Retired Master Science Teachers: A Valuable Resource in Science Teac= her Education

Retired Master Science Teachers: A Valuable Resource in Science Teacher Education

<= span style=3D'mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;text-transform:uppercase'>

Mollianne G. Logerwell, George Mason University

Wendy M. Fraz= ier, George Mason University

Donna R. Ster= ling, George Mason University

<= span style=3D'mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;text-transform:uppercase'>

Abstract

This paper discusses the = differences in how coaches – retired master science teachers – and mentors – practicing senior faculty – were able to improve the classroom management, planning, and instructional skills of provisionally licensed science teachers during their first two years of teaching. Fifty-nine provisionally licensed secondary science teachers participated in the New Science Teachers’ Support Network (NSTSN). Control teachers were assi= gned a state-mandated teaching mentor by their schools. In addition to the mento= r, treatment teachers also received several forms of support from the NSTSN, including a teaching coach. Data indicate that while mentors were able to provide some support, particularly about school policies, they did not have= the time to give the new teachers in-depth instructional guidance. Coaches, however, were able to work with the teacher throughout the school day and provide immediate feedback on issues that arose in the classroom.

Introduction

There is a= growing shortage of science teachers nationally (National Commission on Mathematics= and Science Teaching for the 21^st Century, 2000). Even though resear= ch shows that well prepared teachers have the largest impact on high student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1999, 2000, 2003), schools struggle to fill teaching vacancies and are forced to hire more and more under-prepared teachers. This is evidenced by hiring trends illustrating that more than 12= % of new hires begin teaching without any formal pedagogical training and 26% of= new hires do not meet the requirements for licensure in their respective states (NCMSTTC, 2000).

Compoundin= g this issue is research that indicates well prepared teachers are more likely to remain in the profession (Ingersoll, 2001). Darling-Hammond (2003) found th= at 16% of the graduates of five-year teaching preparation programs where teach= ers completed a bachelor’s degree in their subject area and a master̵= 7;s degree in education left teaching within three years. The percent of dropou= ts from teaching jumped to 47% for bachelor’s degree-level teacher licen= sure programs. When teachers entered the profession through a short teacher-trai= ning program, with a bachelor’s degree and no license, the percent of drop= outs was 66% by the end of the third year of teaching. Further, Ingersoll (2000)= found that science and mathematics teachers have an average annual turnover rate = of 16%. This research clearly indicates the importance of teacher education in addition to subject area content preparation for remaining in teaching.

Research also reveals a clear link between teacher classroom practice and student achievement. The Educational Testing Service found in its study How Teac= hing Matters (Wenglinksy, 2000) that teacher preparation and development mak= e a difference in student performance. The research dispels the idea that only subject matter knowledge makes a difference. Shulman (1986) highlights the = need for effective teachers to possess pedagogical content knowledge. This type = of content knowledge includes science facts and skills as well as an understan= ding of the overall structure of how the facts and skills fit together in a meaningful way for themselves and other learners. Many provisionally licens= ed teachers enter teaching with no teacher training so they lack pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical skills. With a nationwide emphasis on stu= dent achievement and increased pressures on teachers, it should come as no surpr= ise that many provisionally licensed teachers quit the profession even though t= hey may have adequate content preparation. At a time when there is a need for highly qualified teachers, we are losing science teachers who know science = but are unprepared to work with K-12 students and the culture of educational systems. Initial preparation, therefore, is critical to teachers surviving = their beginning years, becoming effective at increasing student achievement, and remaining in the profession. Further, because they are often hired just bef= ore, or even after, school begins, provisionally licensed teachers require additional, specialized support beyond traditional methods courses. This pa= per examines the role and nature of supports that help provisionally licensed teachers and the use of retired master science teachers as effective, on-si= te instructional coaches to meet this need.

Theoretical Framework

At the ons= et of the study, established supports for new science teachers were based on and examined in terms of (1) standards-based learning (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996), = (2) situated learning theory which involves a community of participants with a = wide range of expertise who work collaboratively for the benefit of all (Lave, 1= 988; Lave & Wenger, 1990), (3) social cognitive theory to develop self motiv= ated and self regulated teachers (Bandura, 1997; Zimmerman, 2000), (4) best practices research on effective teaching and professional development progr= ams which indicates the importance of a collective sense of commitment and responsibility for serving children (Guskey, 1995; Ruskus, Luczak, & SRI International, 1995; Sterling, 1997, 2000; Sterling, et. al., 1999; USDOE, 1999), (5) teaching for understanding (Hiebert, et. al., 1997; Sterling, 20= 01; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998), and (6) collaborative action research as a me= thod of investigating student conceptual understanding (Bandura, 1977; Cross, 19= 81; Fullan, 1991; Gallagher, 1996; NCMSTTC, 2000; Newmann & Wehlege, 1995; Rogers, 1969; Ruskus, et. al., 1995; Saurino, Bouma, & Gunnoe, 1999; Sterling, Wang, & Olkin, 1995; USDOE, 1996, 1998; Vygotsky, 1962). Duri= ng analysis of qualitative findings, this theoretical framework was expanded to include the role of position and power in social interactions as examined through a postmodernist lens, such as critical social theory (for example, Bourdieu, 1979, 1984) and new feminist theory (Butler, 1990; Harding, 1986,= 1991, 2006; hooks, 1981).

Methodology

Description of the NSTSN=

The New Sc= ience Teachers’ Support Network (NSTSN) is a two-year, multi-faceted system designed to improve educational quality by helping provisionally licensed science teachers succeed at teaching and remain in the profession. Three cohorts of teachers were recruited and randomly assigned to control and treatment groups. All teachers participated in the regular induction program of their respective school divisions, including a state-mandated in-school teaching mentor. Teachers in the control group received a stipend of $200. Teachers in the treatment group received five additional forms of support: a teaching coach, an academic mentor, a basic science methods course, an adva= nced science methods course, and a website. This paper focuses on the coaching a= nd mentoring aspects of the NSTSN.

Participants<= /u>

Teacher= s

Provisiona= lly licensed middle and high school science teachers who had a bachelor’s degree in science and less than 3 years of teaching experience were recruited for the study. They had been hired to te= ach full-time in two school divisions with broad ethnic, socio-economic,= and geographic diversity. A total of fifty-nine teachers participated. Teachers in the control group (n=3D24) and treatment group (n=3D35) had similar ages (M_c =3D 35.2, SD_c= =3D 12.3; M_t =3D 33.4, SD_t =3D 9.2) and years of teaching experience (M_c =3D 0.6, SD_c =3D 1.1; M_t = =3D 0.7, SD_t =3D 1.4).

Teaching Coaches

Science specialists in the school districts recommended retired master science teac= hers to serve as coaches to the provisionally licensed teachers in the NSTSN. The term coach was selected in order to avoid confusion between the support personnel provided by the NSTSN and the state-mandated mentor appointed by = the schools. Coaches provided in-classroom support for all participants in the treatment group and were assigned to the teachers within the first week that the teachers entered the program. The coaches met with the teachers for 96 hours during the first academic year, with more visits at the beginning of = the year than at the end. During the second academic year, coaches continued to visit their teachers for a total of 24 hours with one visit each at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year.

Teaching Mentors

The state = requires all new teachers be assigned a mentor. Assigned by the individual schools outside the purview of the NSTSN, mentors were full-time teachers working in the novice teachers’ schools. Although nearly all mentors were science teachers, they did not always teach the same subject(s) as the teacher to w= hom they were assigned. Depending on their individual teaching schedules, mento= rs and their mentees (in this project, provisionally licensed science teachers= in both the treatment and control groups) met before school, during planning periods, or after school. The school divisions had no guidelines regarding = the frequency, duration, or content of mentor/mentee interactions.

Data Collection and Analysis

In order to ascertain the effectiveness of the NSTSN, treatment and control group participants completed nearly identical on-line surveys at the beginning, middle, and end of each year over the course of t= heir two years in the NSTSN. Specifically related to the effectiveness of the coaches and the mentors, at the end of each year the treatment teachers completed the Teachers’ Perce= ptions of Program Effectiveness Questionnaire, which asked them to rank order = the six forms of support provided by the NSTSN and to describe how each of the supports they had received was and was not helpful. Because control teachers did not receive support through the NSTSN, they did not complete this instrument.

Data were = also collected from the perspective of the coaches and mentors. They completed a similar instrument at the end of each year, the Coaches’ and Mentors’ Perceptions of Teacher Progress a= nd Program Effectiveness, which asked them to identify, among other things, how they had and had not been able to help the novice teacher with whom they worked. Data concerning treatment teachers were obtained from both their co= ach and their mentor. Data concerning control teachers were only available from their mentor.

Quantitati= ve data were analyzed using SPSS and Microsoft Excel software. Means of the weighted frequencies were obtained in order to determine the relative ranking of the= six NSTSN forms of support. Q² values were also calculated to examine the distribution of the rankings.

Qualitativ= e data were analyzed using NVivo software to assist with the constant comparative process of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1978; Strau= ss & Corbin, 1998) and cross-case synthesis (Yin, 2003). Responses were co= ded, tallied, ranked, entered on matrices, and analyzed for further patterns.

Findings

Teachers’ Rankings= of the NSTSN Forms of Support

Means of the weighted frequencies revealed that treatment teachers ranked coaches= as the highest form of support in both years of their participation in the NST= SN (see Table 1). Q² analysis showed that all forms of support rece= ived statistically even distributions of ranks except for coaches in both the fi= rst (Q² =3D 23.58, p <= ; .01) and second (Q² =3D 15.12, p < .01) years of the program. All respondents ranked their coach highly.

Table 1

Means of Weighted Freque= ncies and Ranks for NSTSN Supports

NSTSN Support	Year 1		Year 2
M<= /u>	Rank		M<= /u>	Rank
Teaching Coach	4.83	1<= /p>		4.94	1<= /p>
Basic Methods Course	4.00	3<= /p>		3.92	4<= /p>
Advanced Methods Course	3.89	4<= /p>		4.38	2<= /p>
Academic Mentor	3.20	5<= /p>		2.25	5<= /p>
Website	3.00	6<= /p>		1.80	6<= /p>
Teaching Mentor	4.34	2<= /p>		4.25	3<= /p>

Teachers’ Percepti= ons of Coaching and Mentoring Support

Teaching Coaches

During the= ir two years in the NSTSN, treatment teachers noted several ways in which coaches helped them. The most frequently mentioned forms of assistance were (1) providing materials such as activities, labs, and curricular resources, (2) giving advice on classroom management, (3) observing teaching and providing feedback, (4) interacting with students in class, (5) suggesting specific instructional strategies, and (6) offering encouragement. The following quo= tes are typical of the responses received:

My coach has helped me the most by coming and obser= ving my classes and then letting me know what she thought worked and what she thought didn’t work. She then gave me ideas on how to improve the thi= ngs that were working and how to fix the things or try different things that we= re not working. (Teacher A)

My coach has been most helpful in being able to obs= erve me. It is one thing to be given resources and materials but it is completely different to having someone be there in class to observe me and give me specific feedback on how I am doing up in front of the classroom. (Teacher = D)

The most helpful ways that my coach= has helped me have been on interacting with students in the classroom. She has helped me by showing me various ways to answer students’ remarks whet= her they are positive ones or negative ones. She has shown me and given me tips= on classroom behavior and has used modeling to help me in dealing with classro= om behavior and interacting with students. Her modeling is an excellent way fo= r me to learn. This included her actions with students in my class as she went around to them and interacted with them when they were doing their assignme= nts and class work. (Teacher K)

My coach had provided me with a lot= of the materials/activities/labs that he used in his classes – which have been very useful. I am generally following the same sequence of topics he d= id and am using many of the same materials. (Teacher Q)

The ways that my coach was most hel= pful mainly had to do with her physical presence in the classroom and the actual assistance that she provided me. For example, during labs, she was able to = help me reach more students individually to answer questions and give explanatio= ns. She was able to help me give individual attention to student during all cla= ss work, for that matter. She assisted me with grading, and her presence in the classroom helped somewhat with behavioral issues. (Teacher T)

My coach has helped me by being a cheerleader for me. She has sat through my classes and given me positive feedback on my science, lesson presentation, and my classroom management. S= he had provided feedback on areas where I need to change what I am doing and things that are reasonable accommodations for my 8^th graders. (Teacher X)

My coach has been so helpful and supportive. She has helped me develop strategies to teach my content better. She always points out what she thinks I am doing right and really gives me = the encouragement and confidence I need to continue on. Her observations of my lessons and teaching style are invaluable, and I always look forward to her “after visit” reports. It is a great feeling to know I am not o= n my own this first year! This has been a wonderful experience for me, and it is because of the experience and willingness to share that [my coach] brings e= ach week. Her support of my teaching efforts really boosts my spirits and her insight into how I can improve my teaching is priceless. I continue to be a better science teacher because of the contributions made by [my coach]. (Teacher AA)

These comments indicate the teachers’ perceptions of how having a teaching coach were beneficial = to them.

In contrast, there were few comments about how the coaches had not been helpfu= l. From the responses received, the main issues were that the teachers wanted = more visits from the coaches and that they felt the coaches were a little too ni= ce. For example, Teacher U said that her coach “failed to be critical enough.” Additionally, Teacher S said that she “would have like= [d] to see the coach more.” The only other common sentiment among the treatment teachers was that they sometimes felt internal pressure to please their coach. Teacher P, typical of such responses, said, “I feel that= my coach believes in me and expects a lot from me, which is wonderful, but I don’t want to disappoint him, which can be stressful.” This indicates the challenge the coaches face in finding a balance between provi= ding enough critical feedback and not causing too much stress.

Teaching Mentors

Treatment = teachers also commented on how their school-assigned mentors had been able to help. = The two main forms of support were providing materials and going over school policies. Typical responses were:

My school mentor helped me with the inner workings = of the school. He provided helpful hints for various traditions we have here and w= arns me about certain procedures. (Teacher C)

The most helpful way my school ment= or has helped me has been by giving me many different types of materials to wo= rk with such as worksheets, tests, and materials for activities. (Teacher K)

The most helpful way my mentor help= ed me was in “learning the ropes” so to speak: where to go, who to talk to, how to get things do[ne], when to do what. She knew all the county= and school specific information that I needed to know, for example, when to sub= mit grades, who to talk to if I had a computer problems, where to get discipline referral forms, and how to grade [the county] tests. (Teacher T)

Some of these forms of support, however, turned out not to be helpful for many teachers. One of the main problems cited by the teachers was a conflict in teaching styles between them and their mentor. One teacher commented:

The least helpful way that my mentor tried to help = me was in offering to share her teaching materials. I found them outdated and rote. She showed many videos and had her students work on multiple packets of worksheets. She and I had extremely different teaching styles, and while I appreciated her offer of assistance, I found that I could not use the same teaching materials that she did because our teaching styles were just too different. (Teacher T)

&= nbsp; Another frequently mentioned issue was that the mentor did not teach the same subje= ct as the provisionally licensed teacher. Teacher M noted that her mentor was = not able to offer advice on classroom management or content issues because “she teaches motivated 11^th and 12^th graders [physics], and I am teaching unmotivated 9^th and 10^th graders [Earth Science].”

&= nbsp; The other comment made by some of the teachers was that they had few interactio= ns with their mentor. A few teachers noted that they only saw their mentor onc= e or twice the entire year. Teacher N said, “The total time in the entire school year which I got to spend with my mentor was approximately two hours.” Further, Teacher E noted, “My mentor never came to obse= rve me and give me tips or advice on how I was doing.”

Coaches’ and Mentors’ Perceptions of Teacher Progress

Teaching Coaches

Data from = the coaches generally supported the data obtained from the treatment teachers. = When asked how they had been able to help their provisionally licensed teacher, coaches most frequently mentioned (1) planning, (2) labs and demonstrations, (3) classroom management, (4) instructional delivery, and (5) grading. For = each of these categories, coaches noted specific ways that they were able to ass= ist. In addition to general lesson planning, coaches helped teachers find curric= ular resources, match assessments to instruction, and modify lessons to meet the diverse needs of students. Coaches also helped teachers plan, set up, and supervise labs and demonstrations. Classroom management support included helping teachers design and implement procedures, working with specific students in class, and building the teachers’ classroom presence. In terms of instructional delivery, coaches modeled techniques, co-taught, and encouraged the use of visual aids. Finally, coaches not only suggested ways= to expedite grading but also did some of the grading themselves. Typical comme= nts from coaches were:

We spend a lot of time working on lesson plans, both short and long range. I helped the teacher identify other resources, such as audio-visual materials and computer-based activities, to vary instruction. = I shared a number of worksheets, lab investigations, and assessment tools to provide models. (Coach A)

[We discussed] resources for a variety of approache= s to a lab or concept thus addressing more learning styles, providing more challen= ging materials for honor classes…[and using] examples of concepts that rel= ate to students’ lives. (Coach B)

My greatest contribution to this teacher was [being= ] an extra set of eyes and hands to assist with lab activities and students who demand special attention. (Coach C)

I helped the teacher plan lessons and develop long-= term conceptual sequences for units. I also helped the teacher develop labs and co-taught some labs with her. I helped identify resources to vary instructi= on for students…[and] shared materials…to provide models of lesson= s, labs, and assessments. I advised the teacher in how to handle some discipli= ne issues. (Coach D)

I feel I have been most helpful by selecting, setti= ng-up, and leading/performing labs. I have also provided resources and activities.= I have encouraged and provided brief activities for down time and involving students until the bell rings. I have encouraged long-range planning and…helped grade and evaluate his assessments. I have coached him on classroom management and discipline. (Coach E)

I was able to assist him in the areas of planning a= nd lesson presentations through the use of visuals. Also, I encouraged him to increase the use of demonstrations to make his lessons more exciting and engaging to the students. I also introduced structured lessons into the planning process which include lesson warm ups… and closure. (Coach F= )

[We] discussed how important it is to be confident = and feel in charge of the classroom. I have modeled some teaching strategies and emphasized that the atmosphere of the classroom should be conducive to learning. (Coach G) =

These comments serve as evi= dence of the coaches’ perceptions of how they were able to assist the teachers= and as evidence of positive, working coach-teacher relationships. &= nbsp;

When asked= how they had not been able to help, coaches mostly mentioned things over which = they had little to no control. Class size, teaching schedules (e.g., number of preps, changing rooms), and school-specific issues ranked at the top of the list. Coaches also wished that more time had been available to work with the teachers. The other items mentioned included teaching skills that need time= to develop, such as “with-it-ness” and differentiating for all students. Again, typical comments were:

I was somewhat limited in helping her in the area of grading because of time constraints during my visits. Also, I was not able = to be present for parent/teacher conferences and administrator/teacher conferences. (Coach D)

The special education teacher assig= ned to some…classes has not been a positive influence in the classroom. T= his problem was called to the attention of the administration and the special education department chair, but the situation has not improved. (Coach H)

Unfortunately, I was not able to help…with the size of her classes, which continued to grow. Because f= our of her classes were not SOL [state tested] subjects, students were continua= lly added throughout the year. (Coach I)

Materials were purchased to equip o= nly one lab. This meant that two teachers had to share and work out a schedule = so that both would be able to do the labs. (Coach J)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

These com= ments provide evidence of the coaches’ perceptions of the ways in which they were able to help their teachers as well as the perceived limits of their assistance.

= Teaching Mentors

As with the coaches, mentors frequently mentioned working with teachers on lesson plann= ing and classroom management. Other ways in which mentors were able to assist included being a “sounding board” and helping teachers navigate school policies and procedures.

As far as school business, deadlines, and administr= ative questions he needed, [I] answered…[and] let him know whom to contact = for certain things. (Mentor A)

I was able to help by providing some tried and true subject materials…I also acting [sic] as a sounding board and tried to offer reassurance that some situations and problems were universal= . (Mentor B)

I was able to assist the new teacher in adapting the daily school routines and offering suggestions for strategies in classroom management. (Mentor= C)

[I] provided a curriculum with labs, activities, worksheets and quizzes, which she can modify, add or subtract to use in her classes. (Mentor D)

These comments serve as evi= dence of the mentors’ perceptions of how they were able to assist the teachers= and as evidence of positive mentor-teacher relationships that differed from the relationships that the teachers forged with their coaches.

Mentors also noted ways in which they were not able to help their assigned teachers. Again, mentors, like coaches, tended to mentioned things over which they had minimal control. The two most commonly cited issues among mentors were not teaching the same subject as their mentee and not being able to observe the= ir mentee teach due to conflicting class schedules. A few mentors also noted t= hat their mentee “seemed very confident and capable” or was “pretty self-sufficient and resourceful” and did not need much help.

Discussion

Based on the findings = from provisionally licensed teachers enrolled in the NSTSN, both teaching coaches and teaching mentors are able to assist teachers’ efforts in planning, instruction, and classroom management. Their assistance is different primar= ily due to the difference in the amount of time each has to offer support, but = perceptions of their power and position in terms of the new teacher, existing senior faculty, and school administration serve as mitigating factors that determi= ne the type of support they are able to offer.

Planning

From the data, it is apparent that teachers feel good about receiving materials from their coach= es and mentors. Coaches and mentors gave their teachers copies of laboratory assignments, in-class activity sheets, lecture notes, and other teaching materials. However, from their comments it is clear that teachers want more than to just receive materials. New science teachers need someone to explain the materials to them and recommend ways in which they could be implemented. From the findings, it is evident that as an employee of the school with the= ir own work duties, mentors do not have time for this very often, if ever. As retirees, coaches are able to progress from giving materials to helping the teachers plan to use them. Also, we noted that 25% of the mentors were not experienced in teaching the same science content area as their assigned men= tee while the teaching coaches were specifically selected so that each had expertise in the new teacher’s science content area(s). To an administrator, science is science, but to a new, struggling chemistry teach= er, a mentor in biology has little to offer in terms of assisting the teacher in planning for safe, effective chemistry instruction. Findings indicate that = the new teachers held their teaching coaches in high esteem because of their experience level and expertise in the content area. Simultaneously, findings indicate that these feelings of esteem can be detrimental if taken too far. There is a need for coaches to monitor their relationship so that their new teachers do not become intimidated.

Instruction

Findings indicate that= the coaches were able to provide direct assistance to the teachers during their instruction in class while the mentors were not able to do this. Coaches we= re in the classroom with the new teacher to observe and provide assistance. As= a result coaches had the time to actually observe the teachers’ teachin= g, classroom organization, and use of the materials with students and could provide feedback and in-class assistance as needed. In addition, they exami= ned student work with the teacher to model how to use student work to ascertain teaching effectiveness and drive future instruction. Coaches were also able= to model different aspects of teaching from using an overhead projector to providing student feedback to monitoring groups of students during a lab experiment. Because the mentor position was an additional assignment, mento= rs were frequently overburdened with the other duties of their profession and = the extent to which they could actually be present in the teachers’ classrooms was limited and not standardized. While some new teachers recogn= ized that their mentor was not supporting them, they were powerless to be able t= o do anything about it.

Classroom Management

Findings indicate that the coaches were able to provide assistance in a larger variety of ways than mentors and that this impacted their ability to assist the teachers in terms of classroom managem= ent. As retirees, coaches are able to spend quality time in the new teachersR= 17; classrooms and provide both immediate and long-term assistance. Some mistak= es that new teachers make are easily recognized and a quick solution can be determined. Figuring out the complex social dynamics in a classroom that attribute to a non-safe and/or non-productive science classroom environment takes time, but with appropriate guidance a thoughtful, effective solution = can be found. In contrast, mentors were busy with their own teaching duties and= not able to directly observe the new teacher teaching. Hence, mentors were not = able to identify needed ways to help the teachers or provide thoughtful, complex solutions to new teachers’ problems. At the same time, we found that = many mentors made the best use of the limited time they had available to support their new teachers and provided copies of worksheets to keep students busy = or told the new teacher where to go in the school for answers to their questio= ns. Mentors particularly excelled in providing school-specific information to t= he teacher that coaches were unable to provide because they had not worked in = that particular school or had not maintained current with district and/or school protocols.

Conclusi= ons and Recommendations

Teaching is a dynamic process, and solutions do not always work or new teachers may carry them out ineffectively. As retirees, coaches have the time to observe and assist the teachers as they work to solve their problems in the classroom. We found th= at few teaching mentors had the time to do this even when they had a reduced teaching load for administrative duties. As new teachers struggle to teach,= coaches can take the time to praise teachers for what they are doing well so that t= hey continue to do it and provide continued guidance on what to change so that = they can be more effective. As seasoned veterans from the school division, the coaches were able to recognize unfair teaching assignments and situations t= hat had arisen for the new science teachers while maintaining the status quo am= ong fellow, senior faculty. We found that coaches were frequent champions for t= heir teachers and that their words of wisdom carried weight in the school among senior faculty and administration while teaching mentors were not in a posi= tion to do this.

Having support in the classroom while teaching was taking place enabled the new teachers to recei= ve immediate feedback and improve their teaching skills. Therefore, administra= tors should consider how to provide new teachers with this type of support. Using retired teachers is one way to accomplish this. Another way would be to rel= ease selected master inservice teachers from their teaching duties, in order to support new teachers. In this study coaches and mentors have different strengths that each brings to the support network of a new science teacher = and weaknesses that need to be recognized. Clearly, the power and position of t= he new teacher, coach, and mentor are mitigating factors that cannot be ignore= d. As retirees, coaches are free of the constraints caused by employment in the school division in which the new science teacher works. Coaches are a valua= ble resource in our drive to support new science teachers so that they remain in the profession while effectively impacting students’ science learning experiences.

Based on the findings presented, we offer the following recommendations for supporting new science teachers.

1. There is a need for a collaborative network of support for new sci= ence teachers. From the data, different individuals provide different types of support to the new teacher.

2. During the development and implementation of the support network, = the power and position of individuals working within the support network need t= o be considered.

3. Roles, target goals, and duties for members of the support network need to be established and communicated to all members of the support netwo= rk.

4. Training is needed for individuals involved in the support of new science teachers that is based on best practices for teacher induction prog= rams and informed by theory that examines the role of power and position in soci= al interactions.

5. There should be at least one person on the team whose primary responsibility is providing support to new teachers. Having the support person (coach or mentor) in the classroom when teaching is taking p= lace enables this person to provide more valuable and timely feedback.

This materi= al is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0302050. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expresse= d in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation (NSF).

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scien= ce literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bandura, A. (1977). Soci= al learning theory. Inglewood= Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Co.

Bourdieu, P. (1979 in French, 1984 – English translation). Distinction: A so= cial critique of the judgement of taste. Translated by R. Nice. London: Routledge.=

Butler<= strong>, J. P. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and = the subversion of identity. New York: Routle= dge.

Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999).= Teacher quality and student achievemen= t: A review of

state policy evidence. University of Washi= ngton: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Accessed November 28, 2006 at http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/LDH_1999.pdf.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000).= Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of

state poli= cy evidence. Educational Policy Analys= is Archives, 8(1). Accessed November 28, 2006 at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1

Darling-Hammond, L. (2003).= Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders can do.

Educati= onal Leadership, 60(8), 6-= 13.

Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gallagher, J. J. (1996). Implementing teacher change at the school level. In D.F. Treagust, R. Duit and B.J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learnin= g in science and mathematics, (pp. 222-231). New York: Teachers College Press.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Th= eoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory.

Mill Valley, CA<= /st1:place>: Sociology Press.

Gla= ser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory; strate= gies for

qualitative rese= arch. Chicago= : Aldine Publishing Company.

Guskey, T. R. (1995). Profe= ssional development in education: In search of the optimal mix. In

T. R. Gusk= ey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms= and practices (pp. 114-131). New York: Teachers College Press.

Harding, S. G. (1986). The science question = in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell <= st1:PlaceType w:st=3D"on">University Press.

Harding, S. G. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ith= aca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Harding, S. G. (2006). Science and social inequality: Feminist and postcolonial issues. Urb= ana, IL: University of Illinois Press.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C. Wearne, D., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Human, P. (1997). Making sense. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

hooks, b. (1981). Ain’t I a woman: Black women and feminism. Boston, MA: South End Press.

Ingersoll, R. (2000). Tu= rnover among mathematics and science teachers in the U.S. Accessed

November 28, 2006 at http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/Ingersollp.doc

Ingersoll, R. (2001). Te= acher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of schools.

Accessed <= st1:date Month=3D"11" Day=3D"28" Year=3D"2006" w:st=3D"on">November 28, 2006 at http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/Turnover-

Ing-01-200= 1.pdf

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in ever= yday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Universit= y Press.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge= University Press.

National Commission on Math= ematics and Science Teaching for the 21^st Century. (2000). Before

it̵= 7;s too late. U.S. Department of Education. Available at http://www.ed.gov/americacounts/glenn= .

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">National Academy Press.

National Science Teachers Association (2000). High turnover of science teachers requires

schools= to change. Accessed November 28, 2006 at http://www.nsta.org/survey3/

Newmann, F. & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring. Madison WI: Center= on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.

Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Ruskus, J., Luczak, J., & SRI International. (1995). Best practice in action= : A descriptive analysis of exemplary teacher enhancement institutes in science= and technology. Washington, DC: SRI International.

Saurino, D. R., Bourma, A., & Gunnoe, B. (1999, April= ). Science classroom management techniques using graphing calculator technology: A collaborative team action research approach. Paper presented at the ann= ual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.

Sterling, D. R. (1997, March). Stage= s of conceptual change that enable teachers to adopt a

student= -centered approach to hands-on, inquiry-based teaching. Paper presented at the an= nual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL.

Sterling, D. R. (2= 000, April). Strategies enabling interdisciplinary teacher teams to develop a= nd implement standards-based teaching plans. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Sterling, D. R. (2001, March). Strat= egies enabling collaborative teacher teams to assess

student understanding of science. Paper presented at the annual conference of t= he National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

Sterling, D. R., Olkin, A. H., Calinger, B. J., Howe, A. C., & Bell, J. A. (1999). Project Alliance: Enhancing Science and Technology Instruction in the Middle Grades through Interdisciplinary Team Planning and Teaching. Online Monograph of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. [Online]. Retri= eved on November 21,= 1999, from http://ehrweb.aaas.org/ehr/projectalliance/

Sterling, D. R., Wang, S., & Olkin,= A. H. (1995, April). Action research: Adapting a program

to an unexpected audience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Ameri= can Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA. =

Str= auss, A. L. & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science teaching, learning, curriculum, and achievement in international context. (NCES 97-998). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Offi= ce.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S. twelfth-grade mathematics and science achievement in international context<= /i>. (NCES 98-049). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary. (1999). Designing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower programs. (Doc 99-3). Washington, DC.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). = Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of

teacher quality. Princeton= , NJ: Educational Testing Service. Accessed November 28, 20= 06 at http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICTEAMAT.pdf

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervi= sion and Curriculum Development.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and method= s (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publi= cations.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). At= taining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.

Boekaerts,= P. Pintrich & M. Seidner (Eds.)= , Self-Regulation: Theory, research and application (pp. 13-39). <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Orlando, FL: Academic Press.