Math ED -Literature Review paper -

Clinical Experiences of Secondary Mathematics Teachers in Their Induction Years

Clinical Experiences of Secondary Mathematics Teachers in Their Induction Years

A Literature Review

Introduction

Teaching math is hard work. New teachers of mathematics must manage the application of their own content knowledge to a new and highly complex learning environment. Yet, a review of the literature reveals that little is known about the needs of these beginning secondary mathematics teachers. The research confirms however, that the first years for secondary math teachers are uniquely challenging even for very strong and well-prepared new teachers (Wood, Jilk, & Paine, 2012).

Our review of the literature aims to uncover how new secondary mathematics teachers are supported in their first years on the job. We first discuss the methods we used for locating our literature sources and themes that we use to organize this review. We then begin our review of the literature by exploring induction from an historical perspective and by discerning what is known about new teacher induction. We consider new teacher induction from a broad perspective including what supports might comprise induction for new teachers and how those supports are applied to new teachers of secondary mathematics. We attempt to synthesize the current literature by organizing our findings into major themes on induction for new teachers and on induction supports specific for beginning secondary mathematics teachers.

Methods

Initially we conducted our literature search using University of South Florida’s education database of peer-reviewed scholarly articles. Our research topic was worded as, “describe what is known about clinical experiences of mathematics teachers through the induction years – the first five years of practice”. When we conducted our initial literature search, we used the keywords “clinical experiences” and “induction” but these terms did not yield useful articles. We then began looking more specifically at “induction” and the adjectives “beginning/new/novice” to capture literature on teachers in their first five years of practice. We also used these phrases and the adjectives, “mathematics” and “secondary” to capture relevant literature on secondary mathematics teachers. We excluded studies that focused on primary grades specifically or non-mathematics content specifically and opted for studies that were general in nature or specific to secondary mathematics.

After these modifications, we began to uncover relevant literature but as we read the articles and assessed the quality of the studies, we questioned the quality of the articles pulled. We then located key articles by “pearling” from the first articles unearthed. We used this strategy multiple times which yielded more valuable sources. We realized the difficulty of staying on topic and chased after frequent “red herrings” in an effort to absorb greater depth on our topic. Nevertheless, we found a stopping point and submitted our annotated citations. However, we continued to pearl new articles and found more studies and articles that helped explore the topic more deeply. Our references therefore reflect an up-to-date list of what we have found to be the most relevant articles for our topic.

We also actively used Nvivo software to identify themes across the literature and for quickly locating words and phrases. These themes are bolded throughout this review.

Background

Traditionally, new teachers have not had the kind of support, guidance, and orientation programs that other highly-skilled professions have had (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011) and new teachers have been left to “sink or swim” (Wood et al., 2012). New teachers have often been given the hardest assignments with the most challenging students. According to Ingall (2006), (as cited in Ingersoll & Strong, 2011), some denounce this practice as an example of a profession that “cannibalizes its young”. Notably, attrition from beginning teachers causes high turnover, yet evidence suggests new teachers leave because they don’t have adequate support from their school administrators (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011).

However, new-teacher learning is not complete when teachers leave their pre-service preparations. In fact, the most powerful learning for new teachers occurs in their first few years in service (Darling-Hammond, 2017). This is especially true for new secondary mathematics teachers (Zhang, 2014).

Discussion on New Teacher Induction

Induction for beginning teachers is necessary for their flourishing in their new profession . Several studies describe induction as orientation, preparation, systematic support, guidance, and mentoring for novice teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). For the purposes of this review we define induction as any professional development geared especially for beginning teachers within the first five years of their practice. Induction for new teachers is recognized as a necessary system of supports for helping new teachers not just survive in the classroom but thrive in their new profession (Scherer, 2012).

Induction should be all-inclusive. McNally and Oberski (2003) propose that induction needs be like a “seamless garment” of professional development for new teachers. They specifically identify non-formal learning, classroom observation and feedback, and induction curriculum supports as key pieces of an induction program. McNally & Oberski (2003) caution however that there is little research on why and how these different pieces of “fabric” should be woven together. Yet, Bianchini & Brenner (2009) suggest that breadth of induction programs should be sacrificed for depth so that the needs of beginning teachers are addressed as the most pressing issues in induction.

Non-formal learning and collaboration should be a part of Induction . McNally & Oberski (2003) first identify the importance of non-formal or informal learning and collaboration as critical to an induction program. More specifically, there exists vast spectrums of non-formal learning, both professional and personal that occur outside of any imposed system of support. These non-formal learning events are worthy of further investigation (McNally, Blake, & Reid, 2009). A corollary to non-formal learning is the importance of collaborative relationship development. Several studies suggest that relationships are of central importance to new teachers and informal relationships with colleagues and with students are important for the growth of an individual in his profession (Cwikla, 2004; McNally et al., 2009; Wood et al., 2012). For example, Cwikla (2004) noted that beginning teachers consistently rated collaborative types of activities higher than 3.0 on a 1–4 Likert-type scale. Wood et al (2012) noted in their case studies of beginning mathematics teachers that managing the complex relationships of math, students, and teacher is particularly challenging for new teachers. Comment by Cynthia Castro-Minnehan: Need to define what nonformal and informal learning is

Classroom observation and feedback is necessary. McNally & Oberski (2003) also identify the importance of observation and feedback as critical to an induction program. The opportunity to discuss and reflect on one’s own teaching describes classroom observation and feedback. This type of support helps new teachers make sense of their own teaching (McNally et al, 2003). Harrison, (2001) noted that there have been positive effects on teacher development when regular observations and feedback are provided (as cited in McNally et al, 2009). For example, Japanese lesson study, a support that encourages each teacher’s practice to be public and for observation by all members of the learning organization, is one version of this type of support that is being implemented worldwide and takes advantage of mentor and developing teachers’ rich classroom expertise (Cwilka, 2004).

Induction curriculum is a proposed list of competencies that should be implemented with care . McNally & Oberski (2003) also identify the need for an induction curriculum. This implies a list of competencies or a standard for induction support. Tickle (2000a) argues (as cited in McNally et al, 2003) that there is no simple prescription for an induction curriculum because teaching and learning to teach is complex. McNally et al., (2009) declare that standards can be very easily politicized, and any standards should be learning-led rather than assessment-led (McNally et al., 2009). Comment by Cynthia Castro-Minnehan: Are?

Individualized support for beginning teachers recognizes the importance of developing a new teacher’s identity in the profession. Teachers have “special qualities as individual persons which imbue their teaching” (McNally et al, 2003, pg 66). On this point, individualized support through early nurturing of the new teacher, of early professional learning, and of professional identity are important and may comprise mentoring or coaching, for example. In fact, Ingersoll & Strong (2011) state that mentoring has become the dominant form of induction support and the terms “mentoring” and “induction” are often used interchangeably. They also declare that greater participation by beginning teachers in mentoring programs has been shown to have a positive impact on student achievement (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011).

Learning to exercise autonomy typifies the teaching profession and sets new teacher development apart from other professional development learning. Teaching is distinct and less like the more directed work of some other careers. Individual choices in the moment align teaching more with professions that require autonomy in decision-making and that demand expansive learning, while also requiring adherence to ethical practices. Developing competency in “discretion over practice” requires the development of strong identities for new teachers (McNally et al., 2009). However, Gellert, (2008) observed in his analysis of mathematics teacher orientations that teachers who are at schools where they are not given a certain degree of autonomy are less likely to initiate their own professional development.

Singapore is an example of all-inclusive system of induction support. Internationally, some countries like Singapore for example, have well-developed systems for induction of new teachers like that envisioned by McNally et al. (2003). Singapore offers their new teachers systemic induction and mentoring and is arguably the most comprehensive support system in the world. The supports include:

· Mentors. Singapore’s National Institute of Education (NIE) trains mentor teachers and provides them a special compensation. Their professional development is tied to specifically supporting new teachers.

· Comprehensive Induction Support Package. Novice teachers receive a package of supports that includes mentoring, in-service courses, reduced teaching load, courses on classroom management, counseling, reflective practices, and assessments driven by the NIE.

· A buddy system. Singapore also offers their novice teachers a buddy system in which the new teacher is assigned a peer teacher who teaches the same subject and a supervisor to help adjust them adjust to the demands of the work.

(Darling-Hammond, 2017).

New Teacher Induction in the U.S.

New teacher induction in the U.S. is improving. The National Staff Development Council, NSDC published a report in 2010 that summarized progress in the U.S. on key indicators of professional development. This data was collected as a part of survey work completed in the school years 2003-04 and 2007-08. The report identified the following range of supports being provided to new teachers in the US through the induction years:

· Induction Program

· Working with a master or mentor teacher

· Working with a mentor teacher in the same subject area

· Regular supportive communication with a principal, administrator or department chair

· Seminars or classes for beginning teachers

· Common planning time

· Reduced number of preparations

· Reduced teaching schedule

(Wei, Darling-Hammond, Adamson, & National Staff, 2010b)

This report highlights that nationally, new teacher participation in induction and mentoring programs climbed to 73 and 78% respectively in the last decade (Wei et al., 2010) .

Although induction programs are becoming more common, there is great variation in the length and the availability of the induction programs. Few schools in the U.S. actually provide comprehensive induction support past the first year or two (Wei et al., 2010). The state of California, for example, provides a mandatory two-year induction program prior to teachers receiving their professional certification (Bianchini & Brenner, 2010) . Beginning teachers who received some type of induction had higher measures of job satisfaction, commitment or retention (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011) and sustained induction over many years has a positive impact on student achievement. (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). A large-scale evaluation of a comprehensive teacher induction where new teachers were followed for three years reported a positive and statistically significant impact on student achievement in year three (Glazerman et al., 2010). Also, types of supports available to new teachers is variable especially when demographics are taken into account. Additionally, although 56 % of beginning teachers with five or fewer years of teaching experience report common planning time, teachers report only 2.7 hours per week of collaboration and only 16% agree that their schools support cooperative efforts. Notable is that of the 55 % of beginning teachers identified more of these teachers are elementary than secondary (Wei et al., 2010). Teachers in urban and rural schools and schools with the highest free and reduced lunch and minority enrollments participated in these programs less often than teachers in suburban schools and schools with fewer low-income and minority students (Wei et al., 2010a) .

New mathematics teacher induction in the U.S.

Content-specific supports for new teachers in the U.S. are lacking for secondary mathematics teachers . The content-specific supports for new teachers involve working with mentor teachers in the same content area, for example. According to the National Staff Council’s report, about half of all new teachers work with mentors in their content area but they noted that beginning secondary mathematics teachers participate less in content-specific professional development in their first three years of teaching than their more experienced colleagues (Wei et al., 2010). According to Ingersoll & Strong (2011), how carefully mentors are selected is an issue for programs. They also conclude that that beginning teachers with mentors from the same field were less likely to leave after their first year.

Learning to teach secondary mathematics is a complex undertaking. Yet, Wood et al., (2012) argue that even well-prepared new mathematics teachers’ face difficult challenges. These researchers attempted to access the experiences and perspectives of beginning mathematics teachers to get at what learning to teach mathematics requires and also to document its complexity. Wood et al (2012) concluded that induction should be focused on learning to teach mathematics rather than just providing general support and suggests that this notion is a powerful shift in the study of induction for secondary mathematics teachers. This perspective was also highlighted by Bianchini & Brenner (2010) who suggest that breadth of induction programs should be sacrificed for depth so that the needs of beginning teachers are addressed as the most pressing issues in induction. Wood et al (2012) also suggest that new secondary mathematics teachers need help with how to think about simultaneously managing the complex relationships with students, with the mathematical content, and with the connection between students and mathematics in ways that help them continually teach and learn from teaching.

Non-formal learning opportunities are very important to beginning secondary mathematics teachers . The unique complexity of teaching suggests that critical teacher learning happens outside the formal induction structures and professional support systems and is informal in nature (McNally, 2009). An ethnographic study of 40 beginning secondary school teachers in their first year of teaching revealed that informal learning drives teacher identity in the school workplace (McNally, 2009). A more recent study (Hopkins & Spillane, 2014) revealed that formal organizational structures inside schools such as grade level teams, were critical for shaping beginning mathematics teachers’ opportunities to learn. This study also reveals that beginning mathematics teachers sought advice on mathematics instruction from colleagues in the same grade level who have experience with teaching the curriculum. (Hopkins & Spillane, 2014). As noted earlier, Cwikla (2004) found that beginning mathematics teachers consistently rated collaborative types of activities higher than 3.0 on a 1–4 Likert-type scale.

Small scale studies have attempted to discern the needs of novice secondary mathematics teachers. Cwikla (2004) interviewed 10 mathematics educators with seven years of experience or less to try to understand their reactions to professional support in their profession. She concluded that arteries for teacher exchange about mathematics teaching and learning had not been established and that the conversations with their peers did not tackle ways to improve mathematics practice. The implication in her work is that new teachers seek rich pedagogical content-specific collaboration with their colleagues. Zhang (2014) investigated how new teachers implemented secondary mathematics common core state standards (CCSS). He surveyed 17 secondary mathematics teachers. His qualitative study revealed that these new teachers felt their content knowledge was obsolete and that the content in the mathematics CCSS went beyond their preparation. Specifically, his study revealed a mismatch between new teachers’ expected teaching competence and their actual teaching competence and concludes that professional development programs, especially induction programs for new teachers, should be redesigned to integrate the CCSS into curricular development, instructional strategies, learning experiences, and assessment techniques (Zhang, 2014).

New teachers are more willing to adapt to the demands of the new content. Another major theme that emerged from this review is that new teachers were more willing to adapt to the demands of new math standards than their peers. Zang (2014) noted that new teachers were more willing to embrace CCSS than their more experienced teachers. Although experienced teachers are expected to mentor new teachers, their resistance to adopting the CCSS made collaboration with their new colleagues difficult. New teachers suggested collaboration should involve collaborative activities through peers and online collaboration (Zhang, 2014) . This was echoed in a study by Cwikla, (2004) where she reported that less experienced mathematics teachers expressed disappointment with the more experienced teachers’ content knowledge and suggested that these views ought to be used to help structure professional learning environments for less experienced teachers.

Conclusions

This study investigated literature on the experiences of beginning secondary mathematics teachers in their induction years. This investigation has revealed that there is very little research concerning subject-specific induction support programs (Wood, Jilk, & Paine, 2012) and more specifically secondary mathematics induction supports. Further, there seems to be ambivalence around how to best support new teachers who are undertaking the challenging work of teaching mathematics. Although studies (Cwikla, 2003; Zhang, 2014) suggest that new mathematics teachers are frustrated with their more experienced peers’ content knowledge.

Designing relevant and effective induction programs for new mathematics teachers depends upon learning what the unique needs of new mathematics teachers are and learning how to implement comprehensive and sustained induction programs that meet those needs in a collaborative and sustained manner. Induction programs designed around the needs of new secondary mathematics teachers during his/her first 5 years is essential for the unique and complex work of teaching secondary mathematics.

Directions for future research

From the review of the literature there appears to be a lack of understanding of what the needs are of beginning secondary mathematics teachers. An understanding of these needs could serve to better inform the design of systematic induction programs that are relevant and effective. Therefore, one teacher-focused area for further research would be to answer the question, “what are the needs of beginning secondary mathematics teachers?”

More research is needed in the area of content-specific induction supports to determine what subject or content-specific induction supports are most relevant for new teachers in their content area. More broadly, there may be significant policy implications to providing more “personalized” induction programs that are subject specific.

References Bianchini, J. A., & Brenner, M. E. (2010). The role of induction in learning to teach toward equity: A study of beginning science and mathematics teachers. Science Education, 94(1), 164-195. Gellert, U. (2008). Routines and collective orientations in mathematics teachers’ professional development. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(2), 93-110. doi:10.1007/s10649-007-9089-x Glazerman, S., Isenberg, E., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Grider, M., . . . WestEd. (2010). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Final results from a randomized controlled study. NCEE 2010-4027. ().National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Hopkins, M., & Spillane, J. P. (2014). Schoolhouse teacher educators: Structuring beginning teachers opportunities to learn about instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, (4), 327. doi:10.1080/19322909.2014.927745 Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, (2), 201. Scherer, M. (2012). The challenges of supporting new teachers A conversation with linda darling-hammond. United States: ASCD ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION AND. Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Adamson, F., & National Staff, D. C. (2010a). Professional development in the united states: Trends and challenges. phase II of a three-phase study. executive summary. ().National Staff Development Council. Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Adamson, F., & National Staff, D. C. (2010b). Professional development in the united states: Trends and challenges. phase II of a three-phase study. technical report. National Staff Development Council Wood, M. B., Jilk, L. M., & Paine, L. W. (2012). Moving beyond sinking or swimming: Reconceptualizing the needs of beginning mathematics teachers. Teachers College Record, 114(8) Zhang, S. (2014). New teachers’ implementation of the common core state standards. United States: Taylor & Francis.

1