Examining the Induction of Middle
School Mathematics Teachers
Kristin L. McGraner
Research Associate
Peabody College, Vanderbilt University
Supported by the National Science Foundation
Thomas M. Smith & Laura M. Desimone, Principal Investigators
DR-K12 PI Meeting, November 2009
Presentation overview



Study overview
Examination of preliminary findings
relative to principal leadership for
mathematics teacher induction
Implications and next steps
Research Questions
1.
What is an appropriate framework and set of tools
useful to study the quality of math teacher induction
programs and their effects on teacher content
knowledge, instruction, and student learning?
2.
To what extent do teachers’ induction experiences
reflect features of high-quality professional
development, including a focus on mathematics
content and how students learn that content?
3.
To what extent is teacher induction associated with
improved (a) teacher content and pedagogical content
knowledge, (b) alignment and/or quality of instruction,
and (c) student learning?
4.
How do policy and professional community shape
teacher induction opportunities and effects?
Conceptual Framework
Quality of
Induction,
Mentoring, and
Professional
Development
Activities
Content and
Pedagogical
Content
Knowledge
of New
Teacher
Alignment
and
Quality of
Instruction
Student
Learning
Context
Teacher, mentor, and principal characteristics,
professional community,
policy environment,
and school/classroom conditions
Research Design:
Staged, Longitudinal Study
200620072008200920102007 Year 2008 Year 2009 Year 2010 Year 2011 Year
1
2
3
4
5
Instrument
Development
Cohort 1, n=23
Cohort 2, n=31
Cohort 3, n=40
Sample: 11 Districts in 4 States
Students
%
AfricanAmerican
%
Freereduce
d lunch
Teacher
s
Principal
s
Mentors
(2007-2008
cohort)
District A
70,000
46
64
9
7
4
District B
21,000
10
7.4
1
1
1
District C
32,000
12
30
3
2
1
District D
23,000
9
28
3
2
2
District E
45,000
27
22
7
3
10
District F
100,000
36
56
14
9
14
District G
35,000
24
42
11
8
3
District I
7,000
3.4
31
2
2
5
State 3
District K
12,000
7
10
2
2
**
State 4
District L
7,000
51
51
1
1
**
District M
12,000
7
7
1
1
**
State 1
State 2
** Participation for these districts began in the 2008-2009 school year.
Mixed Methods
Data sources:
 Surveys of:
 Teachers (October, December, April/May)
 Mentors (April/May)
 Teacher content knowledge assessment
(October and April/May)
 In-person interviews with:
 Teachers (October and April/May)
 Principals (October and April/May)
 Mentors (April/May)
 Video-recorded classroom observations
(November and April/May)
 Results of standardized tests in mathematics
Measures

Teacher Content and Pedagogical Content Knowledge


Instruction



Learning Mathematics for Teaching (LMT) - University of Michigan
Content Matrix
 Alignment of instruction to state standards and assessments
 Use of higher order cognitive demands
Instructional Quality Assessment (IQA) - University of Pittsburgh
 Rigor of lessons and activities
 Quality of class discussions and teacher expectations
Student Achievement


State assessments
District-specific end-of-course exams
Best laid plans…


To examine variation in principals’
roles, and the relationships between
principals’ roles and teacher
knowledge, instructional practices,
and student learning
Discovery: Found no variation
in principal leadership for
mathematics teacher induction
Research Questions


How do principals conceptualize teacher
induction, and what are their roles in
the induction of middle school
mathematics teachers?
What leadership practices do principals
enact to support the learning and
instructional practices of new middle
school mathematics teachers?
Effective Principal Leadership for Teacher Induction:
Developing a conception of the principal’s role in
advancing novice development

Knowledge of Teacher Learning and
Development

Complexity of teacher knowledge: content,
pedagogical, and curricular (e.g. Grossman, 2005;
Shulman, 1987)

“Learning to teach continuum” (Feiman-Nemser,
2001)

Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy

“knowing mathematics for teaching” (Ball et al.,
2001)

Leadership content knowledge (Stein & Nelson,
2003)
Effective Principal Leadership for Teacher Induction:
Developing a conception of principals’ roles in
advancing new teacher development

Structures to support new teacher
learning (e.g., Garet et al. 2001; Goldring & Rallis; 1993;
Leithwood, 1998; Marks & Louis, 1999; Spillane & Louis, 2002;
Youngs & King, 2002).


Time for collaboration; connections to
expertise; professional development
Mentoring (e.g., Evertson & Smithey, 2000; Fuller, 2003;
Holloway, 2001; Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004; Smith & Ingersoll,
2004; Strong & St. John, 2001)

Fostering a culture to support new
teacher learning (Bryk et al., 1999; Grossman et al.,
2001; Louis et al., 1996)
Sample and Methods


27 middle school principals who are
part of the larger study’s new
teacher cohorts 1 and 2 (n = 41)
Qualitative study: Analysis based
on interview data gathered in
October 2007, May 2008, Oct. 08


Structured interviews (Patton, 2002)
Multistage coding process (Miles &
Huberman, 1994)
Conceptualizing Induction:
“Provide the tools”, “leave them alone”, and “let them
come to you”



Principals viewed induction as (1) a means of
affective support, (2) an opportunity to provide
classroom materials, and (3) a rite of passage.
Principals did not view induction as a phase of
teacher learning.
Principals did not see themselves as having an
active role in teacher induction.
Structures to Support Induction


Principals relied most heavily on
structures that support all teachers
(e.g., department and team
meetings).
Principals identified mentoring
programs and new teacher
meetings as new teacher supports,
but the content- and instructionalfocus thereof is weak.
Fostering a Culture to Support
Induction


Principals described school cultures
using the metaphors “family” and
“team.”
School cultures were also
characterized by descriptions of
teacher autonomy and beliefs that
novices should “feel comfortable”
seeking support.
Implications and Future Directions


Linking principals’ practices to new
teacher learning, instruction, and
student achievement
Investigating the effects of state
and district policies on principals’
knowledge, beliefs, and practices in
supporting new teachers