A STUDY OF FIRST-YEAR TEACHERS AND THEIR PRINCIPALS:

PERCEPTIONS OF READINESS AMONG PARTICIPANTS

FROM TRADITIONAL AND NON-TRADITIONAL
TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS

by

MARY WILSON BLACK

W
A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
Fayetteville State University
IE
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
EV

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Fayetteville
PR

2003

APPROVED BY:

(p fy tte id u a ) _7?2u9Lm J___

Chair of Dissertation Advisory Committee

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 UMI Number: 3345778

Copyright 2009 by
Black, Mary Wilson

All rights reserved.

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

W
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
IE
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
EV

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

PR

UMI
UMI Microform 3345778
Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 E. Eisenhower Parkway
PO Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ABSTRACT

BLACK, MARY WILSON. A Study of First-year Teachers and Their

Principals: Perceptions of Readiness Among Participants From Traditional and Non-

traditional Teacher Preparation Programs. (Under the direction of Geraldine Campbell

Munn.)

W
This dissertation examined first-year teachers’ and their principals’ perceptions of

readiness among participants from traditional and non-traditional teacher preparation

IE
programs. To conduct this study, the Teachers’ and Principals’ Perceptions of Readiness
EV
Survey, adapted from Belchier’s Assessment of Readiness for Employment (1998)

instrument was administered to 183 teachers and 89 principals from three of the largest

school districts in North Carolina. Treatment of the data was performed using the
PR

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) to determine if there were significant

differences between first-year teachers and their principals’ perceptions of readiness

competencies for classroom teaching. Readiness competencies included: Instructional

Planning, Instructional Approaches, Learning Environment, Evaluation of Student

Competency, Application of Technologies, Students as Learners, Professional

Development, and Parent/Colleague Community Relations. The findings indicated that

principals’ perceptions of readiness were less positive of new teachers than the perception

new teachers had of themselves. There were no significant differences among first-year

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 teachers’ perceptions of the readiness among participants of traditional and non-

traditional teacher preparation programs. However, there were significant differences in

principals’ perceptions of readiness competencies in five of the eight competency areas:

Learning Environment, Evaluation of Student Competency, Application of Technologies,

Students as Learners, and Professional Development.

W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of this dissertation represents another personal and professional

goal for which I give my Heavenly Father the praise and the glory. My sincere

appreciation and gratitude are extended to the following:

To my doctoral committee, Dr. Geraldine Munn, Chairperson, Dr. Edwin D. Bell

W
and Dr. Jack Freeman for their professional knowledge, commitment to excellence, and

guidance throughout this process. IE

To Dr. Genniver C. Bell who served as my chair through July 03, my utmost

appreciation.
EV

To Dr. Joseph Johnson and Dr. Frederick Smith who have always been there

through the difficult times. Words cannot express the extent of my gratitude.
PR

To my husband, Calhoun, thank you for being so supportive and loving me still.

To my children, Kondria and Kelvin, thank you for your unwavering faith and

love. The flowers that simply said, “Mom, you can do it!” came at such a critical time in

my life. Did you ever know that you’re my heroes?

To my friends and colleagues, many thanks for your assistance, encouragement,

and prayers. Mere words are inadequate to express my gratitude.

To my granddaughter, Kristen, whose life will be touched by many teachers, I

pray that their impact will be positive for you.

ii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 To the memory of my Dad and Brothers, Otis, Jim and Henry, you are my

guardian angels and your spirit is always with me!

Finally, this dissertation is dedicated to my mother who is approaching 89 years.

Thank you for being such a wonderful parent and role model. Through it all, I have

learned to depend upon His word!

W
IE
EV
PR

iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Chapter I. Introduction........................................................................................................1

Purpose of the Study......................................................................................... 5

W
Significance of the Study..................................................................................8

Theoretical Framework...................................................................................12
IE
Limitations.......................................................................................................13

Definitions of Key Term s...............................................................................13

EV

Assumptions.....................................................................................................16

Chapter II. Review of Related Literature.......................................................................... 17

PR

Introductions....................................................................................................17

Historical Perspective.....................................................................................17

Teachers’ Perceptions of Readiness.............................................................. 21

Principals’ Perceptions of Readiness............................................................ 25

Perceptions of Teacher Preparation in Traditional Programs..................... 29

Proponents’ and Opponents’ Perceptions o f Nontraditional Programs 32

A Comparison of Alternatively and Traditionally Certified Teachers 35

The Impact of Teacher Preparation Programs..............................................42

iv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Transition from Student to Practicing Professional......................................43

Criticisms of Teacher Preparation.................................................................47

Perceived Relationships: Teacher Preparation and Teacher

Competence..................................................................................................... 48

Pathways to Teaching.....................................................................................49

Professional Development Schools................................................................50

Lateral Entry Teachers Compared to Traditionally Prepared

Teachers...........................................................................................................52

The Merits of Theory and Practice................................................................52

W
Summary..........................................................................................................53

Chapter III. Methodology.................................................................................................. 55

IE
Research Design.............................................................................................. 56
EV
Study Population............................................................................................. 57

Sample.......................... 57

Instrumentation............................................................................................... 58
PR

Data Collection............................................................................................... 61

Methods Used to Analyze D ata.....................................................................62

Chapter IV. Analysis of Data.............................................................................................. 65

Introduction..................................................................................................... 65

Results o f the Study........................................................................................66

Research Question One and Analysis........................................................... 66

Research Question Two and Analysis.......................................................... 67

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Research Question Three and Analysis........................................................ 68

Research Question Four and Analysis.......................................................... 70

Summary..........................................................................................................73

Chapter V. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations......................................... 75

Introduction..................................................................................................... 75

Summary..........................................................................................................75

Discussion....................................................................................................... 79

Conclusions..................................................................................................... 85

Recommendations for Further Research....................................................... 87

W
References........................................................................................................89

Appendixes....................................................................................................120
IE
A. Survey for Teachers........................................................................ 121

B. Survey for Principals....................................................................... 122

EV

C. Request for Permission to Conduct Research............................... 123

D. Letter of Consent............................................................................. 124

PR

E. Correspondence to Selected Teachers............................................126

F. Correspondence to Selected Pricipals.............................................127

vi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Teacher Perceptions of Readiness......................................................................67

Table 2. Teachers’ and Principals’ Perceptions of Readiness........................................ 68

Table 3. Teachers’ Perceptions for Each Competency.................................................... 69

W
Table 4. T-Test for Equality of Means.............................................................................. 71

Table 5. Tukey’s HSD for Administrative Experience.................................................... 72

IE
Table 6. Tukey’s HSD for Level of Instruction................................................................73
EV
PR

vii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

There is a growing demand for high-quality teachers in America’s schools and

this demand is a critical issue on the educational national agenda. Policy makers and

educators have focused considerable attention on teacher preparation programs to

W
ensure that emerging teachers are knowledgeable committed educators, who are capable

of meeting the educational challenges of the 21st century (National Commission on

IE
Teaching and America’s Future, 1996). While traits of less qualified teachers are easy
EV
to identify, there is serious disagreement about what it means to be well-qualified and

what it takes to prepare teachers well. Increasingly, educators and others are

questioning whether different kinds of programs prepare teachers differently and if such
PR

variations are significant in teachers’ experiences with classroom teaching (Darling-

Hammond, Chung & Frelow, 2002).

According to the report, The Status of the Teaching Profession (2001), teacher

preparedness is the foundation on which any successful classroom is built. If we expect

students to improve test scores, teachers to enhance the curriculum, and graduates to

compete in a global marketplace, novice and veteran teachers must be trained and

retrained to meet this challenge. Although isolated programs receive acclaim from their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 graduates, the prevailing view is that teacher preparation programs are failing to prepare

beginning teachers for the challenges they meet in the classroom (Eddy, 1969; Fuchs,

1969; Griffin & Hukill, 1983; Little, 1981; Lortie, 1975; Ryan, 1970 (as cited in Lanier

& Little, 1986).

For the past two decades, a number of national reports have stressed the need for

major improvements in the preparation of teachers as a foundation for other educational

reform efforts. Many educational groups and organizations have recommended future

teachers have more rigorous preparation and more authentic experiences to enable them

to cope with the increasing complexity, challenges, and diversity o f current schools and

W
classroom (Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy (1986); the Holmes Group

(1986); the National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (1996); (National
IE
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; Goodlad, 1990; and Darling-Hammond,
EV
1997). Pre-service teachers are expected to be well-grounded in disciplinary content

knowledge and in sound pedagogical principles (Cochran-Smith, 2000; Goodlad, 1999;

Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1998). What has been advocated is a more holistic
PR

conceptualization of the pre-service teacher experience and increased collaboration

between universities and public schools (Guyton & McIntyre, 1990; McIntyre, Byrd &

Foxx, 1996).

Lyons, Stroble, and Fischetti (1997) suggested that in the late 1980’s, when

school reformers at last shifted their attention to teachers and suggested that they

needed to be at the center of school change and effectively reaching all students, it

became clear that the restructuring of education had to go hand in hand with the renewal

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 and reform of teacher education (Carnegie Forum, 1986; Goodlad, 1990; Holmes

Group, 1986; Wise, Darling-Hammond, & Berry, 1987). Good schools would need a

steady supply of excellent teachers, with new habits of mind and new habits of work

(Meier, 1992). If students are to be constructors of their own knowledge and

understandings, teachers would need to forge a new kind of knowledge relationship

with students (Elmore, 1996). There must be two features to school renewal: changing

practices for teachers and students in new relationships around knowledge and learning

and changing practices for learning to teach (Levine, 1988).

The task of recruiting and retaining strong teachers in the next decade will be

W
daunting and vital to the future of public education. It comes at a time when public

education suffers from a dual crisis of quantity and quality in its teaching ranks.
IE
Currently, there are two competing views on how best to prepare teachers in the years
EV
ahead. One calls for extensive pre-service preparation and rigorously enforced

certification requirements (Darling-Hammond, 2000). The other argues for opening

many routes to teaching and deregulating teacher certification (Ballou & Podgursky,
PR

2000). While each of these arguments has strengths, there are still concerns about

meeting the demand for large numbers of teachers who are well-qualified and prepared

to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.

In its recent report, “What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future,”

(1996) the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future found that more

than 50,000 people who lack the training for the job enter the teaching profession

annually on emergency or provisional licenses. The Commission also found that fewer

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 than 75% of America’s teachers can be considered fully qualified—that is, they studied

child development, learning, and teaching methods or held degrees in their subject areas

and passed state licensure requirements. According to Graham (2001), reports

produced throughout the 1980s such as A Nation at Risk (1983) and A Nation Prepared:

Teachers for the 21st Century (1986) perpetuated the perception that teachers were

academically challenged, which led to the exponential growth in the types of admission

and certification measures used in teacher education programs.

Public school administrators continue to be faced with the task of extensive

supervision and re-training of beginning teachers to ensure a successful transition into

W
their new profession (Brock & Grady, 1996; Chamock & Kiley, 1995; Lytle, 2000;

Ryan, 1986) (as cited in Ladd, 2000, p.l). The most important step principals can take
IE
to decrease problems incurred by new teachers is to work with them in regard to their
EV
roles in the organization (Gordon, 1991). Wagner (1990) maintained that “site

administrative support is the key” (p.348).

Reformers of teacher education are demanding a more highly qualified teacher

PR

who can “rethink their own practice, construct new classroom roles and expectations

about student outcomes, and teach in ways they have never taught before and probably

never experienced as students” ( Nelson & Hammerman as cited in Darling-Hammond

& Mclaughlin, 1995, p. 597). Most reformers now agree that increasing teachers’

expertise and effectiveness are critical to the success of ongoing efforts to reform

American education. The challenge facing teacher educators and educational leaders is,

“how can we prepare teachers for today’s and tomorrow’s schools who will be

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 personally inspiring, pedagogically effective, and scholarly informed?” (Ducharme &

Ducharme, 1993, p.3).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was threefold: (a) to examine teachers’ perceptions of

readiness among first-year teachers from traditional teacher preparation and non-

traditional preparation programs, (b) to examine teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of

readiness among first-year teachers from traditional and non-traditional teacher

preparation programs, and (c) to determine what competencies need to be addressed by

teacher preparation programs. The overall goal of this study was to examine novice

W
teachers—prepared in the context of traditional and non-traditional preparation

programs—to begin to understand whether engagement in non-traditional preparation

IE
programs might lead to successful teaching.
EV
There has been a paradigmatic shift in the perception of teaching to meet the

needs of changing times (Hargreaves, 1994). This shift in expectations for teachers

requires a radical change in the way teachers are prepared. Not all programs are equally
PR

effective and the quality and intensity of preparation make a difference in how well-

prepared recruits feel to teach (Darling-Hammond, Hudson & Kirby, 1989. Currently,

schools need to fill their vacant teacher positions with qualified teachers, but there are

not enough certified teachers coming from the traditional university programs.

Alternative routes provide the additional teachers; however, Wise & Hammond (1991)

have expressed concerns whether alternatively certified teachers are as effective as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 those completing traditional certification programs with education course work and

student teaching. Therefore, the need for quantity may diminish the desire for quality.

Despite two decades of reforms, school principals observe and evaluate the

performance of numerous teachers who have varying degrees of expertise. These

teachers have diverse background experiences. Some are equipped to handle with ease

many variables such as multiple levels of interactions, the course content, the student,

the class of students and the accountability measures, and others. Others tend to be less

competent in their capabilities, tending to struggle and may require supplementary

support in order to enhance deficiencies in their professional preparation. Teacher

W
mastery of subject matter knowledge and preparation in pedagogical techniques are

major concerns for building level administrators who supervise beginning teachers.
IE
A study conducted by Belchier (1998) revealed that principals held more
EV
positive perceptions of new teachers than new teachers had of themselves. In addition,

principal ratings did not correlate with teacher ratings. In terms of relative weaknesses,

technology and assessment techniques were the areas principals and teachers agreed
PR

they felt less prepared.

Teachers are encouraged to become reflective practitioners, to examine their

own knowledge, skills and abilities and to analyze their own levels of performance.

This process enables them to formulate perceptions about their own professional

preparation. However, many teachers do not receive the opportunities and support for

continuous learning that they need to teach effectively. According to Perrone, 1978, p.

278) the best source for teachers to learn more about teaching and learning, child

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 growth and development, materials and methods, is through an examination of one’s

own practice.

Educators are aware of the current research which indicates teacher education

preparation programs need to change (Goodlad, 1994). Andrews (1997) indicated,

“There is a need to benchmark best practice,.. .to prevent poor teaching, and to prepare

top-flight teachers” (p. 172). Breenan and Simpson (1993) agreed that schools will be

better places for students only if teachers are better prepared. Darling-Hammond and

Cobb (1996) have clearly articulated what these changes mean for teachers.

Rather than merely “offering education,” schools are now expected to ensure

W
that all students learn and perform at high levels. Rather than merely

“covering the curriculum,” teachers are expected to find ways to support and
IE
connect with the needs of all learners, (p. 15)
EV
According to the recent Title II Report issued by the U.S. Department of

Education (2002), a majority of graduates of schools of education believe that

traditional teacher preparation programs left them ill-prepared for the challenges and
PR

rigors o f the classroom. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data

suggested that fewer than 36 % of new teachers felt “very well-prepared” to implement

curriculum and performance standards, less than 30% felt prepared to integrate

technology into instruction and less than 20% felt prepared to meet the needs of diverse

students or those with limited English proficiency (p. 5). This report proposed a lesson

for policymakers and the public that traditional teacher-training programs do not

necessarily produce graduates with superior teaching skills, while at the same time they

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 impose significant costs and challenges on prospective teachers, especially the most

talented candidates, (p. 8)

Veenman & Leenders (1993) suggested colleges of education and teacher

preparation programs provide directions and validate good practice. “Schools of

education are committed to preparing teacher candidates for the practice of teaching”

(Rigden, 1997, p. 78). However, a perception prevails that teacher preparation

programs are insulated, isolated, and teach irrelevancy (Chester & Beaudin, 1996). Our

society has changed and education and training should reflect society (Dwyer, 1995).

Research Questions

W
The following questions guided the study:

1. Is there a difference in perceptions of readiness among first-year teachers from

IE
traditional and nontraditional teacher preparation programs?
EV
2. Is there a difference between principals’ and first-year teachers’ perceptions of

readiness among participants from traditional and nontraditional teacher

preparation programs?
PR

3. Is there a difference between first-year teachers’ perceptions of readiness

competencies (Instructional Planning, Instructional Approaches, Learning

Environment, Evaluation of Student Competency, Application of Technologies,

Students as Learners, Professional Development, and Parent/Colleague/

Community Relations) among participants from traditional and nontraditional

teacher preparation programs?

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 4. Is there a difference between principals’ perceptions of readiness competencies

(Instructional Planning, Instructional Approaches, Learning Environment,

Evaluation of Student Competency, Application of Technologies, Students as

Learners, Professional development, and Parent/Colleague/ Community

Relations) among participants from traditional and nontraditional teacher

preparation programs?

Significance of Study

Eisner (1991) believed it was impossible to know the world in its pristine state.

Perception of the world is influenced by skill, point of view, focus, language, and

W
framework. We secure framework through socialization, professional and otherwise.

Eisner (1991) noted that Bruner, Neisser, Goodman, Amheim & Geertz have all pointed
IE
out that mind mediates the world and because it does, perception can influence our
EV
actions and our experiences can influence our perceptions. Hence, it is important to

understand people’s perceptions (as cited in Wang, Etheridge, & Wang, 1996, p.2).

“Perceived problems faced by beginning teachers in their first years of teaching may
PR

provide important information for the improvement and design or redesign of preservice

and in service programs. For this reason, numerous studies have been conducted to

determine the relationship between perceived problems and teacher education

programs” (as cited in Wang, Etheridge, & Wang, 1996, p.2).

The quality of teacher preparation, while not a new concern, has recently taken

on a new sense of urgency. The public wants evidence their schools are improving.

Therefore, increasing demands are being made on institutions of higher education to be

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 more accountable by producing data that show institutional effectiveness. Hence, there

is a growing need for research on teacher preparation programs that assess readiness for

employment. Findings may be significant to both local and national audiences

concerned with programmatic and policy issues in teacher education.

Reform literature in recent years has suggested that traditional teacher education

programs have done little to prepare teachers for either the demands or opportunities of

restructured schools (Levine, 1988; Mahlios, et al., 1987). Although no one would

disagree that beginning teachers must teach, the fact is often ignored that beginning

teachers have much to learn about teaching and little knowledge related to this new role.

W
Moreover, they must learn it quickly if they are to survive (Wildman, et al, 1987,

p.472).
IE
A growing body of research focusing on the preparation of new teachers
EV
suggests that most training programs still emphasize the old models of teaching. These

models are based on the age of students, seat-time, and paper-pencil tasks that were

typical of yesterday’s classrooms. Research has shown these models result in reduced
PR

student productivity and student disengagement for learning (Lezotte, 1999).

This study provided an opportunity to contribute to the body of research and

offers a perspective on teacher preparation programs that prepare future generations to

assess their career choices prior to investing four years toward a career that may be

short-lived. As colleges of education and policy makers consider the effectiveness of

teacher education programs, it becomes important to look beyond the university

classrooms to the realities beginning teachers face in schools where they begin their

10

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 careers. Many new teachers lack the preparation needed for some of the environments

in which they may be asked to teach (Baker & Smith, 1997). Evaluating new teachers’

abilities to work through first-year problems and defining their roles could help teacher

education institutions plan improved curriculum strategies for future students (Wilson &

Ball, 1996). Understanding where deficiencies lie in teacher education programs is the

first step in helping new teachers gain a positive perspective that may result in more

successful teachers and better learners in the classroom (Wilson & Ball, 1996). Studies

that compare the relative importance of specific parts of teacher preparation could be

useful to those designing and revising teacher education programs. The benefits of such

W
studies to state departments of education, school districts and human resource services

departments might include revising induction procedures and other screening processes
IE
based on a candidate’s undergraduate experiences. Administrators might gain useful
EV
information that impacts leadership roles at the building level and district level. Results

from a study of this type might provide data on the readiness of beginning teachers

associated with the eight stated competencies identified in this study to determine new
PR

teachers’ preparedness for the demands in the classroom. Consequently, the results may

have implications for the sequencing and delivery of educational coursework and

supervision of teachers within programmatic models.

The challenges are enormous to improve teacher education programs and

practices in the United States, and a qualified teaching force is an unquestionable

necessity. Research can assist in making these improvements and build and retain a

qualified teaching force.

11

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Theoretical Framework

The theoretical and practical grounding for this study comes from the literature

in the area of self-efficacy. According to Bandura (1977), who first described the

construct, “perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and

execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p.3), and such

beliefs are the most central mechanism of personal agency. As proposed by Bandura,

self-efficacy is specific to a particular set of behaviors and comprises two components,

efficacy expectations and outcome expectations which respectively relate to belief in

personal capacity to effect a behavior and belief that the behavior will result in a

W
particular outcome.

Darling-Hammond & Chung (2001) maintained that while teachers’ feelings of

IE
preparedness were not in themselves objective measures of teachers’ actual preparation
EV
to teach, studies have found teachers’ perceptions of preparation to be significantly

related to teachers’ sense of efficacy (Burley et al., 1991; Hall et al., 1991; Raudenbush,

Rowen, & Cheong, 1992). They contend th a t: “teachers’ behaviors that could improve
PR

or undermine their effects on student learning appear to be related to their efficacy”

(p.2). Other researchers have also shown that teachers’ sense of preparedness and their

sense of self-efficacy are related to their feelings about teaching and their plans to stay

in the profession (Coladarci, 1992; Evans & Tribble, 1986; Glickman & Tamashiro,

1982). This evidence is consistent with other research that found strong relationships

between teachers’ preparation and ratings of both their performance and effectiveness

with students (Educational Testing Service, 2000; Fetler, 1999; National Center for

12

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Educational Statistics, 1994 as cited in Darling-Hammond & Chung, 2001, p.3). Self-

efficacy has to do with self-perceptions of competence rather than actual level of

competence. Tschannen-Moran, et al. (1998) noted that views of self-efficacy appear to

form fairly early in the career and are relatively difficult to change thereafter. Thus,

they argued it is important to develop early on teachers’ knowledge, skills, and sense of

their ability to influence teaching outcomes.

Limitations

This study was limited to first-year teachers and principals of participating

schools in three of the largest school districts in North Carolina. The findings are based

W
on the perceptions of first-year teachers and principals surveyed; therefore, factors other

than teacher preparation might have an impact on the perceptions of readiness for
IE
employment.
EV
Definitions of Terms

The researcher developed some of the definitions for the terms listed below.

Others are defined as they appeared in the literature. For the purposes of this study, the
PR

following definitions applied:

Traditional Teacher Preparation. The fulfillment of a university-level course of

study in both content knowledge and pedagogy, and internships, including a lengthy

student-teaching period.

Non-traditional Teacher Preparation. Three alternative methods for securing

classroom teachers.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 1. Graduate-level teacher education programs that use different and more

responsive delivery models,

2. Short-term alternative licensure programs with fewer requirements for

earning a state license, and

3. Traditional emergency hiring practices that fill vacancies by letting virtually

anyone teach (Berry, 2001).

Teacher Readiness. Certificated personnel who have satisfied state credentialing

requirements and are prepared to transform theory and relevant knowledge into

practices by engaging students in the learning process. Readiness addresses both

W
preparedness and problem acceptance.

Teacher Preparedness. The extent to which teachers’ training prepares them to

IE
meet the challenges of this profession. For the purposes of this study, teacher readiness
EV
and teacher preparedness will be used interchangeably.

Perceptions. Insights of persons based on the processing of information from

their own environments.

PR

Certification. The process by which the profession grants special recognition to

an individual who has met certain qualifications specified by the profession.

Competencies. For this study are defined as instructional planning, instructional

approaches, learning environment, evaluation of student competency, application of

technologies, students as learners, professional development, and parent/colleague

community relations.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.