“Teachers Answer the Question of What Made Them Stay: A Phenomenological Study” - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

art
teachers answer the question of what made them stay a phenomenological study n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
“Teachers Answer the Question of What Made Them Stay: A Phenomenological Study” PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
“Teachers Answer the Question of What Made Them Stay: A Phenomenological Study”

play fullscreen
1 / 31
Download Presentation
“Teachers Answer the Question of What Made Them Stay: A Phenomenological Study”
93 Views
Download Presentation

“Teachers Answer the Question of What Made Them Stay: A Phenomenological Study”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. “Teachers Answer the Question of What Made Them Stay: A Phenomenological Study” Sarah Coy Dr. Christie Bledsoe Dr. Marlene Zipperlen Dr. Robert Rose

  2. Nature of the Problem

  3. Statement of the Problem • The general problem is teacher retention affects the American educational system. • The specific problem is poor retention of teachers within the first three to five years of their career.

  4. Impact of the Problem Teacher Turnover Exist in 2 Forms (Hahs-Vaughn & Scherff, 2008) • Attrition- Leaving the profession all together • Migration- Teachers transferring between schools A high turnover rate has both instructional cost to student achievement and financial cost to districts (Johnson, Berg & Donaldson, 2005; Blazer, 2006).

  5. Impact of the Problem-Statistics • Over 3 million teachers worked in the United States public schools during 2007-2008 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010) • 8% left the profession (Attrition) • 7.6% moved to another school (Migration) • 11.8% (State Average for Texas)

  6. Phi Delta Kappan, September 2002

  7. Impact of the ProblemStudent Achievement • Schools are forced to staff classrooms with less qualified teachers. • Interferers with the planning and implementation of a comprehensive unified curriculum (Brill & McCartny, 2008). • Once a child experiences a year with an ineffective teacher, the academic loss is difficult to redeem (Staiger & Rockoff, 2010).

  8. Impact of the ProblemFinancial • High teacher turn-over rate forces schools to take money needed for school improvements and use it in a manner which does very little for student learning(Darling - Hammond, 2003). • Several researchers have revealed excessive teacher turnover is costing the nation billions of dollars a year(Alliance for Excellent Education, 2005). • Dill and Stafford (2008) reported the cost to replace a teacher can be up to 20% of a teacher’s salary.

  9. Literature Review • (Brill & McCartney, 2008; Darling-Hammond, 2003; Earley & Lituchy, 1991; Fullan, 2007; Ingersoll, 2001; Kardos, 2004)

  10. Purpose of the Study • The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore why teachers with ten or more years of experience choose to stay in the field.

  11. Research Question • Why teachers stay in the field of education?

  12. Theoretical Framework • Maslow- Theory of Hierarchy of Needs (Heckman, 2000) • Thorndike- Law of Readiness (Thorndike, 1913) • Bandura- Self-Efficacy Theory (Brown, 2012)

  13. Research Design and Method • Qualitative Phenomenological Research Design • One-on-One In-Depth Interviews

  14. Participant Selection • In order to be selected to participate in the study veteran teachers had ten or more years of experience and have taught in a rural school setting for the past five years. • Participants represented rural school settings in the Central Texas Area.

  15. Limitations • Small sample size and geographic region • Sampling of teachers only included females • Researcher Bias

  16. Assumptions • All participants answer the questions truthfully. • Transfers within a teacher’s career did not affect their perspective. • Researcher bias did not affect the outcome of the study.

  17. Delimitations • Sampling of teachers was only from rural school settings in the Central Texas Area. • Studies including other states or urban school districts may find different results (Hughes, 2012).

  18. Demographic Characteristics

  19. Why did they become teachers?

  20. This is what they said…. Fit Personality 4 Family Members 4 Passion for Children Schedule 3 A Teacher 2

  21. Major Theme 1

  22. Major Theme 2

  23. Major Theme 3

  24. How many of the 13 teachers if they had the opportunity to do it all over again would still become a teacher?

  25. Yes or No

  26. Fountain of Youth

  27. It Takes a Village…… • Special Thank You to: • All the teachers who participated in the study • All the administrators who nominated participants • Panel of Experts • Co-Rater Randy Lamb • Dr. Bledsoe, Dr. Zipperlen, Dr. Rose & Dr. Hendricks

  28. References • Alliance For Excellent Education. (August 2005). Teacher attrition: A costly loss to the nation and to the states. (Issue Brief). Washington, DC • Blazer, C. (2006). Literature review on teacher transfer and turnover. Miami, FL; Office of • Accountability and Systemwide Performance. • Brill, S. & McCartney. A., (2008, October). Stopping the revolving door: increasing • teacher retention. Politics & Policy, 750-774. • Brown, C. (2012). A systematic review of the relationship between self-efficacy and burnout in • teachers. Education & Child Psychology, 29(4), 47-63. • Coggins, C. (2013). Teacher with drive. Educational Leadership, 71(2). 42-45. • Creswell, J. W., (2012). Educational research planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. University of Nebreska-Lincoln: Pearson. • Creswell, J. W., (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design choosing among five approaches. University of Nebreska-Lincoln:SAGE Publications. • Darling-Hammond, L., (2003). Keeping good teachers; why it matters. Educational Leadership, 60(8): 6-13. Dill, V., & Stafford, D. (2008). Teacher retention a critical national problem. Education NewsRetrieved from http://www.educationnews.org/articles/teacher-retention-a- critical-national-problem.html Earley, P.C., & Lituchy, T.R. (1991). Delineating goal and efficacy effects: A Test of three models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 81-98.

  29. References • Fullan, M., (2007). Change the terms for teacher learning. National Staff Development • Council, 28(3), 35-36. • Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Scherff, L. (2008). Beginning English teacher attrition, mobility, • and retention. The Journal of Experimental Education, 77(1), 21-53. Heckman, Linda. Proquest Dissertations And Theses 2011. Section 0543, Part • 0514 117 pages; [Ed.D. dissertation].United States -- Minnesota: Walden • University; 2011. Publication Number: AAT 3450046. • Hughes, G. D. (2012). Teacher retention: teacher characteristics, school characterisitcs, • Organizational characteristics, and teacher efficacy. The Journal of Educational • Research, 105, 245-255. • Johnson, S.M., Harrison-Berg, J.L. & Donaldson, M.L. (2005). Who stays in teaching • and why: A review of the literature on teacher retention. Cambridge, MA; • Harvard Graduate School of Education, Project of the Next Generation of • Teachers. • Ingersoll, R.M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages:an organizational • analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 42-44.

  30. References Kardos, S. M., (2004). Supporting and sustaining new teachers in schools: the • Importance of professional culture and mentoring. Cambridge, MA; • Harvard University. • National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results of • the 2007-2008 teacher follow-up survey. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010353.pdf . Staiger, D., & Rockoff, J. E. (2010). Searching for effective teachers with imperfect information. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 97-118.