DEVELOPING BEST PRACTICES OF TEACHER INDUCTION

Problems and challenges faced by beginning teachers have been well documented in the literature and have created the need for teacher induction programs in all disciplines, including agricultural education. This paper used literature from inside and outside the agricultural education discipline to identify and describe best practices in teacher induction yielding a framework called the Best Practices of Teacher Induction for Agricultural Education. This framework is based on the work of Camp and Heath (1988), who identified four contributor groups responsible for teacher induction, and the work of Stansbury and Zimmerman (2000), who identified high and low intensity teacher induction activities. Within the framework, the roles and responsibilities of four contributor groups (local school districts, professional associations, state department of education, and teacher educators) have been described within the context of both high and low intensity activities. Introduction and the Problem In 1987, Schuman (as cited in Nesbitt & Mundt, 1993) went so far as to say that teaching is perhaps the most difficult of all professions to master. Given the fact that beginning teachers are expected to perform the same jobs at the same level as veteran teachers, it is no surprise that the first years of teaching are quite challenging. As early as the 1980s, Scott (1988) saw the issue of how to provide an induction program that will reduce the problems and challenges faced by beginning vocational teachers as a critical issue facing the profession. It is still a problem facing the agricultural education profession. In fact, one of the priority initiatives included in the National Research Agenda: Agricultural Education and Communication 2007-2010 was to ―develop and assess effective induction models of early career teachers‖ (Osborne, 2007). The concept of teacher induction is well accepted (Camp & Heath, 1988; Fessler & Christensen, 1992; Houle, 1980). According to Blair-Larsen and Bercik (1992), ―Teacher induction is defined as the period of transition from student to professional when beginning teachers are offered supervision and support as they adjust to their new roles‖ (p. 25). Sprinthall, Reiman, and Thies-Sprinthall (1996) identified four goals of teacher induction programs: (1) to improve learning and teaching for students, (2) to retain and induct novice teachers, (3) to reward and revitalize experienced teachers in mentor roles, and (4) to increase professional efficacy. Problems and challenges faced by first year teachers have been well documented in agricultural education (Joerger, 2002; Joerger & Boettcher, 2000; Mundt, 1991; Mundt & Connors, 1999; Myers, Dyer, & Washburn, 2005; Talbert, Camp, & HeathCamp, 1994) and other teaching disciplines (Brock & Grady, 1998; Veenman, 1984). Brock and Grady reported the following rank-ordered list of problems faced by beginning teachers: (1) classroom management and discipline, (2) working with mainstreamed students, (3) determining appropriate expectations for students, (4) dealing with stress, (5) handling angry parents, (6) keeping up with paperwork, (7) grading/evaluating student work, (8) Moore & Swan Developing Best Practices... Journal of Agricultural Education 61 Volume 49, Number 4, 2008 handling student conflicts, (9) pacing lessons, (10) varying teaching methods, (11) dealing with students of varying abilities, and (12) feeling inadequate as a teacher. Within agricultural education, Mundt and Connors (1997) identified categories of problems and challenges faced by beginning agriculture teachers. In their study, the top five ranked categories were: (1) managing the overall activities of the local FFA chapter, (2) balancing professional and personal responsibilities and maintaining personal motivation and a positive outlook, (3) properly managing your time, completing paperwork and meeting required deadlines, (4) building the support of faculty, counselors and administrators within the school system, and (5) using proper classroom management strategies and dealing with student discipline problems. More recently, Myers et al. (2005) conducted a Delphi study to identify major issues faced by beginning agriculture teachers. The top five ranked categories in their study were: (1) organizing an effective alumni chapter, (2) organizing and effective advisory committee, (3) organizing and planning FFA chapter events and activities, (4) management of student discipline in the classroom, and (5) recruiting and retaining alumni members. The differences between rank-orders of problems faced by teachers in the Brock and Grady (1998) study and the studies in agricultural education are no doubt due to the additional responsibilities agriculture teachers face with respect to SAE and FFA program supervision. It is the common problems faced by all teachers coupled with the additional responsibilities of agriculture teachers that justify the need for teacher induction programs in agricultural education. Although numerous studies in agricultural education have examined various components of the induction process, such as needs of first-year teachers and the role of mentors, few have focused on the program as a whole. There are various types of teacher induction programs ranging from those that are state mandated and state funded to those that are completely voluntary and not state funded (Gold, 1996). However, the quality and substance of these existing programs for teacher induction varies (Kelley, 2004). Sprinthall et al. (1996) noted that, ―Decisions about the content and character of teacher induction programs are most often based on political and legislative mandate rather than sound educational planning‖ (p. 691). Brock and Grady (1998) noted that ―although most of the literature on teacher induction has focused on the importance of mentors, principals are clearly key figures in the induction process‖ (p. 180). Brock and Grady‘s comment rings true in agricultural education. Mentoring has been well documented in the literature (Greiman, Walker, & Birkenholz, 2002; Peiter, Terry, & Cartmell, 2003a, 2003b, 2005). However, despite being identified as key figures in the process, studies in agricultural education have provided rather negative findings with respect to the level of assistance provided by principals during the induction process. Mundt (1991) concluded that principals were providing little additional help or supervisory assistance to beginning agriculture teachers. Similarly, Greiman et al. (2002) found that beginning teachers were receiving very little program management assistance from administrators, especially related to some of the major categories of need identified by first-year teachers such as time management, balancing personal and professional responsibilities, and in areas unique to agricultural education. A United States Department of Education report titled, From Students of Teaching to Teachers of Students: Teacher Induction Around the Pacific Rim (Moskowitz & Stephens, 1996), noted that successful teacher induction programs, no matter the country or discipline, have six characteristics in common: (1) new teachers are viewed as professionals on a continuum, with increasing levels of experience and responsibility and that novice teachers are not expected to perform the same job as veteran teachers without significant support, (2) new teachers are nurtured, including maximum interaction with other teachers, (3) teacher induction is a purposive and valued activity, (4) schools possess a culture of shared responsibility and support such that most staff members contribute to the development of the new teacher, (5) Moore & Swan Developing Best Practices... Journal of Agricultural Education 62 Volume 49, Number 4, 2008 assessment is downplayed, and (6) political, financial, and time commitments are sought from relevant authorities. The report went on to describe how the United States differs, and in many cases is lacking, in each of these areas from the teacher induction programs studied, including programs in Japan, New Zealand, and the Northern Territory of Australia. The major criticism faced by teacher induction programs is the lack of a comprehensive theoretical or conceptual framework for teacher induction (Gold, 1996; Little, 1990; Sprinthall et al., 1996). This is especially evident when synthesizing the literature related to various contributors and activities that have been, or should be, included in teacher induction programs. Stansbury and Zimmerman (2000) did describe specific support strategies that should be included in new teacher programs. They classified the strategies as either low intensity, those that make minimal demands on district and school resources, or high intensity, those that are more taxing but at the same time more effective (Stansbury & Zimmerman). Although the authors did describe specific support strategies, they focused solely on those offered by the school district without mention of other contributor groups and the activities that they should offer within the program. Within agricultural education, Nesbitt and Mundt (1993) described the three components of a program housed within the Agricultural and Extension Education Department at the University of Idaho. In their programs, beginning teachers received support by way of individual on-site consultations, seminars, and assignments that could be completed for university credit. The majority of the other studies found within agricultural education focused on a particular aspect of the program, rather than the overall program itself. Theoretical/Conceptual Framework Camp and Heath (1988) identified four contributor groups that should be involved in teacher induction programs for vocational teachers. According to Camp and Heath, Officials of the state department of education should provide direction, teacher education faculty members should provide a theoretical and research base