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 Year Year Year Year Year 5 Instrument Development Cohort 1, n=23 Cohort 2, n=31 Cohort 3, n=40

Sample: 11 Districts in 4 States Students% African- American % Free- reduce d lunch Teacher s Principal s Mentors ( cohort) State 1District A70, District B21, District C32, District D23, District E45, State 2District F100, District G35, District I7, State 3District K12, ** State 4District L7, ** District M12, ** ** Participation for these districts began in the 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 Learning Mathematics for Teaching (LMT) - University of Michigan  Instruction 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 instructional- focus 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