beliefs and perceptions indicate what type of program and support is vital to

novice teacher training (Brownlee et al., 1998; MacNab & Payne, 2003; Pajares, 1992).

Part II B and Part III B results indicated a positive significant relationship (Spearman

Correlation) was found for administrators' ratings regarding the importance and the actual

delivery of seven (7) mentor responsibilities (Table 4-23).

Part II C and Part III C results indicted a positive significant relationship (Spearman

Correlation) for three (3) shared administrator and mentor responsibilities. Administrators

believed that all of the significant items were highly important to a quality teacher induction

program.









Administrators reported there was not a significant relationship between 10 of the 25

paired items. Results show the items that were found not to be significant indicate the null

hypothesis was true (no relationship).

Similar to the findings of Johnson (2001), these results show that administrators concur

that the items in the survey are elements of a quality induction program and that they understand

their role in delivery of these services. They did not believe, however, that delivery of 8 items

matched the level of perceived importance. Administrators were not highly satisfied with either

their own delivery or the delivery of mentors support for novice teachers in many key support

services that are part of a quality teacher induction program. The 8 items indicate a low level of

delivery for necessary induction support such as classroom management, feedback from mentors

and administrators, instrumental support, and systematic pairing of mentors and mentees

(Ballantyne & Hansford, 1995; Brownlee et al. 1998; Carter & Francis, 2001; Castorina, 2003;

Haugaard, 2005; Littrell & Billingsley, 1994; Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998).

Research Question 8: What is the Level of Agreement among Mentor Teachers' Rating
Regarding the Importance and Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services,
Mentor Responsibilities, and the Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?

Mentors rated the importance and the actual delivery of administrators' responsibilities

(Part II A & Part III B), their own responsibilities (Part II B & Part III B) and responsibilities that

they share with administrators (Part II C & Part III C) related to a Central Florida county teacher

induction program. Analysis of this data indicated existence of a significant correlation

(Spearman Correlation) between 18 of the 25 paired items. Beliefs and perceptions indicate the

type of program and support is vital to novice teacher training (Brownlee et al., 1998; MacNab &

Payne, 2003; Pajares, 1992).

Significant relationships indicate that the mentors level of believed importance correlates

with the actual delivery of the induction service. Correlation between the believed importance









and actual delivery indicate a homogeneous relationship between what is important and what

services are being received. Mentors believed that 16 of the 18 items, including all 10 items

related to their own responsibilities, found to be significant were highly important to a quality

teacher induction program; 9 of 10 items were believed to be delivered at the same high level.

Mentors also believed that all five (5) items relating to their shared responsibilities were highly

important; delivery of 4 of 5 items matched their perceived importance. The significant

relationships (Spearman Correlation) indicate that mentors are satisfied with teacher induction

services for 13 of 15 services that they deliver. Mentors reported that although they believed it is

highly important to greet novices at preplanning, and that feedback should be provided by the

administrator and/or themselves, neither was found to be significant. Although such a

relationship was not found, these results indicate that mentors agree with the research that novice

teachers should be assigned at the beginning of the year and that feedback is vital to a novice

teachers' success (Ballantyne & Hansford, 1995; Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998; Spindler & Biott,

2000; Carter & Frances, 2001; Castorina, 2003).

Research Question 9: What is the Level of Agreement among Novice Teachers' Rating
Regarding the Importance and Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services,
Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?

Novice teachers' rated 25 paired survey items describing the importance and the actual

delivery of administrators' responsibilities (Part II A & Part III B), mentor responsibilities (Part

II B & Part III B) and responsibilities that principals and mentors share (Part II C & Part III C)

related to a Central Florida county teacher induction program. Only one significant relationship

(Spearman Correlation) was reported in Part II A and Part III A (mentor in the same or related

field as novice [.42]). This result indicates that the beliefs of novice teachers matched the

delivery of just one item.









Of the 24 paired items that were found not significant, novices' believed that 19 were

highly important, 4 moderately important, and 1 had low importance. None of the mentors'

responsibilities, as rated by novice teachers, were found to have a significant relationship

between their importance and actual delivery. In addition, no correlation was found in novice

teachers' rating regarding the importance and the actual delivery of shared mentor/administrator

responsibilities on any of the 5 items.

These results indicate inconsistencies, as viewed by novice teachers, between the beliefs

and actual delivery of 24 of 25 quality induction services. Correlation between the believed

importance and actual delivery indicate a homogeneous relationship (Spearman Correlation)

between what is important and what services are being received. Thus, concern should be raised

about a teacher induction program where the novice teachers' beliefs are not in alignment with

the actual delivery of support services. Research indicates that the type of support that should be

delivered by a teacher induction program should match the novice teachers' beliefs resulting in

validation and empowerment (Brownlee et al., 1998; MacNab & Payne, 2003; Pajares, 1992).

Beliefs and perceptions also indicate what type of program and support is vital to novice teacher

training (Pajares, 1992; Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998).

Research Question 10: What is the Level of Agreement between Alternatively Certificated
Novice Teachers' Ratings Regarding the Importance and Delivery of Teacher Induction
Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?

Alternatively certificated novice teachers' rated 25 paired survey items describing the

importance and the actual delivery of administrators' responsibilities (Part II A & Part III A),

mentor responsibilities (Part II B & Part III B) and responsibilities that principals and mentors

share (Part II C & Part III C) related to a Central Florida County teacher induction program.

Although the population of alternatively certificated novice teachers was small (N=5), it

represented 100% of beginning teachers seeking alternative certification in this county.









The findings of this study indicated there was a positive significant relationship (Spearman

Correlation) between 2 of the 25 paired items. Of the remaining items, 7 of 8 were rated as

highly important and one (assigning mentor with similar teaching style) as moderately important;

none were found to be significant. These results indicate inconsistencies between the rated

importance and the actual delivery of the administrator's role in an induction program for

alternatively certificated teachers.

Part II B and Part III B did not report a positive significant relationship (Spearman

Correlation) for any of the items related to alternatively certificated novice teachers' beliefs

regarding the importance and the actual delivery of mentor responsibilities in a teacher induction

program. Although alternatively certificated teachers believed that all but one of the items were

highly important to a quality teacher induction program, none were found to have a significant

relationship. These results indicate that the beliefs of alternatively certificated teachers do not

match the delivery of support during their first year of teaching. Provides assistance with room

organization (-.80), was found to have a significantly negative relationship, which indicates that

although alternatively certificated novice teachers felt this was important, the delivery lacked

consistency and resulted in a low level of satisfaction.

Responses to Part II C and Part III C found no positive significant relationship for any of

the items related to alternatively certificated novice teachers' ratings of the importance and the

actual delivery of shared mentor/administrator responsibilities in a teacher induction program.

All items were believed to be highly important to a quality teacher induction program. One item,

provides training in how best to handle classroom disturbance (-.92), reported a negative

relationship, which indicates that the high level importance correlated to a low level of

satisfaction for the actual delivery of this induction service.









These results agree with those of novice teachers, indicating inconsistencies between the

beliefs and actual delivery of quality induction services in 23 or the 25 items. Spearman's

Correlation between the believed importance and actual delivery indicate a homogeneous

relationship between what is important and what services are being received. Beliefs and

perceptions indicate what type of program and support is vital to novice teacher training

(Brownlee et al., 1998; MacNab & Payne, 2003; Pajares, 1992). Thus, concern should be raised

for alternatively certificated teacher induction programs where the novice teachers' beliefs are

not in alignment with the actual delivery of support services.

These results are unexpected given that the state of Florida has a mandatory induction

program for all teachers seeking alternative certification (Furtwengler, 1995). Unlike the

traditional induction program, mentors are granted a stipend and successful completion of the

induction program is necessary to be considered for a standard certification and a professional

service contract. These results suggest that, although we are spending dollars to fast-track

alternative certification teachers (Johnson et al., 2001), the programs may be piecemeal and vary

enormously in Florida's decentralized program (Feimen-Nemser, 1999). The call for a reduction

of barriers (Finn & Magidan, 2001), and quickening of training for alternatively certificated

teachers entering the classroom, may fall short of meeting the support needs of this group of

novice teachers.

Research Question 11: What are the Differences between Alternatively Certificated and
Traditionally Certificated Novice Teachers' Rating Regarding the Importance and
Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and
Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?

A t-test for independent groups was used to analyze the data for difference in means

between novice teachers who were seeking alternative certification, and novice teachers who

received their degree within the field in which they currently teach. It is assumed that the









variances are equal. The Levene's Test for Equality of Variances is used to evaluate this

assumption. If Levene's Test for Equality of Variances is found significant (>.05), you would

refer to the adjusted results that are unequal. Items 10, 14 and 19 required this adjustment.

The t-test for independent groups of novice teachers' and alternatively certificated novice

teachers' ratings regarding the importance of administrator responsibilities revealed a significant

difference for 2 of the 10 items (Table 4-34). The beliefs of novice teachers who were seeking

alternative certification (alternatively certificated), and novice teachers who received their degree

within the field in which they currently teach (traditionally certificated) were significantly

different for items 9 and 10. Traditionally certificated novice teachers reported both items in

Table 4-37 as moderately important (5.49 and 6.31), whereas alternatively certificated teachers

rated both items as highly important (8.00 and 9.20). These results indicate that teachers seeking

alternative certification have higher expectations for professional feedback and timely

observations.

The t-test for independent groups of novice teachers' and alternatively certificated novice

teachers' ratings regarding the importance of mentor responsibilities revealed a significant

difference for 1 of the 10 items (Table 4-35). Item 14 was found to have significantly different

means (Table 4-37) between traditionally (8.33) and alternatively certificated (9.80) novice

teachers. Both groups felt that this item is highly important, yet learning the Sunshine State

Standards was a very high priority for teachers seeking alternative certification.

The t-test for independent groups of novice teachers' and alternatively certificated novice

teachers' ratings regarding the importance of shared administrator/mentor responsibilities did not

reveal a significant difference for any of the items (Table 4-36). These results indicate that there









is no significant difference in the beliefs of either group of novice teachers regarding shared

administrator/mentor responsibilities.

The t-test for independent groups of novice teachers' and alternatively certificated novice

teachers' ratings regarding the actual delivery of administrator responsibilities revealed a

significant difference for 2 of the 10 items (Table 4-38). Traditionally certificated teachers rated

items 3 and 7, found in Table 4-41, with moderate satisfaction (7.47 and 6.85), while

alternatively certificated teachers rated actual delivery of these items as resulting in low

satisfaction (3.60 and 3.80). The t-test results of item 3 indicate that alternatively certificated

novice teachers found dissatisfaction with not receiving a mentor that they can relate to more

often than did traditionally certificated teachers. Item 7 indicates that, although alternatively

certificated novice teachers are required to receive formative and summative assessments in the

form of FPMS, they had low satisfaction with the frequency of such observations. The need for

mentor interaction was found to be a greater issue for alternatively certificated teachers. This can

cause issues with job satisfaction, and may be indicative of poor pairing of mentor with mentee

and/or administrators not fully understanding their role when working with alternatively

certificated teachers (Carter & Francis, 2001, Castorina, 2003; Doud & Keller, 1998; Johnson,

2001, Littrell & Billingsley, 1994; Singh & Billingsley, 1998; Urzua, 1999; Zepeda & Ponticell,

1998).

The t-test for independent groups of novice teachers' and alternatively certificated novice

teachers' ratings regarding the actual delivery of mentor responsibilities revealed a significant

difference for 6 of the 10 items (4-39). The means of alternatively certificated teachers indicate

low satisfaction, whereas traditionally certificated teachers were moderately satisfied (4-41).

These results suggest inconsistencies between the delivery of mentor support for alternatively









certificated teachers and traditionally certificated novice teachers. The alternatively certificated

novice teachers' level of support needs either exceed those of a traditionally certificated teacher,

or the mentor support received is not sufficient. Alternatively certificated novice teachers

participate in a state approved mentor program in which their mentors receive additional pay and

are provided substitutes so they can meet and perform FPMS evaluations. These results should

inform this Central Florida county, of areas in which potential changes in mentor responsibilities

might improve delivery of their teacher induction program.

The t-test for independent groups of novice teachers' and alternatively certificated novice

teachers' ratings regarding the actual delivery of shared administrator and mentor responsibilities

revealed a significant difference for 2 of the 5 items (Table 4-40). Satisfaction ratings for items

21 and 22 were found to be significantly different between the two groups of novice teachers.

Traditionally certificated teachers rated both items with moderate satisfaction (6.63 and 6.26),

whereas alternatively certificated teachers rated these same items with low satisfaction (3.00 and

4.80) respectively (Table 4-41). These responses are surprising because this Central Florida

county's decentralized program has set guidelines for mentoring novice teachers seeking

alternative certification that provide each mentor with a stipend ($1200), and provide substitute

pay so they can meet mandatory formative and summative assessments that must be completed.

These results support Johnson & Birkeland's (2003) study of alternative certification training

models that found little follow-up once the alternatively certificated teacher reached the

classroom. Many of these teachers felt they were not qualified to teach their content area, and did

not receive the necessary support.

Conclusions

Data from this study showed that administrators, mentors and novice teachers reported a

high level of agreement in their beliefs about the importance of the identified components of a









quality teacher induction program. This supports prior research that the items included in the

survey represented essential components of a quality teacher induction program (Baines et al.,

2001; Ballantyne & Hansford, 1995; Carter & Frances, 2001; Castorina, 2003; Chisena, 2002;

Furtwengler, 1995; Haugaard, 2005; Johnson, 2001; Pettinger, 1995; Ponticell & Zepeda, 1997;

Saunders & Singh & Billingsley, 1998; Spindler & Biott, 2000). The believed importance of

teacher induction services provided by administrators, mentors and those services whose delivery

was shared were consistently rated with higher mean scores than was actually delivered for those

services. Administrators reported less than half (12 of 25) of the services which they believed

were important, were actually delivered at the same level of importance. Mentors reported that

72% of items they believed were important to teacher induction matched their actual delivery.

Mentors also reported that 12 of the 15 (80%) items that they solely delivered or shared with

building administrators matched the level of believed importance. Novice teachers reported high

satisfaction with four of the items actually delivered by administrators and none of the items

delivered by mentors. The study shows that none of the mentor responsibilities or shared

administrator and mentor responsibilities believed level of importance, as rated by novice

teachers, matched the actual delivery of the induction service. Novice teachers rated only one

service delivered by administrators matched their rating of importance.

Alternatively certificated teachers reported only two induction services delivered by

administrators matched their rating of importance. Through analysis of independent t-tests,

novice teachers who were seeking alternative certification reported significant differences in

their believed level of importance from traditionally certificated novice teachers. The deliveries

of quality induction services were also found to have significant differences, thus justifying that









the perceptions and needs of alternatively certificated novice teachers are different from those of

traditionally certificated novice teachers.

Implications

As the role of teachers change, the basic needs of teacher training have remained invariable

for over a decade (Ballantyne & Hansford, 1995; Carter & Francis, 2001; Castorina, 2003;

Chisena, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 2003; Haugaard, 2005; Johnson et al., 2001; Singh &

Billingsley, 1998; Spindler % Biott, 2000). This research study provides evidence that it is not

always the amount of training, but the types of support the novice teacher or alternatively

certificated novice teacher may need once they enter their own classroom. To combat high

turnover rates, teacher induction programs have been put into place to support novice teachers.

This study identified consistent delivery of teacher induction services as a concern of

administrators, mentors and novice teachers. Their responses to open-ended questions suggest

that unclear expectations for the induction process have resulted in ambiguous expectations and

inconsistent delivery of support services. It is essential that procedures and best practices are

implemented for administrators and mentors to serve the newest members of their organization.

An awareness of novice teachers' needs and proper training for administrators and mentors in

facilitating induction services should lead to a higher rate of job satisfaction and teacher literacy.

Induction services should focus on the well-being of novice teachers and should be modeled after

the personal and professional needs of the novice (Boreen & Niday, 2000; Carter & Francis,

2001; Dejong, 1997; Singh & Billingsley, 1998; Stansbury, 2001).

The results reveal a need for continuity in district level induction practices. Administrators,

mentors and novice teachers alike value the importance of induction practices and agreed with

the elements of a quality induction program. Yet, results revealed that the actual delivery of such

services often did not match their perceived importance. Responses to open-ended questions by









administrators, mentors, novice teachers, and alternatively certificated novice teachers revealed

aspects of induction they would most like to see changed, adapted or improved. In this study

administrators and mentors overwhelmingly call for a district-wide plan. They both agree that

financial support of this practice would be necessary to pay for substitute days for staff

development, and a stipend for quality mentor services. This study did not support their

assumptions that mentor services improve when a stipend is paid.

Although mentors believed they were effectively delivering services, the novice teachers

did not share the same level of satisfaction for induction services they received. Possibly, the

optimistic self-appraisal of the delivery of induction services by mentors could be explained by

the administrative concern that mentors were not well trained in how best to support novice

teachers. Mentors failed to recognize that their efforts to deliver induction service did not match

the teachers' needs and was just not enough. This concern was validated by novice teachers who

reported that the delivery of none of the mentor services' matched the importance they gave to

each of the elements of a quality teacher induction program. The results of this study showed

larger standard deviations for novices (Part III A-C). Novice teachers' responses to open-ended

questions regarding delivery of induction services suggested that these services were

implemented in a scattered and piecemeal manner throughout the district. Alternatively

certificated novice teachers concurred with traditional novices that, even though their induction

program was part of a state mandate, they were not receiving the support they needed and voiced

a concern for the improvement of communication between administrators, mentors and novice

teachers.

Alternatively certificated novice teacher responses raise some additional points for

discussion. Although the population was limited in size (N=5), it represented 100% of









elementary teachers seeking alternate certification in this Central Florida county at the time of

this survey. The alternative certificated teachers agreed with traditionally certificated novice

teacher beliefs about the importance of induction services except in two areas. Alternatively

certificated novice teachers reported that they believed weekly "walk-throughs" and guidelines

for scheduling observations and consultations were highly important, whereas traditionally

certificated novice teachers believed these services were on the lower end of moderately

important. The level of expectation and/or need for feedback may be higher for alternative

certificated teachers. The results could also imply that alterative certification is an area of

beginning teacher training that is overlooked. Mentors of novice teachers seeking alternative

certification are the only paid mentors in the district, yet the participants reported they were

significantly less satisfied with the feedback they received than traditionally certificated teachers

with unpaid mentors. This should be addressed by district and school-level administrators

because the needs of alternatively certificated teachers are not adequately being satisfied. In

addition, novice teachers seeking alternate certification are put through a state approved novice

teacher program that is designed to meet the special non-certificated needs of novice teachers.

Results of this study indicate that there are truly two unique groups of beginning teachers that

should be treated as mutually exclusive. Alternatively certificated teachers expressed a need for

additional training once they reach the classroom preferably through a relationship built with

their administrator and on campus mentor. One alternatively certificated teacher commented, "It

is important that all novice teachers are assigned mentors who follow through and understand

their teacher training obligation and expectation."

The NCLB act has initiated the age of accountability, which has forced districts to track the

data of individual students, provide stringent guidelines for lesson planning, and increase the









documentation of differentiated instruction. The abundance of paperwork and technical skill

required by teachers today is much more demanding. Novice teachers reported that

communication and having a mentor that they could openly talk to is the catalyst for day-to-day

questions. Novice teachers reported that having someone to "be there" was one of the most

important components of the teacher induction program. If novices are being assisted by a

nonjudgmental member of the organization, they can seek out the information necessary to meet

their individual needs. The timeliness and physical location of the mentor/mentee relationship

was the initial factor in a novice's success. The undertones of prior research and the results of

this study continue to emphasize the need for novice teachers to have support once they reach the

classroom.

The above information designed into a district-wide plan could be beneficial for this

Central Florida county's teacher training program, and help with the rigors of state mandates,

day-to-day job satisfaction, and the attrition of both traditional novice teachers and alternatively

certificated novice teachers.

Recommendations for Further Research

High attrition rates caused by teacher dissatisfaction with their career path in the first years

remain a major concern for educational leaders. Understanding the needs of novice teachers, and

how induction services can be effectively delivered through induction practices is necessary to

the retention of a stable faculty in a school district. All conclusions are based on voluntary

responses from elementary administrators, mentors and novice teachers in one Central Florida

county. Further study should be conducted to verify these results and to increase generalizability

to other districts. To control against social desirability bias, it is recommended that future

researchers use the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale.









Further examination of the perceptions/beliefs and value of the delivery of induction
services to novice teachers seeking alternative certification should be conducted using a
larger population of elementary school teachers.

Decentralized control of teacher induction should be examined to determine a need for
consistent guidelines and training for invested members.

A study should be designed and conducted to explore ways to improve actual delivery of
all aspects of teacher induction services.

An exploration should be conducted to examine the correlation between mentoring of
novice teachers and the impact it has on standardized tests scores.

The following research possibilities exist with regard to continued study of relationships

between elementary principals', mentors' and novice teachers' beliefs and practices in a teacher

induction program.

Conduct a qualitative study to identify and understand the obstacles that prevent
administrators and mentors from delivering quality teacher induction support.

Examine a larger population of novice teachers seeking alternate certification to compare
with traditionally certificated teachers.

Conduct a similar study with middle school and high school administrators, mentors and
novice teachers to see if the teacher induction issues might differ at these levels.

Examination of the beliefs of induction service needs of novice teachers using a larger
population of elementary school teachers

Summary

This study was conducted as a follow-up to earlier research completed by Susan Castorina

in 2003. The results agree with her findings. Teacher induction services are most often not in

alignment with novice teachers' beliefs.

Follow-up support to teacher training-teacher inductions programs-are instrumental to

novice teachers' initial satisfaction of career selection and to prevent new instructors from

leaving the teaching profession. A well-crafted induction program can improve teaching quality,

increase retention rates, and decrease the overall cost of recruiting, preparing, and developing









new teachers (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Littrel & Billingsley, 2004; Humphrey et al., 2000).

As a teacher's role becomes more demanding and attrition rates continue to rise, issues of

beginning teacher support for elementary teachers become more critical. The perceived job

satisfaction and well-being of a teacher has a high correlation with whether they remain in the

field. To attract and retain high quality teachers in education, a broader study and analysis of

teacher induction services is warranted. An investment in novice teacher training increases

performance and thus impacts the success of school districts and the students they serve.










APPENDIX A
LETTER OF INVITATION

University of Florida PO Box 117049
College of Education Gainesville, FL 32611-7049
Department of Educational Leadership (352)392-2391
Policy and Foundations (352)846-0131

April 15, 2007

Dear Colleague:

My name is James Russo and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Florida. I am conducting a
study on the relationships between K-5 administrators', mentors' and first year teachers' beliefs and
practices in a teacher induction/support program. I expect that the results of this research will provide
direction for improving beginning teacher support in elementary schools.

I request your participation in this research project. The superintendent of your district has endorsed the
study. I would appreciate it if you would take a few minutes to answer questions on the online survey.
You will be asked to complete the survey on the enclosed web address with the password below. The
survey will take about 15-20 minutes. Your privacy will be protected and your identity will be kept
confidential to the extent provided by law. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to
answer. The completed survey will be submitted to a secure server at the University of Florida.

To take the online survey, you must select "I agree" on the website, agreeing that you have read this letter
of invitation and agree to the consent. You may print a copy of this letter for your records by pressing the
control button and the letter p.

The results of the survey will be provided to you at your request. There is no anticipated risk,
compensation, nor benefit for participating in the study. Your participation is strictly voluntary and you
are free to withdraw your participation at any time without penalty.

Should you have questions about your rights as a research participant, contact the Institutional Review
Board (IRB) office at (352) 392-9433 or irb2@ufl.edu. If you need additional information or have
questions about the survey please contact me at (407) 252-0879 or my faculty advisor, Dr. James Doud, at
(352) 392-2391, ext. 275.

The survey website address is listed below:

Website: http://grove.ufl.edu/~jvrusso/index.php


Thank you very much for your participation in this study.

Sincerely,


James V. Russo
Principal Investigator









APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW PANEL


Dr. Geraldine Wright
Elementary Executive Director
Educational Support Center
Seminole County Public Schools
400 E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Sanford, FL 32773-7127
geraldinewright@scps.kl2.fl.us
407-320-0000

Dr. Anna-Marie Cote
Executive Director
Educational Support Center
Seminole County Public Schools
400 E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Sanford, FL 32773-7127
Annmarie_cote@scps.kl2.fl.us
407-320-0000

Ms. Debbie Warner
Elementary Reading Admin.
Educational Support Center
Seminole County Public Schools
400 E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Sanford, FL 32773-7127
Debbiewamer@scps.kl2.fl.us
407-320-0000

Mr. Hugh Harris
Director of Curriculum
Educational Support Center
Seminole County Public Schools
400 E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Sanford, FL 32773-7127
Hughharris@scps.kl2.fl.us
407-320-0000


Ms. Beverly Perrault
Elementary Executive Director
Educational Support Center
Seminole County Public Schools
400 E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Sanford, FL 32773-7127
Beverly Perrault@scps.kl2.fl.us
407-320-0000

Ms. Crill Head
Title 1 Director
Educational Support Center
Seminole County Public Schools
400 E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Sanford, FL 32773-7127
Crillhead@scps.kl2.fl.us
407-320-0000

Ms. Jane Lane
Director of Community Involvement
Educational Support Center
Seminole County Public Schools
400 E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Sanford, FL 32773-7127
Janelane@scps.kl2.fl.us
407-320-0000









APPENDIX C
TEACHER INDUCTION/SUPPORT PROGRAM SURVEY



Part I



Demographic Data


(Fill in or check where appropriate):






1. Gender


female





2. AGE






3. Ethnicity


male


Smulti-racial


white Other


4. What is your level of education. (highest degree earned)


S specialist degree


SAsian


Black


Hispanic


bachelors degree


masters degree


doctorate












5. Are you an administrator(principal/assistant principal)
on your campus?


yes




6. Are you a mentor/peer teacher?


yes




7. Are you a beginning teacher?


yes


8. How long have you been involved with teacher induction/support?


less than 1 year 1-1 1/2 years 2-3 years


4-5 years 5+ years


SCertified in
the area I teach


Working on alternative certification to obtain a
professional certification in the area I teach.


SA mentor or
administrator


no


no


no


9. I am:









PART II


Importance Ratings


Rate the importance of support services that a teacher induction/support
program might provide to novice teachers. For each item indicate how important
that service is to you. Ten (10) is the highest importance level you can give an
item. One (1) is the lowest importance level you can give an item.




A. Teacher Induction/Support Program Beliefs.


Lowest Importance <


1 2
e E


> Highest Importance

7 8 9 10
eC C C


1. Mentors assigned prior to preplanning:

2. Mentor in the same or related field as
novice:

3. Mentor with similar teaching style:


4. Mentor in close proximity:


C C E c E C C C C c


5. Mentor has necessary specialized expertise C
(example: ESE, similar grade level, science
lab):

6. Mentor 10-15 years older than novice: [


7. Provides frequent observations/feedback: C

8. Provides guidelines for C
observations/feedback:


6r6r6r6rrr

6r6r6r6rrr









9. Weekly "walk-through" for novice
teachers:

10. Provides guidelines for scheduling
observations and consultations:


B. Mentor Responsibilities Beliefs.


Lowest Importance <-


> Highest Importance


4 5 6 7 8 9 10
C EC C C C C


11. Greets novice at preplanning:

12. Expedites orientation/preplanning
activities:

13. Provides assistance locating
books/materials:

14. Provides assistance in developing lesson
plans in compliance with Sunshine State
Standards:

15. Provides training for parent
communication:

16. Provides assistance with room
organization:

17. Provides training on record keeping:

18. Provides examples of measurement
tools(tests, assists in determining the
appropriate tools for various skills):


19. Provides assistance with implementation C
of appropriate tools for tracking/defining
pupil progress:









20. Provides assistance in establishing C C C C C C C C C C
efficient classroom routines/rules:




C. Mentor/Principal Responsibilities Beliefs.



Lowest Importance <------------------------> Highest Importance


6 7 8 9 10
C C C C C


21. Provides training in "how best to handle
classroom disturbances":

22. Provides frequent observations with
nonjudgmental (formative) feedback:

23. Provides opportunities for the novice
teacher to make observations of other
teachers (makes arrangements, covers class,
provides substitute):

24. Welcomes questions/gives
nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely
responses:

25. Keeps novice teachers up to date on
training opportunities/development:


PART III


Delivery of Service

Rate the delivery of support services that your teacher induction/support
program provides to novice teachers. Considering your experience, rate your
level of satisfaction with the delivery of the support services in your
school/district. Ten (10) is completely satisfied with the delivery of the item, and
one (1) indicates you are completely dissatisfied with the way that item is being
delivered in the teacher induction program.


E E Ec c c C E E c














A. Delivery of Teacher Induction/Support Program Services


completely dissatisfied <----------------------------> Completely Satisfied


7 8 9 10
C C C C


1. Mentors assigned prior to preplanning:

2. Mentor in the same or related field as
novice:

3. Mentor with similar teaching style:


4. Mentor in close proximity: L

5. Mentor has necessary specialized expertise C
(example: ESE, similar grade level, science
lab):


6. Mentor 10-15 years older than novice:


7. Provides frequent observations/feedback:

8. Provides guidelines for
observations/feedback:

9. Weekly "walk-through" for novice
teachers:

10. Provides guidelines for scheduling
observations and consultations:


E C E c E C C C E c


1 2
C E


ee Er r Er cerr


66r6r6r6rrr











B. Delivery of Mentor Responsibilities Services..


completely dissatisfied <--------------------------> completely satisfied


11. Greets novice at preplanning:

12. Expedites orientation/preplanning
activities:

13. Provides assistance locating
books/materials:

14. Provides assistance in developing lesson
plans in compliance with Sunshine State
Standards:


1 2
C C


7 8 9 10
EC C C


66r6r6r6rrr


ee Er r Er cerr


66r6r6r6rrr


15. Provides training for parent C
communication:

16. Provides assistance with room C
organization:

17. Provides training on record keeping: C

18. Provides examples of measurement C
tools(tests, assists in determining the
appropriate tools for various skills):

19. Provides assistance with implementation C
of appropriate tools for tracking/defining
pupil progress:

20. Provides assistance in establishing C
efficient classroom routines/rules:









C. Delivery of Mentor/Principal Responsibilities Services: Communication.


completely dissatisfied <--------------------------> completely satisfied
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
21. Provides training in "how best to handle EC EC C C C C C C
classroom disturbances":

22. Provides frequent observations with C C C C C C C C C C
nonjudgmental (formative) feedback:

23. Provides opportunities for the novice EC EC C C C C C C
teacher to make observations of other
teachers (makes arrangements, covers class,
provides substitute):

24. Welcomes questions/gives C C C C C C C C C C
nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely
responses:

25. Keeps novice teachers up to date on C C C C C C C C C C
training opportunities/development:


PART IV


Open Ended Response


Please answer the following questions





26. Overall, what do you feel is the most valuable component of the teacher induction program?


ii'









27. What aspects of the teacher induction/support program would you most like to see changed,
adapted or improved?


28. List the three most important things you need from a teacher induction/support program.






29. Use the space below to make additional comments or suggestions, including any aspects that
you feel were not covered in the survey that you would like to see addressed for future teacher
induction/support programs.


ii'


ii'









LIST OF REFERENCES

Archer, J. (1999). New teachers abandon field at high rate. Education Week, 18(27), 20-21.

Archer, J. (2001). Recruitment pinch fuels global track in K-12 teachers. Education Week,
20(22), 8.

Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Baines, L., McDowell, J., & Foulk, D. (2001). One step forward, three steps backward:
Alternative certification programs in Texas, Georgia, and Florida. Educational Horizons,
32-37.

Ballantyne, R., & Hansford, B. (1995). Mentoring beginning teachers: A qualitative analysis of
process and outcomes. Educational Review, 1(3), 297-307.

Ballantyne, R., Thompson, R., & Taylor, P. (1998, March). Principals' conceptions of competent
beginning teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 1(1), 51-65.

Berry, B., & Hirsch, E. (2003, January). What we know and can do to recruit and retain quality
teachers. Presented at Teaching Quality, Recruitment and Retention Symposium,
Clearwater, FL.

Berry, B., Hopkins-Thompson, P., & Hoke, M. (2002, December). Assessing and supporting new
teachers: Lessons from the Southeast. The Sw,,inhewat Center for Teaching Quality, 1-16.

Blair-Larsen, S., & Bercik, J. (1992). A collaborative model for teacher induction. Education,
113(1), 25-31.

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1993). The path to school leadership: A portable mentor. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Boreen, J., & Niday, D. (2000, October). Breaking through the isolation: Mentoring beginning
teachers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(2), 1-13.

Brouwer, N., & Kothagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference? American
Educational Research Journal, 42, 153-225

Brownlee, J., Dart, B., Boulton-Lewis, G., & McCrindle, A. (1998). The integration of
preservice teachers' naive and informed beliefs about learning and teaching. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 26, 104-118.

Carter, M., & Francis, R. (2001). Mentoring and beginning teachers' workplace learning. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 29, 249-262.

Castorina, S. (2003). An exploration of the relationships between administrators', mentors', and
teachers' beliefs and practices in a teacher induction program. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Florida, 2003.)









Chisena, C. (2002). A study of the perceptions of Orange County, Florida, first-year elementary
teachers regarding the effectiveness of selected induction activities and the main sources
of assistance for first-year teachers. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida,
2002.)

Coppenhaver, A., & Schaper, L. (1999). Mentoring the mentors. In M. Scherer (Ed.), A better
beginning supporting and mentoring new teachers (pp. 60-68). Alexandria,VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Policies that support professional teacher development in an era
of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 642-644.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: A competent teacher for every child. Phi
Delta Kappan, 78, 193-200.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999, January/February). Educating teachers: The academy's greatest
failure or its most important future? ACADEME, 85(1), 26-33.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6-13.

DeJong, J. A. (1997). Research into on-the-job training: A state of the art. Utrecht, The
Netherlands: Utrecht University, Department of Education.

Dillman, D. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.

Doud, J., & Keller, E. (1998). The K-8 principal in 1998: Seventh in a series of research studies
launched in 1928. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School
Principals.

Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Foleno, T. (2000). A sense of calling: Who teaches andwhy. New
York: Public Agenda.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1999). A conceptual review of literature on new teacher induction. College
Park, MD: National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching.

Feistritzer, C. E., & Chester, D. T. (2003). Executive summary: Alternative teacher certification:
A state-by-state analysis 2003. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Information.

Finn, C. E., Jr., & Madigan, K. (May, 2001). Removing the barriers for teacher candidates.
Educational Leadership, 58(8), 29-36.

Furtwengler, C. B. (1995). Beginning teachers programs: Analysis of state actions during the
reform era. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 3(3), 1-23.









Gordon, R. (1997). How novice teachers can succeed with adolescents. Educational Leadership,
54(7), 56-58.

Gruber, K., Wiley, S., Broughman, S., Strizek, G., & Burian-Fitzgerald, M. (2002). Schools and
staffing survey, 1999-2000: Overview of the data for public, private, public charter, and
Bureau of Indian Affairs elementary and secondary schools. NCES 2002-313.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics.

Halford, J. (1998). Easing the way for new teachers. Educational Leadership, 55(5), 33-36.

Halford, J. (1999). Policies to support new teachers. Educational Leadership, 56(8), 85.

Haugaard, J. (2005). Critical elements of beginning teacher induction: An analysis of support
contributing to professional development. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida,
2005.)

Humphrey, D., Adelman, N., Esch, C., Riehl, L., Shields, P., & Tiffany, J. (2000, September).
Preparing and supporting new teachers: A literature review. Menlo Park, CA: SRI
International.

Hussar, W. J. (1999). Predicting the needfor newly hired teachers in the United States to 2008-
09. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

Ingersoll, R. (2001a). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.
American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499-534.

Ingersoll, R. (200 lb). The realities of out-of-field teaching. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 42-
45.

Ingersoll, R. (2002, June). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong
prescription. NASSP Bulletin, 86, 16-31.

Ingersoll, R. (2003). The teacher shortage: Myth or reality? Educational Horizons, 81(3), 146-
152.

Ingersoll, R., & Kralik, J. (2004). The impact of mentoring on teacher retention: What the
research says. Research Review: Teaching Quality, 1-23.

Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational
Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.

James B. Hunt, Jr. Institute for Educational Leadership and Policy. (2004, November). School
leadership supporting teacher retention. Prepared for the Hunt Institute by the Southeast
Center for Teaching Quality.

Johnson, H. (2001). Administrators and mentors: Keys in the success of beginning teachers.
Journal ofInstructional Psychology, 28(1), 44-49.


137









Johnson, S., Birkeland, S., Kardos, S., Kauffman, D., Liu, E., & Peske, H. (2001, July/August).
Retaining the next generation of teachers: The importance of school-based support.
Harvard Education Letter. Retrieved July 17, 2006, from
http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/2001-ja/support.shtml

Johnson, S., & Birkeland, S. (2003). Pursuing a sense of success: New teachers explain their
career decisions. American Educational Research Journal 40, 581-617.

Johnson, S., Birkeland, S., & Peske, H. (2005). Life in the fast track: How states seek to balance
incentives and quality in alternative teacher certification programs. Educational Policy,
19(1), 63-89.

Johnson, S., Birkeland, S., Peske, H., & Munger, M. (2005). A difficult balance: Incentives and
quality control in alternative certification programs. Project on the Next Generation of
Teachers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Littrell, P., & Billingsley, B. (1994). The effects of principal support on special and general
educators' stress, job satisfaction, school commitment, health, and intent to stay in
teaching. Remedial & Special Education, 15, 297-311.

MacNab, D., & Payne, F. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes and practices in mathematics teaching:
Perceptions of Scottish primary school student teachers. Journal ofEducation for
Tea-iilng. 29(1), 55-68.

Nauta, A., & Kluwer, E. (2004). The use of questionnaires in conflict research. International
Negotiation, 9, 457-470

NCES. (1998). Fast response survey system: Teacher survey on professional development and
training. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.

NCES. (2000). Executive summary, teacher preparation and professional development: 2000
(FRSS Publication No. 2001088). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.

Norusis, M. J. (1994). SPSS advanced statistics 6.1. Chicago: SPSS.

Pajares, M. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review ofEducational Research, 62, 307-332.

Ponticell, J., & Zepeda, S. (1997). First-year teachers at risk: A study of induction at three high
schools. High School Journal, 81(1), 8-22.

Saunders, S., & Pettinger, K. (1995). Prospective mentors' views on partnership in secondary
teacher training. British Educational Research Journal, 21, 199-219.

Shaughnessy, J., Zechmeister, E., & Zechmeister, J. (2000). Research methods in psychology.
Boston: McGraw Hill.









Singh, K., & Billingsley, B. (1998). Professional support and its effects on teachers'
commitment. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 229-240.

Southeast Center for Teaching Quality (SCTQ). (2003, April). Teaching Quality Research
Matters, Issue 4.

Spindler, J., & Biott, C. (2000). Target setting in the induction of newly qualified teachers:
Emerging colleagueship in a context of performance management. Educational Research,
42, 275-286.

Stansbury, K. (2001). What new teachers need. Leadership, 30(3), 18-21.

Tell, C. (May, 2001). Making room for alternative routes. EducationalLeadership, 58(8), 38-44.

Tetzeli, R. (1993). Who's afraid of a teacher shortage? Fortune, 127(5), 10-11.

Torff, B., & Sessions, D. (2005). Principals' perceptions of the causes of teacher ineffectiveness.
Journal ofEducational Psychology, 97, 530-537.

Tuckman, B. (1999). Conducting Educational Research (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Group.

Urzua, A. (1999). The socialization process of beginning teachers. Journal of Teacher
Education, 50, 231-233.

Young, B. (2003). Public school student, staff and graduate counts by state, school year 2001-
02 (NCES 2003-358). Washington D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education.

Zepeda, S., & Ponticell, J. (1998). At cross-purposes: What do teachers need, want, and get from
supervision? Journal of Curriculum & Supervision, 14(1), 68-88.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

James Vincent Russo was born in 1974 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to Kathy and Jim

Russo. James has one older sister, Jeanmarie, and grew up in Fort Lauderdale, graduating from

Taravella High School in 1992. He earned a B.A. in psychology from the University of Central

Florida in 1996, an M.A. in elementary education from the University of Central Florida in 1999,

and an Ed.S. in educational leadership from the University of Florida in 2002.

Upon graduation in December of 1999 with his M.A. in elementary education, James was

hired by Seminole County Public Schools (SCPS) as a teacher. During his tenure with SCPS,

James assumed the role as a primary and intermediate teacher, administrative middle school

dean, and assistant principal. James has been an elementary school assistant principal with SCPS

for the past 3 years.

After completing his Ed.D. program, James plans to continue to work for SCPS as an

assistant principal. James has been married to Lesley Russo for seven years. They have one son:

Parker, age 11 months.





PAGE 1

AN EXPLORATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS, MENTORS, AND NOVICE TEACHERS B ELIEFS AND PRACTICES IN A TEACHER INDUCTION PROGRAM By JAMES VINCENT RUSSO A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 James Vincent Russo 2

PAGE 3

3To my wife, Lesley, and our son, Parker

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I owe much of who I am today to my parents who helped me realize that I could achieve anything I put my mind to. It was their role in my life that taught me if you sit and wait nothing will fall in your lap. Although she would not accept this compliment, my wife, Lesley, is the reason for my success over the past 10 years. Her love and sup port has allowed me to realize and pursue my dreams. She has encouraged me to chase those dreams, and this doctoral program was a huge piece of that goal. I thank God for allowing Lesley and me to continue to be together on this earth. The birth of our son, Parker, has changed my lif e. I am thankful for each day that I spend with him. Parker is too young to talk, but he ha s already taught me what is really important in life. If you fight hard enough, you can achieve anything. Miracles are not granted, they are achieved. Parker has caused me to be a diffe rent person today, and I am better for it. I would like to acknowledge the Un iversity of Florida East Coast Cohort. This collective group of people had a major impact on my personal success and taught me many lessons about educational leadership. The special relationships I have made will last a lifetime. I would like to thank Dr. Brandy Kamm, Dr. Drew Hawkins, a nd Dr. Carol Kindt for their continued support and friendship. I could not have finish ed this dissertation without them. My journey at the University of Florida be gan many years ago at a meeting with Dr. Doud. From the first moment I met Dr. Doud, to our re lationship today, he consistently challenges and pushes me to grow professionally and personally. This is the reason Dr. Doud is my Chair and a major reason this dissertation s its complete. I would like to deeply thank Dr. Doud for not only helping me attain this goal of a doctorate but also for being an empathetic listener, a teacher, and a motivator throughout my schooling at UF. 4

PAGE 5

I would also like to thank my committee, Dr. Clark, Dr. Be har-Horenstein, Dr. Bondy and Dr. Gratto. The input of these professors was vital throughout the dissert ation process and during my final evaluation. 5

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........9 LIST OF TERMS...........................................................................................................................13 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .16 Induction Practices..................................................................................................................18 Alternative Certification...................................................................................................... ...19 Teacher Support................................................................................................................ ......20 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................... .21 Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... ....22 Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....22 Delimitations...........................................................................................................................23 Limitations of the Study....................................................................................................... ..23 Significance of Study..............................................................................................................23 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................................................27 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........27 Recruitment and Retention.....................................................................................................2 7 Alternative Certification..................................................................................................30 Induction Programs.........................................................................................................32 Beginning Teacher Support....................................................................................................35 Mentors Perceptions of Their Roles...............................................................................35 Administrative Role.........................................................................................................40 Novice Teachers Need s and Perceptions...............................................................................44 Novice Teachers Beliefs and Practices.................................................................................45 Summary.................................................................................................................................47 3 DESIGN OF THE STUDY....................................................................................................49 Methodology...........................................................................................................................50 Population..................................................................................................................... ..........51 Procedure for Data Collection................................................................................................52 Instrumentation................................................................................................................ .......53 Data Analysis..........................................................................................................................55 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... .........57 6

PAGE 7

Response Rate.................................................................................................................. .......57 Demographic Information......................................................................................................57 Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....58 Short Answer Responses........................................................................................................70 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................99 Summary of Findings...........................................................................................................1 00 Research Question 1: What is the Leve l of Agreement among Administrators Ratings Regarding the Importance of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?.............................100 Research Question 2: What is the Leve l of Agreement among Mentor Teachers Ratings Regarding the Importance of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?.............................102 Research Question 3: What is the Leve l of Agreement among Novice Teachers Ratings Regarding the Importance of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?.............................102 Research Question 4: What is the Leve l of Agreement among Administrators Ratings Regarding the Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor /Principal Responsibilities?..........................................104 Research Question 5: What is the Leve l of Agreement among Mentor Teachers Ratings Regarding the Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor /Principal Responsibilities?..........................................105 Research Question 6: What is the Leve l of Agreement among Novice Teachers Rating Regarding the Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor /Principal Responsibilities?..........................................106 Research Question 7: What is the Leve l of Agreement among Administrators Ratings Regarding the Importance and Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Service, Mentor Responsibilities, an d Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?...............108 Research Question 8: What is the Leve l of Agreement among Mentor Teachers Rating Regarding the Importance and Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor Responsibi lities, and the Mentor/Pri ncipal Responsibilities?.......109 Research Question 9: What is the Leve l of Agreement among Novice Teachers Rating Regarding the Importance and Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor Responsi bilities, and Mentor/Princ ipal Responsibilities?.............110 Research Question 10: What is the Leve l of Agreement between Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers Ratings Re garding the Importance and Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities?............................................................................111 Research Question 11: What are the Differe nces between Alternatively Certificated and Traditionally Certificated Novi ce Teachers Rating Regarding the Importance and Delievery of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor /Principal Responsibilities?..........................................113 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................116 Implications................................................................................................................... .......118 Recommendations for Further Research..............................................................................121 Summary...............................................................................................................................122 7

PAGE 8

APPENDIX A LETTER OF INVITATION.................................................................................................124 B QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW PANEL................................................................................125 C TEACHER INDUCTION/SUP PORT PROGRAM SURVEY............................................126 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................135 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................140 8

PAGE 9

LIST OF TABLES Table 4-1 Response Return Rate................................................................................................... .......73 4-2 Demographic Information (Part I) (N=179)........................................................................73 4-3 Response Rate of Position Status (Part I) (N=179).............................................................73 4-4 Mean Scores of Admi nistrators' Beliefs (Part II A) about Own Responsibility (N=42).....73 4-5 Mean Scores of Ad ministrators' Beliefs (Part II B) about Mentor Responsibility (N=42).....................................................................................................................................74 4-6 Mean Scores of Ad ministrators'(Part II C) Beliefs about Shared Responsibility (N=42).....................................................................................................................................74 4-7 Mean Scores of Mentors (Part II A) Beliefs about Administ rators Responsibilities (N=52).....................................................................................................................................74 4-8 Mean Scores of Mentors (Part II B) Beliefs about Own Responsibilities (N=52).............75 4-9 Mean Scores of Mentors (Part II C) Beliefs about Shared Responsibilities (N=52).........75 4-10 Mean Scores of Novices (Part II A) Beliefs about Administ rator Responsibilities (N=40).....................................................................................................................................75 4-11 Mean Scores of Novices (Part II B) Beliefs about Mentor Responsibility (N=40)...........76 4-12 Mean Scores of Novices' (Part II C) Beliefs about Shared Responsibility (N=40).............76 4-13 Mean Scores of Administrators (Par t III A) Rating of the Delivery of Their Own Responsibilities (N=40)........................................................................................................ ..76 4-14 Mean Scores of Administrators (Part III B) Rating of the Delivery of Mentors Responsibilities (N=40)..............77 4-15 Mean Scores of Administrators (P art III C) Rating of Delivery of Shared Responsibility (N=40)............................................................................................................77 4-16 Mean Scores of Mentors (Part III A) Rating of the Delivery of Administrator Responsibilities (N=50)........................................................................................................ ..78 4-17 Mean Scores of Mentors (Part III B) Rating of the Delivery of Their Own Responsibilities (N=50)........................................................................................................ ..78 4-18 Mean Scores of Mentors (Part III C) Rating of Delivery of Shared Responsibility (N= 50)....................................................................................................................................78 9

PAGE 10

4-19 Mean Scores of Novice Teachers (Par t III A) Rating of Delivery of Administrator Responsibilities (N=40)........................................................................................................ ..79 4-20 Mean Scores of Novice Teachers (Part III B) Rating of the Delivery of Mentor Responsibilities (N=40)........................................................................................................ ..79 4-21 Mean Scores of Novice Teachers (P art III C) Rating of Delivery of Shared Responsibilities (N=40)........................................................................................................ ..80 4-22 Correlation of Administrators Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II A) and the Actual Delivery (Part III A) of Their Responsibilities (N=42)..............................................80 4-23 Correlation of Administrators Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II B) and the Actual Delivery (Part III B) of Me ntors Responsibilities (N=42).........................................81 4-24 Correlation between Administrators Ratings of Importance (Part II C) and the Delivery (Part III C) of Shar ed Responsibilities (N=42)........................................................81 4-25 Correlation of Mentors Ratings regarding the Importance (Part II A) and the Actual Delivery (Part III A)of Administ rators Responsibilities (N=52)..........................................82 4-26 Correlation of Mentors Ratings Regard ing the Importance (Part II B) and the Actual Delivery (Part III B) of Thei r Own Responsibilities (N=52).................................................82 4-27 Correlation of Mentors Ratings Regard ing the Importance (Part II C) and the Actual Delivery (Part III C) of Shar ed Responsibilities (N=52)........................................................83 4-28 Correlation of Novice Teachers Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II A) and the Actual Delivery (Part III A) of Admi nistrators Responsibilities (N=40)..............................83 4-29 Correlation of Novice Teachers Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II B) and the Actual Delivery (Part III B) of Mentor Responsibilities (N=40)...........................................84 4-30 Correlation of Novice Teachers Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II C) and the Actual Delivery (Part III C) of Shared Responsibilities (N=40)............................................84 4-31 Correlation of Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II A) and the Actual De livery (Part III A) of Administrator Responsibilities (N=5)......................................................................................................... ...85 4-32 Correlation of Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II B) and the Actual Deliver y (Part III B) of Mentor Responsibilities (N=5).......................................................................................................................................85 4-33 Correlation of Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II C) and the Actual Deliver y (Part III C)of Shared Responsibilities (N=5).......................................................................................................................................86 10

PAGE 11

4-34 T Tests for Independent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Ratings Regarding the Importance of Administrator Responsibilities...............................................................................................87 4-35 T Tests for Independent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Rati ngs Regarding the Importance of Mentor Responsibilities.......................................................................................................................88 4-36 T Tests for Independent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Rati ngs Regarding the Importance of Shared Responsibilities.......................................................................................................................89 4-37 Reported Means for T-Test for Inde pendent Groups Regarding the Importance................90 4-37 Continued.............................................................................................................................91 4-38 T tests for Independent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Rati ngs Regarding the Actual Delivery of Administrators Responsibilities..............................................................................................92 4-39 T Tests for Independent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Ratings Regarding the Actual Delivery of Mentor Responsibilities.......................................................................................................................93 4-40 T Tests for Independent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Ratings Regarding the Actual Delivery of Shared Responsibilities.......................................................................................................................94 4-41 Reported Means for T-Test for Independe nt Groups Regarding th e Actual Delivery of Administrator, Mentor and Shared Rsponsibilities................................................................95 4-41 Continued.............................................................................................................................96 4-42 Overall, What Do Administrators F eel is the Most Valuable Component of the Teacher Induction Program?...................................................................................................96 4-43 Overall, What Do Mentors Feel is the Most Valuable Component of the Teacher Induction Program?................................................................................................................96 4-44 Overall, What Do Novice Teachers F eel is the Most Valuable Component of the Teacher Induction Program?...................................................................................................96 4-45 Overall, What Do Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers Feel is the Most Valuable Component of the Teacher Induction Program?.....................................................97 4-46 What Aspects of the Teacher Inductio n/Support Program Would Administrators Most Like to See Changed, Adapted or Improved?.........................................................................97 11

PAGE 12

4-47 What Aspects of the Teacher Inductio n/Support Program Would Mentors Most Like to See Changed, Adapted, or Improved?................................................................................97 4-48 What Aspects of the Teacher I nduction/Support Program Would Novice teachers Most Like to See Changed, Adapted, or Improved?..............................................................97 4-49 What Aspects of the Teacher I nduction/Support Program Would Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers Most Like to See Changed, Adapted or Improved?................97 4-50 List the Three Most Important Things Administrators Need From a Teacher Induction/Support Program....................................................................................................98 4-51 List the Three Most Important Things Mentors Need From a Teacher Induction/Support Program....................................................................................................98 4-52 List the Three Most Important Things Novice Teachers Need From a Teacher Induction/Support Program....................................................................................................98 4-53 List the Three Most Important Things Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers Need From a Teacher Induction/Support Program.................................................................98 12

PAGE 13

LIST OF TERMS Administrator The principal or assistant principal who functions as executor to the schools novice teacher induction program. Alternative certification The li cense issued to a person w ho has attended and graduated from a university and received a ba chelors degree or higher, has obtained a temporary teacher ce rtificate, and is seeking a permanent education certification. Attrition A reduction of the teaching workforce because of reasons other than termination. Certification A license which authenticates and bestows the rights and privileges to teach. District staff Administrato rs and resource personnel w hose assignments are at a district level. Induction program An organized system of st rategies and services designed to orient, support, and retain novice teachers. Mentor An experienced teacher or ot her experienced professional charged with helping a novice teacher. Nontraditional certification Th e license issued to a person who has attended a universitybut did not receive a degree in edu cationor who is teaching out-offield. Novice teacher K-12 instructors who are in their initial year of teaching. Principal The principal or assistant principal who is assigned the primary role as executor to the schools novice teacher in duction program Retention A teachers continued empl oyment within the public school system. Staff development Any trainingformal or informalgiven to educators to expand their knowledge and foster coping strategies of their craft. Teacher literacy The teachers ability to transfer theory into performance, resulting in concrete classroom instruction. Traditional certification The certification held by a teacher who has attended and graduated from a university with a degree in education in the area he or she currently teaches. 13

PAGE 14

Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education AN EXPLORATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS, MENTORS, AND NOVICE TEACHERS B ELIEFS AND PRACTICES IN A TEACHER INDUCTION PROGRAM By James Vincent Russo August 2008 Chair: James L. Doud Major: Educational Leadership The purpose of this study was to examine a district-wide teacher induction program and evaluate the relationship between the believed importance and actual deliv ery of mentors and principals responsibilities in support services, as evaluated by the administrators, mentors, and novice teachers. This study also reviewed the outcome of the teacher induction program through the perspective of traditionally and a lternatively certificated novice teachers. This public elementary school study was a modi fied replication of previous research conducted in a West Central Flor ida school district. Electronic copies of a survey instrument measuring the beliefs and actual delivery of i nduction practices were distributed to public elementary school administrators, mentors and novice teachers in one county in Central Florida. In total, 461 administrators, mentors and novice teachers at 36 elementary schools were sent the instrument. Surveys were completed by 179 participants at 36 elementary schools, a 39% response rate. The majority of respondents were Caucasian (83%); female (85%) and held a bachelors (43%), masters degree (38%), educational spec ialist (11%), or doctoral degree (6%). Thirty 14

PAGE 15

15percent (30%) of the respondents were admini strators, 39% were mentors, 28% were novice teachers and 3% were novice teachers s eeking alternative certification. Statistical analysis of the relationship between the believed importan ce and actual delivery of teacher induction services in a Central Florida county wa s conducted. The survey asked respondents to answer 10 items about the administrators role, 10 items about the mentors role, and 5 items about the shared res ponsibility of the principal and mentor. Administrators reported that 60% of their beliefs matched the actual delivery, mentors reported 72% of their beliefs matched the actual delivery and novice teachers re ported 4% of their beliefs matched the actual delivery of induction service support. The results indicate that actual delivery of induction support to novice teachers most often did not match what they believed was important. The mean scores of the novice teachers s eeking alternative certification di ffered significantly from mean scores of traditionally ce rtificated novice teachers in their be liefs and actual delivery of induction support services, indicating the two groups of novice teachers should be considered mutually exclusive.

PAGE 16

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Soaring teacher attrition rate s combined with the changing growth of the student population pose a staggering challenge to schools in the U.S. To combat high teacher attrition and retain educators, support has expanded for teacher training programs (Halford, 1999), additional money has been allocated for teach er training (Berry, Hopkins-Thompson, & Hoke, 2002), and the focus of such training has shifted to include alternative certification routes (Johnson, Birkeland, & Peske, 2005). These efforts ha ve been put in place to answer the claims that educational retention and teacher trai ning are disjointed (D arling-Hammond, 1996). Many states and localities have la unched induction programs to combat attrition and provide instructional support for novices (Archer, 1999). Although formalized induction programs have ta ken shape in Florida school districts, many of these programs fail to assess or meet th e needs of novice teachers. Thus, attrition rates as high as 50% within the first five years ar e still being reported (H alford, 1998; Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). In a stud y conducted in one Florida school district, Castorina (2003) concluded that the majority of novice teachers left their position because they felt induction services did not match their expecta tions. The attrition rate of teachers is highly correlated with their need for emotional s upport and encouragement along with formative appraisal of progress from thei r mentors and principals. Teache rs who receive high levels of substantial assistance and percei ve that their expectations are being met are more likely to experience greater job satisfact ion and school commitment (Johns on & Birkeland, 2003; Littrell & Billingsley, 1994; Pon ticell & Zepeda, 1997). Induction programs help novice teachers connect their university or pre-service training with their first instructional assignment, while delivering an experience that meets the needs of 16

PAGE 17

beginning teachers (Blair-Larsen & Bercik, 1992; Carter & Francis, 2001; Littrell & Billingsley, 1994; Ponticell & Zepeda, 1997). Without support d eemed effective by teachers and mentors, many beginning teachers will never fully develop their craft. Those teachers who do return for a second-year are unlikely to grow professionally (The Southeas t Center for Teaching Quality, 2003). Training is incomplete when it ceases once a teacher accepts an academic position. New teachers, including those who complete teacher education programs, need continuous support throughout their first years of teaching (Berry et al., 2002; Carter & Francis, 2001; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). Proper funding is necessary to sustain induction support for novice teachers. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESE A) provides funds for districts to develop induction programs that assist teachers in their fo rmative years. Millions of dollars have been allocated for these programs, yet results are disappointing. The James B. Hunt Institute for Educational Leadership and Po licy (2004) and Berry and Hirsch (2003) estimated that an investment between an $8,000 and $11,500 per beginning teacher is lost when a teacher leaves the profession. The exodus has resulted in a co ntinuing need for more teachers, monetary investments consistently squandered, and district s resorting to placing personnel into positions for which they have not received formal edu cational training. High at trition rates and the difficulty of recruiting qualified cand idates equate to more than 82% of urban districts in the U. S. allowing people to teach without norma l teaching certification (Tetzeli, 1993). New alternative certificati on routes are now being investigate d. Carlos Ponce, the former Chief Human Resource Officer for Chicago public schools, reported that the small number of qualified candidates in the United States caused Chicago to begin recruiting overs eas (Archer, 1999). 17

PAGE 18

Induction programs have become required for teac hers who hold a temporary certificate or seek eligibility for alternative certification. Such novice teachers ar e often deficient in experience working with young people. They must learn to ma nage standards-based lessons, teach in ways that reach diverse students, and adjust to the daily routines of school li fe (Berry et al., 2002; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). Investment in inducti on programs and practices need to be made wisely if states wish to retain their workforce. Induction Practices Follow up support to teacher trainingteacher inductions programsare vital to novice teachers satisfaction of career selection and keeping new instru ctors from leaving the teaching profession. A well-crafted inducti on program can improve teaching quality, increase retention rates, and decrease the overall cost of recruiting, preparing, and de veloping new teachers (Humphrey et al., 2000; Johnson & Birkeland, 2 003; Littrel & Billingsley, 2004). Yet only 19% of educators nationally reporte d participation in an induc tion program and a mentoring relationship with another teacher during their first year of teaching. Of teachers who were mentored at least once per week, 70% reported it improved their teaching significantly (NCES, 1998). The National Center for Educational St atistics (NCES) Executive Summary (2000) concluded that the attrition rate of new teachers who participated in an induction program was 15% within the first three y ears of teaching, compared with 26% for teachers who did not participate in an induction program. Novice te achers who experienced induction activities received help from mentors who assisted them with the multiple demands that teachers face. Teachers are expected to know how to plan standards-based units and translate subject matter knowledge into curriculum appropriate for students. Teachers are also expected to adapt their curriculum toward diverse learners, such as students with special needs, limited English proficiency, different lear ning styles, and a wide range of family and community circumstances. 18

PAGE 19

Publication of students test scores for stakeholders and evaluating administrators to see (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003), increases the dema nd for teachers with increased levels of knowledge. This demand for qualified teachers has been hindered by high attrition rates and inconsistencies within teacher training programs. The problem is so severe that school districts have begun recruiting individuals outsid e of teacher educ ation programs. Alternative Certification American schoolchildren are never sent home because of the lack of qualified teachers. School districts simply hire the next person down th e list (Tetzeli, 1993). Fa st-track or alternative certification programs have become widespread as a way for people with bachelor degrees to enter the profession without te acher training (Berry et al., 2002; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Johnson, Birkeland, & Peske, 2005). The Southe ast Center for Teaching Quality (2002) confirmed that many of the leas t prepared teachers begin their ca reer in schools that house our nations most disadvantaged urban and rural st udents (Berry et al., 2002, p. 3). Teach for America (TFA) and other similar programs allow candidates with a four-year degree a quick route into the classroom. Many of these alternat ive certification routes allow training to be completed in one summer. Within the confines of their own four walls, these teachers are left to succeed or fail (Finn & Madigan, 2001; Johns on & Birkeland, 2003; Johnson, Birkeland, & Peske, 2005). Similar to this, Ingersoll and Kralik (2004) describe this educational practice as one that cannibalizes its young and in which the initiation of new teachers is akin to a sink or swim, trial by fire, or boot-camp experience (p. 2). To assist with training of both alternative certification and traditionally cert ificated teachers, the No Chil d Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2001) has added funds. The No Child Left Behind Act mandated that by the academic year 2005-2006 every public school will have highly qualified teachers. Le gislation provided monetary support, but did 19

PAGE 20

not specify how these programs should be implemented. To offer additional assistance, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act allocated $2.85 billion to fund state teacher development systems (Berry et al., 2002). Florid a, along with many other states, has dedicated more than $1 million to mentoring programs (H alford, 1999). These efforts demonstrate progress toward financing teacher traini ng and quality teaching, but the standards for what qualified teachers need to know continues to rise. Teacher Support Halford (1999) identified increased support as an approach to alleviate the inadequate training for novice teachers. This notion gained popularity with legislators resulting in the mandate of district-created induction programs. Many novice teachers, however, find such programs inadequate for reducing stress and brid ging the gap between their university training and their first jobs (Blair-Larsen & Bercik, 1992; Littrell & Billingsley, 1994; Ponticell & Zepeda, 1997). Darling-Hammond (1995) believes the continuous change in course mandates, curriculum guidelines, and standardized tests could not produce greater student le arning and understanding without investing in teacher support. State universities have cu rrently followed this line of thinking in Florida by mandating internship pr ograms, or on-the-job training, to create a seamless transition for novice teachers. If this pre-service support continued after graduation, teachers could gain access to pedagogical inform ation about the nature of learning and student development. Novice teachers would be enabled to connect theory with classroom practice. However, once novice teachers reach the classroom and support is removed, they find that time constraints often clash with idealistic concepts le arned in the pre-service practice environment. 20

PAGE 21

Statement of the Problem All educators should be continuous learners, with training that enables them to succeed. Many staffing problems result from a high attriti on rate, with a large num bers of experienced teachers retiring early (Ingersoll, 2001a). To compound the problem, 30% of the nations teaching force is over 50 (Young, 2003); experienced teachers who felt a lack of support have left the profession, and first-year teachers are becoming overwhelmed and exiting in droves (Coppenhaver & Schaper, 1999). This makes it in creasingly important to know how successful beginning teacher programs are, and how the dist ricts allocation of funds to support such programs should be invested. To ensure beginning teacher success, staff development should provide increased support and development for neophyte teachers, includi ng effective mentoring and support from administrators. Yet the NCES (2000) reported a decrease in staff development opportunities. Most beginning teache rs indicated frustration with the lack of support from school administrators and mentors, poor student motivat ion, and lack of teacher influence over schoolwide and classroom decision-making (Ingersoll, 2003; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Littrell & Billingsley, 1994). To combat these issues, Mor e dollars are being invested in beginning teachers than ever before (Berry et al., 2002, p. 4) Yet the question arises regarding the quality and effectiveness of such programs. Halford (1998) and Ingersoll (2001a; 2002) re ported induction program inadequacy by stating that 30% to 50% of teach ers leave in the first five year s, and the exodus was even higher in some school districts with lower socioeconom ic status. About 33% of new teachers in the United States leave the profession in the first few years. Teacher turnover averages 15.7%, which is nearly 5% higher than the attrition of non-teaching occupati ons (11%). The challenge of supporting teachers effectively remains a critical issue. 21

PAGE 22

Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine a district-wide teacher induction program and evaluate the relationship between the believed importance and actual deliv ery of mentors and principals responsibilities in support services, as evaluated by the principals, mentors, and novice teachers. This study also reviewed the outcome of the teacher induction program through the perspective of traditionally and alternatively certificated novice teachers. Eleven research questions examined these issues. Research Questions 1. What is the level of agreement among admini strators ratings regard ing the importance of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 2. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers ratings regarding the importance of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 3. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers ratings regarding the importance of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 4. What is the level of agreement among admini strators ratings rega rding the delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 5. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers ratings regarding the delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 6. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers ratings rega rding the delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 7. What is the level of agreement among admi nistrators ratings re garding the importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 8. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers ratings regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 22

PAGE 23

9. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers ratings regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 10. What is the level of agreement between alte rnatively certif icated novice teach ers ratings regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/p rincipal responsibilities? 11. What are the differences between alternatively certificated and traditionally certificated novice teachers ratings regarding the impor tance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? Delimitations 1. The data were collected from public schools. Results and conclusions do not necessarily apply to non-public schools. 2. The study was limited to data gathered during the 2006-2007 school year. Conclusions and generalizations made from this study may th erefore not be able to be generalized to other time periods. 3. The study focused on novice teachers and mentors from one Central Florida school district. Limitations of the Study 1. The study assumed that the induction proce ss offered by this Central Florida school district followed state guidelines. 2. The study assumed that all participants pr ovided honest and accurate self-evaluation. 3. All administrators, first-year teachers and ment ors involved in this Central Florida school districts induction program we re provided an opportunity to respond to this survey. Significance of Study United States teacher education has historic ally been thin, uneven, poorly financed, and recruitment is distressingly ad hoc (Dar lingHammond, 1996, p. 194). Floridas beginning teacher training programs are considered pi ecemeal and underdeveloped (Feimen-Nemser, 1999). Efforts to redesign teacher training ultimat ely requires rethinking teacher preparation and professional development, not re formulating the status quo. Knowi ng this, a decade ago DarlingHammond (1996) set an audacious goal in the hope of challenging education professionals. She 23

PAGE 24

claimed that within 10 years the United Stat es would provide all students with access to competent, caring, and qualified teachers. As this optimistic challenge drew to its conclusion in 2006, veteran teachers continued to retire, teacher attrition rates continued to be an issue and teacher support programs have not addre ssed the needs of our new recruits. Sixty-five percent (65%) of U. S. teachers w ith less than three years experience claim to have been part of an induction program. Howeve r, only 19% received support from school level personnel (NCES, 1998). Novice teachers value induc tion practices that in clude a mentor, time for professional development, and observational feedback (Haugaard, 2005). Although content knowledge can quickly be attained, pedagogical knowledge often takes additional training. Teachers without continued support develop ineff ectiveness in areas of classroom management, lesson planning and ability to develop rapport with students and parents (Chisena, 2002; Haugaard, 2005; Spindler & Biott, 2000; Torff & Sessions, 2005). These st udies intimated that novice teachers rarely received trai ning in areas they believed were most needed and valuable. Beliefs are strong predictors of human behavior and are perceived as personal knowledge. The beliefs of the teacher will indicate what type of program and support is important. Addressing a teachers needs with feedback enables that teac her to gain confidence and reaffirm his or her abilities (Littrell & Billingsley, 1994; Pajares, 1992). Novice teachers experience problems when th e beliefs they developed during their university-based teacher preparation stand in contrast to th e work environment they encounter in their first teaching assignment (Halford, 1998; Johnson & Birkel and, 2003). Too often, they find themselves trying to survive thei r first years with little support fr om the school district or from school-based personnel. In addition, several fast-tr ack, or alternative certification programs, have provided a route for instructors with no pre-service training to enter the profession (Johnson, 24

PAGE 25

Birkeland, & Peske, 2005). Without proper supp ort, many novice teachers become frustrated semi-skilled labor, demonstrating little more than the ability to use a few simple routines and tricks of the trade (DarlingHammond, 1999; Johnson, Birkela nd, Peske, & Munger, 2005). To help prevent such occurrences, administrators must gain understanding of an effective teacher induction process. Support of novice teachers from school-based ad ministrators and mentors often determines if novice teachers stay in the profession (F arkas, Johnson & Foleno, 2000; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). Although most school district s utilize some type of indu ction program, the educational field continues to experience high attrition due to the lack of support and the inability to positively influence novice teachers on-the-job stre ssors. Castorina (2003) reported the lack of high quality induction practices re sulted in a school district losing nearly 100% of its novice teachers. Thus, it is not only important that dist ricts deliver training and support, but that the support and training meet the needs of the particip ants. Clarity of supporting roles assists in the development of teacher induction programs, en abling teachers to experience greater job satisfaction and allowing administrator and me ntor roles to be defined (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Littrell & Billingsley, 1994; Ponticell & Zepeda, 1997). The disassociation of induction practices from pre-service trainingand the inability for mentors and administrators to relieve novice teac hers stressors once they arrive in the field makes instructional positions unattractive, whic h causes further attrition. This mass departure has resulted in a growing number of novice teachers entering classrooms with temporary certifications (NCES, 2000) and looking for support in their formative years. To combat the high quality teacher shortage, teachers must be trained effectively, supported when they enter the profession, and wa ys found to increase their retention. Quality 25

PAGE 26

support of teachers will assist in the reduction of attrition and further attract new recruits to the educational arena (Johnson, Birkeland, Kardos, Kauffman, Liu & Peske, 2001). Continued investment in teachers seeking al ternative certification solidifies the need for school districts to understand the type of support that needs to be provided. This study provides insight to help school districts understand the types of support that are necessary to crea te a successful teacher induction program. This study adds to the research of Castorina (2003) by ex amining differences between first-year alternatively certificated, and first-ye ar traditionally certificated teachers beliefs about the delivery and importance of teacher support services. It also expands the size of the populations, while focusing only on the uniquene ss of public elementary schools. The study presents evidence of the support services that are needed as well as evidence of the effectiveness of support services already provided. The study concludes with analysis of three open-ended responses that help expand knowle dge and explanation of important district and school level issues that the survey may not address. Resu lts of the study will inform elementary school principals and district level personnel about how teacher inducti on programs, and their roles in them, can be improved. 26

PAGE 27

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction This chapter presents a review of the professional literature and results of studies on teacher recruitment and retention, alternative cert ification, and induction programs as they relate to the teaching profession. Included in this review are the roles of a mentor and a description of administrative roles to support beginning teache rs and the importance of such support, along with novice teachers needs and perceptions of support and the impor tance of their beliefs, and an overview of induction program research. A brief summary concludes the chapter. Recruitment and Retention A major goal for administrators and mentor teachers should be to help beginning teachers remain in the profession (Johnson, 2001). Da rling-Hammond (2003) added, To reduce high teacher turnover rates that impose heavy costs on schools, [education professionals] must insist on effective teacher preparation and pr ovide support for new teachers (p. 1). Teacher training programs produce more highly qualifi ed teachers than should be necessary, yet educators cannot keep them in the profession. Ingersoll (2002) reported that 14% of teachers leave after one year, 24.4% leav e after two years, 32.6% leave after three year s, 40.4% leave after four years, and almost half (50%) leave the profession after five years. Not only are firstyear teachers leaving the profession, but experi enced teachers are also exiting in droves (Coppenhaver & Schaper, 1999). Halford stated, Nearly two million new teachers are projected to enter U. S. schools in the next decade, and the challenge of supporti ng them effectively has become a critical issue (1998, p. 34). Turnover fo r teachers is 5% higher per year than nonteaching occupations. In addition, Berry and Hirsch (2003) estimated a loss of thousands of dollars per teacher who leaves th e profession in the first few years. Most of the educators 27

PAGE 28

leaving the profession come from schools difficult to staff. Teacher turnover is almost 7% higher in low income public schools (Ingersoll, 2001a). As a result, poor children are far more likely to be taught by inexperienced, under prepared, a nd non-certificated teacher s (Berry & Hirsch, 2003). The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) reported a significant shortage of quality teachers (Tetzeli, 1993). Only 28% of teachers currently in the field agreed they would enter teaching if they had the choice again (Gruber, Wiley, Broughman, Strizek, & Burian-Fitzgerald, 2002). Al Shanker, former AFT president, be lieved public education co mbated the increased student populations by hiring the next able body down the list (T etzeli, 1993). Finding quality teachers in the United States has become so difficult that American sc hool districts have begun to search beyond the borders to find quality te achers (Archer, 2001). The Houston Independent School district is one of many U. S. school districts that travel ove rseas to hire teachers (Archer, 1999). The Houston school district in 1999 claimed that it found more of the teachers that it needed in Moscow than it found in Texas dur ing the last three year s. Although the National Education Association voiced that this is the wr ong direction for educatio n to head in order to achieve excellence, Congress has already made it easier for foreign teachers to get temporary visas (Archer, 1999). The continued public focus on educational exce llence has made keeping quality teachers in the classroom a priority among policymakers. As a result, two broad approaches have been identified: (a) increasing teacher salaries a nd (b) addressing inadequate support for novices (Halford, 1999). Support for both appr oaches is gaining increased popularity with legislators and county-created teacher induction programs. 28

PAGE 29

As of 2000, only 5% of teachers st rongly agreed that they were satisfied with their salaries (Gruber et al., 2002). Other negative factors making support for teachers even more vital include rising school violence, overcrow ded schools, and inadequate pub lic appreciation for the work done by teachers. Poor working conditions a nd lack of on-the-job training and support are primary factors for the exodus of novice teacher s from the profession. Regardless of these negative factors, Singh and Billingsley (1998) st ated that teachers who encounter stronger disposition toward teaching and support to remain in the profession are more likely to continue. Research conducted by the Project on the Next Gene ration of Teachers suggested that the key to addressing shortages lies not in attractive recruitment polices but in support and training for new teachers at the school site (p. 1). Of the teach ers involved in the study, most reported that although they were once eager to teach, they f ound that they needed much more support and direction than was provided by their cu rrent schools (Johnson et al., 2001). Florida has adjusted its retention focus by di stributing additional f unds to support teacher incentives and increase support programs. Berry and Hirsch (2003) discussed how states have offered 10% to 12% pay increases for teacher s who become certified by the National Board Certified Teacher (NBCT) Program. In addition, Halford (1999) reported that Florida already allocated more than $1 million toward teacher support programs. These funds added to the NBCT program, granting teachers another 10% pa y increase as an incentive to mentor and support beginning teachers within the school system. Novice teachers are offered incentives such as housing, health club memberships, loan fo rgiveness, and bonuses. Despite such programs teacher attrition rates continue to soar. Although such enticements increase the supply of new teachers to schools, they do nothing to guarantee that novice teachers remain. Such short-term 29

PAGE 30

responses to long-term challenges bring to light and question the effectiv eness of current support practices (Johnson et al., 2001). Alternative Certification Alternative Certification conf licts with the push for high qua lity teaching. Within this context, state policy makers and program directors face the challenge of designing and implementing appealing, fast-track preparation programs that will also ensure teacher quality (Johnson, Birkeland, & Peske, 2005, p. 72). Persons w ho seek temporary certification in Florida only have to meet minimum state requiremen ts. Requirements for a three-year teacher certification are only a bachelo rs degree with a 2.5 GPA and to pass a background check. Once they are in the classroom teaching children, they must pass the National Teacher Exam, Florida Professional Education Test and the College Leve l Academic Skills Test (Baines, McDowell, & Foulk, 2001). Alternatively certific ated teachers in Florida are gr anted complete control over a childs education, but they are not required to have any previous classroo m training. They are not only employed and elevated to a full instructor, bu t they receive full benefits and the same status as teachers with often twice their educational training. These teachers are expected to teach and to have as much knowledge as traditionally certifi cated teachers after as little as a two-week crash course. Finn and Madigan (2001) repor ted some Florida educational leaders feel minimum requirements should be removed entirely. They suggested that we lose a huge number of nontraditional teacher candidates because of our hoops and hurdles and red tape (p. 29). The tightening of teacher requirements and training does not necessarily mean higher achievement for students. Many school districts have begun to widen the pathways into the profession by experimenting with private a lternative certification programs. Johnson, Birkeland, and Peske (2005) reported on fast-track programs which are completed in one summer. Candidates in these 30

PAGE 31

programs expressed they would not have been ab le or willing to ente r the profession if the certification timeline was longer. These ultra-condensed programs can be provided by the state, but they are often provided by private vendors as a less expensive alternative. Teach for America (TFA), which places liberal arts graduates in poor inner city schools, and Troops to Teachers, which places military veterans in classrooms, are now working with the public system to provide alternative certifications. More than 90% of principals were satisfied enough to hire more teachers from both of these programs and 60% were retained for at least a second year of service (Finn & Madigan, 2001; Tell, 2001). Johnson and Birkelands (2003) qualitative study examined a program that duplicated the training model of TFA. They showed an investment of nearly $20,000 per alternative certification teacher, but offered little follow-up once they reached the classroom. These teachers were placed in areas they did not feel qualified to teach, and often received a higher workload than a traditionally certificated teacher. In sp ite of the large amount of money allocated to the training of these teachers, almost half left the profession after one year in the classroom. They were also three times more likely to change schools. Because of pr ior career experience, alternatively certificated teachers were believed to have had a lower tolerance for unsupportive school situations. These teachers thought they were not placed in situati ons where effectiveness could be achieved. The commonality among training programs is that most novice educators need support in order to remain in the educat ional field. Once the extrinsic or monetary incentives are gone, novice teachers need to make an intrinsic connection to remain in the field. States have now begun to debate the idea of whether they should decentralize or centralize alternative certification c ontrol in order to meet the demands of alternately certif icated teachers. 31

PAGE 32

Johnson, Birkeland, and Peske (2005) studied th e decentralized and centralized programs of three states. Each state repr esented a different level of centr alization or decentralization. The centralized programs were able to pull from a la rger pool of candidates with higher credentials. They were also able to offer a wider variety of certifications. However, these candidates were not, and could not be, guaranteed jobs. The decentralized or local programs had a higher success rate of filling jobs, but they ha d limitations on the areas of expert ise in each subject they could offer. Gaps in training were reported in all of the programs. Quality was treated as an afterthought rather than a process. The research implied that the best solution was for the state and local agencies to work toge ther. A selectively decentralized model could allow for both state and local agencies to do what they do best. Additional research suggested that not only should the agencies work together, but th at the length and quality of traini ng programs continue to be an issue. Johnson, Birkeland, Peske, and Munger (2005) studied a sample of 13 alternative certification program sites in four states. They found additional evidence th at fast-track program incentives brought many professionals into teac hing that would not have otherwise had the opportunity in enter the field. The difficultly for program administrators was an inability to deliver the promised quality of training. The t eaching candidates reported major gaps in their training, lack of knowledge of how to teach their subject, mismatched student teaching placements with untrained mentors, and inadequate follow-up support once they began teaching. Induction Programs Furtwengler (1995) conducted an analysis of state induction programs. Of the 34 states that were determined to have policie s for beginning-teacher induction, common trends in each state included the use of support teams, provision of teacher mentors, development of training programs for participants, and determination of evaluation decisions for certification. The state 32

PAGE 33

of Florida passed legislation in 1982 that required and funde d Floridas Beginning Teacher Program, or Professional Orie ntation Program. Each district became responsible for implementation of the program and for gaini ng annual endorsement by the Commissioner of Education. The supporting staff was defined as a principal, peer teacher, and another professional educator. Both formative and summative assessments should be conducted, using the recommended Florida Performance Measurement System. Feimen-Nemser (1999) investigated Floridas program and found that the training programs were piecemeal. She also discovered that induction practices varied enormously stem ming from Floridas decentralization. Johnson (2001) believed that instructional pr actices cannot be grasped through pre-service classes and student teaching. Support must continue throughout the first year and be part of an ongoing process of development. The fact many t eachers remain past the first years is a tribute toward their desire to teach, not to the received support. Stan sbury (2001) stated, An induction program aims at supporting beginning teachers who have completed their professional preparation, using assessment stra tegies to inform support (p. 1). Ponticell and Zepeda (1997) added that planned induction activities with me ntors, department chairs, and administrators should be geared to help beginning teachers make the transition from student teacher to teacher of students. These activities should help novice teachers make connections with information sources and build a support network for problem-s olving. Florida has mandated that all districts have a specific plan of action. However, what constitutes a minimally acceptable program has not been established (Baines et al., 2001). Spindler and Biott (2000) suggested that support for novice teachers should include: (a) obtainment of an induction tutor (mentor), (b ) observation of beginning teacher instructional practices, (c) observation of experienced teachers, (d) a formal review of the novice teachers 33

PAGE 34

progress conducted with a mentor, and (e) pr ofessional development based on the beginning teachers needs. Although 28 states have institute d some form of induction program, the level of participation varies greatly. For example, 10 st ates (not including Fl orida) do not fund the program fully and do not mandate school district participation (Halford, 1999). Torff and Sessions (2005) continued examination of the effectiveness of teacher training programs. Three hundred school principals were aske d to give their perceived causes of teacher ineffectiveness. The results concluded that, although content mastery co uld be achieved in a short amount of time, pedagogical knowledge was not reached. The teachers experienced threats to effectiveness in the skill areas of cla ssroom-management, lesson-implementation, lessonplanning, and rapport with students. The authors reported that the results implied teacher training programs centered on content knowledge and lacked pedagogical focus. The data also supported the need to not shorten programs any further or reduce rigor for convenience. An effective induction program not only pr ovides support for beginning teachers, but provides training to help mentors develop their sk ills in this role. The mentor teacher should be allotted time to meet with his/her novice teacher to analyze teaching and problem-solving skills. In turn, the beginning teacher should be given time to observe the mentors teaching practices and reflect on what they do in their classroom s (Stansbury, 2001). Such additional visitation time is usually not mandated, and must be provided through leadership support. Chisena (2002) researched the new teacher induction program in Orange County, Florida outlining the elements important for a successful induction program. A survey was given to 285 first-year teachers to identify induction activities that they perceived as the most helpful and relevant to their success as teachers. Curriculu m, students, parents, a nd staff were the four subgroups selected to determine the importance of support. Results indicted that the five most 34

PAGE 35

important induction support topics included: (a) motivating students, (b) student discipline, (c) establishing professional relationships with other teachers, (d) establishing effective communication with parents, and (e) communicati on about student progre ss with parents. The majority of the teachers reported that they were not provided assistance in these important areas. In addition, neither principals nor university st aff were viewed as an integral source of assistance. Beginning Teacher Support Mentors Perceptions of Their Roles Support provided to beginning teachers is importa nt to the quality of their short and longterm professional success. Carter and Francis (20 01) suggested, Mentoring is one such form of professional support that has received widespread attention in the literatu re and which has been implemented in a number of teacher educati on and induction programs during the past two decades (p. 249). Mentoring is often used to deal with issues of skill, classroom development, and the articulation of school norms. Researchers sometimes believe the term mentor is an ambiguous synonym for teacher tutor, professional tutor, or host teacher. Saunde rs and Pettinger (1995) described a mentor as someone who contributes and plays a role in the training, supervis ion, or assessment of a student teacher. Spindler and Biott (2000) continued the ambiguity by using a more global definition that a mentor is anyone who is involved with the development of a begi nning teacher, but an Induction Tutor is the member who is tagged with the respons ibility of coordinating guidance and support. Thus, it is increasingly important for programs that aid beginning teachers to clearly define roles of the mentoring teacher. When th e principal communicates clear expectations for the beginning teacher and the mentor, teachers experience a greater professional commitment 35

PAGE 36

(Singh & Billingsley, 1998). The principals role, as related to beginni ng teachers, will be discussed later in this review. In Florida schools, mentors have an important role in the induction process that expands the definition even further. An induction mentor or peer teacher, as termed by a Central Florida county, aids in the supervision of teachers w ho have a bachelors degree, but do not have a teaching certificate from a Florida university or a university that is recognized by Florida. This school district also assigns mentors at the sc hool level for all novice teachers. However, the mentors roles were not defi ned. Florida Department of Ed ucation (FDOE) guidelines for selecting mentors require that they meet one of th e following three criteria. First, a mentor can be selected because he/she has a Pr ofessional Service Contract (PSC ) and has completed a clinical education program. Second, a mentor may be se lected if he/she has a PSC and also has completed a FDOE course in Florida Performance Management System (FPMS), a state approved evaluation system. Third, a teacher can be selected by possessing a PSC and training as a supervisor of interns. All three methods of selection must be accompanied by a principals recommendation. In addition, mentors are given a $1,200 yearly stipend if they are aiding a novice teacher in obtaining alternative certification. It is important for the mentor pairing to be a cohesive match. Cart er and Francis (2001) emphasized the importance of the mentor a nd mentee developing commonalities beyond a stipend or the receipt of a cer tification. Forming a relationship beyond basic day-to-day routines is termed a multi-dimensional mentor. A mentor who merely gives information is functioning as a transmitter of teacher professional learning, whic h Carter and Franciss (2001) research defined as a uni-dimensional approach (p. 250). Ballantyne and Hansford (1995) and Ponticell and Zepeda (1997) both state that uni-dimensional mentoring can constrain th e learning of beginning 36

PAGE 37

teachers rather than reinforce reflective practice that results in creating professional connections. Carter and Francis (2001) were suspicious of mentoring that lacked essential workplace connections. When workplace learning is grounde d in a constructivist epistemology, it has the capacity to generate a dynamic, interactive learning process that has the potential to challenge, if not transform, the status quo (p. 251). A mentor acts as a gateway to a novice te achers job satisfacti on. A novice teacher who interacted with his mentor on a regular basis viewed the sch ool professional climate more favorably. Within the workplace, the mentor should be viewed as a critical friend rather than a superior. However, Carter and Francis (2001) em phasized that the sepa ration of mentor and supervisor roles is less critical than the de gree of personal compatibility between beginning teacher and mentor (p. 258). Greater success was reported when a formal mentor was assigned to a novice teacher who shared commonalities with them. Spindler and Biotts (2000) on-the-job training research, also reported that formal meeti ngs can have less effect than informal contact. Beginning teachers resent being the object rather than the partner in the process (Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998). Mentoring shoul d be regarded as a strategy to provide professional and personal support to beginning te achers outside the schools line management structure (Carter & Francis, 2001, p. 254). It is important for the ment ors in a district level program to be aware of their roles and to accentuate daily guidance, al ong with summative and formative evaluations. Ballantyne and Hansford (1995) further define d the mentors multi-dimensional approach in describing a mentor as a buddy They reported that mentors should provide novice teachers with what they require to be successful in varying degrees. These ar eas are personal support, task-related assistance and advice, problem-related assistance and advice, critical reflection, and feedback on practice. Personal support encompasses Carter and Francis (2 001) characteristics of 37

PAGE 38

effective mentoring. This mentor role entails th e attributes of approachability, friendliness, openness, interest in development, and also em phasizes the importance of compatibility between novice teacher and mentor. Novice teachers find co mfort and reduction in their stress level by having access to someone to talk to, and ask fo r advice and assistance. A buddy mentor is able to offer empathy and reassurance based on shared difficulties, as well as the benefits of greater experience (Ballantyne & Hansford, 1995, p. 3). A buddy mentor is described as a teacher who simply shows the novice where things are located and assists the primary mentor when he is not a teacher from the campus (Stansbury, 2001). However, an off-campus mentor may cause a poor affiliation and further confusion and create undue stress for the novice. Castorina (2003) reported that mentors felt a 10to 15-year difference in age was unimportant. Carter and Francis (2001) supported Castor inas findings and noted that the age and experience differences in a mentoring relationship should not be too great. Rather than age and status, the physical location, and ease of me ntor access has considerable impact on the effectiveness of the pairing. Ponticell and Zepe da (1997) agreed, citing examples of effective novice teaching programs using proximity and c ontent area to drive mentor partnering. Stansburys (2001) evaluation of The Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program showed that teachers with four or five years of experience made excellent support providers. The experience these teachers lacked was compensate d for by a fresh understanding of the obstacles that novices face. This relevance aided in the mentors understa nding of what new teachers need to know and be able to do. Task-related assistance should begin in the first weeks where the mentor becomes multidimensional, thus helping the novice teacher develop his instructional role in the workplace. The mentor embarks on helping the novice teacher w ith daily school routin es, assisting the novice 38

PAGE 39

with student progress reports, covering school-based requirem ents, cooporative planning, and modeling effective teaching behaviors (Ballantyne & Hansford, 1995). When the mentor works on tasks along side the novice teacher, it presents an opportunity to initia te collegial activities and model grade-level planning. This helps novi ce teachers accomplish teaching-related work with feedback from lead teachers on current le ssons and units being planned (Stansbury, 2001). Ponticell and Zepeda (1997) extended the notion that it is important for teachers at this stage not to neglect attention to classroom issues and fi xate on the way we do things around here (p. 9). School culture issues are addresse d through interaction with mentor s who are already part of the schools teaching community. Established cultures, along with classroom di fficulties, are barrier s that a novice teacher quickly encounters. To address some of thes e barriers, Ballentyne and Hansford (1995) suggested that problem-related assistance shoul d begin after four w eeks. Castorina (2003) proposed that support should begin during preplanning. Both findings concur that help for novice teachers should begin very close to the beginning of a school year. At this point the mentor begins to explore instru ctional problems and possible solution s with the novice teacher. Early intervention helps combat the increasing sour ce of concern the beginning teacher may have about individual student learning and behavi ors and about where to find assistance. DeJongs (1997) learning process perspectiv e (p. 461), described as a training method, allows the novice to obtain the necessary skill s to become as independent as possible. The support provider should help the novice teachers id entify their strengths and better develop their teaching practices (Stansbury, 2001). This feedback helps improve the novices skills, allowing the improvement to continue after support is withdrawn. Once support is removed, teacher thinking or teacher literacy can continue (Bor een & Niday, 2000, p. 2). Teacher literacy allows 39

PAGE 40

for the practitioner to transfer theory into performance, sift ing through educational jargon and understanding expectations which result in concrete teaching in the classroom. Critical reflection and feedback on practice give the novice te acher a chance in the latter phase of induction to analyze success and failure s. Reflection allows for self-learning during which the novice can determine both the competencies to be gained and the strategies to acquire those skills. Reflective supervision serves as a ca talyst for novice teachers to have the courage to look into their own classroom prac tices and change what is consid ered less effective (Brownlee, Dart, Boulton-Lewis, & McCrindl e, 1998; Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998) In turn, the novice teacher begins to see how he can incorporate how he wants to teach rather than how he had to teach to get through the year (Ballantyne & Hansford, 1995). Mentors have reported that novice teachers often wanted to hide problems they were having. Mentors used their own shortcomings to eas e the novice teachers stre ss levels. This aids the teacher training process, allowing for a jo int effort in which both the mentor and novice teacher improve together (Johnson, 2001; Spindler & Biott, 2000). The mentors share in the challenging timetables, sometimes shouldering much of the novice teachers responsibility, andin many instancesincreasing their time commit ment an extensive number of hours. Most mentors believed that novice teachers who initia lly showed limited skill can learn to improve (Saunders & Pettinger, 1995). It is the mentors role to provide the level of assistance the beginning teacher requires. Novice teachers were more responsive to being provided appropriate levels of assistance rather than being told what they needed to do (Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998). Administrative Role Principals can feel isolatedcaught in the chain of command between students, teachers, parents, and the distri ct office. They can become overwhelmed by too many people clamoring for their attention (Bolman & Deal, 1993). Howe ver, the need for principal support for novice 40

PAGE 41

teachers is documented throughout research. A pr incipals concept of teacher tasks plays an influential role in making decisi ons, and that concept can have a positive or negative effect on a teachers behavior and learning (Ballantyne, Thompson, & Taylor, 1998). Singh and Billingsley (1998) summarized, Principal supp ort appears to be important to teachers general well-being (p. 9). Well-being was defined by Littrell and Bi llingsley (1994) as teacher stress, personal health, job satisfaction, school commitment, and intent to stay in teaching (p. 7). Principals who address this need develop teachers who are more likely to be satisfied with their work. Zepeda and Ponticell (1998) reported that novice t eachers also look for empowerment from their principal. The principal is regularly in my classroom to observe and in teract with the children and me. This is important. Both the principa l and I have seen strengt hs, concerns addressed, and progress made (p. 4). The message sent from the principal to a novice teacher can aid in the necessary developmental process from content knowledge to quality te aching practice. Johnson (2001) agreed that a clear message expressing the value and overall need for the beginning teacher should come from the principal. Principals need to exert management skills and emotional support to provide teachers with a sense of belonging, while understanding the importance of their role (Littr ell & Billingsley, 1994). Ballantyne et al. (1998) suggested that principals reflect on their personal views on teaching expectations. Becoming cognizant of their personal myths (p. 9) will enable the administra tor to take a more consistent approach and further meet the needs of a beginning teacher. Often administrative managerial techniques place novice teachers in content areas without regard to their qualifications (Ingersoll, 2001b). The requirements of novice teachers are so metimes ignored. Principals often lack understanding of their roles in regard to the importance of easing new teachers into their profession (Johnson, 2001). The principal must be in sync with what the novice teacher needs. 41

PAGE 42

It is the principals duty to avoid burdening beginning teachers with unnecessary tasks. Novice teachers should be encouraged to learn, but they should not develop cognitive overload by enrolling in every professional developmen t opportunity. Although a common practice within school systems, principals should avoid: (a) as signing beginning teachers the most challenging students, (b) scheduling separate preparations in secondary schools, or (c) combining classes in elementary schools. The principal must also shoulder the responsibility of preventing enthusiastic novice teachers from volunteering fo r too much responsibility (Stansbury, 2001). Administrators must avoid the pitfalls of using novice teachers as in expensive after-school labor (Ponticell & Zepeda, 1997) Avoiding this kind of situation can be achieved by administrators encouraging veteran teachers to take on additional responsibilities. However, Ponticell and Zepeda reported that the principal needs to keep th e new staff members involved in learning opportunities (p. 9) by inspiring them to attend school-re lated activities to learn more about the schools culture and ch aracteristics. This type of administrative support helps novices create a sense of belonging, inter act with students outside of the classroom, and be exposed to the informal structures of the schools commun ity without feeling the burdensome responsibility or obligation of assigned duties at these events. The principa ls emotional support motivates novices to a higher level of performance and invo lvement, while decreasing their health-related problems and increasing their commitment toward teaching (Littrell & Billingsley, 1994). When principal leadership is strong, teachers are more likely to be professionally committed (Singh & Billingsley, 1998). Ponticell and Zepeda (1997) demonstrated the impact of admini strative support through their research conducted on three high schools. Two schools that were deemed successful 42

PAGE 43

reported administrators as encouraging and emphas ized formative interaction and observation. In turn, both the novice teachers and administrators re ported high levels of satisfaction and skill. The principals support encourag es commitment of novice teach ers to the profession, and his/her bolstering directly infl uences peer support. Mentors are less likely to aid beginning teachers if perception of their principal s leadership is poor. The support shown by administrators has the strongest correlation between assistance and teacher performance (Singh & Billingsley, 1998). Singh and Billingsleys (1998) research showed little correlation be tween the number of years a teacher has been in the profession a nd his overall commitment toward teaching. The education level of the teacher ex erted a slightly negative relationship, leading one to believe that teachers with more education exhibited more re sistance to leadership. While 42% of Florida teachers felt their principals were supportiv e, only 9% of Florida teachers remembered discussing instructional practices with their principals. Urzua (1999) noted that principals sometimes have high, although possibly unrealistic, expectations of recent university graduates, and they start the school year w ith expectations of supervisin g novice teachers. Yet principals quickly become overextended, overworked, or ov erwhelmed by their duties. As a result, the principals rely on mentors or assistants to cove r duties such as instruct ing novice teachers. Doud and Keller (1998) reported training or staff development as a principals lowest priority. A mentors ability to cooperate with principals regarding th e training of novice teachers was dependant on the principals support and ab ility to evaluate fairly. The principal leadership/support not only influenced profession al commitment directly, but it also affected professional commitment indirectly through peer support (Singh & Bill ingsly, 1998, p. 8). This study concluded that principals play a vital role in novice teacher support and mentor 43

PAGE 44

effectiveness. Littrell and Billings ly (1994) attested that a higher level of support is perceived by beginning teachers within a school where its lead er emphasizes camaraderie and optimism (p. 7) and interacts frequently with all members of his staff. Novice Teachers Needs and Perceptions The needs of novice teachers and those preparin g to enter the field must be addressed. With the growth in student popula tion, the public school system cannot afford to continue to lose new members within its ranks (Johnson, 2001). Halford (1998) re ported that novice teachers classrooms often become dumping grounds (p. 33) for students w ith behavioral difficulties, attendance issues, and learning deficiencies. Po nticell and Zepedas (1997) study showed many novice teachers were left to flounder in the mi dst of extremely difficult assignments. Johnson (2001) stated that in most fi elds the tougher assignments go to those with experience. Why should teaching be different? Some of the gr eatest challenges for fi rst-year teachers are classroom management, student motivation, deali ng with individual differences, assessment, and getting along with parents (Baines et al., 2001; Haugaard, 2005). These areas have been readily addressed through staff development. However, the NCES Teacher Survey on Professional Development and Training (1998) de tected only slight increases in many of these areas. More teacherswho did not attend staff developmentfe lt confident in the area of maintaining order and discipline. It was not determined what level of understanding these teachers had in classroom management, which may explain this result. Dissimilarly, Haug aards (2005) recent study reported 80% of novice teachers felt that classroom management was an extremely important topic for induction programs. The 110 teachers surveyed in Haugaards (2005) study valued the support of 10 topics at 89% or above. These 10 topics in cluded: (a) student di scipline plans and classroom management, (b) accessing resources, (c) curric ulum assistance, (d) procedures for the first days of school, 44

PAGE 45

(e) student assessment, (f) read ing instruction, (g) di strict policies and procedures, (h) lesson planning and preparation for instruction, (i) instructional techniques, and (j) parent communication methods. These teachers also report ed that the four most valuable ways of delivering these support topics we re: (a) teaching coaches, (b) re lease time for professional development activities, (c) observation feedback from mentors or administrators, and (d) teacher mentors. Haugaard concluded that the participants were satisfied with the induction-support topic assistance or training received. However, onl y 63% of the novice teachers reported receiving assistance from a teaching coach. A teaching coach or mentor was reported as the most valued resource for a novice teacher. In addition, almost a quarter of the respondents did not receive support with classroom management, whic h was the top-rated support topic. The Schools and Staffing Survey 1999-2000 (Grube r et al., 2002), shows that support of Floridas new teachers is ahead of the U. S. average in all areas except for extra classroom assistance, where Florida fell 2% below the national average. In relation to the national average, Floridas common planning time is 9% above, seminar time for beginning teachers is 18% above, regular supportive communica tion is 9% above, and mentor time is 5% above. Yet only 38% of Florida teachers felt their mentors were he lping significantly. This data indicate novice teachers are being allotted time, but they may not be getting the support they need. This could be explained by Singh and Billingsleys (1998) resear ch that found that time must not be the only ingredient, but that support must also include discussion, assistance with instruction, and help with discipline. Novice Teachers Beliefs and Practices MacNab and Payne (2003) reported that school experiences dictated novice teachers beliefs about instruction. Sevent y-one percent (71%) of beginning or alternat ively certificated teachers responded to questions about their be liefs about teaching mathematics. Through a 45

PAGE 46

survey and qualitative questioning, MacNab and Payne determined that past negative or positive experiences reflected the novice teachers current f eelings. The nature of teachers beliefs, their antecedents and influences, and their effect s on classroom practice are very revealing. Brownlee et al. (1998) examin ed graduate students who recently completed a degree in education. They found that novice teachers, who l eave university training programs, depart with beliefs that can be described as nave or inform ed. Nave beliefs have no evidence of theoretical knowledge and may lack understand ing. Informed beliefs reflect a theoretical connection and demonstrate understanding. Novice teachers who rece ived theoretical classroom training, had an on-the-job experience, and who utili zed methods of reflection demonstrated an increased level of informed beliefs. The authors determined that whether nave or informed, beliefs are a strong predictor of teaching behavior, t hus impacting student achievement. Pajares (1992) examined teachers perception and reported that beliefs of the teacher will indicate what type of program and support is important. Beliefs are strong predictors of human behavior and are perceived as personal knowle dge. Zepeda and Pontic ells (1998) study of teachers needs supported this pattern of thought, concluding that supervision is best when teachers receive validation, empowerment, a visible presence, and coaching. Novice teachers feel that validation is obtained through the feedback received from a mentor or supervisor. Zepeda and Ponticell ( 1998) pointed out that pos itive feedback helped teachers gain confidence while reaffirming thei r abilities. This intera ction assists in the validation of the teachers self-c onfidence and beliefs a bout their role in th e school system. The dog and pony show (p. 5), in which the supervis or makes the evaluation based on a checklist of boxes, was of little value and provided scant professional growth. Novice teachers felt more personal gains were achieved when the only ev aluation process was not structured around 46

PAGE 47

mandated guidelines and two yearly performances (p. 5). The evaluation process for teachers should be empowering and simulate instructiona l growth. Assistance they receive should help the novice teachers take control of their own knowledge, skills, and ability to improve. Teachers who received encouragement to reflect on their ow n classroom practice felt a sense of power and awareness. This was achieved with the ai d of properly used assessment techniques. Although teachers viewed instrumental support as important, their testimonials favored receiving more informational support (Littrell & Billingsley, 1994). It is therefore important for the mentor, as well as the principal, to evaluate the support that novice teachers require and use an instrumental approach to obtain informati on. Unfortunately, mentors often do not provide the support that teachers believe they should receive and feel is so important. Zepeda and Ponticell (1998) made a strong c onnection with supervis ors who took time to complete frequent summative and formative obs ervations and coached the novice along the way. One respondent in their study stated: [My supervisor] was there for me and helped me through any problems that I had. I was successful because I felt [my supervisor] was on my side to assist me with concerns . interested in what I was accomplishing and eagerly involved in what students were accomplishing . then provided evidence of my and my students success. (p. 4) This formative approach satisfies the need for a novice teacher to receive a visible presence while encompassing the necessity for teachers to receive coaching. The mentor or supervisor works alongside the novice teacher to provide assistance that is pa rticular to his/her classroom situation. Summary Research indicates that, without support in their beginning years, novice teachers will not fully develop and will continue to leave the pr ofession. Once the teacher reaches the classroom, vital sources of support should come from admi nistrators and support pe rsonnel in the form a 47

PAGE 48

mentor. Major components for teacher induction success were reported to be follow-through and focus on areas that novices believed were beneficial. Most research indicated that the areas of focus were discipline, curriculu m, instructional feedback, a nd communication. If the novice teacher believed that these areas were being properly addressed, they achieved job satisfaction and connection to the workplace. 48

PAGE 49

CHAPTER 3 DESIGN OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study was to examine a district-wide teacher induction program and evaluate the relationship between the believed importance and actual deliv ery of mentors and principals responsibilities in support services, as evaluated by the administrator, mentor, and novice teacher. This study also reviewed the out come of the teacher induction program through the perspective of traditionally and a lternatively certificat ed novice teacher. Data was obtained from K-5 novice teachers, me ntors and principals using an electronic survey. The survey was based on the following research questions. 1. What is the level of agreement among admini strators ratings regard ing the importance of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 2. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers ratings regarding the importance of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 3. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers ratings regarding the importance of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 4. What is the level of agreement among admini strators ratings rega rding the delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 5. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers ratings regarding the delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 6. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers ratings rega rding the delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 7. What is the level of agreement among admi nistrators ratings re garding the importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 49

PAGE 50

8. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers ratings regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 9. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers ratings regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 10. What is the level of agreement between alte rnatively certif icated novice teach ers ratings regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/p rincipal responsibilities? 11. What are the differences between alternatively certificated and traditionally certificated novice teachers ratings regarding the impor tance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? Methodology To answer these research questions, a survey adapted with the perm ission of Dr. Susan Castorina (2003) was used. This research was a descriptive quantitative study designed to measure the relationship between the beliefs of th e administrators, mentors, and novice teachers and the delivered services of a Cent ral Florida teacher induction program. The survey was separated into four parts. Part I of the survey used demographic questions to help identify the participants. Part II of the survey asked the participants to rate the importance of support services that their t eacher induction program provided. Th is section was separated into 3 parts. Part II A asked the importance of suppor t services related to teacher induction program beliefs about administrator res ponsibilities. Part II B asked th e importance of support services related to beliefs about mentor responsibilitie s. Part II C asked the importance of support services related to beliefs about mentor/principal responsibilities. Part III of the survey asked participants to rate, based upon pe rsonal experiences, their level of satisfaction with delivery of support services in their school. Part III A sought the level of satisfaction of delivery of support services related to administrato r responsibilities. Part III B sought the level of satisfaction of delivery of support services related to mentor responsibilities. Part III C sought the level of 50

PAGE 51

satisfaction of delivery of support services related to mentor/principal respons ibilities. Part IV of the survey asked participants to answer four open-ended questions in reference to personal beliefs about the teacher induction program. Population This quantitative study used the population and se tting as they were in order to report an accurate description of the induction practices as they naturally occur. Tuckman (1999) stated that the population, the target group the type of people th e researcher is interested in studying (p. 283), is addressed th rough the selection of a sample drawn from a school district. The sample for this study included all K-5 elementa ry first year teachers, their mentors, and the building principals and assistan t principals designated to mon itor the teacher induction program in a Central Florida county school district (n = 179). This study examined the satisfaction levels of participants in an induction program in an urban Centra l Florida county school district. The district includes 37 elementary schools. The 36 schools sampled have been in operation for a minimum of one year and have experienced facu lties. To reduce the sampling and coverage errors, all K-5 administrators, mentors and first-year novice teachers for the school year 20062007 were given the opportunity to participate in the study, thus incr easing the ability to estimate with considerable precision (Dillman, 2007). A list was obtained from the examined school district which cont ained the names of elementary administrators, mentors, and first-ye ar teachers. The U. S. school mail address and email address for each person was obtained from the school districts website. One elementary school was omitted because it was in its first year of operation. Each building principal was contacted via phone to ask for their schools par ticipation in the study. The survey was sent to 461 administrators, mentors and beginning teache rs at 36 elementary schools in one Central 51

PAGE 52

Florida County School District. Participants were given the option to not respond to any questions they did not want to answer. All administrators held current Florida educat ional leadership certificates and were trained about the induction process. Mentor teachers he ld current Florida t eacher certification, a professional service contract (ten ure), and were provided opportuni ties to receive district level training and support as needed. Preplanning training was mandatory for all district employees. All teachers who participated in the districts induction program received support provided by the school district. If traditionally certificated, novice teachers held a Florida teaching certificate; a Florida temporary teaching cer tificate was held by those participants who were alternatively certificated. For alternative certif ication teachers, successful comp letion of the district teacher induction program is necessary to receive a fi ve-year professional teach ing certificate. All participants held at least a b achelors degree; however, some have degrees in fields other than education. All participants received the Internet survey questionnaire through both the U. S. Mail and their school district email accounts. Open-ende d questions provided space for comments and encouraged subjects to develop their thoughts on the survey items. All participan ts responded to the same survey: 29 items that concerned both beliefs about teacher i nduction and delivery of teacher induction services. Procedure for Data Collection Prior to the collection of data, all essential paperwork was submitted and approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (UFIRB) to conduct the research. The researcher also submitted necessary information to the Central Florida school district for approval of the study. 52

PAGE 53

Confidentiality was provided through the use of anonym ous surveys. Security and confidentiality issues associated with electronic tec hnologies raise issues of trust, which are beginning to be addressed by researchers (Dillm an, 2007). The consent was determined once the participant read the approved le tter explaining their rights and clicked, I agree. The online survey allowed all responses to be directly uploaded to a secure web site and then to an SPSS program. This method secured the id entity of each participant. Participants were given four weeks to respond to the survey; the deadline was stated at least twice. An initial letter was sent to each pa rticipant, with a follow-up letter 2 weeks later. Two follow-up emails were also distributed; one email three days after the original mailing and another three weeks late r. The web address which led to the electronic survey accompanied all letters and emails. Instrumentation The researcher adapted an induction survey with permission from its creator, Dr. Susan Castorina. The questions consisted of statements representative of s ubsets of components of quality induction plans as described in the litera ture. A 10-point Likert scale was used, as it was preferred during the original p iloting of the survey (Castorina, 2003). The statements were interpreted only by the category of the provide r: administrator responsibilities, mentor responsibilities, and shared re sponsibilities. The ite ms within each subset were randomly intermixed. Mean scores less than 5 were considered low. Moderate scores were those between 5.0 and 7.4. Scores above 7.4 were considered high. The survey was field tested by a panel of 7 district personnel, who were former administrators, classroom teachers, and mentors. The district personnel were asked to review the clarity of the questions, the perceived comfor t level in responding to the question, and the accuracy of terminology used. To reduce measuremen t error and control threats to validity, the 53

PAGE 54

researcher received direct feedb ack about the clarity of the su rvey (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister & Zechmeister, 2000; Dillman, 2007). The researcher utilized recommendations of the panel for wording changes where appropriate in the instrument. Castorinas survey produced hi gh reliability coefficients th at matched with showing high internal consistency. Cronbachs alpha (reliabili ty coefficient) was used to measure the relationship of each indicator. If the relationship is high, the researcher can claim reliability. Alpha coefficient ranges can be sc aled as high (greater than + .75), moderate (+ .50 to + .74), and low (less than + .25 to + .49). Reliability is the level of accu racy or consistency of data as reported from an instrument over a period of time therefore showing test stability where similar results are reported for similar data (Norusis, 199 4; Tuckman, 1999). Reliability ensures that if the researcher conducted this st udy again, similar results should occur and the item responses should be consistent across c onstructs (Creswell, 1994). In this study, multiple questions were used to control for consistency of reporting attitudes. Anytime a questionnaire requires se lf-reporting an issue of showing ones self in the best light (Tuckman, 1999, p. 256) or social de sirability bias can emerge. Self-serving bias, a threat to internal validity, is more likely to occur when one rates ones own behavior than when one rates others behavior (Nauta & Kluw er, 2004, p. 464). To control for th is bias, the research about quality induction programs and how the data will be analyz ed was not revealed to the participants. The survey also allowed each gr oup (administrator, mentor, or novice teacher) to report how they felt the other groups delivered services. A survey was used to provide access to what is inside a persons head. This questionnaire allowed the investigator to measure what someone knows (knowledge or information), what someone likes and dislikes (values and preferen ces), and what someone thinks (attitudes and 54

PAGE 55

beliefs) (Tuckman, 1999). The survey design enable d the researcher to generalize from a sample to a population so that an inference can be made about the population (Babbie, 1990). Survey research is designed to be analyzed in a manne r that requires a comparison. When relationships are not being analyzed between variables, th e reason for the results cannot be determined (Tuckman, 1999). Data Analysis Demographic information was added to the or iginal survey to identify alternatively certificated teachers and to further describe th e participants. The survey was reformatted for online implementation. Descriptive statistics were used to uncover characteristics of the sample populations. Questions 1-6 were analyzed for means and commonalities between like groups. Questions 7-10 were compared using Spearmans Questions 710 were also evaluated for their significance levels (one-tailed). Signi ficance is another measure for reliability. Significance testing compares th e means relative to the degrees of variation among scores in each group to determine the probability that the ca lculated differences between the means reflect real differences between subject groups and not chance occurrences (Tuckman, 1999, p. 282). If the null hypothesis, which states there is no corr elation between rank pairs is rejected, then the alternate hypothesis is favored. Th is means the ranked pairs are pos itively (or nega tively) related. Question 11 compared beginning teachers who were traditionally and alternatively certificated using an independent samples t-test. The Levenes Test of Variance was used when necessary to make a needed adjustment when an equal variance could not be assumed between two independent samples. Content validity was en sured through the research review in which conformation of the themes were re presented in each question. A te st has content validity if the 55

PAGE 56

sample of situations or performances it measures is representative of the set from which the sample was drawn (Tuckman, 1999, p. 202). Spearmans was used to measure the correlation of beliefs of the administrators, mentors, and novices in relation to their practices. When dealing with tw o ordinal variables that are greater than 10, the Spearman rankorder correlation is the most appr opriate to use. According to Tuckman (1999), Spearmans is a test used to compare two sets of ranks to determine their degree of equivalence (p. 314). Spearmans results were displayed as a range between -1 and +1, thus measuring direction and strength of a correlation. Spearmans will also report an alpha reliability coefficient. This is the alpha significance level that is used to reject the null hypothesis at 0.05. The confidence level for re jection of the null hypothesis is 95%, meaning there is a 5% chance to falsely reject the null. An independent samples t-test was used to compare the two types of novice teachers that took part in this study. This test compares the two means to determine the probability that the difference between them reflects a real differenc e between the groups of subjects rather than a chance variation (Tuckman, 1999, p. 300). When usi ng an independent t-te st, an assumption is made that the variances are relatively similar. The Levene test was used to determine if the variances were equal or unequal. If the variance was determined to be unequal, the necessary statistical adjustments were made, and equal va riances were not assumed. Responses to openended questions were analyzed inductively to id entify common themes. A tally system was used to record the number of times a theme occurred. 56

PAGE 57

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Upon competition of data collection, the data were analyzed to determine the effectiveness of a district-wide teacher induction program by assessing the congruence of mentors and principals perceptions about their roles in de livery of support services as evaluated by the administrator, mentor, and novice teacher. Data al so revealed the success level of actual delivery of induction support services through the perspect ive of the novice teacher. Differences between alterative certification teachers and traditional certification teachers were examined. Open ended responses were analyzed for common themes. Response Rate Surveys were completed by 179 participants at 36 elementary schools for a 39% (179 of 461) response rate and a completion rate of 76% (146 of 195) when the online survey was viewed (Table 4-1). Demographic Information Demographic data is summarized and reported in Table 4-2. The 179 pa rticipants included 153 females and 21 males; 5 respondents did not answer the questions about gender or race/ethnicity. On the survey 18 male participants described themselves as White; 0 as Black; 2 as Hispanic and 1 as Multi-raci al. The hundred fifty-three (153) females included 130 Whites, 11 Blacks, 10 Hispanics, 10 Multi-racial and 1 Othe r. Five participants did not respond to the question about race/ethnicity. Part icipant ages ranged from 21 to 63. Seventy-seven (77) of the participants held a bachelors de gree; 68 a masters degree; 19 an e ducational specialist degree and 11 a doctoral degree. Four particip ants did not answer the question about their highest level of education. Responses of profe ssional status are reported in Table 4-3. Respondents included 50 administrators (30%); 64 mentors (38%); 47 beginning teachers (28%), and 5 novice teachers 57

PAGE 58

pursuing alternative certification (3%). The la tter figure represents 100% of the teachers pursuing an alternative elementary certification in this Centra l Florida County School District (Table 4-3). Research Questions Q1. What is the level of agreement among administrators ratings regarding the importance of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? Administrators were asked to rate 25 items using a 10-point Li kert scale, with 10 representing the highest perc eived importance, and 1 repres enting the lowest perceived importance. The Cronbach's Alpha (reliability coefficient) was = .894, indicating a high level of agreement among administrator beliefs about the importance of their own responsibilities, mentor responsibilities and shar ed principal/mentor responsibilities for te acher induction. The mean score of administrators beliefs about their own respons ibilities ranged from 3.86 to 8.78 (Table 4-4). The belief that the ment or should be 10 to 15 years older than the mentee was rated lowest at 3.86. It em #7 (the belief that the administrators should provide frequent observations/feedback) and item #2 (the belief that the ment or should be in the same or related field as the novice) were ra ted highest at 8.78 and 8.76 respectively. Table 4-5 presents the mean scores of admi nistrators beliefs a bout the importance of mentor responsibilities for teacher induction towa rd novices. The mean scores ranged from 7.79 to 9.12. All areas were considered highly importa nt by elementary school administrators. Areas which encompass lesson planning (#14), tracking of student progress (#19) and classroom management (#20) were rate d as the most important. The mean range of scores of administrato rs beliefs about shared principal/mentor responsibilities toward novice teachers (Table 4-6) ranged from 8.48 to 9.10. This indicates that 58

PAGE 59

administrators believe that their role and that of the mentors are both instrumental to beginning teachers as related to items 21-25. Q2. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers ratings regarding the importance of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? The mentors were asked to rate 25 items using a 10-point Likert scale, with 10 representing the hightest pe rceived importance, and 1 repr esenting the lowest perceived importance. The Cronbach's Alpha (reliability coefficient) was = .910, indicating a high level of agreement among mentor beliefs about the importance of admini strator responsibilities, their own responsibilities, and shared principal and mentor responsib ilities for teacher induction. Mentors reported means ranging from 3.92 to 9.27 regarding their beliefs about administrators responsibilities (T able 4-7). Item #6, belief that the mentor should be 10 to 15 years older than the novice, was rated low indica ting this age difference was not believed to be important. Items #3 and #9 were rated as moderate indicating mentors did not feel strongly that teaching styles should be similar or that administrators needed to have a weekly walk-through. Item #2, (mentors should work in the same or a related field as the novice) was rated as having the highest importance (9.27). Rating their own responsibilitie s for teacher induction, mentors felt that they were all highly important (Table 4-8). Means range d from 8.54 to 9.06. Provi ding assistance in developing lesson plans in compliance with the S unshine State Standards (#14) was deemed the most important item (9.06). Table 4-9 reports mentor beliefs about the responsibil ities they share w ith administrators. Means ranged from 8.54 to 9.29, in dicating that mentors believed all areas of responsibilities shared with administrators were important. 59

PAGE 60

Q3. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers ratings regarding the importance of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? Novice teachers were asked to rate 25 items using a 10-point Like rt scale, with 10 representing the highest perc eived importance, and 1 repres enting the lowest perceived importance. The Cronbach's Alpha (reliability coefficient) was = .884, indicating a high level of agreement among novice teacher beliefs re garding the importance of administrator responsibilities, mentor responsibilities, and shared administrator and mentor responsibilities for teacher induction. Table 4-10 reports the level of importance th at novice teachers assign to administrator responsibilities in relatio n to their teacher induction traini ng. The mean scores ranged from 3.88 to 8.85. Novice teachers rated 6 of 10 items as highly important. Items #3 (mentors should have similar teaching style), #9 (weekly walk-through for novice teachers from administration) and #10 (provides guidelines for scheduling observation and consultations) were rated as moderately important. Items #9 (weekly walk-through fo r novice teachers from administration) and #6 (mentors should be 1015 years older than the novice) were both rated by novice teachers as having the lowest importance with mean scores of 5.80 and 3.88 respectively. Mean scores of novice teacher beliefs about mentor responsib ilities for teacher induction (Table 4-11) ranged from 6.53 to 8.71. Novice t eachers felt all areas were highly important except item #16 (mentors should provide assistan ce with room organization). That item was viewed as moderately important (6.53). Table 4-12 shows how novice teachers rated th e responsibilities shared by mentors and administrators. The mean scores ranged from 7. 62 to 8.31, indicating that al l of these items were viewed as highly important in district induction practices. 60

PAGE 61

Q4. What is the level of agreemen t among administrators rating s regarding the delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? The respondents were asked to rate 25 ite ms using a 10-point Li kert scale, with 10 representing complete satisf action with the delivery of i nduction support service, and 1 representing complete dissatisfaction the with the delivery of induction support service. The Cronbach's Alpha (reliability coefficient) was = .980, indicating a high level of agreement among administrator beliefs about the delivery of administrator responsibilities, mentor responsibilities, and shared administrator a nd mentor responsibilitie s for teacher induction. Tables 4-13 and 4-14 summarize the mean scores of administrators ra tings for the delivery of their own and mentor responsibilities for te acher induction. Administrators only rated item #2 (mentor in the same or related field as novice) as being delivered at a high level (7.73). The remaining items in regards to their own deliver y of teacher induction services were rated as moderate, with means ranging from 5.92 to 7.41. It em #6, placing a novice teacher with a mentor 10-15 years older, held the lowest administ rative importance for delivery of service. Administrators reported the delive ry of mentor teacher induction responsibilities as moderate, with means ranging from 6.54 to 7.26. Table 4-15 shows how administrators rated the delivery of shared administrator and mentor responsibilities for teacher inducti on. Items #24 (welcomes questions and gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses) and item #25 (keeps novice teachers up to date on training opportunities/development) were reported to be delivered at a high level. The other 3 items in this domain were reported as deliv ered in the moderate range. 61

PAGE 62

Q5. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers ratings regarding the delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? The respondents were asked to rate 25 ite ms using a 10-point Li kert scale, with 10 representing complete satisfact ion and 1 representing complete dissatisfaction the with the delivery of an induction support service. The Cr onbach's Alpha (reliability coefficient) was .976, indicating a high level of agreement among mentor beliefs about the delivery of administrators responsibilities, their responsibi lities, and shared admi nistrative and mentor responsibilities for teacher induction. Table 4-16 reports how mentors rated the delivery of administrator responsibilities. The means ranged from 5.81 to 8.06. The mentors reported moderate (6.46-7.19) delivery of items #1 (administrators assign mentors prior to prepla nning), #3 (mentors were assigned with similar teaching style), #6 (mentors should be 10-15 years older), #8 (administrators provide guidelines for observations/feedback), #9 (administrators provide novices with weekly walk-through feedback), and #10 (administrators provide guidelines for scheduling observations and consultation). Items #2 (assigned mentors are in the same or related field as the novice), #4 (the mentor is in close proximity to the novice), #5 (m entors assigned have th e necessary specialized expertise), and #7 (administrators provide freque nt observations/feedback) were all rated at a high level of delivery. Item #6 (mentor is 10-15 year s older than novice) rate d the lowest level of delivery (5.81). The mentors rated satisfaction with thei r own delivery of teacher induction support services as shown in Table 4-17. The mentors rated themselves as providing a high level delivery of the following items: #13 (providi ng assistance lo cating books and materials), #14 (providing assistance in devel oping lesson plans in compliance with the Sunshine State 62

PAGE 63

Standards), #18 (providing examples of measur ement tools), #19 (providing assistance with implementation of appropriate tools for tracking and defining pupil progress), and #20 (providing assistance in establishing efficient cl assroom routines and rules). The mentors rated the remaining items of the domain as delivered at a moderate level (7.04-7.23). Table 4-18 reports the mentors rating of their respons ibilities shared with administrators. The means ranged from 7.29 to 7.98. The mentors only rated item #24 (welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely re sponses) as delivered at a high level (7.98). The results indicated the remaining items were viewed as delivered moderately. Q6. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers ratings regarding the delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? Novice teachers were asked to rate 25 items using a 10-point Like rt scale, with 10 representing complete satisfact ion and 1 representing complete dissatisfaction with the delivery of an induction support service. The Cronbach 's Alpha (reliability coefficient) was .978, indicating a high level of ag reement among novice teacher beliefs about the delivery of administrator responsibilities, me ntor responsibilities, and shar ed administrator and mentor responsibilities for teacher induction. Table 4-19 reports the novice teachers mean ratings for delivery of induction services by administrators. The means ranged from 5.32 to 8.50. Items #2 (mentors were assigned in the same or related field as novice) and #5 (the mentor has the ne cessary expertise) were rated highest (8.50 and 8.15). Items #1 (m entors were assigned prior to preplanning), #3 (mentors were assigned with similar teaching styles), #7 (administrators provide frequent observations/feedback), #8 (administrators provide guidelines for observations/feedback) were all rated as moderately delivered (6.18-6.97). Items #9 (administrators did a weekly walk63

PAGE 64

through for novices) and #10 (administrators provide guidelines for scheduling observation and consultation) were also viewed as moderately delivered with mean scores of 5.32 and 5.95 respectively. The mean scores of novice teachers rating of delivery of mentor responsibilities for teacher induction (Table 4-20), ranged from 5.51 to 6.85. In this domain, all of the areas were viewed as being moderately delivered by the mentors. The standard deviations exceeded 3.0, indicating a larger variation in mentor support received by each novice teacher than reported in previous domains. Table 4-21 shows the results of novice teach ers rating of the delivery of shared administrator and mentor responsibilities for t eacher induction services. The teachers rated all areas as moderately delivered by their administ rator and mentors, with means ranging from 6.08 to 7.23. The standard deviations also exceeded 3. 0, which indicated a variation in the level of support received on each elementary school campus. Q7. What is the level of agreement among administrators ratings regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities ? The first section of research question seven evaluates the correlation between administrators ratings regard ing their perceived importance of induction activities, and the actual delivery of their responsibilities. Of the 10 items show n in Table 4-22, five were found to have a significant relationship: items #2 (mentors should be in the same or related field), #5 (mentors should have the necessary specialized e xpertise), #8 (administrators provide guidelines for observation and feedback), #9 (administrat ors conducted a weekly walk-through for novice teachers), and #10 (administrators provide guidelines for scheduling observation and consultations). Items #1 (mentors assigned prio r to preplanning), #3 (m entors with similar 64

PAGE 65

teaching style), #4 (mentors are assigned with cl ose proximity to their mentees), #6 (mentors 1015 years older than novices) and #7 (administrator s provide frequent obser vations and feedback) were not found to have a significant relationship. Table 4-23, shows the comparison of administrators rating of importance to the delivery of mentor responsibilities for teacher induction. Significance was found for seven of the 10 items including items #11 (greets novice at preplann ing), #12 (expedites orientation/preplanning activities), #13 (provides assi stance location books/materials), #14 (provides assistance in developing lesson plans in compliance with Sunshine State Standards), #15 (provides training for parent communication), #16 (provi des assistance with room or ganization) and #18 (mentors provide examples of measurement tools). It ems #17 (mentors provide training on record keeping), #19 (mentors provide assistance with the implementation of appropriate tools for tracking and defined pupil progress) and # 20 (m entors provides assistance in establishing efficient classroom routines and rules) were found not to be significan tly correlated. The correlation between administrators rating of importance and the delivery of shared mentor and administrator responsibilities toward teacher induction training is shown in Table 424. Although all five items were rated as highly important by administrators, three showed a significant correlation. They were items #21 (provides training in how to best handle classroom disturbances), #24 (welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses), and #25 (keeps novice teachers up to date on tr aining opportunities/development). Items #22, (provides frequent observations with nonjudgm ental formative feedback) and #23 (provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make observa tions of other teachers) were found not to be significantly correlated. 65

PAGE 66

Q8. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers ratings regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, ment or responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? The first section of research question eight examines the correlation between mentors rating of importance about administrators responsi bilities for teacher induction services, and the mentors perception of the delivery of such se rvices. Although the mentors rated each of these items highly, table 4-25 reports a significant relationship between 5 of 10 items. Significance was found for items # 2 (mentor in the same or re lated field as novice), #3 (mentor with similar teacher style), #4 (mentor in close proximity), #6 (mentor 10-15 years older than novice), and #10 (provides guidelines for scheduling observations and consultations). Items #1(mentors assigned prior to preplanning), #5 (a mentor shoul d have the necessary sp ecialized expertise), #7 (administrators provide frequent observations and feedback), #8 (administrators provide guidelines for observations and feedback) and #9 (administrators conduct a weekly walkthrough for novice teachers) were found not to be significant. Mentors rating of the importance and deliv ery of their responsibilities for teacher induction showed significance in 9 of 10 items (T able 4-26). Item #11 (the mentor greets the novice teacher at preplanning) while viewed as important, was not found to correlate with its actual practice. Mentors ratings regarding the importance and actual delivery of teacher induction responsibilities shared with administrators were found to be significant in 4 of 5 belief items (Table 4-27). Item #22 (provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental [formative] feedback), was rated as highly im portant, yet did not correlate with the delivery of this induction practice. 66

PAGE 67

Q9. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers ratings regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? The correlation of novice teachers in their ratings regarding the importance and actual delivery of administrators responsibilities for te acher induction is shown in Table 4-28. Of the 10 questions, only one#2: Mentor in the same or related field as novice teacherwas found to have a significant relationship. A significant correlation was not found in items #1 (mentors assigned prior to preplanning), #3 (mentors with similar teaching style), #4 (mentors in close proximity), #5 (mentors has necessary specialized expertise), #6 (mentors 10-15 years older than novices), #7 (provides frequent observations/feedback) #8 (provi des guidelines for observations/feedback), #9 (week ly walk-through for novice teachers), and #10 (provides guidelines for scheduling observation and consultations). The correlation of novice teachers ratings rega rding the importance a nd actual delivery of mentor responsibilities is shown in table 4-29. Although 9 of 10 items in this domain were viewed as highly important induction practices by novice teachers (item #16 was viewed as moderately important), none were found to have a significa nt relationship. Table 4-30 shows the correlation of novice t eachers rating regarding the importance and the actual delivery of teacher i nduction responsibilities shared by administrators and mentors. All five items were reported as highly important by novice teachers; however none were found to have a significant relationsh ip to the actual delivery. Q10. What is the level of agreement between a lternatively certificated novice teachers ratings regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and ment or/principal responsibilities? The correlation of alternativel y certified novice teachers ra tings regarding the importance and actual delivery of administrators responsibili ties for teacher induction services is shown in 67

PAGE 68

table 4-31. Two (2) of the 10 beli efs were found to have a signif icant relationship. They were items #6 (mentor 10-15 years older than novice ) and #10 (provides guidelines for scheduling observations and consultations). Items #1 (mentors assigned prior to preplanning), #2 (mentor in the same or related field as novice), #3 (mentor with similar teaching style), #4 (mentor in close proximity) #5 (mentor has necessary specialized expertise), #7 (provides frequent observations/feedback), #8 (pr ovides guidelines for observati ons/feedback) and #9 (provides guidelines for scheduling observations) were f ound not to be significant. The relationship of alternatively certificat ed novice teachers ratings regarding the importance and actual delivery of mentor responsibilities is shown in table 4-32. Item #16 (provides assistance with room organization) was found to have a significant negative correlation. This indicates that the independent variables are m oving in opposite directions, as one increased the other decrea sed. The remaining items were found not to have significant relationships. All items indicated that the rati ng of importance did not match the delivery of induction services to alternativel y certificated novice teachers. The correlation of alternativ ely certificated novice teach ers ratings regarding the importance and actual delivery of shared mentor a nd administrator responsibilities is shown in table 4-33. Of the five items, #21 (provides tr aining in how best to handle classroom disturbances) resulted in a si gnificant negative correlation. This indicates that the independent variables are moving in opposite di rections, as one increased the other decreased. The remaining items were found not to be significant. All items indicate that the rati ng of importance did not match the delivery of induction services to a lternatively certificat ed novice teachers. Q11. What are the differences between alternatively certificated and traditionally certificated novice teachers ratings regarding the impor tance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 68

PAGE 69

A t-test for independent groups wa s used to analyze the data for differences in means. This research question examined two groups: N ovice teachers who were seeking alternative certification and novice teachers w ho received their degree within the field in which they currently teach. Table 4-34 shows the results of the independent samples t-test for novice teachers and alternatively certificated novice te achers ratings regarding the importance of delivery of administrator responsibilities for teacher induction. Of the 10 items, two were found to have significantly different means. Items #9 (administrators conduct weekly walk-through for novice teachers) and #10 (administrators prov ide guidelines for scheduling observations and consultations) were found to be significant at p< .05. Table 4-35 shows the results of the t-test fo r independent samples of novice teachers and alternatively certificated novi ce teachers ratings regardi ng the importance of mentor responsibilities in teacher i nduction. Of the 10 items, only #14 (mentor provides assistance in developing lesson plans in compliance with S unshine State Standards) was found to be significant (p< .01). Table 4-36 shows the results of the independent samples ttest of novice teachers and alternatively certificated novi ce teachers ratings regarding the importance of shared responsibilities for te acher induction. None of the items was found to be significant. The independent samples t-test of novice teach ers and alternativel y certificated novice teachers ratings regarding the actual delivery of administrator responsibilities for teacher induction is reported in table 4-38. Two (2) of 10 items, #3 (administrative assignment of mentors with similar teaching style) a nd #7 (administrators provide frequent observations/feedback) were f ound to be significant at p< .01 and p< .05 respectively. 69

PAGE 70

Table 4-39 shows the results of the independent samples t-test for novice teachers and alternatively certificated novice teachers ratings regarding th e actual delivery of mentor responsibilities for teach er induction. Six of 10 items were found to be significant. Items #13 (provides assistance with the location of books/materials) and #16 (provides assistance with room organization) we re significant at p< .05. Items #12 (expedites orientation/preplanning activities), #14 (provides assist ance in developing lesson plans in compliance with Sunshine State Standards), #19 (provides assistance with implementati on of appropriate tools for teaching/defining pupil progression), and #20 (pro vides assistance in establishing efficient classroom routines/rules) were found significant at p < .01. The independent samples t-test of novice teach ers and alternativel y certificated novice teachers ratings regarding the actual delivery of administrator and mentor teacher induction services is reported in table 4-40. Items # 21 (p rovides training in how best to handle classroom disturbances) and #22 (provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental [formative] feedback), were bot h found to be significant at p< .05. Short Answer Responses Participants were asked to answer 3 open-ende d questions at the conc lusion of the survey. The responses were separated into four groups : administrators, ment ors, novice teachers and novice teachers seeking alternativ e certification. The most common themes for item #26: What do you feel is the most valuable component of the teacher induction program? are summarized for (a) administrators (Table 4-42), (b) mentors (Table 4-43), (c) novice teachers (Table 4-44) and (d) novice teachers seeking a lternative certification (Table 445). The importance of having a strong mentor relationship (someone to be there) with the novice teacher exceeded the combined importance of the other themes for administrators, mentors, novice teachers and novice teachers 70

PAGE 71

seeking alternative certif ication. One alternative certification teacher re ported she never met her mentor, while another reported she co-ta ught with her mentor for the year. Administrators, mentors, novice teachers and novice teachers seeking alternative certification responses to open-ended ques tion #27: What aspects of the teacher induction/support program would yo u most like to see changed, adapted, or improved? These responses were tallied, and the most frequent th emes are reported in Tables 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, and 4-49 respectively. Administrators responses reflect a concern for program consistency and fiscal support. Mentors reported a need for clarification of teacher in duction guidelines and how the selection process of mentor/m entee relationships was conduc ted. Also expressed was the mentors need for early assignment, more fre quent meetings with mentees, and an increased fiscal support to provide them with more time to meet with their mentee. Novice teachers responses were primarily focused on their need for more interaction w ith feedback and followthrough from mentors. Novice teachers seekin g alternative certification reported that communication and the handling of paperwork (assessment, educat ional plans, lesson plans) were their primary concerns. Question #28 requested administrators, ment ors and novice teachers to List what they believed were the 3 most important things they need from a teacher induction/support program. Responses from each group are reported in Ta bles 4-50, 4-51, 4-52 and 4-53. Although several common themes were mentioned between each group, there was not an agreed upon top choice. Administrators reported their n eed for district level support, consistency and a common checklist of what training areas should be covered, fiscal support for mentor s to provide substitute days and for the mentors to be traine d. Mentors reported their greatest need was to make sure they were being consistent with observations and in giving immediate and meaningful feedback. To 71

PAGE 72

accomplish this, they also expressed need for more fiscal and administrative support. Novice teachers most common theme was the need for understanding of record keeping required by the district and school. They also emphasized th e need for parent communication/classroom management training, and observations with i mmediate feedback. Novi ce teachers seeking alternative certificati on expressed a need for paperwork and classroom management training, good communication and model teaching examples from mentor, and clear expectations and emotional support from the mentor and administrator. 72

PAGE 73

Table 4-1. Response Return Rate Sent Viewed Surveys returned All questions answered Response rate 461 195 179 146* 179/461= 39% Participants were invited to skip any questions they did not want to answer Table 4-2. Demographic Information (Part I) (N=179) Sex White Black Hispanic Mult Other NR Bachelors Masters Ed. S. Doc NR Male 21 18 0 2 1 0 5 14 2 0 Female 153 130 11 10 1 1 72 53 17 11 No report 5 5 4 NR= not reported Table 4-3. Response Rate of Po sition Status (Part I) (N=179) Administrators Mentors Novice teachers Novice teachers seeking alternative certification NR 50 64 47 5 13 NR= not reported Table 4-4. Mean Scores of Admi nistrators' Beliefs (Part II A) about Own Responsibility (N=42) Belief items Mean Std. deviation 1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning 8.02 1.93 2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice 8.76 1.49 3 Mentor with similar teaching style 6.07 1.64 4 Mentor in close proximity 8.00 1.45 5 Mentor has necessary sp ecialized expertise 8.64 1.43 6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice 3.86 2.04 7 Provides frequent observations/feedback 8.78 1.13 8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback 8.60 1.25 9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers 8.33 1.51 10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and consultations 8.32 1.35 73

PAGE 74

Table 4-5. Mean Scores of Admi nistrators' Beliefs (Part II B) about Mentor Responsibility (N=42) Belief items Mean Std. deviation 11 Greets novice at preplanning 8.50 2.03 12 Expedites orientation/pr eplanning activities 8.40 1.59 13 Provides assistance locating books/materials 8.43 1.58 14 Provides assistance in devel oping lesson plans in compliance with Sunshine State Standards 9.02 1.16 15 Provides training for pa rent communication 8.81 1.38 16 Provides assistance with room organization 7.79 1.68 17 Provides training on record keeping 8.88 1.05 18 Provides examples of measurement tools 8.95 0.99 19 Provides assistance with implemen tation of appropriate tools for tracking/defining pupil progress 9.10 0.91 20 Provides assistance in esta blishing efficient classroom routines/rules 9.12 1.23 Table 4-6. Mean Scores of Ad ministrators'(Part II C) Beliefs about Shared Responsibility (N=42) Belief items Mean Std. deviation 21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom disturbances" 9.10 1.10 22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative feedback) 8.90 1.05 23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make observations of other teachers 8.48 1.45 24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses 9.10 1.01 25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training opportunities/development 8.57 1.35 Table 4-7. Mean Scores of Mentors (Part II A) Beliefs about Administrators Responsibilities (N=52) Belief items Mean Std. deviation 1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning 8.29 2.19 2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice 9.27 1.22 3 Mentor with similar teaching style 6.35 1.96 4 Mentor in close proximity 8.37 1.67 5 Mentor has necessary sp ecialized expertise 8.38 1.78 6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice 3.92 2.82 7 Provides frequent observations/feedback 8.29 1.84 8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback 8.14 2.09 9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers 6.94 2.74 10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and consultations 7.90 2.21 74

PAGE 75

Table 4-8. Mean Scores of Mentors (Part II B) Beliefs about Own Responsibilities (N=52) Belief items Mean Std. deviation 11 Greets novice at preplanning 8.77 1.92 12 Expedites orientation/pr eplanning activities 8.54 2.00 13 Provides assistance locating books/materials 8.81 1.79 14 Provides assistance in de veloping lesson plans in compliance with Sunshine State Standards 9.06 1.35 15 Provides training for pa rent communication 8.73 1.51 16 Provides assistance with room organization 8.12 1.90 17 Provides training on record keeping 9.00 1.24 18 Provides examples of measurement tools 9.02 1.48 19 Provides assistance with im plementation of appropriate tools for tracking/defining pupil progress 8.98 1.42 20 Provides assistance in esta blishing efficient classroom routines/rules 8.96 1.53 Table 4-9. Mean Scores of Mentors (Part II C) Beliefs about Shared Responsibilities (N=52) Belief items Mean Std. deviation 21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom disturbances" 8.69 1.46 22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative feedback) 8.60 1.52 23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make observations of other teachers 8.71 1.87 24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses 9.29 1.05 25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training opportunities/development 8.54 1.80 Table 4-10. Mean Scores of Novices (Part II A) Beliefs about Admini strator Responsibilities (N=40) Belief items Mean Std. deviation 1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning 8.15 1.83 2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice 8.85 1.44 3 Mentor with similar teaching style 7.08 2.02 4 Mentor in close proximity 8.30 1.56 5 Mentor has necessary sp ecialized expertise 7.98 1.82 6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice 3.88 2.42 7 Provides frequent observations/feedback 7.68 1.99 8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback 7.54 2.30 9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers 5.80 2.73 10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and consultations 6.68 2.36 75

PAGE 76

Table 4-11. Mean Scores of Novices (Part II B) Beliefs about Mentor Responsibility (N=40) Belief items Mean Std. deviation 11 Greets novice at preplanning 7.82 1.86 12 Expedites orientation/pr eplanning activities 7.71 1.64 13 Provides assistance locating books/materials 7.97 1.79 14 Provides assistance in de veloping lesson plans in compliance with Sunshine State Standards 8.53 1.39 15 Provides training for pa rent communication 7.61 2.27 16 Provides assistance with room organization 6.53 2.63 17 Provides training on record keeping 7.97 1.94 18 Provides examples of measurement tools 8.37 1.51 19 Provides assistance with im plementation of appropriate tools for tracking/defining pupil progress 8.71 1.27 20 Provides assistance in esta blishing efficient classroom routines/rules 7.89 2.29 Table 4-12. Mean Scores of Novices' (Part II C) Beliefs about Shared Responsibility (N=40) Belief items Mean Std. deviation 21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom disturbances" 8.28 1.57 22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative feedback) 8.00 1.84 23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make observations of other teachers 7.62 2.31 24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses 9.08 1.16 25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training opportunities/development 8.31 1.72 Table 4-13. Mean Scores of Administrators (P art III A) Rating of the Delivery of Their Own Responsibilities (N=40) Delivery items Mean Std. deviation 1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning 6.40 2.16 2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice 7.73 1.87 3 Mentor with similar teaching style 6.53 1.77 4 Mentor in close proximity 7.28 2.15 5 Mentor has necessary sp ecialized expertise 7.41 1.87 6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice 5.92 2.02 7 Provides frequent observations/feedback 6.93 2.21 8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback 6.60 2.37 9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers 6.33 2.49 10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and consultations 6.82 2.65 76

PAGE 77

Table 4-14. Mean Scores of Admi nistrators (Part III B) Rating of the Delivery of Mentors Responsibilities (N=40) Delivery items Mean Std. deviation 11 Greets novice at preplanning 6.95 2.42 12 Expedites orientation/pr eplanning activities 6.95 2.32 13 Provides assistance locating books/materials 7.21 2.22 14 Provides assistance in de veloping lesson plans in compliance with Sunshine State Standards 7.26 2.25 15 Provides training for pa rent communication 6.72 2.36 16 Provides assistance with room organization 6.54 2.14 17 Provides training on record keeping 6.95 2.11 18 Provides examples of measurement tools 6.87 2.38 19 Provides assistance with im plementation of appropriate tools for tracking/defining pupil progress 7.03 2.32 20 Provides assistance in esta blishing efficient classroom routines/rules 7.26 2.49 Table 4-15. Mean Scores of Administrators (Part III C) Rating of Delivery of Shared Responsibility (N=40) Delivery items Mean Std. deviation 21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom disturbances" 7.25 2.28 22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative feedback) 6.93 2.27 23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make observations of other teachers 7.10 2.13 24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses 7.83 2.17 25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training opportunities/development 7.63 2.39 77

PAGE 78

Table 4-16. Mean Scores of Mentors (Part II I A) Rating of the Delivery of Administrator Responsibilities (N=50) Delivery items Mean Std. deviation 1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning 6.46 3.07 2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice 7.86 2.37 3 Mentor with similar teaching style 6.67 2.23 4 Mentor in close proximity 7.64 2.23 5 Mentor has necessary sp ecialized expertise 8.06 1.98 6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice 5.81 2.88 7 Provides frequent observations/feedback 7.40 2.21 8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback 7.19 2.45 9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers 6.76 2.55 10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and consultations 7.12 2.60 Table 4-17. Mean Scores of Mentors (Part III B) Rating of the Delivery of Their Own Responsibilities (N=50) Delivery items Mean Std. deviation 11 Greets novice at preplanning 7.06 3.22 12 Expedites orientation/pr eplanning activities 7.04 3.13 13 Provides assistance locating books/materials 7.73 2.70 14 Provides assistance in devel oping lesson plans in compliance with Sunshine State Standards 7.60 2.62 15 Provides training for pa rent communication 7.10 2.79 16 Provides assistance with room organization 7.00 2.71 17 Provides training on record keeping 7.23 2.64 18 Provides examples of measurement tools 7.63 2.52 19 Provides assistance with implem entation of appropriate tools for tracking/defining pupil progress 7.67 2.26 20 Provides assistance in esta blishing efficient classroom routines/rules 7.60 2.56 Table 4-18. Mean Scores of Mentors (Part III C) Rating of Delivery of Shared Responsibility (N= 50) Belief items Mean Std. deviation 21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom disturbances" 7.29 2.42 22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative feedback) 7.48 2.23 23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make observations of other teachers 7.33 2.20 24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses 7.98 2.30 25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training opportunities/development 7.46 2.33 78

PAGE 79

Table 4-19. Mean Scores of Novice Teachers (P art III A) Rating of Delivery of Administrator Responsibilities (N=40) Delivery items Mean Std. deviation 1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning 6.70 3.01 2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice 8.50 2.29 3 Mentor with similar teaching style 6.97 2.81 4 Mentor in close proximity 7.50 2.90 5 Mentor has necessary sp ecialized expertise 8.15 2.29 6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice 7.51 2.77 7 Provides frequent observations/feedback 6.45 3.28 8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback 6.18 3.36 9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers 5.32 3.12 10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and consultations 5.95 3.32 Table 4-20. Mean Scores of Novice Teachers (P art III B) Rating of the Delivery of Mentor Responsibilities (N=40) Delivery items Mean Std. deviation 11 Greets novice at preplanning 6.68 3.04 12 Expedites orientation/pr eplanning activities 6.55 3.03 13 Provides assistance locating books/materials 6.78 3.24 14 Provides assistance in de veloping lesson plans in compliance with Sunshine State Standards 6.41 3.29 15 Provides training for pa rent communication 6.21 3.08 16 Provides assistance with room organization 5.51 3.36 17 Provides training on record keeping 6.38 3.31 18 Provides examples of measurement tools 6.85 3.12 19 Provides assistance with im plementation of appropriate tools for tracking/defining pupil progress 6.60 3.41 20 Provides assistance in esta blishing efficient classroom routines/rules 5.90 3.42 79

PAGE 80

Table 4-21. Mean Scores of Novice Teachers (Part III C) Rating of Delivery of Shared Responsibilities (N=40) Delivery items Mean Std. deviation 21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom disturbances" 6.45 3.25 22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative feedback) 6.18 3.38 23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make observations of other teachers 6.08 3.19 24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses 7.23 3.26 25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training opportunities/development 7.03 3.10 Table 4-22. Correlation of Admini strators Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II A) and the Actual Delivery (Part III A) of Their Responsibilities (N=42) Spearman Correlation Sig. 1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning 0.15 0.17 2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice 0.27 0.05* 3 Mentor with similar teaching style 0.21 0.10 4 Mentor in close proximity 0.06 0.36 5 Mentor has necessary sp ecialized expertise 0.32 0.03* 6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice 0.13 0.23 7 Provides frequent observations/feedback 0.20 0.12 8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback 0.33 0.02* 9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers 0.45 0.00** 10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and consultations 0.40 0.01** *= significance < .05 **= significance < .01 80

PAGE 81

Table 4-23. Correlation of Admini strators Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II B) and the Actual Delivery (Part III B) of Mentors Responsibi lities (N=42) Spearman Correlation Sig. 11 Greets novice at preplanning 0.49 0.00** 12 Expedites orientation/pr eplanning activities 0.40 0.01** 13 Provides assistance locating books/materials 0.34 0.02* 14 Provides assistance in devel oping lesson plans in compliance with Sunshine State Standards 0.33 0.02* 15 Provides training for pa rent communication 0.33 0.02* 16 Provides assistance with room organization 0.36 0.01** 17 Provides training on record keeping 0.21 0.11 18 Provides examples of measurement tools 0.27 0.05* 19 Provides assistance with implem entation of appropriate tools for tracking/defining pupil progress 0.06 0.37 20 Provides assistance in esta blishing efficient classroom routines/rules 0.01 0.47 = significance < .05 **= significance < .01 Table 4-24. Correlation between Administrators Ratings of Importance (Part II C) and the Delivery (Part III C) of Shar ed Responsibilities (N=42) Belief items Spearman Correlation Sig. 21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom disturbances" 0.35 0.01** 22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative feedback) 0.21 0.10 23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make observations of other teachers 0.15 0.18 24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses 0.34 0.02* 25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training opportunities/development 0.31 0.03* *= significance < .05 **= significance < .01 81

PAGE 82

Table 4-25. Correlation of Mentors Ratings regarding the Importanc e (Part II A) and the Actual Delivery (Part III A) of Administ rators Responsibilities (N=52) Belief items Spearman Correlation Sig. 1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning 0.16 0.13 2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice 0.38 0.00** 3 Mentor with similar teaching style 0.37 0.00** 4 Mentor in close proximity 0.31 0.02* 5 Mentor has necessary sp ecialized expertise 0.19 0.10 6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice 0.34 0.01** 7 Provides frequent observations/feedback 0.19 0.09 8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback 0.07 0.32 9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers 0.17 0.12 10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and consultations 0.26 0.04* *= significance < .05 **= significance < .01 Table 4-26. Correlation of Ment ors Ratings Regarding the Im portance (Part II B) and the Actual Delivery (Part III B) of Th eir Own Responsibi lities (N=52) Spearman Correlation Sig. 11 Greets novice at preplanning 0.14 0.17 12 Expedites orientation/pr eplanning activities 0.26 0.04* 13 Provides assistance locating books/materials 0.37 0.01** 14 Provides assistance in de veloping lesson plans in compliance with Sunshine State Standards 0.37 0.01** 15 Provides training for pa rent communication 0.30 0.02* 16 Provides assistance with room organization 0.32 0.01** 17 Provides training on record keeping 0.25 0.04* 18 Provides examples of measurement tools 0.27 0.03* 19 Provides assistance with im plementation of appropriate tools for tracking/defining pupil progress 0.26 0.04* 20 Provides assistance in esta blishing efficient classroom routines/rules 0.31 0.02* *= significance < .05 **= significance < .01 82

PAGE 83

Table 4-27. Correlation of Ment ors Ratings Regarding the Im portance (Part II C) and the Actual Delivery (Part III C) of Shared Responsibilities (N=52) Belief items Spearman Correlation Sig. 21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom disturbances" 0.41 0.00** 22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative feedback) 0.15 0.16 23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make observations of other teachers 0.30 0.02* 24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses 0.40 0.00** 25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training opportunities/development 0.48 0.00** *= significance < .05 **= significance < .01 Table 4-28. Correlation of Novi ce Teachers Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II A) and the Actual Delivery (Part III A) of Administrators Responsibilities (N=40) Belief items Spearman Correlation Sig. 1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning 0.24 0.07 2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice 0.42 0.00* 3 Mentor with similar teaching style 0.12 0.24 4 Mentor in close proximity -0.05 0.39 5 Mentor has necessary sp ecialized expertise 0.07 0.33 6 Mentor 10-15 years ol der than novice -0.12 0.23 7 Provides frequent observations/feedback -0.15 0.19 8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback -0.02 0.45 9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers -0.08 0.31 10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and consultations -0.11 0.26 *= significance < .05 **= significance < .01 83

PAGE 84

Table 4-29. Correlation of Novi ce Teachers Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II B) and the Actual Delivery (Part III B) of Mentor Responsibilities (N=40) Belief items Spearman Correlation Sig. 11 Greets novice at preplanning 0.01 0.48 12 Expedites orientation/pr eplanning activities 0.09 0.29 13 Provides assistance locating books/materials 0.10 0.27 14 Provides assistance in de veloping lesson plans in compliance with Sunshine State Standards -0.08 0.31 15 Provides training for pa rent communication 0.07 0.34 16 Provides assistance with room organization 0.24 0.08 17 Provides training on record keeping -0.01 0.48 18 Provides examples of measurement tools 0.19 0.13 19 Provides assistance with im plementation of appropriate tools for tracking/defining pupil progress 0.17 0.15 20 Provides assistance in esta blishing efficient classroom routines/rules 0.09 0.30 *= significance < .05 **= significance < .01 Table 4-30. Correlation of Novi ce Teachers Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II C) and the Actual Delivery (Part III C) of Shared Responsibilities (N=40) Belief items Spearman Correlation Sig. 21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom disturbances" -0.09 0.29 22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative feedback) -0.15 0.18 23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make observations of other teachers -0.10 0.27 24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses 0.18 0.13 25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training opportunities/development 0.14 0.19 *= significance < .05 **= significance < .01 84

PAGE 85

Table 4-31. Correlation of Altern atively Certificated Novice T eachers Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II A) and the Actual De livery (Part III A) of Administrator Responsibilities (N=5) Belief items Spearman Correlation Sig. 1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning -0.16 0.40 2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice 0.79 0.06 3 Mentor with similar teaching style -0.79 0.06 4 Mentor in close proximity -0.15 0.40 5 Mentor has necessary sp ecialized expertise 0.29 0.32 6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice 0.80 0.05* 7 Provides frequent observations/feedback -0.30 0.32 8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback -0.30 0.32 9 Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers -0.75 0.07 10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and consultations 1.00 0.00** *= significance < .05 **= significance < .01 Table 4-32. Correlation of Altern atively Certificated Novice T eachers' Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II B) and the Actual Deliver y (Part III B) of Mentor Responsibilities (N=5) Belief items Spearman Correlation Sig. 11 Greets novice at preplanning -0.05 0.47 12 Expedites orientation/pr eplanning activities -0.79 0.06 13 Provides assistance locating books/materials -0.79 0.06 14 Provides assistance in de veloping lesson plans in compliance with Sunshine State Standards -0.79 0.06 15 Provides training for parent communication -0.69 0.10 16 Provides assistance with room organization -0.80 0.05* 17 Provides training on record keeping -0.54 0.17 18 Provides examples of measurement tools -0.13 0.42 19 Provides assistance with im plementation of appropriate tools for tracking/defining pupil progress 0.75 0.07 20 Provides assistance in esta blishing efficient classroom routines/rules -0.74 0.08 *= significance < .05 **= significance < .01 85

PAGE 86

Table 4-33. Correlation of Altern atively Certificated Novice T eachers' Ratings Regarding the Importance (Part II C) and the Actual Deliver y (Part III C) of Shared Responsibilities (N=5) Belief items Spearman Correlation Sig. 21 Provides training in "how best to handle classroom disturbances" -0.92 0.01** 22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative feedback) 0.61 0.14 23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make observations of other teachers -0.26 0.33 24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses -0.30 0.31 25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training opportunities/development -0.35 0.28 *= significance < .05 **= significance < .01 86

PAGE 87

Table 4-34. T Tests for Indepe ndent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Ratings Regarding the Importance of Administrator Responsibilities Levene's Test Sig. tvalue DF Sig. (2tailed) Error 95% Confidence Interval Upper Lower 0.10 Equal -0.06 37 0.95 0.89 -1.85 1.75 1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning Unequal -0.05 5 0.96 0.97 -2.55 2.44 0.53 Equal -0.91 38 0.37 0.69 -2.03 0.77 2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice Unequal -0.97 5 0.37 0.65 -2.26 1.00 0.08 Equal 0.56 38 0.58 0.97 -1.43 2.51 3 Mentor with similar teaching style Unequal 0.39 4 0.72 1.40 -3.20 4.28 0.55 Equal 0.76 38 0.45 0.75 -0.94 2.09 4 Mentor in close proximity Unequal 0.64 5 0.55 0.90 -1.77 2.92 0.10 Equal -0.55 38 0.58 0.88 -2.26 1.29 5 Mentor has necessary specialized expertise Unequal -0.50 5 0.64 0.98 -3.01 2.04 0.10 Equal 1.27 38 0.21 1.15 -0.87 3.78 6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice Unequal 1.83 8 0.11 0.80 -0.40 3.32 0.82 Equal -1.11 38 0.27 0.95 -2.98 0.87 7 Provides frequent observations/feedback Unequal -1.02 5 0.35 1.03 -3.72 1.61 0.56 Equal -1.32 37 0.19 1.09 -3.66 0.77 8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback Unequal -1.62 6 0.16 0.89 -3.62 0.72 0.34 Equal -2.00 38 0.05* 1.26 -5.06 0.03 9 Weekly "walkthrough" for novice teachers Unequal -2.12 5 0.08 1.18 -5.49 0.46 0.03 Equal -2.77 38 0.01 1.04 -4.99 -0.78 10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and consultations Unequal -5.37 15 0.00* 0.54 -4.03 -1.74 *= significance < .05 **= significance < .01 87

PAGE 88

Table 4-35. T Tests for Indepe ndent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Rati ngs Regarding the Importance of Mentor Responsibilities Levene's Test Sig. tValue D F Sig 2tailed Error 95% Confidence Interval Upper Lower 0.87 Equal -0.23 36 0.82 0.90 -2.04 1.62 11 Greets novice at preplanning Unequal -0.19 5 0.86 1.14 -3.20 2.78 0.85 Equal -1.01 36 0.32 0.79 -2.39 0.80 12 Expedites orientation/ preplanning activities Unequal -1.08 6 0.33 0.74 -2.63 1.05 13 Provides assistance locating books/materials 0.20 Equal -1.39 36 0.17 0.85 -2.91 0.54 Unequal -1.87 7 0.10 0.63 -2.68 0.31 0.05 Equal -2.33 36 0.03 0.63 -2.75 -0.19 14 Provides assistance in developing lesson plans in compliance with Sunshine State Standards Unequal -4.68 19 0.00* 0.31 -2.12 -0.81 0.35 Equal -0.84 36 0.41 1.10 -3.14 1.31 15 Provides training for parent communication Unequal -0.95 6 0.38 0.96 -3.28 1.45 0.94 Equal -0.07 36 0.95 1.28 -2.68 2.51 16 Provides assistance with room organization Unequal -0.07 5 0.95 1.26 -3.25 3.08 17 Provides training on record keeping 0.83 Equal -0.77 36 0.45 0.94 -2.62 1.18 Unequal -0.73 5 0.50 0.99 -3.24 1.80 0.45 Equal -0.05 36 0.96 0.74 -1.53 1.46 18 Provides examples of measurement tools Unequal -0.06 7 0.95 0.58 -1.42 1.35 0.04 Equal -0.54 36 0.59 0.62 -1.58 0.92 19 Provides assistance with implementation of appropriate tools for teaching/defining pupil progression Unequal -0.85 9 0.42 0.39 -1.22 0.55 0.40 Equal -0.11 36 0.91 1.11 -2.38 2.14 20 Provides assistance in establishing efficient classroom routines/rules Unequal -0.13 6 0.90 0.93 -2.39 2.15 *= significance < .05 **= significance < .01 88

PAGE 89

Table 4-36. T Tests for Indepe ndent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Rati ngs Regarding the Importance of Shared Responsibilities Levene's Test Sig. t-value DF Sig. 2tailed Error 95% Confidence Interval Upp er Low er 0.41 Equal -1.42 37 0.16 0.74 -2.56 0.45 21 Provides training in "how best to handle" classroom disturbances Unequal -1.64 6 0.15 0.64 -2.63 0.53 0.71 Equal -1.32 37 0.20 0.87 -2.91 0.62 22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative feedback) Unequal -1.10 5 0.32 1.04 -3.87 1.58 0.79 Equal -0.39 37 0.70 1.12 -2.71 1.83 23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make observations of other teachers Unequal -0.39 5 0.71 1.12 -3.29 2.41 0.09 Equal -1.09 37 0.28 0.55 -1.72 0.52 24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental appropriate/ timely responses Unequal -1.87 11 0.09 0.32 -1.31 0.11 0.70 Equal -0.96 37 0.34 0.82 -2.46 0.88 25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training opportunities/ development Unequal -0.76 5 0.48 1.04 -3.52 1.94 *= significance < .05 **= significance < .01 89

PAGE 90

Table 4-37. Reported Means for T-Test for I ndependent Groups Regarding the Importance of Administrator, Mentor, and Shared Responsibilities Novice teachers Mean Std. Dev Std. Error Item 1 Traditional 8.15 1.83 0.31 Alternative 8.20 2.05 0.92 Item 2 Traditional 8.77 1.46 0.25 Alternative 9.40 1.34 0.60 Item 3 Traditional 7.14 1.88 0.32 Alternative 6.60 3.05 1.36 Item 4 Traditional 8.37 1.52 0.26 Alternative 7.80 1.92 0.86 Item 5 Traditional 7.91 1.80 0.31 Alternative 8.40 2.07 0.93 Item 6 Traditional 4.06 2.48 0.42 Alternative 2.60 1.52 0.68 Item 7 Traditional 7.54 1.96 0.33 Alternative 8.60 2.19 0.98 Item 8 Traditional 7.35 2.33 0.40 Alternative 8.80 1.79 0.80 Item 9 Traditional 5.49 2.65 0.45 Alternative 8.00 2.45 1.10 Item 10 Traditional 6.31 2.29 0.39 Alternative 9.20 0.84 0.37 Item 11 Traditional 7.79 1.80 0.31 Alternative 8.00 2.45 1.10 Item 12 Traditional 7.61 1.66 0.29 Alternative 8.40 1.52 0.68 Item 13 Traditional 7.82 1.83 0.32 Alternative 9.00 1.22 0.55 Item 14 Traditional 8.33 1.38 0.24 Alternative 9.80 0.45 0.20 Item 15 Traditional 7.48 2.32 0.40 Alternative 8.40 1.95 0.87 Item 16 Traditional 6.52 2.67 0.46 Alternative 6.60 2.61 1.17 Item 17 Traditional 7.88 1.93 0.34 Alternative 8.60 2.07 0.93 Item 18 Traditional 8.36 1.58 0.27 Alternative 8.40 1.14 0.51 Item 19 Traditional 8.67 1.34 0.23 Alternative 9.00 0.71 0.32 90

PAGE 91

Table 4-37. Continued Novice teachers Mean Std. Dev Std. Error Item 20 Traditional 7.88 2.37 0.41 Alternative 8.00 1.87 0.84 Item 21 Traditional 8.15 1.58 0.27 Alternative 9.20 1.30 0.58 Item 22 Traditional 7.85 1.76 0.30 Alternative 9.00 2.24 1.00 Item 23 Traditional 7.56 2.34 0.40 Alternative 8.00 2.35 1.05 Item 24 Traditional 9.00 1.21 0.21 Alternative 9.60 0.55 0.24 Item 25 Traditional 8.21 1.65 0.28 Alternative 9.00 2.24 1.00 91

PAGE 92

Table 4-38. T tests for Indepe ndent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Rati ngs Regarding the Actual Delivery of Administrators Responsibilities Levene's Test Sig. tvalue DF Sig. (2tailed) Error 95% Confidence Interval Upper Lower 0.60 Equal 1.88 38 0.07 1.40 -0.20 5.46 1 Mentors assigned prior to preplanning Unequal 2.07 6 0.09 1.27 -0.53 5.79 0.30 Equal -0.73 38 0.47 1.10 -3.03 1.43 2 Mentor in the same or related field as novice Unequal -1.13 9 0.29 0.71 -2.42 0.82 0.91 Equal 3.20 37 0.00* 1.21 1.42 6.32 3 Mentor with similar teaching style Unequal 2.85 5 0.04 1.36 0.36 7.38 1.00 Equal -0.24 38 0.81 1.40 -3.18 2.50 4 Mentor in close proximity Unequal -0.22 5 0.84 1.57 -4.42 3.73 0.48 Equal -0.46 38 0.65 1.11 -2.76 1.73 5 Mentor has necessary specialized expertise Unequal -0.61 7 0.57 0.85 -2.55 1.52 0.35 Equal -0.07 37 0.94 1.34 -2.82 2.62 6 Mentor 10-15 years older than novice Unequal -0.06 5 0.96 1.81 -4.89 4.69 0.58 Equal 2.02 36 0.05* 1.51 -0.02 6.11 7 Provides frequent observations/feedback Unequal 2.30 6 0.06 1.32 -0.21 6.30 0.43 Equal 1.75 36 0.09 1.57 -0.44 5.93 8 Provides guidelines for observations/feedback Unequal 2.06 6 0.08 1.33 -0.51 6.00 0.60 Equal 1.17 36 0.25 1.49 -1.28 4.77 9 Weekly "walkthrough" for novice teachers Unequal 1.32 6 0.24 1.32 -1.51 5.00 0.40 Equal 1.58 36 0.12 1.56 -0.69 5.64 10 Provides guidelines for scheduling observation and consultations Unequal 1.86 6 0.11 1.33 -0.78 5.73 *= significance < .05 **= significance < .01 92

PAGE 93

Table 4-39. T Tests for Indepe ndent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Rati ngs Regarding the Actual Delivery of Mentor Responsibilities Levene's Test Sig. tvalue DF Sig. (2tailed) Error 95% Confidence Interval Upper Lower 0.82 Equal 1.50 38 0.14 1.43 -0.76 5.04 11 Greets novice at preplanning Unequal 1.45 5 0.21 1.48 -1.64 5.93 0.45 Equal 2.67 38 0.01* 1.35 0.88 6.32 12 Expedites orientation/preplanning activities Unequal 3.16 6 0.02 1.14 0.81 6.39 0.48 Equal 2.14 38 0.04* 1.48 0.17 6.17 13 Provides assistance locating books/materials Unequal 2.38 6 0.06 1.33 -0.15 6.49 0.13 Equal 3.95 37 0.00* 1.34 2.57 8.00 14 Provides assistance in developing lesson plans in compliance with Sunshine State Standards Unequal 6.87 11 0.00 0.77 3.60 6.98 0.20 Equal 1.26 37 0.22 1.46 -1.12 4.81 15 Provides training for parent communication Unequal 1.65 7 0.15 1.12 -0.83 4.51 0.15 Equal 2.35 37 0.02* 1.52 0.49 6.65 16 Provides assistance with room organization Unequal 3.44 8 0.01 1.04 1.17 5.97 0.13 Equal 1.45 38 0.16 1.56 -0.90 5.42 17 Provides training on record keeping Unequal 1.80 6 0.12 1.26 -0.79 5.30 0.69 Equal 1.60 38 0.12 1.46 -0.62 5.30 18 Provides examples of measurement tools Unequal 1.74 6 0.14 1.35 -1.02 5.71 0.30 Equal 3.30 38 0.00* 1.46 1.85 7.75 19 Provides assistance with implementation of appropriate tools for teaching/defining pupil progression Unequal 4.70 7 0.00 1.02 2.41 7.19 0.11 Equal 2.81 37 0.01* 1.51 1.18 7.30 20 Provides assistance in establishing efficient classroom routines/rules Unequal 4.58 10 0.00 0.93 2.17 6.31 *= significance < .05 **= significance < .01 93

PAGE 94

Table 4-40. T Tests for Indepe ndent Groups of Novice Teachers' (N=35) and Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers' (N=5) Rati ngs Regarding the Actual Delivery of Shared Responsibilities Levene's Test Sig. t-value DF Sig. (2tailed) Error 95% Confidence Interval Uppe r Low er 1.00 Equal 2.37 38 0.02* 1.47 0.51 6.46 21 Provides training in "how best to handle" classroom disturbances Unequal 2.51 5 0.05 1.39 -0.01 6.98 0.67 Equal 2.37 38 0.02* 1.53 0.54 6.72 22 Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative feedback) Unequal 2.70 6 0.04 1.34 0.31 6.95 0.59 Equal 0.95 38 0.35 1.53 -1.63 4.55 23 Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make observations of other teachers Unequal 0.85 5 0.43 1.71 -2.97 5.88 0.31 Equal 1.51 38 0.14 1.53 -0.79 5.42 24 Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental appropriate/timel y responses Unequal 1.22 5 0.28 1.90 -2.68 7.30 0.73 Equal 1.43 38 0.16 1.46 -0.88 5.05 25 Keeps novice teachers up to date on training opportunities/dev elopment Unequal 1.55 6 0.18 1.35 -1.28 5.45 *= significance < .05 **= significance < .01 94

PAGE 95

Table 4-41. Reported Means for TTest for Independent Groups Regarding the Actual Delivery of Admi nistrator, Mentor, and Shared Responsibilities Novice teachers Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Item 1 Traditional 7.03 2.96 0.50 Alternative 4.40 2.61 1.17 Item 2 Traditional 8.40 2.39 0.40 Alternative 9.20 1.30 0.58 Item 3 Traditional 7.47 2.48 0.42 Alternative 3.60 2.88 1.29 Item 4 Traditional 7.46 2.88 0.49 Alternative 7.80 3.35 1.50 Item 5 Traditional 8.09 2.38 0.40 Alternative 8.60 1.67 0.75 Item 6 Traditional 7.50 2.64 0.45 Alternative 7.60 3.91 1.75 Item 7 Traditional 6.85 3.20 0.56 Alternative 3.80 2.68 1.20 Item 8 Traditional 6.55 3.34 0.58 Alternative 3.80 2.68 1.20 Item 9 Traditional 5.55 3.15 0.55 Alternative 3.80 2.68 1.20 Item 10 Traditional 6.27 3.32 0.58 Alternative 3.80 2.68 1.20 Item 11 Traditional 6.94 2.98 0.50 Alternative 4.80 3.11 1.39 Item 12 Traditional 7.00 2.87 0.49 Alternative 3.40 2.30 1.03 Item 13 Traditional 7.17 3.14 0.53 Alternative 4.00 2.74 1.22 Item 14 Traditional 7.09 2.93 0.50 Alternative 1.80 1.30 0.58 Item 15 Traditional 6.44 3.14 0.54 Alternative 4.60 2.19 0.98 Item 16 Traditional 5.97 3.29 0.56 Alternative 2.40 1.95 0.87 Item 17 Traditional 6.66 3.34 0.57 Alternative 4.40 2.51 1.12 Item 18 Traditional 7.14 3.09 0.52 Alternative 4.80 2.77 1.24 Item 19 Traditional 7.20 3.15 0.53 Alternative 2.40 1.95 0.87 95

PAGE 96

Table 4-41. Continued Novice teachers Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Item 20 Traditional 6.44 3.29 0.56 Alternative 2.20 1.64 0.73 Item 21 Traditional 6.89 3.09 0.52 Alternative 3.40 2.88 1.29 Item 22 Traditional 6.63 3.25 0.55 Alternative 3.00 2.74 1.22 Item 23 Traditional 6.26 3.14 0.53 Alternative 4.80 3.63 1.62 Item 24 Traditional 7.51 3.09 0.52 Alternative 5.20 4.09 1.83 Item 25 Traditional 7.29 3.09 0.52 Alternative 5.20 2.77 1.24 Table 4-42. Overall, What Do Administrators Feel is the Mo st Valuable Component of the Teacher Induction Program? Administrators' common themes Tally marks Mentor relationship (confidence, dialogue, support and followthrough) 23 Mentor in close proximity and grade level 4 Frequent observations 4 Classroom management/parent interaction 2 Table 4-43. Overall, What Do Mentors Feel is the Most Valu able Component of the Teacher Induction Program? Mentors' common themes Tally marks Mentors relationship (support, dial ogue, frequent interaction) 29 Someone to answer questions 8 Bookkeeping, materials, record keeping, progress monitoring 3 Classroom management 3 Table 4-44. Overall, What Do Novice Teachers F eel is the Most Valuable Component of the Teacher Induction Program? Novice teachers common themes Tally marks Someone to "be there" 20 Similar expertise and proximity 4 Time to observe others/classroom management 4 Testing, scheduling, bookkeeping 3 96

PAGE 97

Table 4-45. Overall, What Do Alternatively Ce rtificated Novice Teacher s Feel is the Most Valuable Component of the Teacher Induction Program? Novice teachers seeking a lternative certification common themes Tally marks Strong mentor relationship (patient, approachable) 3 Classroom management 1 Never assigned a mentor 1 Table 4-46. What Aspects of the Teacher I nduction/Support Program Would Administrators Most Like to See Changed, Adapted or Improved? Administrators' common themes Tally marks District-wide continuity (checklists, mentor training) 10 Stipends for all mentors creati ng formal induction for all novice teachers 8 Dollars to support the induction program (substitutes to observe other teachers, meet with mentor) 7 Training in curriculum, unders tanding data, differentiated instruction 3 Table 4-47. What Aspects of the Teacher Indu ction/Support Program Woul d Mentors Most Like to See Changed, Adapted, or Improved? Mentors' common themes Tally marks Consistency (program guidelines an d partner selection process) 17 Mentor assigned before preplanning 10 More frequent mentor/mentee meetings and observations 9 Money to support the program (paid mentors, sub days) 8 Table 4-48. What Aspects of the Teacher I nduction/Support Program Would Novice teachers Most Like to See Changed, Adapted, or Improved? Novices' common themes Tally marks More interaction, feedback, and follow-through from mentors 11 Preplanning meeting 5 Help with bookkeeping and record keeping 4 Mentor in same school and area of expertise 3 Table 4-49. What Aspects of the Teacher I nduction/Support Program Would Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers Most Like to See Changed, Adapted or Improved? Novice teachers seeking alternative cer tification common themes Tally marks Communication 3 Handling of paperwork (assessment, educational plans lesson plans) 3 97

PAGE 98

Table 4-50. List the Three Most Important Th ings Administrators Need From a Teacher Induction/Support Program. Administrators' common themes Tally marks Consistency of implementation/distri ct level support (checklist of what should be covered) 16 Dollars to support mentors and sub days 10 Skilled mentors (trained and willing) 8 Table 4-51. List the Three Most Importan t Things Mentors Need From a Teacher Induction/Support Program. Mentors' common themes Tally marks Support from mentorsobservati ons/feedback (immediate and consistent) 21 Procedures, planning, assessment, and record keeping 9 Dollars to support program (stipends, sub days) 8 Administrative support 8 Table 4-52. List the Three Mo st Important Things Novice Te achers Need From a Teacher Induction/Support Program. Novices' common themes Tally marks Understanding of grade book, planning, recordkeeping, and materials 17 Parent communication/classroom management 12 Observation with immediate feedback 10 Table 4-53. List the Three Most Important Things A lternatively Certificat ed Novice Teachers Need From a Teacher Induction/Support Program. Novice teachers seeking alternative cer tification common themes Tally marks Paperwork and classroom management training 4 Good communication and m odel teaching examples from mentor 3 Clear expectations and emoti onal support from mentor and administration 2 98

PAGE 99

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this study was to examine a district-wide teacher induction program and evaluate the relationship between the believed importance and actual deliv ery of mentors and principals responsibilities in support services, as evaluated by the administrators, mentors, and novice teachers. This study also reviewed the outcome of the teacher induction program through the perspective of traditionally and alternatively certificated novice teachers. The research specifically addressed th e following 11 questions: 1. What is the level of agr eement among administrators ratin gs regarding the importance of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 2. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers ratings regarding the importance of teacher induction program se rvices, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 3. What is the level of agreement am ong novice teachers ratings regarding the importance of teacher induction program se rvices, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 4. What is the level of agreem ent among administrato rs ratings regardin g the delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 5. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers ratings regarding the delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 6. What is the level of agreement among novice teachers ratings regarding the delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 7. What is the level of agr eement among administrators ratin gs regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 8. What is the level of agreement among mentor teachers ratings regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction pr ogram services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 99

PAGE 100

9. What is the level of agreement am ong novice teachers ratings regarding the importance and delivery of teacher induction pr ogram services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? 10. What is the level of agreement between alternatively certifi cated novice teachers ratings regarding the importance and deliv ery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and ment or/principal responsibilities? 11. What are the differences betw een alternatively certificated and traditional certificated novice teachers ratings regarding the impor tance and delivery of teacher induction program services, mentor responsibilities, and mentor/principal responsibilities? Summary of Findings The focus of this study was on the appraisal of teacher induction se rvices provided to a Central Florida countys elementary novice teach ers. Teacher induction has been defined as support necessary to complete novice teachers in structional training, faci litate a change from student teacher to teacher of students, and build a support netw ork for problem-solving (Baines et al., 2001; Johnson, 2001; Stansbury, 2001). For th e purpose of this study principals and administrators refer to building principals or assistant principals assi gned to teacher induction tasks, mentors refer to an experienced teacher assigned to provide support to the novice teacher, and novice refers to a first year elementary school teacher. Research Question 1: What is the Level of Agreement among Administrators Ratings Regarding the Importance of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/Pr incipal Responsibilities? The first 25 items presented in the survey aske d the administrators to rate personal beliefs about their own responsibilities (Part II A), mentor responsibilities (P art II B) and responsibilities they shared with mentors (Par t II C) related to teacher induc tion services. In Part II A, administrators viewed 8 of 10 ite ms as highly important, 1 as mode rately important (mentor with similar teaching style) and 1 (an age difference of 10-15 years between mentor and mentee) of low importance, thus signifying agreement that the services are necessary for novice teachers success. Administrators agreed that 9 of the 10 administrative support items were important to 100

PAGE 101

the success of novice teacher pa rticipants in a teacher induc tion program. Prior research indicated that the 10-15 years age difference between mentor and mentee would be rated low (Ponticell & Zepeda, 1997; Carter & Francis, 20 01; Stansbury, 2001; Castorina, 2003). However, this item was left in the survey to protect against acquiescence response bias (Tuckman, 1999), which is true throughout the study. Part II B results show that administra tors rated all 10 items regarding mentor responsibilities for teach er induction services as highly impor tant (mean scores ranged from 7.79 to 9.12). Responses suggest that ad ministrators view the mentors most important role as the transfer of information about building and district procedures. These results concurred with research identifying efficient cl assroom routines/rules or clas sroom management as among the highest needs of a novice teacher in a high quality teacher induction progr am (Banes et al., 2001; Castorina; 2003; Haugaard, 2005). Part II C of the survey found administrators re porting all 5 items of shared responsibility as highly important to effective teacher inducti on. These results support prior research that classroom management and comm unication between the mentor, mentee and administration is vital to the retention and successful empowerment of a novice teacher (Banes et al., 2001; Castorina; 2003; Haugaard, 2005; Littrell & Billinsley, 1994; Stansbury, 2001; Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998). Combined with the high level of alpha reliability ( = .894), principals accepted 24 of 25 components (Part II A, Part II B & Part II C) as important component s of a quality teacher induction program. 101

PAGE 102

Research Question 2: What is the Level of Agreement among Mentor Teachers Ratings Regarding the Importance of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/Pr incipal Responsibilities? Mentors rated their beliefs about administra tors responsibilities (Part II A), personal responsibilities (Part II B) and re sponsibilities that th ey share with administrators (Part II C) regarding teacher induction services with responses to the first 25 items pres ented in the survey. Part II A found that mentors believed that 7 of 10 items were highly important (mean scores ranged from 7.909.27) teacher indu ction services. Part II B repor ted that mentors perceived all 10 items related to their own responsibilities in a teacher induc tion program as highly important. The same was true of all 5 items reported in Part II C regarding beliefs ab out the responsibilities they shared with administrators for quality teacher induction. These results agree, except in the areas of weekly walk-through for novice teachers, and assigning a mentor with similar teaching style, with previous research about the important elements of the mentors role in a teacher induction program (Banes et al., 2001; Carter & Francis, 2001; Castorina, 2003; Haugaard, 2005; L ittrell & Billinsley, 1994; Ponticell & Zepeda, 1997; Stansbury, 2001; Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998). The mean scores and high alpha reliability ( =.910) indicates agreement among mentors in their beliefs of the importance of the components of a quality teach er induction program. Research Question 3: What is the Level of Agreement among Novice Teachers Ratings Regarding the Importance of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities? Novice teachers rated their be liefs about administrators responsibilities (Part II A), mentors responsibilities (Part II B) and responsibilities that ad ministrators and mentors share (Part II C) related to teacher induction services in their responses to the first 25 items presented in the survey. The analysis of mean scores and a high al pha reliability ( =.884) indicate 102

PAGE 103

agreement among novice teachers regarding the elemen ts of a quality teacher induction program. Novice teachers reported 6 of 10 items about administrators responsibili ties (Part II A) in a quality teacher induction program as highly im portant. Three (3) were rated moderately important, and 1 was rated as having low importance. Elementary novice teachers believed the most important items were having a mentor in the same or related field as novice (8.85), having a mentor in close proximity (8.30), and having mentors assigned prior to preplanning (8.15). Responses to Part II B indicate that novice t eachers agreed that 9 of 10 items regarding their beliefs about mentor responsibilities for teacher induction were highly important with mean scores ranging from 7.54-8.85. Novice teachers believed that me ntors who provide assistance with implementation of appropriate tools for teaching/defining pupil progress and who provide assistance in developing lesson plans in complia nce with Sunshine State Standards were of greatest value. All items regarding responsibilities shared be tween administrators and mentors were rated as highly important by the novice teachers. Princi pals and mentors who welcome questions/give nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses to the novices received the highest mean score from novices (Part II C). Novice teachers agree that 24 of the 25 items related to quality teacher induction program were highly or moderately important. These results indicate to district a nd school personnel what first year teachers in this Central Florida county believe are important to their success. Beliefs are strong predictors of human behavior and perceived as personal knowledge (Pajares, 1992). Novice teachers, mentors and administrators a ll agreed that highly important elements in teacher support from a mentor incl ude: teaching in a related field (c ontent area), working in close proximity, assignment made before preplanning, ability to identify the proper resources and 103

PAGE 104

assist in how to align curriculum with the stan dards and that the mentor should be a peer or supervisor that is approachable and provide s immediate feedback (B rownlee et al., 1998; Castorina, 2003; Haugaard, 2005; Littrell & Billingsley, 1994; Singh & Billingsley, 1998; Spindler & Biott, 2000; Stansbury, 2001, Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998). Research Question 4: What is the Level of Agreement among Administrators Ratings Regarding the Delivery of Teacher I nduction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/ Principal Responsibilities? Administrators rated 25 survey items for the actual delivery of their own responsibilities (Part III A), mentor responsibilitie s (Part III B) and re sponsibilities that they share with mentors (Part III C) related to a quality teacher inducti on program. Agreement among administrators was demonstrated through an analysis of m ean scores and a high alpha reliability ( =.980). Part III A shows administrators were highly satisfied with the assignment of mentor in the same or related field as the novice teacher (7.73). The mean scor es of administrators ratings of mentor responsibilities (Part III B) show none of the teacher induction services were being delivered at more than a moderate level of satisfaction (6.54-7.26). The means reflected in Part III C indicate that administrators rated 2 of 5 items as delivered with a high level of satisfaction (7.63 and 7.83). Although early questions in this study reveal (with the excl usion of assigning mentors with similar teaching style and a mentor who is 10-15 years older than novice) that administrators believed these items were highly important to a quality teacher induction program, only 3 of the 23 items were perceived as being delivered at the same high level. Administrators were found not to be highly satisfied with the delivery of 23 of the 25 teacher induction practices in this Central Fl orida county. The highest level of satisfaction reported was the shared administrator and mentor responsibility of welcoming questions and giving nonjudgmental, appropriate and timely res ponses (7.83). Previous research found this a 104

PAGE 105

key component of teacher induction (Brownlee et al., 1998; Castorina, 2003; Haugaard, 2005; Littrell & Billingsley, 1994; Singh & Billingsley, 1998; Spindler & Biott, 2000; Stansbury, 2001, Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998), and aligned with th e high importance administ rators place in this area. The mean scores of delivery were consistently lower than administrators reported their rated importance of quality teacher induc tion services earlier in this study. Research Question 5: What is the Level of Agreement among Mentor Teachers Ratings Regarding the Delivery of Teacher I nduction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/Pr incipal Responsibilities? Mentors rated 25 survey items assessing the actual delivery of administrator responsibilities (Part III A), thei r responsibilities (Part III B) and responsibilities that they share with administrators (Part III C) in relation to a quality teache r induction program in a Central Florida county. Agreement among mentors was demons trated through an analysis of mean scores and a high alpha reliability ( .976). Mentors reported that administrators delivered 3 of 10 items at a hi gh level of satisfaction (Part III A). The remaining 7 items were reported as being delivered with a moderate satisfaction level (5.81-7.40). Mentors reported that they are highly satisfied with the delivery of 50% (5 of 10) of their responsibilities in a quality induction program (P art III B). Room organization (7.00) received the lowest score on its actual delivery. Part III C indicated that mentors viewed 1 of 5 items as having a high level of delivery. Mentors agreed they were highly satisfied with the delivery of welcoming questions and gives nonj udgmental appropriate and timel y responses (7.98) in this domain. Although mentors believed that all of the items (excluding ad ministrative responsibilities of weekly walk-through for novice teachers, assigning a mentor with similar teaching style, 105

PAGE 106

and assigning mentors 10-15 years older than the novice) were highly important to the success of a quality induction program, only 9 of the 22 items were actually deliver ed at the same high level. Thus, mentors may be aware of the types of services necessary for novice teachers, but are not highly satisfied with the actual delivery of those services. Mentors reported the most satisfaction with services they were solely responsible for delivering. Administrators, mentors and novice teachers all believed that welcoming questions and giving nonjudgmental, appropriate and timely res ponses was the most important service to a quality teacher induction program (9.10 or highe r), which matched the mentors high level of satisfaction of its delivery (7.98). Openness, approachability, friendliness, interest in development and finding comfort to reduce stress characterizes an effective mentor (Carter & Francis, 2001). Research Question 6: What is the Level of Agreement among Novice Teachers Rating Regarding the Delivery of Teacher I nduction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/ Principal Responsibilities? Novice teachers rated 25 survey items assessi ng the actual delivery of administrators responsibilities (Part III A), mentor responsibilities (Part II I B) and the responsibilities that administrators and mentors share (Part III C) in a teacher induction program in this Central Florida county. Agreement among novice teachers was demonstrated through an analysis of mean scores and a high alpha reliability ( =.978). Novice teachers were highly satisfied with the delivery of 4 of 10 items for which administrators are responsible (P art III A). Administrators were reported by the novice teachers to assign mentors in the same or related field as the novice (8.50) and assign a mentor with the necessary specialized expertise (8.15), at the highest level of satisfaction. The novice teachers reported they were moderately satisfied with the remaining 6 items. Part III B asked novice 106

PAGE 107

teachers to rate their level of sa tisfaction with the actual delivery of mentor responsibilities. The novice teachers report they were not highly satisfied with the delivery of any induction services provided by a mentor in this Cent ral Florida county. The 10 items we re all rated with a moderate level of satisfaction (5.51-6.85). Novice teachers also reported they were not highly satisfied with delivery of any of the quality teacher induction services shared by administrators and mentors (Part III C). The results indicate that novice teachers were highly satisfied with delivery of just 4 of the 25 items even though they reported earlier in this study (Part II A-C) they believed that 21 of the items were highly important to a quality teacher induction program. One (1) of the 4 items (mentors 10-15 years older than novice) was rate d as being delivered at a high level, yet was view by administrators, mentors, novices and prior researchers as not an important part of a teacher induction program (Littrell & B ilingsley, 1994; Brownlee et al., 1998; Singh & Billingsley, 1998; Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998; Stan sbury, 2001, Castorina, 2003). This indicates that a common practice of this Central Florida county induction program ma y not be necessary to meet the needs of beginning teachers. The three items that novice teachers were highl y satisfied with, administrators assigning mentors in the same or related field as the novice, mentor having th e necessary specialized expertise, and mentor being assigned in clos e proximity, were all rated by novices as being highly important to their training. Novices also believed that ment or responsibilities and shared administrator/mentor responsibilities reported in Part II B and C (excl uding provides assistance with room organization) were highly important, yet none of thes e items were delivered with a high level of satisfaction. The sta ndard deviations in these two s ections were larger than other areas (3.03 to 3.42), which may indicate some inconsistencies in the delivery of teacher 107

PAGE 108

induction services. Additional st ress, lower job satisfaction, and school commitment can be affected when the needs of novice teachers are no t aligned with inductio n services (Littrell & Billingsley, 1994; Singh & Billingsley, 1998; Ca rter and Frances, 2001; Stansbury, 2001; MacNab & Payne, 2003). Research indicates the importance for teacher induction practitioners to be cognizant and consistent with application of their personal beliefs so that they are more enabled to meet the needs of novice teachers (B allantyne et al., 1998; Littrell & Billingsley, 1994). Research Question 7: What is the Level of Agreement among Administrators Ratings Regarding the Importance and Delivery of Te acher Induction Program Service, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/ Principal Responsibilities? Administrators rated 25 paired survey items describing the importance and actual delivery of their responsibilities (P art II A & Part III A), mentor responsibilities (Part II B & Part III B) and shared administrator and mentor responsibilities (Part II C & Pa rt III C) relate d to a Central Florida teacher induction program. Analysis of this data indi cated a significant correlation between 15 of the 25 paired items. Such correl ation between the believed importance and actual delivery indicated a homogeneous relationship between what is important and what services are being received. Beliefs and percep tions indicate what type of program and support is vital to novice teacher training (Brownlee et al., 1998; MacNab & Payne, 2003; Pajares, 1992). Part II B and Part III B results indicated a positive significant relationship (Spearman Correlation) was found for administrators ratings regarding th e importance and the actual delivery of seven (7) mentor re sponsibilities (Table 4-23). Part II C and Part III C results indicted a positive significant relationship (Spearman Correlation) for three (3) shared administrator and mentor responsibilit ies. Administrators believed that all of the significant items were highly important to a quality teacher induction program. 108

PAGE 109

Administrators reported there was not a si gnificant relationship between 10 of the 25 paired items. Results show the items that were found not to be significant indicate the null hypothesis was true (n o relationship). Similar to the findings of Johnson (2001), thes e results show that administrators concur that the items in the survey are elements of a quality induction program and that they understand their role in delivery of these services. They did not believe, however, th at delivery of 8 items matched the level of perceived importance. Administ rators were not highly satisfied with either their own delivery or the delivery of mentor s support for novice teachers in many key support services that are part of a quality teacher induction program. The 8 items indicate a low level of delivery for necessary induction support such as classroom management, feedback from mentors and administrators, instrumental support, a nd systematic pairing of mentors and mentees (Ballantyne & Hansford, 1995; Brow nlee et al. 1998; Carter & Fr ancis, 2001; Castorina, 2003; Haugaard, 2005; Littrell & Billingsley, 1994; Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998). Research Question 8: What is the Level of Agreement among Mentor Teachers Rating Regarding the Importance and Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and the Men tor/Principal Responsibilities? Mentors rated the importance and the actual de livery of administrators responsibilities (Part II A & Part III B), their ow n responsibilities (Part II B & Part III B) and res ponsibilities that they share with administrators (Part II C & Part III C) related to a Centra l Florida county teacher induction program. Analysis of this data indicated existence of a significant correlation (Spearman Correlation) between 18 of the 25 paired items. Beliefs and perceptions indicate the type of program and support is vital to novice te acher training (Brownl ee et al., 1998; MacNab & Payne, 2003; Pajares, 1992). Significant relationships indicate that the mentors level of believed importance correlates with the actual delivery of the induction serv ice. Correlation between the believed importance 109

PAGE 110

and actual delivery indicate a homogeneous relati onship between what is important and what services are being received. Mentors believed th at 16 of the 18 items, including all 10 items related to their own resp onsibilities, found to be significant were highly important to a quality teacher induction program; 9 of 10 items were belie ved to be delivered at the same high level. Mentors also believed that all five (5) items relati ng to their shared respon sibilities were highly important; delivery of 4 of 5 items matched their perceived importa nce. The significant relationships (Spearman Correlatio n) indicate that mentors are satisfied with teacher induction services for 13 of 15 services th at they deliver. Mentors reported that although they believed it is highly important to greet novices at preplanni ng, and that feedback should be provided by the administrator and/or themselves, neither wa s found to be significant. Although such a relationship was not found, these resu lts indicate that mentors agree with the research that novice teachers should be assigned at the beginning of th e year and that feedback is vital to a novice teachers success (Ballantyne & Hansford, 1995; Ze peda & Ponticell, 1998; Spindler & Biott, 2000; Carter & Frances, 2001; Castorina, 2003). Research Question 9: What is the Level of Agreement among Novice Teachers Rating Regarding the Importance and Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities? Novice teachers rated 25 paired survey items describing the importance and the actual delivery of administrators respon sibilities (Part II A & Part III B), mentor responsibilities (Part II B & Part III B) and responsibilities that princi pals and mentors share (Part II C & Part III C) related to a Central Florida c ounty teacher induction program. On ly one significant relationship (Spearman Correlation) was reported in Part II A a nd Part III A (mentor in the same or related field as novice [.42]). This re sult indicates that the belief s of novice teachers matched the delivery of just one item. 110

PAGE 111

Of the 24 paired items that were found not significant, novices believed that 19 were highly important, 4 moderately important, and 1 had low importance. None of the mentors responsibilities, as rated by novice teachers, were found to ha ve a significan t relationship between their importance and actual delivery. In addition, no correlation was found in novice teachers rating regarding the importance and the act ual delivery of shared mentor/administrator responsibilities on any of the 5 items. These results indicate incons istencies, as viewed by novice teachers, between the beliefs and actual delivery of 24 of 25 quality induction services. Correlation between the believed importance and actual delivery indicate a hom ogeneous relationship (Spearman Correlation) between what is important and what services ar e being received. Thus, concern should be raised about a teacher induction program where the novice teachers beliefs are not in alignment with the actual delivery of support serv ices. Research indicates that the type of support that should be delivered by a teacher induction program should match the novice teachers beliefs resulting in validation and empowerment (Brownlee et al., 1998; MacNab & Payne, 2003; Pajares, 1992). Beliefs and perceptions also indi cate what type of program and support is vital to novice teacher training (Pajares, 1992; Zepe da & Ponticell, 1998). Research Question 10: What is the Level of Agreement between Alternatively Certificated Novice Teachers Ratings Regarding the Impo rtance and Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities? Alternatively certificated novice teachers ra ted 25 paired survey items describing the importance and the actual delivery of administ rators responsibilities (Part II A & Part III A), mentor responsibilities (Part II B & Part III B) and responsibilities that principals and mentors share (Part II C & Part III C) related to a Central Florida Co unty teacher induction program. Although the population of altern atively certificat ed novice teachers was small (N=5), it represented 100% of beginning teachers seeking alternative certification in this county. 111

PAGE 112

The findings of this study indicated there was a positive significant relationship (Spearman Correlation) between 2 of the 25 paired items. Of the remaining items, 7 of 8 were rated as highly important and one (assigning mentor with si milar teaching style) as moderately important; none were found to be significant. These results indicate inconsistenc ies between the rated importance and the actual delivery of the admi nistrators role in an induction program for alternatively certificated teachers. Part II B and Part III B di d not report a positive signi ficant relationship (Spearman Correlation) for any of the items related to alte rnatively certificated novice teachers beliefs regarding the importance and the actual delivery of mentor responsibilitie s in a teacher induction program. Although alternatively certif icated teachers believed that all but one of the items were highly important to a quality teacher induction program, none were found to have a significant relationship. These results indicate that the beliefs of alternatively certificated teachers do not match the delivery of support during their first year of teaching. Provides assistance with room organization (-.80), was found to ha ve a significantly negative rela tionship, which indicates that although alternatively certificated novice teachers felt this was important, the delivery lacked consistency and resulted in a low level of satisfaction. Responses to Part II C and Part III C found no positive significant relationship for any of the items related to alternatively certificated novice teachers ratings of the importance and the actual delivery of shared mentor/administrator responsibilities in a teacher induction program. All items were believed to be highly important to a quality teac her induction program. One item, provides training in how best to handle clas sroom disturbance (-.92), reported a negative relationship, which indicates that the high level importance correlated to a low level of satisfaction for the actual delivery of this induction service. 112

PAGE 113

These results agree with those of novice teach ers, indicating inconsistencies between the beliefs and actual delivery of quality induction services in 23 or th e 25 items. Spearmans Correlation between the believed importance and actual delivery indicate a homogeneous relationship between what is important and what services are being received. Beliefs and perceptions indicate what type of program and support is vi tal to novice teacher training (Brownlee et al., 1998; MacNab & Payne, 2003; Paja res, 1992). Thus, concern should be raised for alternatively certificated teacher induction programs where the novice teachers beliefs are not in alignment with the actua l delivery of support services. These results are unexpected given that the state of Florida has a mandatory induction program for all teachers seeking alternative certification (Furtwengler, 1995). Unlike the traditional induction program, mentors are grante d a stipend and successful completion of the induction program is necessary to be considered for a standard certification and a professional service contract. These results suggest that, al though we are spending dollars to fast-track alternative certification teachers (Johnson et al., 2001), the programs may be piecemeal and vary enormously in Floridas decentralized program (Feimen-Nemser, 1999). The call for a reduction of barriers (Finn & Magidan, 2001) and quickening of training for alternatively certificated teachers entering the classroom, may fall short of meeting the support needs of this group of novice teachers. Research Question 11: What are the Differen ces between Alternatively Certificated and Traditionally Certificated Novice Teach ers Rating Regarding the Importance and Delivery of Teacher Induction Program Services, Mentor Responsibilities, and Mentor/Principal Responsibilities? A t-test for independent groups was used to analyze the data for difference in means between novice teachers who were seeking altern ative certification, and novice teachers who received their degree within the field in which they currently teach. It is assumed that the 113

PAGE 114

variances are equal. The Levenes Test for Equality of Variances is us ed to evaluate this assumption. If Levenes Test for Equality of Variances is found significant (> .05), you would refer to the adjusted results that are unequa l. Items 10, 14 and 19 required this adjustment. The t-test for independent groups of novice teach ers and alternatively certificated novice teachers ratings regarding the importance of admi nistrator responsibilities revealed a significant difference for 2 of the 10 items (Table 4-34). The beliefs of novice teachers who were seeking alternative certification (alternatively certificated), and novice teachers who received their degree within the field in which they currently teach (traditionally certificated) were significantly different for items 9 and 10. Traditionally certificated novice teachers re ported both items in Table 4-37 as moderately important (5.49 and 6. 31), whereas alternatively certificated teachers rated both items as highly important (8.00 and 9.20). These results indicate that teachers seeking alternative certification have higher expectations for prof essional feedback and timely observations. The t-test for independent groups of novice teach ers and alternatively certificated novice teachers ratings regarding the importance of mentor responsibilities revealed a significant difference for 1 of the 10 items (Table 4-35). It em 14 was found to have significantly different means (Table 4-37) between traditionally (8.33) and alternatively cer tificated (9.80) novice teachers. Both groups felt that this item is highly important, yet lear ning the Sunshine State Standards was a very high priority for te achers seeking altern ative certification. The t-test for independent groups of novice teach ers and alternatively certificated novice teachers ratings regarding the importance of shar ed administrator/mentor responsibilities did not reveal a significant difference for any of the items (Table 4-36). These results indicate that there 114

PAGE 115

is no significant difference in the beliefs of either group of novice teachers regarding shared administrator/mentor responsibilities. The t-test for independent groups of novice teac hers and alternativel y certificated novice teachers ratings regarding the actual delivery of administrator responsibilities revealed a significant difference for 2 of the 10 items (Table 4-38). Traditionally certificated teachers rated items 3 and 7, found in Table 4-41, with m oderate satisfaction (7.47 and 6.85), while alternatively certificated teachers rated actual delivery of these items as resulting in low satisfaction (3.60 and 3.80). The t-te st results of item 3 indicate th at alternatively certificated novice teachers found dissatisfaction with not receivi ng a mentor that they can relate to more often than did traditionally certificated teachers. Item 7 indicates that, although alternatively certificated novice teachers are requ ired to receive formative and summative assessments in the form of FPMS, they had low satisfaction with th e frequency of such observations. The need for mentor interaction was found to be a greater issue for alternatively certific ated teachers. This can cause issues with job satisfaction, and may be i ndicative of poor pairing of mentor with mentee and/or administrators not fully understanding th eir role when working with alternatively certificated teachers (Carter & Francis, 2001, Castorina, 2003; Doud & Keller, 1998; Johnson, 2001, Littrell & Billingsley, 1994; Singh & Billingsley, 1998; Urzua, 1999; Zepeda & Ponticell, 1998). The t-test for independent groups of novice teach ers and alternativel y certificated novice teachers ratings regarding the ac tual delivery of mentor respons ibilities revealed a significant difference for 6 of the 10 items (4-39). The mean s of alternatively certif icated teachers indicate low satisfaction, whereas traditionally certificated teachers were moderately satisfied (4-41). These results suggest inconsiste ncies between the delivery of me ntor support for alternatively 115

PAGE 116

certificated teachers and traditionally certificated novice teachers. The altern atively certificated novice teachers level of support need s either exceed those of a trad itionally certificated teacher, or the mentor support received is not suffici ent. Alternatively certificated novice teachers participate in a state approved mentor program in which their mentors receive additional pay and are provided substitutes so th ey can meet and perform FPMS ev aluations. These results should inform this Central Florida county, of areas in which potential changes in mentor responsibilities might improve delivery of their teacher induction program. The t-test for independent groups of novice teach ers and alternatively certificated novice teachers ratings regarding the ac tual delivery of shared administrator and mentor responsibilities revealed a significant difference for 2 of the 5 ite ms (Table 4-40). Satisfaction ratings for items 21 and 22 were found to be significantly different between the two group s of novice teachers. Traditionally certificated teachers rated both items with mode rate satisfaction (6.63 and 6.26), whereas alternatively certificated teachers rate d these same items with low satisfaction (3.00 and 4.80) respectively (Table 4-41). These responses are surprising because this Central Florida countys decentralized program has set guide lines for mentoring novice teachers seeking alternative certification that pr ovide each mentor with a stipe nd ($1200), and provide substitute pay so they can meet mandatory formative and summative assessments that must be completed. These results support Johnson & Bi rkelands (2003) study of alte rnative certification training models that found little followup once the alternatively certificated teacher reached the classroom. Many of these teachers felt they were not qualified to teach their content area, and did not receive the necessary support. Conclusions Data from this study showed that administ rators, mentors and novi ce teachers reported a high level of agreement in their beliefs about th e importance of the identified components of a 116

PAGE 117

quality teacher induction program. This supports pr ior research that the items included in the survey represented essential components of a quality teacher induction program (Baines et al., 2001; Ballantyne & Hansford, 1995; Carter & Fr ances, 2001; Castorina, 2003; Chisena, 2002; Furtwengler, 1995; Haugaard, 2005; Johnson, 2001; Pettinger, 1995; Pontic ell & Zepeda, 1997; Saunders & Singh & Billingsley, 1998; Spindler & Biott, 2000). The believed importance of teacher induction services provided by administrators, mentors and those services whose delivery was shared were consistently rate d with higher mean scores than was actually delivered for those services. Administrators reported less than half (12 of 25) of the services which they believed were important, were actually delivered at the sa me level of importance. Mentors reported that 72% of items they believed were important to teacher induction matche d their actual delivery. Mentors also reported that 12 of the 15 (80%) items that they sole ly delivered or shared with building administrators matched the level of believed importance. Novice teachers reported high satisfaction with four of the items actually de livered by administrators and none of the items delivered by mentors. The study shows that none of the mentor responsibilities or shared administrator and mentor responsibilities beli eved level of importance, as rated by novice teachers, matched the actual delivery of the i nduction service. Novice teachers rated only one service delivered by administrators ma tched their rating of importance. Alternatively certificated teachers reported only two induction services delivered by administrators matched their rating of importanc e. Through analysis of independent t-tests, novice teachers who were seeking alternative cert ification reported significant differences in their believed level of importance from traditi onally certificated novice teachers. The deliveries of quality induction services were also found to ha ve significant differences, thus justifying that 117

PAGE 118

the perceptions and needs of alternatively certifi cated novice teachers are di fferent from those of traditionally certificated novice teachers. Implications As the role of teachers change, the basic needs of teacher training have remained invariable for over a decade (Ballantyne & Hansford, 1995; Carter & Francis, 2001; Castorina, 2003; Chisena, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 2003; Ha ugaard, 2005; Johnson et al., 2001; Singh & Billingsley, 1998; Spindler % Biott, 2000). This re search study provides evidence that it is not always the amount of training, but the types of support the no vice teacher or alternatively certificated novice teacher may need once they enter their own classroom. To combat high turnover rates, teacher induction programs have been put into place to support novice teachers. This study identified consistent delivery of teacher inductio n services as a concern of administrators, mentors and novice teachers. Thei r responses to open-ended questions suggest that unclear expectations for th e induction process have resulted in ambiguous expectations and inconsistent delivery of support se rvices. It is essential that pr ocedures and best practices are implemented for administrators and mentors to serve the newest members of their organization. An awareness of novice teachers needs and proper training for administrators and mentors in facilitating induction services should lead to a hi gher rate of job satisfaction and teacher literacy. Induction services should focus on the well-being of novice teachers and s hould be modeled after the personal and professional needs of the novice (Boreen & Niday, 2000; Carter & Francis, 2001; Dejong, 1997; Singh & Bill ingsley, 1998; Stansbury, 2001). The results reveal a need for continuity in di strict level induction pr actices. Administrators, mentors and novice teachers alike value the importance of inducti on practices and agreed with the elements of a quality induction program. Yet, resu lts revealed that the actual delivery of such services often did not match their perceived importance. Respons es to open-ended questions by 118

PAGE 119

administrators, mentors, novice teachers, and alte rnatively certificated novice teachers revealed aspects of induction they would most like to see changed, adapted or improved. In this study administrators and mentors overwhelmingly call fo r a district-wide plan. They both agree that financial support of this practice would be necessary to pa y for substitute days for staff development, and a stipend for quality mentor services. This study did not support their assumptions that mentor services improve when a stipend is paid. Although mentors believed they were effectiv ely delivering services the novice teachers did not share the same level of satisfaction fo r induction services they received. Possibly, the optimistic self-appraisal of the delivery of induction services by mentors could be explained by the administrative concern that mentors were not well trained in how best to support novice teachers. Mentors failed to recognize that their efforts to deliver induction service did not match the teachers needs and was just not enough. Th is concern was validated by novice teachers who reported that the delivery of none of the mentor services matched the importance they gave to each of the elements of a quality teacher induc tion program. The results of this study showed larger standard deviations for novices (Part II I A-C). Novice teachers responses to open-ended questions regarding delivery of induction serv ices suggested that these services were implemented in a scattered and piecemeal manner throughout the district. Alternatively certificated novice teachers concu rred with traditional novices that, even though their induction program was part of a state mandate, they were not receiving the support they needed and voiced a concern for the improvement of communicatio n between administrators, mentors and novice teachers. Alternatively certificated novice teacher re sponses raise some additional points for discussion. Although the population was limited in size (N=5), it represented 100% of 119

PAGE 120

elementary teachers seeking alternate certification in this Central Florid a county at the time of this survey. The alternative cer tificated teachers agreed with traditionally certificated novice teacher beliefs about the importance of induction services except in tw o areas. Alternatively certificated novice teachers reported that they believed weekly walk-throughs and guidelines for scheduling observations and consultations were highly important, whereas traditionally certificated novice teachers believed these serv ices were on the lower end of moderately important. The level of expectation and/or need for feedback may be higher for alternative certificated teachers. The results could also imply that alterative certification is an area of beginning teacher training that is overlooked. Mentors of novice teachers seeking alternative certification are the only paid ment ors in the district, yet the participants reported they were significantly less satisfied with the feedback they received than traditionally certificated teachers with unpaid mentors. This should be addressed by district and school-l evel administrators because the needs of alte rnatively certificated teachers are not adequately being satisfied. In addition, novice teachers seeking alternate certif ication are put through a state approved novice teacher program that is designed to meet the special non-certificated needs of novice teachers. Results of this study indicate th at there are truly two unique gr oups of beginning teachers that should be treated as mutually exclusive. Alternatively certificated teacher s expressed a need for additional training once they re ach the classroom preferably through a relationship built with their administrator and on campus mentor. One a lternatively certificated teacher commented, It is important that all novice teachers are assigned mentors who follow through and understand their teacher training oblig ation and expectation. The NCLB act has initiated the age of accountability, which has forced districts to track the data of individual students, pr ovide stringent guidelines for lesson planning, and increase the 120

PAGE 121

documentation of differentiated instruction. Th e abundance of paperwork and technical skill required by teachers today is much more demanding. Novice teachers reported that communication and having a mentor that they could openly talk to is the ca talyst for day-to-day questions. Novice teachers reported that having someone to be there was one of the most important components of the te acher induction program. If novi ces are being assisted by a nonjudgmental member of the organization, they can seek out the information necessary to meet their individual needs. The timeliness and physical location of the mentor/mentee relationship was the initial factor in a novices success. The u ndertones of prior resear ch and the results of this study continue to emphasize the need for novice teachers to have support once they reach the classroom. The above information designed into a district-wide plan could be beneficial for this Central Florida countys teacher training program, and help with the rigors of state mandates, day-to-day job satisfaction, and the attrition of both tr aditional novice teachers and alternatively certificated novice teachers. Recommendations for Further Research High attrition rates caused by teacher dissatisfacti on with their career path in the first years remain a major concern for educational leaders. Understanding the needs of novice teachers, and how induction services can be e ffectively delivered through inducti on practices is necessary to the retention of a stable faculty in a school district. All conclusions are based on voluntary responses from elementary administrators, mentors and novice teachers in one Central Florida county. Further study should be conducted to verify these results and to increase generalizability to other districts. To control against social desirability bias it is recommended that future researchers use the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. 121

PAGE 122

Further examination of the pe rceptions/beliefs and value of the delivery of induction services to novice teachers seeking alterna tive certification should be conducted using a larger population of elementary school teachers. Decentralized control of teacher induction s hould be examined to determine a need for consistent guidelines and training for invested members. A study should be designed and conducted to explore ways to improve actual delivery of all aspects of teacher induction services. An exploration should be conducted to exam ine the correlation be tween mentoring of novice teachers and the impact it has on standardized tests scores. The following research possibilities exist with regard to continued study of relationships between elementary principals, mentors and n ovice teachers beliefs and practices in a teacher induction program. Conduct a qualitative study to identify a nd understand the obstac les that prevent administrators and mentors from delive ring quality teacher induction support. Examine a larger population of novice teachers seeking alternate cert ification to compare with traditionally ce rtificated teachers. Conduct a similar study with middle school a nd high school administ rators, mentors and novice teachers to see if the teacher inducti on issues might differ at these levels. Examination of the beliefs of induction serv ice needs of novice teach ers using a larger population of elementary school teachers Summary This study was conducted as a follow-up to earli er research completed by Susan Castorina in 2003. The results agree with her findings. Teac her induction services ar e most often not in alignment with novice teachers beliefs. Follow-up support to teacher trainingteacher inductions programsare instrumental to novice teachers initial satisfaction of career selection and to prevent new instructors from leaving the teaching profession. A well-crafted induction program can improve teaching quality, increase retention rates, and decrease the ove rall cost of recruiting, preparing, and developing 122

PAGE 123

new teachers (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Littrel & Billingsley, 2004; Humphrey et al., 2000). As a teachers role becomes more demanding and attrition rates continue to rise, issues of beginning teacher support for elementary teacher s become more critical. The perceived job satisfaction and well-being of a t eacher has a high correlation with whether they remain in the field. To attract and retain high quality teachers in education, a broader study and analysis of teacher induction services is warranted. An investment in novice teacher training increases performance and thus impacts the success of scho ol districts and the stud ents they serve. 123

PAGE 124

124APPENDIX A LETTER OF INVITATION University of Florida PO Box 117049 College of Education Gainesville, FL 32611-7049 Department of Educational Leadership (352)392-2391 Policy and Foundations (352)846-0131 April 15, 2007 Dear Colleague: My name is James Russo and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Florida. I am conducting a study on the relationships between K-5 administrators, mentors and first year teachers beliefs and practices in a teacher induction/support program. I exp ect that the results of this research will provide direction for improving beginning teacher support in elementary schools. I request your participation in this research project. The superintendent of your district has endorsed the study. I would appreciate it if you would take a fe w minutes to answer questions on the online survey. You will be asked to complete the survey on the enclosed web address with the password below. The survey will take about 15-20 minutes. Your privacy will be protected and your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. You do no t have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. The completed survey will be submitted to a secure server at the University of Florida. To take the online survey, you must select I agree on the website, agreeing that you have read this letter of invitation and agree to the consent. You may prin t a copy of this letter for your records by pressing the control button and the letter p. The results of the survey will be provided to you at your request. There is no anticipated risk, compensation, nor benefit for participating in the stud y. Your participation is strictly voluntary and you are free to withdraw your participation at any time without penalty. Should you have questions about your rights as a research participant, contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) office at (352) 392-9433 or irb2@ufl.edu If you need additional information or have questions about the survey please contact me at (407) 252-0879 or my faculty advisor, Dr. James Doud, at (352) 392-2391, ext. 275. The survey website address is listed below: Website: http://grove.ufl.edu/~jvrusso/index.php Thank you very much for your participation in this study. Sincerely, James V. Russo Principal Investigator

PAGE 125

APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW PANEL Dr. Geraldine Wright Ms. Beverly Perrault Elementary Executive Director Elementary Executive Director Educational Support Center Educational Support Center Seminole County Public Schools Seminole County Public Schools 400 E. Lake Mary Blvd. 400 E. Lake Mary Blvd. Sanford, FL 32773-7127 Sanford, FL 32773-7127 geraldine_wright@scps.k12.fl.us Beverly_Perrault@scps.k12.fl.us 407-320-0000 407-320-0000 Dr. Anna-Marie Cote Ms. Crill Head Executive Director Title 1 Director Educational Support Center Educational Support Center Seminole County Public Schools Seminole County Public Schools 400 E. Lake Mary Blvd. 400 E. Lake Mary Blvd. Sanford, FL 32773-7127 Sanford, FL 32773-7127 Annmarie_cote@scps.k12.fl.us Crill_head@scps.k12.fl.us 407-320-0000 407-320-0000 Ms. Debbie Warner Ms. Jane Lane Elementary Reading Admin. Director of Community Involvement Educational Support Center Educational Support Center Seminole County Public Schools Seminole County Public Schools 400 E. Lake Mary Blvd. 400 E. Lake Mary Blvd. Sanford, FL 32773-7127 Sanford, FL 32773-7127 Debbie_warner@scps.k12.fl.us Jane_lane@scps.k12.fl.us 407-320-0000 407-320-0000 Mr. Hugh Harris Director of Curriculum Educational Support Center Seminole County Public Schools 400 E. Lake Mary Blvd. Sanford, FL 32773-7127 Hugh_harris@scps.k12.fl.us 407-320-0000 125

PAGE 126

APPENDIX C TEACHER INDUCTION/SUPPORT PROGRAM SURVEY Part I Demographic Data (Fill in or check where appropriate): 1 Gender female male 2. AGE 3 Ethnicity Asian Black Hispanic multi-racial white Other 4 What is your level of education. (highest degree earned) bachelors degree masters degree specialist degree doctorate 126

PAGE 127

5. Are you an administrator(pr incipal/assistant principal) n your campus? o yes no 6 Are you a mentor/peer teacher? yes no 7 Are you a beginning teacher? yes no 8 How long have you been involve d with teacher induction/support? less than 1 year 1-1 1/2 years 2-3 years 4-5 years 5+ years 9 I am: Certified in the area I teach Working on alternative certification to obtain a professional certification in the area I teach. A mentor or administrator 127

PAGE 128

PART II Importance Ratings Rate the importance of support services that a teacher induction/support p ro g ram might provide to novice teachers. For each item indicate how important that service is to you.Ten (10) is th e highest importance level you can give an tem. One (1) is the lowest import ance level you can give an item. i A Teacher Induction/Support Program Beliefs. Lowest Importance <-----------------------------> Highest Importance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Mentors assigned prio r to preplanning: 2. Mentor in the same or related field as novice: 3. Mentor with similar teaching style: 4. Mentor in close proximity: 5. Mentor has necessary specialized expertise (example: ESE, similar grade level, science lab): 6. Mentor 10-15 years older than novice: 7. Provides frequent observations/feedback: 8. Provides guidelines for observations/feedback: 128

PAGE 129

9. Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers: 10. Provides guidelines for scheduling observations and consultations: B Mentor Responsibilities Beliefs. Lowest Importance <------------------------------> Highest Importance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. Greets novice at preplanning: 12. Expedites orientation/preplanning activities: 13. Provides assistance locating books/materials: 14. Provides assistance in developing lesson plans in compliance w ith Sunshine State Standards: 15. Provides training for parent communication: 16. Provides assistance with room organization: 17. Provides training on record keeping: 18. Provides examples of measurement tools(tests, assists in determining the appropriate tools for various skills): 19. Provides assistance with implementation of appropriate tools for tracking/defining pupil progress: 129

PAGE 130

20. Provides assistance in establishing efficient classroom routines/rules: C. Mentor/Principal Re sponsibilities Beliefs. Lowest Importance <--------------------------> Highest Importance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 21. Provides training in "how best to handle classroom disturbances": 22. Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative) feedback: 23. Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make observations of other teachers (makes arrangements, covers class, provides substitute): 24. Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses: 25. Keeps novice teachers up to date on raining opportunities/development: t PART III Delivery of Service Rate the delivery of support services that your teacher induction/support p ro g ram provides to novice teachers. Cons idering your experience, rate your level of satisfaction with the deliver y of the support services in your school/district.Ten (10) is completely sa tisfied with the delivery of the item, and one (1) indicates you are completely dissatisfied with the way that item is being elivered in the teacher induction program. d 130

PAGE 131

A Delivery of Teacher Induction/Support Program Services completely dissatisfied <---------------------------> Comp letely Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Mentors assigned prio r to preplanning: 2. Mentor in the same or related field as novice: 3. Mentor with similar teaching style: 4. Mentor in close proximity: 5. Mentor has necessary specialized expertise (example: ESE, similar grade level, science lab): 6. Mentor 10-15 years older than novice: 7. Provides frequent observations/feedback: 8. Provides guidelines for observations/feedback: 9. Weekly "walk-through" for novice teachers: 10. Provides guidelines for scheduling observations and consultations: 131

PAGE 132

B Delivery of Mentor Responsibilities Services.. completely dissatisfied <-------------------------> comple tely satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. Greets novice at preplanning: 12. Expedites orientation/preplanning activities: 13. Provides assistance locating books/materials: 14. Provides assistance in developing lesson plans in compliance w ith Sunshine State Standards: 15. Provides training for parent communication: 16. Provides assistance with room organization: 17. Provides training on record keeping: 18. Provides examples of measurement tools(tests, assists in determining the appropriate tools for various skills): 19. Provides assistance with implementation of appropriate tools for tracking/defining pupil progress: 20. Provides assistance in establishing efficient classroom routines/rules: 132

PAGE 133

C. Delivery of Mentor/Principal Responsibilities Services: Communication. completely dissatisfied <-------------------------> comple tely satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 21. Provides training in "how best to handle classroom disturbances": 22. Provides frequent observations with nonjudgmental (formative) feedback: 23. Provides opportunities for the novice teacher to make observations of other teachers (makes arrangements, covers class, provides substitute): 24. Welcomes questions/gives nonjudgmental, appropriate/timely responses: 25. Keeps novice teachers up to date on raining opportunities/development: t PART IV Open Ended Response lease answer the following questions P 26. Overall, what do you feel is the most valuab le component of the teacher induction program? 133

PAGE 134

27. What aspects of the teacher induction/suppor t program would you most like to see changed, adapted or improved? 28. List the three most important things you ne ed from a teacher induction/support program. 29. Use the space below to make additional comment s or suggestions, including any aspects that you feel were not covered in the survey that you would like to see addressed for future teacher induction/support programs. 134

PAGE 135

LIST OF REFERENCES Archer, J. (1999). New teachers abandon field at high rate. Education Week, 18 (27), 20-21. Archer, J. (2001). Recruitment pinch fu els global track in K-12 teachers. Education Week, 20(22), 8. Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Baines, L., McDowell, J., & Foulk, D. (2001) One step forward, three steps backward: Alternative certification programs in Texas, Georgia, and Florida. Educational Horizons, 32-37. Ballantyne, R., & Hansford, B. (1995). Mentoring beginning teachers: A quali tative analysis of process and outcomes. Educational Review 1(3), 297-307. Ballantyne, R., Thompson, R., & Taylor, P. (1998, March). Principals conceptions of competent beginning teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 1(1), 51-65. Berry, B., & Hirsch, E. (2003, January). What we know and can do to recruit and retain quality teachers. Presented at Teaching Quality, Re cruitment and Retention Symposium, Clearwater, FL. Berry, B., Hopkins-Thompson, P., & Hoke, M. (2002, December). Assessing and supporting new teachers: Lessons from the Southeast. The Southeast Center for Teaching Quality, 1-16. Blair-Larsen, S., & Bercik, J. (1992). A collaborative model for teacher induction. Education 113(1), 25-31. Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1993). The path to school leadership: A portable mentor. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Boreen, J., & Niday, D. (2000, October). Breaki ng through the isolation: Mentoring beginning teachers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44 (2), 1-13. Brouwer, N., & Kothagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 42 153-225 Brownlee, J., Dart, B., Boulton-Lewis, G., & McCrindle, A. (1998). The integration of preservice teachers nave and informed beliefs about learning and teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 26, 104-118. Carter, M., & Francis, R. ( 2001). Mentoring and beginning teachers workplace learning. AsiaPacific Journal of Teacher Education 29, 249-262. Castorina, S. (2003). An exploration of the rela tionships between administrators, mentors, and teachers beliefs and practices in a teache r induction program. (D octoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2003.) 135

PAGE 136

Chisena, C. (2002). A study of the perceptions of Orange County, Florida, first-year elementary teachers regarding the effectiveness of select ed induction activities and the main sources of assistance for first-year teachers. (Doctoral dissertation, Un iversity of Central Florida, 2002.) Coppenhaver, A., & Schaper, L. (1999). Mentoring the mentors. In M. Scherer (Ed.), A better beginning supporting and mentoring new teachers (pp. 60-68). Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision a nd Curriculum Development. Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Policies that support professional te acher development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 642-644. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters mo st: A competent teacher for every child. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 193-200. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999, January/February). Educating teachers: The academy's greatest failure or its most important future? ACADEME, 85(1), 26-33. Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers. Educational Leadership, 60 (8), 6-13. DeJong, J. A. (1997). Research into on-the-job tr aining: A state of the art Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht Universit y, Department of Education. Dillman, D. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Doud, J., & Keller, E. (1998). The K-8 principal in 1998: Seventh in a series of research studies launched in 1928 Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals. Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Foleno, T. (2000). A sense of calling: Who teaches and why. New York: Public Agenda. Feiman-Nemser, S. (1999). A conceptual review of lite rature on new teacher induction. College Park, MD: National Partnership for Exce llence and Accountability in Teaching. Feistritzer, C. E., & Chester, D. T. (2003). Executive summary: Alternative teacher certification : A state-by-state analysis 2003 Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information. Finn, C. E., Jr., & Madigan, K. (May, 2001). Re moving the barriers for teacher candidates. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 29-36. Furtwengler, C. B. (1995). Beginning teachers programs: Analysis of state actions during the reform era. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 3 (3), 1-23. 136

PAGE 137

Gordon, R. (1997). How novice teachers can succeed with adolescents. Educational Leadership, 54(7), 56-58. Gruber, K., Wiley, S., Broughman, S., Strizek, G ., & Burian-Fitzgerald, M. (2002). Schools and staffing survey, 1999-2000: Overview of the data for public, private, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs elementary and secondary schools. NCES 2002-313. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Halford, J. (1998). Easing the way for new teachers. Educational Leadership, 55 (5), 33-36. Halford, J. (1999). Policies to support new teachers. Educational Leadership, 56 (8), 85. Haugaard, J. (2005). Critical elements of beginni ng teacher induction: An analysis of support contributing to professional development. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, 2005.) Humphrey, D., Adelman, N., Esch, C., Riehl, L., Shields, P., & Tiffany, J. (2000, September). Preparing and supporting new teac hers: A literature review. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Hussar, W. J. (1999). Predicting the need for newly hired teachers in the United States to 200809. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Ingersoll, R. (2001a). Teacher turnover and t eacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal 38, 499-534. Ingersoll, R. (2001b). The rea lities of out-of-field teaching. Educational Leadership, 58 (8), 4245. Ingersoll, R. (2002, June). The teacher s hortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription. NASSP Bulletin, 86, 16-31. Ingersoll, R. (2003). The teacher shortage: Myth or reality? Educational Horizons, 81 (3), 146152. Ingersoll, R., & Kralik, J. (2004). The impact of mentoring on teacher retention: What the research says. Research Review: Teaching Quality, 1-23. Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership 60(8), 30-33. James B. Hunt, Jr. Institute for Educati onal Leadership and Policy. (2004, November). School leadership supporting teacher retention Prepared for the Hunt In stitute by the Southeast Center for Teaching Quality. Johnson, H. (2001). Administrators and mentors: Keys in the success of beginning teachers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28(1), 44-49. 137

PAGE 138

Johnson, S., Birkeland, S., Kardos, S., Kauffman, D., Liu, E., & Peske, H. (2001, July/August). Retaining the next generation of teachers: The importance of school-based support. Harvard Education Letter. Retrieved July 17, 2006, from http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/2001-ja/support.shtml Johnson, S., & Birkeland, S. (2003). Pursuing a se nse of success: New teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal 40 581-617. Johnson, S., Birkeland, S., & Peske, H. (2005). Life in the fast track: How states seek to balance incentives and quality in alternat ive teacher certification programs. Educational Policy, 19(1), 63-89. Johnson, S., Birkeland, S., Peske, H., & Munger, M. (2005). A difficult balance: Incentives and quality control in alternative certification programs. Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Littrell, P., & Billingsley, B. (1994). The eff ects of principal support on special and general educators stress, job satisf action, school commitment, health, and intent to stay in teaching. Remedial & Special Education, 15, 297-311. MacNab, D., & Payne, F. (2003). Beliefs, attit udes and practices in mathematics teaching: Perceptions of Scottish primary school student teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 29 (1), 55-68. Nauta, A., & Kluwer, E. (2004). The use of questionnaires in conflict research. International Negotiation, 9, 457-470 NCES. (1998). Fast response survey system: T eacher survey on professional development and training. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. NCES. (2000). Executive summary, teacher prepara tion and professional development: 2000 (FRSS Publication No. 2001088). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. Norusis, M. J. (1994). SPSS advanced statistics 6.1 Chicago: SPSS. Pajares, M. (1992). Teachers be liefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62 307-332. Ponticell, J., & Zepeda, S. (1997) First-year teachers at risk: A study of induction at three high schools. High School Journal, 81(1), 8-22. Saunders, S., & Pettinger, K. (1995). Prospectiv e mentors views on part nership in secondary teacher training. British Educational Research Journal, 21, 199-219. Shaughnessy, J., Zechmeister, E., & Zechmeister, J. (2000). Research methods in psychology Boston: McGraw Hill. 138

PAGE 139

Singh, K., & Billingsley, B. (1998). Professional support and its effects on teachers commitment. Journal of Educational Research 91 229-240. Southeast Center for Teaching Quality (SCTQ). (2003, April). Teaching Quality Research Matters, Issue 4. Spindler, J., & Biott, C. (2000). Target setti ng in the induction of ne wly qualified teachers: Emerging colleagueship in a context of performance management. Educational Research, 42, 275-286. Stansbury, K. (2001). What new teachers need. Leadership 30(3), 18-21. Tell, C. (May, 2001). Making room for alternative routes. Educational Leadership 58 (8), 38-44. Tetzeli, R. (1993). Whos afra id of a teacher shortage? Fortune, 127(5), 10-11. Torff, B., & Sessions, D. (2005). Pr incipals perceptions of the causes of teacher ineffectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 530-537. Tuckman, B. (1999). Conducting Educational Research (5th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group. Urzua, A. (1999). The socializati on process of beginning teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 50 231-233. Young, B. (2003). Public school student, staff, and graduate counts by state, school year 200102 (NCES 2003-358). Washington D. C.: National Center for Edu cational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Zepeda, S., & Ponticell, J. (1998). At cross-purp oses: What do teachers need, want, and get from supervision? Journal of Curriculum & Supervision 14(1), 68-88. 139

PAGE 140

140BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH James Vincent Russo was born in 1974 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to Kathy and Jim Russo. James has one older sister, Jeanmarie, a nd grew up in Fort Lauderdale, graduating from Taravella High School in 1992. He earned a B.A. in psychology from the University of Central Florida in 1996, an M.A. in elem entary education from the Univer sity of Central Florida in 1999, and an Ed.S. in educational leadership from the University of Florida in 2002. Upon graduation in December of 1999 with hi s M.A. in elementary education, James was hired by Seminole County Public Schools (SCPS) as a teacher. During his tenure with SCPS, James assumed the role as a primary and intermediate teacher, administrative middle school dean, and assistant principal. James has been an elementary school assistant principal with SCPS for the past 3 years. After completing his Ed.D. program, James plan s to continue to work for SCPS as an assistant principal. James has been married to Le sley Russo for seven years. They have one son: Parker, age 11 months.