University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The impact of induction: a study of program designs and teacher quality outcomes

(USC Thesis Other)

The impact of induction: a study of program designs and teacher quality outcomes

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
THE IMPACT OF INDUCTION:
A STUDY OF PROGRAM DESIGNS
AND TEACHER QUALITY OUTCOMES

by

David Lee Robertson

___________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2008

Copyright 2008 David Lee Robertson
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Shari, my son, Nathan, and my parents,
Gloria and Charles, whose patience and enthusiastic support over the past few years
have been a constant source of inspiration.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Dr. Margo Pensavalle, committee chair

Dr. Gisele Ragusa

Dr. Sandra Kaplan

Gay Roby and LaRie Colosimo, BTSA Cluster 4 Region Directors

All of the BTSA Cluster 4 program sponsors, directors, and coordinators who
contributed information to support this study, with special thanks to the program
graduates who welcomed me into their classrooms.

John Meadows and the technical services of BTSASupport.com.
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ………………………………………………………………. ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS …………………………………………………… iii

LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………… v

LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………….. vi

ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………. vii

CHAPTER ONE ……………………………………………………………… 1

CHAPTER TWO ……………………………………………………………... 12

CHAPTER THREE …………………………………………………………… 60

CHAPTER FOUR …………………………………………………………….. 83

CHAPTER FIVE ……………………………………………………………... 134

REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………….. 143

APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………... 152
v

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Elements of Exemplary Teacher Education ……………………….. 18
Table 2.2: Developmental History of Induction Systems in California ……….. 30
Table 2.3: Old and New Induction Standards Alignment ……………………... 32
Table 2.4: Additional Induction Program Design Elements …………………… 34
Table 2.5: Required Outcomes ………………………………………………… 38
Table 2.6: How Competing ideas of Standards-Based Accountability
Influence BTSA ……………………………………………………………….. 45

Table 2.7: NSDC Guiding Principles and Vision ……………………………... 58
Table 3.1: Factory Model and Professional Learning Community
Characteristics …………………………………………………………………. 79

Table 3.2: Program Design Characteristics Rubric …………………………… 80
Table 4.1: Which formative assessment system did your program adopt
or use with participating teachers who completed your program in
July 2007? …………………………………………………………………….. 89

Table 4.2: How frequently are participants required to meet with a
support provider? …………………………………………………….……….. 90

Table 4.3: Descriptive Data ………………………………………….……….. 92
Table 4.4: PLC Score Distribution ……………………………….………….. 105
Table 4.5: SPC Results ………………………………………….…………… 126
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Successively Contextualized Layers …………………………….. 54
Figure 4.1: Boxplot ………………………………………………………….. 93
Figure 4.2: Stem-and-Leaf Display ………………………………………….. 94
vii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to investigate what variations of induction
program design features define teacher quality. First, the study will discover and
classify the range of features that govern the functioning of new teacher induction
programs in the Los Angeles County area. Second, the instructional quality of a
sample program graduates will be assessed. To direct this purpose the following
research questions have been established: 1) What is the variability among induction
program design features? 2) What induction program design features define greater
teacher quality? The purpose of this study is inductive in nature. Therefore, a
predominately qualitative inquiry process has been selected for data collection. This
study is designed to collect data for the purpose of establishing a theory of effective
induction program design that defines teacher quality.

1
CHAPTER ONE
Overview of the Study
Introduction
For the past 20 years there has been a growing emphasis in literature related
to educational reform expressing a desire for teaching to be considered a true
profession with excellent teachers in every classroom who are held accountable for
their professional practice (Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, 1986;
Holmes Group, 1986; NCTAF, 1996). To address this desire, an ever-increasing
number of States and countries have implemented legislated induction programs
targeting the development of teachers in their first years of professional practice.
However, according to Carver and Katz (2004), many induction programs are
narrowly focused on providing short-term support for immediate problems rather
than on ongoing teacher development. Unfortunately, it is the low-performing, high-
poverty urban school that suffers the most from this kind of narrowly applied
application of induction services (Haycock, 1998).
Who are the teachers that populate low-performing, high-poverty urban
schools? According to the research of Darling-Hammond and Sykes (2003) the
greatest challenge complicating the unequal distribution of teachers is the exodus of
beginning teachers from these schools. They cite compelling research that reveals a
50% higher teacher turnover rate in high-poverty schools than in more affluent ones.
New teachers are more likely to exit or transfer out of these urban schools than
suburban schools. This level of turnover leaves a void of experience in urban schools
2
that is perpetually filled by a revolving door of inexperienced teachers. This
population of inexperienced teachers includes individuals in the alternative route
(pre-service + induction) and induction career stages. Since teacher effectiveness
rises sharply only after the first few years of classroom experience (Hanushek, Kain,
& Rivkin, 1998; Kain & Singleton, 1996), it is no wonder that teacher quality is
dramatically lower at these schools.
All students must have access to high quality teachers and, as it has been
described above, the distribution of high quality teachers, in the context of high-
poverty urban schools, is inequitable. In an effort to provide quality assurance, the
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) sponsored Senate Bill (SB)
2042. The Governor of California signed this legislation in 1998 (Alper/Mazzoni,
Ch. 548, Statutes of 1998). The essence of the bill concerned itself with the revision
of the standards and processes for teacher certification in California, to include pre-
service (preliminary credential programs) and in-service (clear credential programs).
As a direct result, the initial in-service phase associated with the recommendation for
the California Clear Multiple and Single Subject Teaching Credential was relocated
from institutions of higher education to an already existing system of induction in-
service in California, the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA)
Program. For the first time in California, local school districts and consortia of
districts became responsible for recommending teachers for their Clear Credentials.
The Standards for Quality and Effectiveness for Teacher Induction Programs (2002)
stipulate elements of knowledge and skill that participating teachers must
3
demonstrate in order to be recommended for professional clear credentials. The
programs themselves are responsible for recommending only those teachers who
effectively demonstrate all knowledge and skill elements in the context of their
classrooms.
At the time of this study there were 157 Commission approved induction
programs in California serving nearly all the counties and school districts in the state
(www.btsa.ca.gov). All newly credentialed multiple and single subject teachers in
California are required to successfully complete the program associated with their
district of employment in order to maintain their certification and be recommended
for their Clear Credentials. The question that must be explored now is does
California’s teacher induction system work to increase teacher quality? Although the
California Department of Education (CDE) and the CTC have been tracking the
BTSA program in California with regard to the outcome of increased teacher
retention, the question of the program’s impact on teacher quality has never been
thoroughly examined.
However, the questions associated with the output of teacher quality and
induction is not just isolated to California’s teacher induction program. In 2004, SRI
International, a private and non-profit research institute, submitted to the US
Department of Education a literature review of induction programs. “The main goals
of the review were to learn what the existing literature tells us about (1) whether
induction programs affect teacher retention and teacher quality (particularly in terms
of student achievement) and (2) which components of induction programs are the
4
most promising in terms of improving teacher retention and teacher quality (again,
particularly in terms of student achievement).” Although the goals of the review
seem promising in intent, the overall outcome of the study proved to be ultimately
disappointing in that it was unable to make any definitive connections between
effective program elements.
California has been very diligent in its self-study and reporting of data related
to teacher retention linked to its induction program. In fact new teachers who
participate in a BTSA Program are significantly more likely to remain in the teaching
profession than those teachers who do not participate in a BTSA Program (Tushnet
et al, 2002). Unfortunately, as Darling-Hammond and Sykes (2003) point out, its
uneven implementation across the state makes definitive conclusions about very
specific elements that contribute to retention, let alone teacher effectiveness, difficult
to ascertain.
The responsibility of licensure and need to provide equitable assess to high
quality teachers is a duty that demands assurances of quality for the public and for
program participants. To assure the equitable development of quality teachers who
are recommended for Clear Multiple and Single Subject Credentials across the state
of California, an analysis of differing program features and their effect on teacher
quality must be conducted. We must discover the extent of variations among
program design features and we must discover which programs are more likely to
produce the highest quality teachers. These answers must be exposed if California
teacher educators and induction-service providers hope to successfully contribute to
5
the mitigation of inequitable access to quality teachers in high-poverty urban
schools.
The Statement of the Problem
One of the primary purposes of the induction programs in California is to
increase teacher quality and teacher retention across the state
(www.btsa.ca.gov/BTSA_basics.html). There is sufficient evidence to support the
fact that California’s BTSA Induction program has positively affected teacher
retention statewide (Tushnet et al., 2002). However, the affect of the program on
teacher quality remains relatively unexamined.
The discovery of data that would help facilitate the comparison of teacher
quality between programs for the purpose of identifying specific design features that
are more likely to predict the development of higher quality teachers is complicated
by the unique set of conditions associated with the imbeddedness of the programs
within K-12 institutions. For example, the program standards specify that induction
programs coordinate and collaborate with multiple, preexisting stakeholders
(specified in Induction Standards 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 11) to include: human resource
departments, professional development departments, K-12 administrators, district
administrators, teacher associations/unions, and teacher preparation/internship
programs.
Despite the existence of a fixed set of induction program standards
(Standards for Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction
Programs, 2002) that govern all program designs and specify program outcomes and
6
participating teacher outcomes, the standards do not dictate specific program
policies, procedures, or theoretical frameworks for accomplishing these outcomes.
Therefore, specific program design elements are potentially as varied as the districts
and counties within which they are located.
The predicted variability of designs that are likely to be at work from
program to program provides a great opportunity for comparison and contrast with
regards to program outputs. Specifically, what programs are producing exemplary
candidates upon program completion and what common program design features and
systems do these benchmark programs share?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to conduct a summative evaluation of BTSA
Induction Program designs. Although specific recommendations for program
improvement are beyond the scope of this study, it does intend to provide a rich
source of coded and classified information linking variations in program design
features to the outcome of teacher quality. To meet the intended purpose, the
methods and research that are to follow have been designed and executed in two
stages. First, the study discovered and classified the range of features that govern the
functioning of existing BTSA induction programs. Second, the instructional quality
of program graduates sampled from representative programs was assessed. The
purposeful selection of representative programs was conducted to achieve a
maximum variation sample. To direct this purpose the following research questions
have been established:
7
1. What is the variability among induction program design features?
2. What induction program design features define teacher quality?
Importance of the Study
The importance of this study reaches out from within the community of
BTSA Induction Program leaders. These leaders at the state and local levels will be
able to use the discoveries exposed by this study to inform current and future
program designs and processes. It is also the intent of this study to contribute to the
larger community of teacher educators and in-service providers within California and
beyond who are working to improve the systems and processes that support and
develop new teachers through the induction phase of their careers.
By establishing the outcome of teacher quality as the comparative indicator
of effective program design, this study will serve as a source of benchmark design
features that can be accessed by the afore mentioned audiences to inform the
improvement of current systems and policies of teacher induction. Additionally, the
legislation and actions that will govern the designs of future systems of teacher
induction will be better prepared to engage in more purposeful planning that targets
the given indicator of teacher quality.
Ultimately, the greatest importance of this study is its potential to inform in-
service development of teachers in a manner that positively impacts the need for high
quality teachers for all students. By providing evidence of design features that are
more likely to define the development of higher quality teachers, this study will
contribute to the ever growing dialogue that is gradually revealing the best paths and
8
practices in teacher education, teacher induction, and ongoing professional
development that is working to guarantee that all children have equitable access to a
high quality teacher and a high quality educational experience.
Limitations
The time for data collection for this study is limited to six months and was
collected in two stages. First, data was collected to discover the variation among
BTSA Induction design features. Second, data was collected from program graduates
in purposefully selected programs representing maximum variations in design
features to define the quality of each teacher’s instructional practice.
Data to support the purposeful selection of maximum variation samples of
BTSA program design features was collected from BTSA Induction Programs that
are members of BTSA Cluster Region 4 for convenience purposes. The author of this
study was the coordinator of a BTSA Induction Program located within Cluster 4.
The data used to establish the maximum variation sample was reported by each of
the individual program directors and may vary in actual implementation and may not
fully represent all variances in design features statewide. However, Region 4
includes a range of local school communities in the greater Los Angeles County area
that is inclusive of the range of communities found statewide in California to include
urban to rural, high to low-income, high performing to low performing, etc. Cluster 4
is the largest of the six BTSA Cluster Regions and at the time of this study contained
26% of the statewide programs.
9
Data to support the analysis of teacher quality was collected from two
teachers from each of the purposefully selected maximum variation sample
programs. The quantity of subjects studied was limited for convenience purposes
related to the limited time frame for data collection and limited resources. The
population was purposefully limited to second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade
teachers who have completed the Commission-approved induction program for each
of their local districts, been recommended by the local program for their clear
credentials, were in their third year of contracted employment as a classroom
teacher, and had persisted in consistent employment for all three years at the same
school site. Subjects were randomly selected from this limited population in each
selected program. Observational data of subjects was collected during
English/language arts instructional periods. Each subject was only observed once.
These population limitations have been put in place to simplify the analysis of data
that will be used to inform the assessment of instructional quality for each subject.
Other factors besides the design features of an individual teacher’s induction
program that might contribute to the overall quality of instructional practice that one
illustrates after program completion are not part of this study.
Delimitations
The following study gathered quantitative and qualitative data to include
surveys, observations, interview protocols, and documents reviews from
purposefully sampled induction programs and program participants. The limited
scale and the qualitative elements of this study do restrict the generalization of
10
findings from program to program. However, the data was purposefully selected
from maximum variation program samples in order to ensure the relevance of data
and conclusions.
Assumptions
Program directors surveyed during the first stage of this study are assumed to
be knowledgeable, honest, and thorough in their reporting of design features that
their programs implement.
Based on the theoretical framework of sociocultural pedagogy, it is also
assumed that participation in and completion of a Commission-approved induction
program has a significant impact on the quality of a teacher’s instructional practice.
Additionally, the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP)
are assumed to be a reliable framework for the gathering of data that evidences a
teacher’s instructional practice. It is also assumed that the Five Standards for
Effective Pedagogy and the Standards Performance Continuum (SPC), created and
validated by the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence
(CREDE), are reliable tools for the assessment of a given teacher’s ability to
effectively teach culturally and linguistically diverse students and therefore reliable
tools for measuring teacher quality.
11
Definition of Terms
Clear Credential: Tier two teacher credential issued to preliminary multiple and
single subject credentialed teachers upon the completion of a Commission approved
induction program.
Commission-approved induction program: A professional teacher induction
program, in California, that has demonstrated the ability to meet the Standards for
Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction Programs and
therefore is authorized to recommend preliminary multiple and single subject
teachers for their clear credentials upon program completion.
Induction: The initial period of practice for new teachers spanning from one to five
years.
Induction Portfolio: A collection of artifacts that documents evidence that supports
an individual’s completions of a Commission approved induction program
Preliminary Credential: Tier one teacher credential issued after successful
completion of a multiple and/or single subject teacher preparation program.

12
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
Introduction
The answer to the question of what constitutes a quality induction program is
not as clear as one would hope. In 2004, SRI International, a private and non-profit
research institute, submitted to the US Department of Education a literature review
of induction programs. “The main goals of the review were to learn what the existing
literature tells us about (1) whether induction programs affect teacher retention and
teacher quality (particularly in terms of student achievement) and (2) which
components of induction programs are the most promising in terms of improving
teacher retention and teacher quality (again, particularly in terms of student
achievement).” The clear connections to the purposes of this proposal are certainly
promising but the overall outcome of the study proved to be ultimately disappointing
in that it was unable to make any definitive connections between effective program
elements. Although California has been very diligent in its self-study and reporting
of data related to teacher retention linked to its induction program, as Darling-
Hammond and Sykes (2003) point out, its uneven implementation across the state
makes definitive conclusions about very specific elements that contribute to
retention, let alone effectiveness, difficult to ascertain.
The purpose of the study that is to follow this review of literature concerned
with conducting an investigation to sift through the variability of California
induction program designs in search of features that define teacher quality. This
13
review of literature is structured to inform a framework for investigation of this
study’s research questions: 1) What is the variability among induction program
design features? 2) What induction program design features define teacher quality?
Before an investigation of the variability of induction program designs can be
conducted, the context defining the purpose and function of the induction of new
teachers must be defined. The initial sections of this review are designed to establish
the context in which new teachers and the induction programs exist. First, the phases
of teacher development (preservice, induction, and inservice) that serve the purpose
of effectively developing teachers to teach diverse populations of students will be
outlined. Specific attention will be paid to how each phase contributes to the
enculturation of new teachers to successfully teach diverse student populations.
Second, a global and local view of induction systems that are currently in
action will be presented to outline current trends and common practices. To maintain
a consistency of context with California’s mandated induction system, the global
view is focused specifically on reporting on mandated systems of induction
nationally and internationally as an introduction to the overview of California’s
induction system. The outline of California’s system will include a legislative history
and a detailed description of the current mandated program standards and design
elements defined by the program standards.
Once the context of induction has been located, the research questions of this
study will be reinitiated within this context. If we are to discover what induction
program design features define teacher quality, we must first define what constitutes
14
effective professional development activities that promote increased teacher quality.
Characteristics of effective professional development will be presented to include
standards of professional development and effective pedagogical standards and
indicators of effective practice. This review will conclude by returning to our first
research question that seeks to discover the variability among induction program
designs. The characteristics of systems and programs that promote and maintain
effective professional development activities will be reported and will be established
as the framework for investigation and classification of design variables.
Contextualizing Induction Systems: Location and Action
Learning-to-Teacher Continuum: A Reform-Minded Framework of Life-Long
Learning
Bartell (2005) provides an overview of various theories of teacher
development. “The characterization of the induction phase is fairly consistent across
these theories” (2005). Even if the labels assigned to different stages of teacher
development vary slightly, the key understanding is the interdependence of the
stages of teacher development within a lager context (Fessler and Christiansen, 1992;
Berliner, 1994; and Feiman-Nemser, 2003). Schools are complex arenas of shifting
frames (Bolman and Deal, 2002). Learning-to-teach is not an outcome but rather a
continuum of life-long learning with a specific philosophical and theoretical
framework.
Consider the effect that increased accountability and accessibility to data has
had on education in recent years. Teaching is increasingly becoming more public.
15
Yet, despite the growing impact of the footprint of education on the general public,
teachers and teaching remains hidden behind classroom doors and behind complex
systems and social conditions that obfuscate outcomes. Studies of self-worth and
professional practice reveal the need to feel effective as a key factor in maintaining
motivation, perseverance, and continued learning (Eccles and Wigfield, 2002; Clark
and Estes, 2002). Teachers must exist in a constant state of adaptation to groups of
students and individual students who populate their classrooms if they are to meet
the needs of all students. One-size-fits-all teaching will not carry students to success.
Teaching must be proactive and responsive (Tomlinson, 1999; Gregory and
Chapman, 2002). This means that a vision of effective teaching must include a model
of on going learning that is what Feiman-Nemser (2001) calls “reform-minded”.
A reform-minded model of teaching and learning-to-teach is based on the
research supporting current learning theories that are oriented toward the purpose of
standards-based social and academic success for all students. Feiman-Nemser (2001)
cites theories such as “teaching for understanding” (Cohen, McLaughlin, & Talbert,
1993), and “constructivist pedagogy” (Fosnot, 1996) as examples. However, the
theory and practice of “differentiated instruction” (Tomlinson, 1999; Gregory and
Chapman, 2002) and “professional learning communities” (Dufour, DuFour, Eaker,
and Many, 2006) are just as applicable.
The descriptions that follow will be divided into three categories along the
learning-to-teach continuum: preservice, induction, and inservice teacher
development. Each will be defined in terms of their learning needs. In other words,
16
what needs to be learned and developed in each stage in order to increase a teacher’s
ability to successfully teach all students and maintain the professional practice of
teaching over time?
Preservice Stage
This section of the literature review will concentrate on the learning needs of
preservice teachers that support their transition to the induction stage of their careers.
However, it should be noted that, due to the temporal irregularities of traditional
teacher education programs and alternative certification programs, the lines dividing
preservice and induction in the literature do become blurred. Zeichner and Conklin
(2005) provide a comprehensive and contemporary overview of these structures. In
short, during preservice development, especially in the context of alternative
certification programs, teachers may begin their professional practice as the teacher-
of-record prior to the completion, or even sometimes the beginning, of a teacher
credential/education program. This condition places this group of teachers in a
bifurcated realm of preservice/induction where they simultaneously face all the
issues and concerns of fully certified new teachers and preservice teachers. Although
this layered condition does add considerable complexity to the range of needs that an
untrained, or a not yet fully trained, but fully employed and accountable teacher must
face, a distinct separation between preservice and induction will be made in the
following sections to facilitate and simplify understandings. As such, preservice will
simply be defined as initial teacher education. This section will include a description
17
of the needs associated with the professional learning period prior to the completion
of a teacher education program.
Daring-Hammond (2006), in her case studies of exemplary teacher education
programs, describes six common elements (Table 2.1) that enabled graduates to enter
the induction phase of their careers “…armed with the knowledge and skills enabling
them to serve diverse students well and learn continuously form their practice”
(2006). These exemplary design elements provide a framework that informs the
needs of presevice teachers. They need to develop an understanding of learning and
developmentally appropriate subject matter pedagogy. They need to develop this
understanding via interwoven coursework and clinical experiences and inquiry-based
action research in the context of connected professional communities. Finally, they
need evaluative feedback of performance-based and authentic tasks grounded in a
common set of professional standards. Feiman-Nemser (2001) corroborates this
broad system-wide analysis of preservice needs. The validation of this needs
assessment is further punctuated by the success of preservice systems that address
these needs (Sunita, 2005; Thompson & Smith, Fall 2004 & Spring 2005; Costigan,
2004; Siebert, 2005; Dong, 2004).
18

Table 2.1: Elements of Exemplary Teacher Education
Element Description
Coherence All course work and clinical experiences are based on a
common, clear vision of good teaching grounded in an
understanding of learning.
Strong Core
Curriculum
Core curriculum is taught in the context of practice, grounded
in knowledge of child and adolescent development, learning
in social and cultural contexts, curriculum, assessment, and
subject matter pedagogy.
Extensive and
Connected Clinical
Experiences
Clinical experiences are carefully chosen to support the ideas
and practices presented in simultaneous, closely interwoven
coursework.
Inquiry Approach Theory and practice are connected through inquiry using case
methods, analysis of teaching and learning, and teacher
research. Leaning is applied to real problems and teachers are
developed as reflective practitioners.
School-University
Partnerships
School- and university-based faculty develops common
knowledge and shared beliefs and all candidates learn to
teach in professional communities modeling state-of-the-art
practice for diverse learners and collegial learning for adults.
Assessment Based
on Professional
Standards
Professional standards are used to evaluate teaching through
demonstrations of critical skills and abilities using
performance assessments and portfolios that support eh
development of “adaptive expertise.”
Adapted from Darling-Hammond, 2006
19
Induction Stage
When one considers the continuum of learning-to-teach as a life-long
process, it would be unreasonable to assume that a preservice program of study, no
matter how good, could ever fully prepare teachers to enter the classroom running at
maximum effectiveness (Moir & Gless, 2001). Yet, this is exactly what new teachers
are expected to do. This condition is unique to the culture of education and frames
the unique set of needs that arise for teachers in the induction stage of their careers
(Walsdorf & Lynn, 2002; Huberman, 1989). The reality is that new teachers have
two jobs—teaching and learning to teach (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Wildman, et al.,
1989).
The proliferation of induction programs in the US and abroad in the last 10
years punctuate the increasing acknowledgement of the importance of this phase in a
teacher’s development. Flores (2006) brings the needs of teachers in this phase into
perspective and reinforces the importance of the induction phase in the context of the
learning-to-teach continuum and the development of reform-minded educators. By
charting the development of a cohort of new teachers in northern Portugal in various
instructional settings, void of any formal induction program, over the course of their
first two-years of teaching, Flores reveals the conditions that draw teachers away
from reform-minded practices of effective instruction. In short, when settings are
lacking in induction and support from colleagues and school leaders “…new teachers
developed a set of coping strategies, according to a survival orientation, to adapt to
the new tasks and roles required of them as teachers” (2006).
20
…according to teachers’ own perceptions, over the 2-year period, a more
inductive and student-centered approach to teaching gave way to a more
traditional and teacher-centered one. Most of the new teachers admitted that
they adopted a more formal style of teaching as time went on. A recurring
pattern was found in new teacher’s accounts: lecturing / explaining new
topics, students working on their own and assessing their own work, leaving
behind issues of flexibility, individuality, and responsiveness which were key
elements in their depictions of good teaching at the beginning of their first
year of teaching (2006).

The causes of this transformation away from a reform-minded model that Flores
reveals—such as, being overwhelmed by the amount and variety of duties expected
to perform at school, problems dealing effectively with classroom management, and
issues of teacher socialization in the workplace—have been well documented in the
decades of research and analysis of this subject that preceded Flores’ study
(Charnock & Kiley, 1995; Cooke & Pang, 1991; Veenman, 1984). But what do the
struggles of her subjects reveal about the needs of teachers in the induction phase of
their careers? Specifically, what do they need in order to sustain and move forward
on a reform-minded path of effective life-long learning?
The literature is rich with checklists of operational “dos and don’ts” to
support teachers in the induction phase of their careers (Renard, 2003; Walsdorf &
Lynn, 2002; Weasmer & Woods, 2000). However functional these list are they do
not address the underlying and confounding place that new teachers find themselves
in once they are alone in their classrooms. Long (2004) tracked graduates of
University of South Carolina’s Masters in the Art of Teaching program into their
first years of teaching and reported on the “place” that her subjects found themselves
in as they passed into the induction phase of their careers.
21
The absence of administrative and/or collegial support for new ideas and
ongoing learning made the 1
st
years of teaching extremely difficult. The
challenge to maintain convictions and continue to grow in the face of systems
that did not embrace change was over whelming. Some of the new teachers
soon saw themselves changing in ways that they had not predicted. As one
teacher summed it up: “What happens when you leave a university that was
formed because of its desire to change the world through education and go
into a school that hates the very meaning of change is that you change”
(Long, 2004).

Flores (2006) describes this space in terms of the binary opposition of
idealized/realized that is at play around the teachers in their new environments. The
subjects presented by Flores are learning while doing “thus ‘(trans)forming’ their
professional identities” (2006)—simultaneously forming a concept of practice
through trial and error action that supports basic survival needs while transforming
the theory of practice that was already learned but not internalized into practice.
Sabar’s (2004) study of a cohort of teachers during their first two years of
practice in Israel reflects this same conflicted dichotomy and expands the
conceptualization of this struggle by equating the new teachers’ experience to that of
migrants or immigrants. “Both groups [immigrants/new teachers] begin as strangers,
marginal people who experience a cultural shock and need to make a journey of
cultural transition” (2004). Therefore, the needs of teachers in the induction phase
emerge in the transition from one world, the world of theory, to another world, the
world of practice. The function of an induction system then is to facilitate this need
for cultural transition in such a way as to maintain the idealized identity of reform-
minded theory that new teachers bring with themselves to the induction phase of
their careers while they simultaneously become citizens of contrasted, realized
22
school communities. This kind of oppositional angst is well documented in the socio-
cultural theories of marginalized/colonized/out-group peoples (Anzaldúa, 1987;
Spivak, 1990; Minh-ha, 1989). The hegemony of the (educational) system is a
powerful force of layered social, political, operational, ideological, and historical
forces (Apple, 2004; Foucault, 1977). Therefore, solutions that support the needs of
teachers entering this world will rely on individual and system-wide commitments
and actions that support the cultural transition of new teachers that does not try to
tame the spirit of new teachers but capitalize on it (Weasmer, & Woods, 2000).
Inservice Stage
As was presented in the previous section of this review, the successful
support of teachers in the induction phase that meets their need to maintain and
promote a reform-minded model of practice is dependent on individual and system-
wide engagement in the solution. This commitment frames the needs of not-new,
inservice teachers as they continue their path along the learning-to-teach continuum.
All teachers, teacher-leaders, and administrators who have persevered and
survived beyond the induction stage populate this community of acculturated
inservice professionals. As a collective culture, they are the hegemonic-tool of
reproduction. This means that the needs of the inservice stage teacher(s) can only be
satisfied by conceptions of professional learning that are reflective of the reform-
minded model proposed earlier. Lieberman (1995) presents a framework grounded in
this same reasoning. “Teaching as telling, the model that has dominated pedagogy
and the consequent organization of schooling to date, is being called into question as
23
professional learning for teachers increasingly connects to this reconsidered view of
schools” (1995). During the inservice stage, conventional view of staff development
needs to be (re)conceptualized to reflect a reform-minded model in action. Processes,
practices, and policies must be built on this view. A view that is student/learner-
centered, authentic, proactive, and responsive. This need is addressed by such system
models as professional learning communities (Dufour, DuFour, Eaker, and Many,
2006), cited earlier, or what Senge (1990) calls the disciplines of a learning
organization. Whatever the label, inservice teachers need to exist in communities of
learners that work to reflect and reproduce learning in much the same way that new
teachers want to realize for their students. Research (Darling-Hamond &
McLaughlin, 1995; Hawley & Valli, 1998) and professional organizations (National
Staff Development Council; National Council of Teachers of English) alike reflect
the benefits of this mission on teachers and students.
The second half of this review will report on effective professional
development and professional communities in greater detail after the context of
induction has been fully located. To serve this end, the following sections will report
on induction systems globally and locally. It will describe the intent of mandated
systems nationally and internationally and will conclude with an explication of
California’s current mandated induction system.
Induction Systems In Action: Current Trends and Common Practices
With the needs that induction systems must serve to support reform-minded
engagement located in the leaning-to-teach continuum, this review will now report
24
on the systems that are currently at work supporting teachers during the induction
phase. The information and examples that follow have been selected to illuminate
elements of induction program designs that will inform an understanding of the
current tends and common practices. Program goals, structures, services, and
outcomes that are reported in current literature will be presented. This information
will be presented in two contexts. First, mandated induction systems existing outside
of California will be briefly described. Next, because the focus of this study will be
limited to California’s mandated teacher induction system, a more detailed overview
of California’s system will be explicated to include a history of the development of
the system in California and a description of the program’s current incarnation.
Mandated Induction Programs: Catalysts for Educational Reform
In order to facilitate the development of teachers through the induction phase
of their careers and meet the needs of teachers as they transition out of teacher
preparation programs, persist beyond induction, and continue to develop and grow as
effective educators, many states and countries have developed policy mandating the
existence of teacher induction programs. In a literature review on preparing and
supporting new teachers in the United States commissioned by the U. S. Department
of Education, it was reported that, at the time of the study, 35 states in the U. S. had
some form of statewide induction program with 21 states mandating participation in
an induction program for all beginning teachers—four of these mandated programs
connected participation to licensure or credential renewal (California, Delaware,
25
Ohio, and Pennsylvania)—and 22 states designated state funding annually to support
induction activities and programs (Humphrey et al., 2000).
According to Smith and Ingersoll (2004), during the 1999-2000 school year
83% of all beginning public school teachers in the U. S. participated in some form of
induction program. However, they also reported, “…induction programs can range
from a single-day orientation to more enduring activities that attempt to tie new
teacher into cooperative and collaborative networks of new and experienced
teachers” (2004). The vast proliferation of a wide range of induction program design
variables in the U. S. allowed Smith and Ingersoll the opportunity to study the effects
of different induction variables on teacher turnover (defined as leaving the profession
or moving to another school). After controlling for variations in teacher and school
characteristics they were able to calculate predicted probabilities of turnover after the
first year of teaching. They organized their data into four different “induction
packages”:
1. No induction (41% teacher turnover)
2. Basic induction (39% teacher turnover)
• Mentor from either the beginning teacher’s own field or another
field
• Supportive communication with their principal, other
administrators, or the department chair
3. Basic induction + collaboration (27% teacher turnover)
• Mentor from either the beginning teacher’s own field
26
• Supportive communication with their principal, other
administrators, or the department chair
• Common planning time or regularly scheduled collaboration with
other teacher in their subject areas
• Seminar for beginning teachers
4. Basic induction + collaboration + teacher network + extra
resources (18% teacher turnover)
• All four variables listed above plus three others)
• Participation in an external network of teachers
• Reduced number of preparations
• A teacher’s aide
The impact that induction programs have on the retention of beginning
teachers has inspired the development of induction programs beyond the U. S., as
well. The first European country to introduce a mandatory induction program was
England in 1999. Scotland and Wales soon followed suit in 2002 and 2003
respectively (Killeavy, 2006). Outside of Europe, Israel was developing its
mandatory induction system parallel to England’s. However, in Israel, the Ministry
of Education had designated a need to implement a system of teacher induction
“similar to programs which train doctors, psychologists, social workers, and
lawyers” two-decades earlier but never implemented due to “financial problems”
(Hoz & Peretz, 1996).
27
Olebe (2005) notes in her review of induction program research that,
although there may be some great differences in “breadth and depth of induction
programs” in the United States and abroad there are certain hallmarks that prevail: a)
individualized teacher support to include mentoring and/or observations and
classroom visitations, reflective journals, and formative assessments; b) professional
development activities such as employer-sponsored workshops, university
coursework, and conferences as well as collaborative networking with other teachers;
c) employer-sponsored programs that are resourced and sponsored by local school
districts to provide a process of services to include employee workshops, health and
safety training, and procedural meetings. The presence of these prevailing elements
does not, however, constitute an induction program that increases the effectiveness
of teacher participants.
Berry and Hopkins-Thompson (2002), in their review of the progress of
southeastern states in developing quality induction programs, note that the presence
of an induction program is not enough to ensure the development of effective
teachers beyond the preservice stage of development. They conclude, “Effective
induction programs for teachers must:
• “Provide novice teachers with opportunities to observe and analyze good
teaching in real classrooms, with real teachers and real students;
• “Assist novices in transferring the acquired knowledge, skills, beliefs, and
attitudes needed to improve student learning;
28
• “Provide novices with on-going guidance and assessment by an expert in
the field, who has been trained as a mentor;
• “Reduce novices’ work load to provide more learning time;
• “Assist novices, through mentor support, in their efforts to meet licensure
standards;
• “Include rigorous evaluations that determine the effectiveness of the
program and provide information that can be used to continuously
improve the program; and
• “Invest in rigorous new-teacher assessments” (Berry and Hopkins-
Thompson, 2002).
Although the specific elements described in the literature analyzing “effective
induction programs” vary slightly from those presented by Berry and Hopkins-
Thompson (2002), the differences are only semantic. The underlying theme reaching
across the literature is clear—effective induction program experiences are dependant
upon conditions that reach beyond the provision of funding, mentors, and
workshops. Effective induction programs address the fact that the induction phase of
teaching is more than just a period of skill development. It is a period of
enculturation and socialization. Effective systems of induction acknowledge this dual
purpose of pedagogical and social-cultural development of teachers in the induction
phase of their careers and are characterized by the commitment of community and
collaboration to meet this purpose (Lazovsky & Reichenberg, 2006; Smith &
Ingersoll, 2004; Wong, 2002; Moir & Gless, 2001; Williams, 2001).
29
California’s Induction System: From Voluntary Support Program to
Credentialing Agent

California emerged as a front-runner early on in the induction program
revolution described above. The grassroots proliferation and legislative support of
the BTSA Program, born out of the University of California Santa Cruz New
Teacher Project in 1988, across the state of California is primarily due to one
outcome, increased teacher retention. New teachers who participate in a BTSA
program are significantly more likely to remain in the teaching profession than those
teachers who do not participate in a BTSA Program (Tushnet et al., 2002). Olebe
(2001) provides a comprehensive history of the program’s legislated expansion and
development for its first ten years of existence (Table 2.2). The capstone on the
history that Olebe provides ends with the description of the current legislative
mandate governing teacher preparation and induction in California, Senate Bill (SB)
2042. The passage of SB 2042 in 1998 (Alpert/Mazzoni, Ch. 548, Statues of 1998)
marked a turning point for induction in California and the U. S. This pivotal piece of
legislation bound the State sponsored induction program to teacher credentialing in
California. Olebe ends her overview with the following specialized prediction:
The credentialing reforms invoked by SB 2042, coupled with other
provisions of the education code on the content of professional licensure
programs, will place expectations on local BTSA programs that will
fundamentally change not only the content and structure of the program, but
the also the perceived importance of induction as a function of local
education agencies (Olebe, 2001).

The passage of SB 2042 governed the redesign of both preservice programs of initial
teacher education and induction programs.
30

Table 2.2: Developmental History of Induction Systems in California
Date Legislation Mandate Induction Systems Program Purposes
1988 SB148 Examine alternative models for
supporting and assisting the
professional induction of first-
and second-year teachers, and
assessing their competence and
performance in the classroom

California New Teacher
Project (1988-1992)
• 37 local pilot
programs
• 3,000 beginning
teachers
• 8.8 million expended
• Outcomes reported in
Success for Beginning
Teachers: The
California New
Teacher Project
(CCTC, 1992)
California New Teacher Project
principle components:
• Individualized mentoring
support
• Curriculum and instruction
workshops
• Teacher self-assessment
1992 SB 1422 Establish an integrated system
of new teacher support and
assessment that implements the
policies and processes for
supporting and assessing new
teachers reported and
recommended in Success for
Beginning Teachers
Beginning Teacher Support
and Assessment (BTSA)
Program (1992-1997)
• Jointly administered
by the California
Commission on
Teacher Credentialing
and the California
Department of
Education via a
competitive grant
process
• Teacher and
organizational
participation was
voluntary
• Research driven
incremental program
change and growth
• Grant awards grew
from 15 to 33
programs
• State funding grew
from 4.9 million to
7.5 million
• Annual participation
increase from 1,700
to 2,480
• California Standards
of the Teaching
Profession (CSTP)
and the Standards of
Quality and
Effectiveness for
BTSA Programs
developed
BTSA (1992-1997)
• Provide an effective
transition for teachers
entering the induction phase
of their careers (first and
second year)
• Improve the educational
performance of students
• Retain high effective teachers
• Identify individual needs for
feedback, assistance, and
training to ensure the
development of excellent
teachers
• Improve the rigor and
consistency of teacher
performance assessments and
improve the usefulness of
assessment results for
teachers and leaders
• Establish an effective and
coherent system pf
performance assessments
based on common standards
describing teachers know and
be able to do
• Examine alternative ways to
assure the public and
educational professionals that
teachers who are retained in
the professional are
acceptably competent
(California Education Code
Section 44279.2).
31
Table 2.2, continued.
1997 AB
1266
Establish BTSA as a
statewide system and
update education code
(California Education
Code Section 44279.2) to
include additional
program purposes.
BTSA Program Statewide Expansion
(1997-2001)
• Statewide funding grew from 17.5
million to 87.4 million
• Grant awards grew from 60 to 145
programs
• To support local program
leadership, the state is divided into
five regional clusters
• 1998 the California Formative
Assessment and Support System for
Teachers (CFASST), designed and
produced in collaboration with
Education Testing Services, is
adopted as BTSA’s official system
of formative assessment for new
teachers
BTSA Statewide Expansion
(1998-2000)
• Enable beginning teachers
to be effective in teaching
students who are culturally,
linguistically and
academically diverse
• Ensure that a support
provider provides intensive
individualized support and
assistance to each
participating teacher
• Establish an effective,
coherent system of
performance assessments
that are based on the CSTP
• Ensure that an individual
induction plan is in place
for each participating
teacher and is based on
ongoing assessment of the
development of the
beginning teacher
• Ensure continuous program
improvement through
ongoing research,
development and
evaluation
1998 SB
2042
Requires the completion
of a two-year induction
program to obtain a
professional clear
credential
BTSA Induction Program (2002-present)
• Participation in BTSA becomes
attached to licensure
• To meet the new requirements
attached to licensure the Standards
of Quality and Effectiveness for
Professional Teacher Induction
Programs are developed and
adopted in March 2002
BTSA Induction Program (2002-
present)
• Teachers must complete a
two-year induction
program of support and
formative assessment
during the first two years of
teaching as a requirement
for earning a professional
teaching credential.
Adapted from Olebe, 2001

Because of the mandates of SB 2042, the two-tiered teacher credentialing
process in California is no longer the sole responsibility of institutions of higher
education. Multiple and single subject teachers still earn their initial (preliminary)
credential upon the completion of a preservice teacher education program (or
internship program). However, new multiple and single subject teachers now earn
their professional (clear) credential upon the completion of a Commission-approved
32
induction program. To accommodate this new responsibility and meet the mandates
of SB 2042 the Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for BTSA Programs (CTC,
1997) were redesigned into the Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for
Professional Teacher Induction Programs (CTC 2002). Table 2.3 parallels these two
sets of standards highlighting the alignment of similarities and additions.

Table 2.3: Old and New Induction Standards Alignment
Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for BTSA
Programs (1997)
Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional
Teacher Induction Programs (2002)
Standard 1: Sponsorship and Administration of the Program Standard 1: Sponsorship, Administration, and Leadership.
Standard 12: Allocation and Use of Resources Standard 2: Resources
Standard 13: Program Development, Evaluation and
Accountability
Standard 4: Evaluation
Standard 3: Collaboration
Standard 5: Articulation with Professional Teacher
Preparation Programs
Standard 7: Coordination and Communication
Standard 6: Selection of Support Providers/Assessors
Standard 10: Provision of Individualized Assistance and
Support by Support Providers/Assessors
Standard 8: Support Provider Selection and Assignment
Standard 7: Provision of Professional Development for
Support Providers/Assessors
Standard 9: Support Provider Professional Development
Standard 2: Program Rationale, Goals, and Design Standard 10: Program Design
Standard 4 School Context and Working Conditions
Standard 5: Roles and Responsibilities of Site Administrators
Standard 11: Roles and Responsibilities of K-12 Schools
Standard 9: Development and Use of Individualized
Induction Plans
Standard 12: Professional Development Based on an
Individual Induction Plan
Standard 8: Formative Assessment of Beginning Teacher
Performance
Standard 13: Formative Assessment Systems
Standard 3: Professional Development Providers
Standard 6: Advice and Assistance

Standard 14: Completion of the Professional Teacher
Induction Program

Standard 15: K-12 Core Academic Content and Subject
Specific Pedagogy

Standard 16: Using Technology to Support Student
Learning

Standard 17: Supporting Equity, Diversity and Access to
the Core Curriculum

Standard 18: Creating a Supportive and Healthy
Environment for Student Learning
Standard 19: Teaching English Learners
Standard 20: Teaching Special Populations
33
As it can be seen in Table 2.3, the number of program standards has
expanded from 13 BTSA Program Standards (1997) to 20 Induction Program
Standards (2002). The standards of 1997 were organized into three categories.
• Category I: Program Design, Organization and Context (Standards 1-5);
• Category II: Delivery of Integrated Support and Assessment of Beginning
Teachers (Standards 6-11); and
• Category III: Resources and Program Development (Standards 12-13).
The current standards are organized into two broad sections: Foundational Standards
for all Multiple and Single Subject Teacher Induction Programs (Standards 1-9) and
Implementation Standards for all Multiple and Single Subject Teacher Induction
Programs (10-20). The second section is subdivided into three subsections:
• A: Program Design (10-14)
• B: Teaching Curriculum to All Students in California Schools (15-16)
• C: Teaching All Students in California Schools (17-20)
The standards revision, although extensive, has kept the core concepts
outlined in the original 13 standards intact. Although many of the program
components contained within the original 13 standards of 1997 were carried over,
they were significantly built upon to create the standards of 2002. The new
responsibilities associated with BTSA’s transformation from a voluntary induction
and support program to a mandated credentialing agent required the addition of new
design elements. These additional standards are described in Table 2.4.
34

Table 2.4: Additional Induction Program Design Elements
New Induction Standards Description
Standard 3: Professional
Development Providers
Criteria for the selection and assignment of professional development
providers
Standard 6: Advice and Assistance Criteria for advising participating teachers about their professional
development and credential completion requirements
Standard 14: Completion of the
Professional Teacher Induction
Program
Program completion requirements and criteria for verifying program
completion to insure only those participating teachers who have met all
requirements will be recommended for a California clear credential
(including the demonstration of Standards 15-20)
Standards 15: K-12 Core
Academic Content and Subject
Specific Pedagogy
Criteria for participating teacher demonstration of increased knowledge
and ability to teach students utilizing content specific pedagogy in
alignment with the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, the
state-adopted academic content standards and performance levels for
students, and state-adopted curriculum frameworks.
Standard 16: Using Technology to
Support Student Learning
Criteria for participating teacher demonstration of increased knowledge
and ability to use appropriate computer-based technology to facilitate the
teaching and learning processes
Standard 17: Supporting Equity,
Diversity and Access to the Core
Curriculum
Criteria for participating teacher demonstration of increased knowledge
and ability to create environments that support learning for diverse
students, providing equitable access to the core curriculum, and enabling
all students to meet the State-adopted academic content standards and
performance levels for students
Standard 18: Creating a Supportive
and Healthy Environment for
Student Learning
Criteria for participating teacher demonstration of increased knowledge
and ability to deliver comprehensive support for students’ physical,
cognitive, emotional and social well being
Standard 19: Teaching English
Learners
Criteria for participating teacher demonstration of increased knowledge
and ability to deliver comprehensive, specialized instruction for English
learners
Standard 20: Teaching Special
Populations
Criteria for participating teacher demonstration of increased knowledge
and ability to teach students with disabilities, students in the general
education classroom who are at risk, and students who are gifted and
talented
35
Standards 3, 6, and 14 are logistical, program design criteria associated with
the responsibility of being a mandated credentialing agent for California. The most
notable additions, however, are contained in standards 15-20 (2002). In short, these
six standards contain 46 descriptive elements that outline knowledge, skills, and
abilities that Induction Standard 14 (Completion of the Professional Teacher
Induction Program) specifies new teachers must demonstrate in order to be
recommended for their Clear California Credentials. According to Induction
Standard 10 (Program Design), an induction program must have “…a coherent plan
to provide systematic opportunities for participating teachers to learn and apply the
principles, concepts and pedagogical practices for teaching English learners that
support mastery of the State-adopted academic content standards and performance
levels for students; for creating a healthy environment for student learning; for
supporting equity and diversity; for teaching special student populations; and for
using computer technology to support student learning, as described in Categories B
and C [Standards 15-20]” (2002). The Standards do not, however, specify the
structure or theoretical framework which a given induction program must utilize to
provide these opportunities. Due to the lack of specificity in the Induction Standards
related to how a given BTSA Induction Program provides opportunities for
participating teachers to learn and apply the elements described in Standards 15-20,
it is logical to assume that format and framework designs have the potential of
having great variability.
36
California Induction Program Design Feature Variability and Commonality
After an extensive review of the literature related to BTSA programs in
California, this researcher has been unable to discover any studies detailing the
variability among program design features since the adoption of the Induction
Standards of 2002. However, in the State Evaluation Study of BTSA published in
1999 (Mitchell, Scott, and Boyns, 1999), it was concluded (based on survey data)
that, “Regardless of how local BTSA programs are designed, where beginning
teachers are working in a context of positive support for themselves and their BTSA
programs, respondents agree that they develop substantially higher levels of ability
and confidence.” An independent outside evaluation of BTSA (Tushnet, et al., 2002)
made an attempt to further study the “effect of participating in BTSA on increasing
teachers’ knowledge and skills” using more rigorous research methods than those
applied in the 1999 study (i.e., survey of 400 second and third year teachers who
participated in BTSA program; observations of a subset of 40 of those teachers; a
short survey of student attitudes toward school, their teachers, and learning in the
classrooms of the BTSA teachers observed; and SAT 9 data, when available, for the
schools and teachers involved in BTSA programs). Ultimately, the report does not
draw any specific conclusions related to the statewide program’s ability to increase
participant knowledge and skill citing an inability to overcome the complexities of
assessing teacher effectiveness. However, the report does note that, “The
organizational diversity within BTSA presents a major challenge to effective
program implementation” (2002).
37
Despite the great potential for variability among program design features, the
Induction Standards do specify some design features that all Commission-approved
induction programs must implement. The cornerstone of these commonalities is
Induction Standard 14 (Completion of the Professional Teacher Induction Program).
Standard 14 defines the outcomes that each program must require from each
participant for program completion and recommendation for a clear credential. To
generate some of the outcomes required for program completion, the Induction
Standards have identified some specific features that all programs must have. The
required outcomes from Standard 14 and common design features that support these
outcomes are paralleled in Table 2.5.
To support the completion of requirements 2, 3, and 4b identified in Table 4,
all programs must utilize a valid formative assessment system as a tool for promoting
and documenting the professional growth of participating teachers (Induction
Standard 14). The selected system must be grounded in the California Standards of
the Teaching Profession (CSTP) and the state-adopted academic content standards
and frameworks and performance levels for students. It must be a process of
reflection upon a participating teacher’s practice produced in collaboration with a
support provider or mentor. The production and implantation of an annual Individual
Induction Plan, documenting planned professional growth activities based on
formative assessment information and individual needs, must also be part of the
adopted system.
38
Table 2.5: Required Outcomes
Program Completion Requirements (St.14) Common Design Features
1. Documentation of teaching performance assessment
outcomes from the professional teacher education
program, when available.
Not consistently available for participants at the
time of this study.
2. An annual Individual Induction Plan (IIP),
documenting planned professional growth activities
based on formative assessment information and
individual needs
All induction programs will support the
development and implementation of an
Individualized Induction Plan (IIP) for each
participant at least annually.
3. Demonstrated application of the CSTP and state-
adopted frameworks and adopted curriculum
materials in one content area in the context of his/her
instructional practice, showing response to individual
diverse student needs, beyond what was
demonstrated for the preliminary credential.
(Standards 13 &15)
All induction programs will adopt and implement
a formative assessment system for participating
teachers.

All participants must collect evidence to support
the demonstration of all of the elements described
in Standard 15.
4. Evidence of participation in professional
development activities including:
a. Attendance at planned events (Standard
12)
b. Consistent communication with a Support
Provider (Standard 8 & 9)
All induction programs will provide an array of
professional development activities that support
the demonstration of requirement #5.

Support providers must meet regularly with their
participating teachers to support engagement in
the adopted formative assessment system
5. Demonstrated knowledge of the following:
a. Using technology to support student
learning (Standard 16)
b. Equity, diversity, and access to the core
curriculum (Standard 17)
c. Creating a supportive and healthy
environment for student learning (Standard
18)
d. Teaching English learners (Standard 19)
e. Teaching special populations (Standard 20)
All participants must collect documentation to
support the demonstration of the elements
described in Standards 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20.

To support the completion of requirements 4a and 5, programs must provide
an array of professional development offerings that support the attainment of the
knowledge and skills needed to meet the individual competencies that must be
demonstrated in requirement five. Finally, all programs must require participants to
39
collect documentation to support the demonstration of all elements described in
Standards 15-20.
Even with these commonalities, there is still great room for variability among
program design features. The Induction Standards do not specify the form of
documentation participants must collect to support the demonstration of Standards
15-20, nor do they specify the procedure or criteria for assessing the documentation.
They do not specify the form, quantity, or frequency of the professional development
offerings that must be provided to support demonstration of standards 15-20.
Finally, as of the end of the 2006-2007 school year, there were two
commercially available formative assessment systems produced for consumption by
California induction programs: California Formative Assessment and Support
System for Teachers (CFASST) produced by Educational Testing Services (ETS)
and Formative Assessment System (FAS) produced by the University of California,
Santa Cruz New Teacher Center. Because these are the only two commercially
available products designed for consumption in California, it is likely that most local
induction programs have adopted one of these two systems. However, it should be
noted that the Induction Standards do not preclude a program from designing,
validating, and adopting a system of formative assessment unique to the local
program. It is expected that a small number of programs may utilize a locally
designed formative assessment system.
40
University of California Riverside: BTSA Evaluative Study (2007)
During the course of gathering data for this study and after construction of
the bulk of this literature review, a team of researchers at the University of California
Riverside (UCR) presented a technical report (Mitchell, et al., 2007) to the CTC
summarizing the results of an evaluative study of California BTSA and Intern
programs produced under contract to the California Department of Education (CDE)
as mandated in SB 1209 (Chapter 517, Statutes of 2006). Some of the findings of this
study related to BTSA Induction Programs are linked to the intent of this study and
deserve special note. As such this section of the literature review will present a
summary of the study design, findings, and recommendations. Much of the UCR
report’s content lies outside of this study’s intent; therefore, only relevant
information will be presented here. However, this researcher highly recommends that
parties interested in the study of systems of new teacher induction to seriously
consider all the contributions that the findings and recommendations presented in the
UCR report offer the community of teacher education and professional development
practitioners and researchers.
The research questions for the study were specified in SB 1209, “an omnibus
education bill with impact on thirty different provisions of the Education Code”
(http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/SB1209/default.html), and were directed
toward California BTSA and Intern Programs. The components of the guiding
questions relevant to BTSA Induction Programs are identified in the report as
follows (note that text specific to intern programs have been removed):
41
1. How well are BTSA programs meeting the objectives set forth in
Education Code 44279.1? That is, has BTSA supported:
a. Effective transition into teaching careers?
b. Improved pupil educational performance?
c. Effective teaching of diverse students (culturally, linguistically,
academically)?
d. Retention of successful teachers?
e. Intensive individualized support for new teachers?
f. Improved teacher rigor and consistency?
g. Coherent assessment based on CSTP?
h. Retention of professionally competent teachers?
i. Continued program improvement based on research?
2. What, if any, policy or program management decisions are needed to
ensure that beginning (Induction) teachers are prepared to address the
needs of special populations of students – especially English learners and
special education students?
3. What, if any, state, regional and/or local administrative structures could
improve the support services for Induction teachers?
4. What would be a sufficient level of funding for Induction teacher
programs, and what criteria should state agencies use to help facilitate
legislative passage of appropriate funding levels? How is funding divided
42
between infrastructure operations and direct support to new teachers? Is
this division the most effective use of funds?
5. What, if any, revisions of the BTSA Program Standards would facilitate
increased teacher competency and/or reduce engagement in unproductive
activities?
6. What, if any, changes in laws, regulations and/or policies would help
eliminate duplicative requirements, streamline and coordinate support
services for beginning teachers?
The evaluative conclusions and recommendations presented in the report
were based on detailed studies conducted at two separate levels: four population
studies and a comparative case study of 27 of the 28 programs that were scheduled
for external review (Induction Program Review) in 2007. The population studies
primarily utilized statistical analysis techniques applied to statewide, qualitative file
data covering all program participants available from the CDE and the CTC. The
bulk of the comparative case study phase of the research targeted a sub-sample of ten
of the 27 program samples scheduled for external Induction Program Review in 2007
and involved interviews with all key stakeholder groups.
The report begins with an historical and legislative overview of induction
programs in California. Additionally, a literature review of previous research related
to these programs is also presented. The content and sources presented in the
introductory sections of the UCR report parallel much of the same content and
sources presented in this literature review. Both overviews were constructed
43
separately but during the same general period of time so a high level of parallel
information and sources is to be expected. Because of the intent of the UCR study
however, the UCR report does present more focused information on BTSA program
funding and issues that have impacted the program’s funding history that are not
included in this literature review.
The data to support the report’s conclusions and recommendations was
gathered over the course of the 2006-2007 school year. The most relevant finding
that aligns with the intent of the study that is to follow this literature review is related
to the variability among BTSA induction program designs. According to the UCR
report, “The central driving idea that has given form and structure to the BTSA
programs is the concept of Standards-Based Accountability (SBA)” (2007). As this
study hypothesized in Chapter One, the UCR report concluded that there is great
variability among BTSA Induction Program designs. However, the reason for this
variation that emerged from the case study programs and interviews with
stakeholders of the seventeen sub-sample programs is the program-wide focus on
SBA. The UCR report concludes that the system of induction in California has
“evolved” with three competing ideas about how and why standards guide the
development of quality teachers. The three approaches are define as follows:
1. Program Delivery Standards Approach—“…standards specify what must
be done with and for new teachers in order to facilitate their professional
growth” (Mitchell, et al., 2007).
44
2. Performance Standards Approach—“…standards serve to describe and
specify what high performance teachers actually do in the schools to
facilitate efficient, equitable and comprehensive student achievement”
(Mitchell, et al., 2007).
3. Professional Capacity Standards Approach—“From this third perspective,
the target of teacher induction program is not so much program
implementation and/or teacher performance, as the development of
teachers who have the willingness and ability to accept and discharge
broad responsibility for student outcomes” (Mitchell, et al., 2007).
The study authors conclude that variations in design, implementation, and
documentation arise from the way in which the program stakeholders “…wrestle
with and align their efforts with one or more of these competing conceptions…”
(Mitchell, et al., 2007). A table illuminating these competing approaches and the
impact of each approach on program design features has been reproduced in Table
2.6.
45
Table 2.6: How Competing Ideas of Standards-Based Accountability Influence
BTSA
Using the Program
Delivery Standards
Approach
Using the Classroom
Performance Standards
Approach
Using the Professional
Capacity Standards Approach
Core Documents The Program
Standards document is
paramount
The specifications of
standards in the Formative
Assessment instruments
are dominant
The idea of professionalism
pointed toward by the California
Standards for the Teaching
Profession dominates
Seminar
Activities
Emphasize content and
required participation
Emphasize application and
utilization in classrooms
Emphasize theory and insight
development
Support Services Guide PTs in
executing required
activities (IIPs,
CFASST events, etc.)
Emphasize observation
and modeling of teaching
activities
Emphasize trust, team building,
engagement in district wide
professional development
Support
Providers
Facilitate activity
completion and help
manage stress
Model high quality
teaching and share
techniques
Provide a vision of professional
responsibility and capacity
IIP/Growth Plans Outline specific
activities and show
that they are executed
Define learning tasks
emphasizing acquisition of
good teaching practices
Identify professional growth
needs and aims
Accountability
Review Emphasis
Document activities Document performances Document evidence of
flexibility and innovation
Mitchell, D. E., et al. (2007)

Although the UCR study did intend on investigating the impact of BTSA
participation on student achievement, “…no data linking teacher support services to
changes in their teaching behaviors or to student achievement could be assembled”
(2007). The report cites limitations of time and access to data as the reasons for the
study’s inability to address this question. As it was described in Chapter 1, the
purpose of this study is to conduct an assessment of BTSA Induction Program
designs and their impact on teacher quality. Considering the lack of research
associated with BTSA Induction Program designs and their impact on teacher
46
quality, the study that is to follow will first examine the variability among BTSA
induction program design features. Once this data has been gathered only then will it
be possible to address the second research question associated with the intended
purpose: What induction program design features define teacher quality? Before this
second question can be studied, it is necessary to provide a review of professional
development practices that support the development of reform-minded practices of
effective instruction and support the purpose of pedagogical and social-cultural
development of teachers. This will then be followed by a review of literature related
to program and system design characteristic that support such practices.
Effective Professional Development
Returning to the research questions that are the focus of the study to follow,
we are concerned with discovering what the variation among induction program
designs is and what induction program variables define teacher quality. As the focus
of this study will be limited to induction programs in California, it is safe to conclude
that, based on the information presented in the previous section of this review,
despite the extensive descriptive elements contained within the BTSA Induction
Standards (2003), there is no clear mandate specifying exactly how a given BTSA
induction program should implement these standards. The question that must be
answered beyond the regulatory requirements of these standards is what constitutes
effective professional development activities that promote increased teacher quality?
Following that, what are the characteristics of systems and programs that promote
and maintain effective professional development activities?
47
There is general recognition in research and professional educator literature
of what constitutes a conceptual framework of effective professional development
(Lieberman, 1995; Guskey, 2000; Grossman, et al., 2001; Elmore, 2002; Blankstein,
2004; Hollins, 2006; Dufour, et al., 2006). Elmore’s “Consensus View” (2002)
echoes the vision of effective professional development expressed by Lieberman
(1995) that declares that the purpose of professional development should be more
than a “…transferable package of knowledge to be distributed to teachers in bite-
sized pieces…” (Lieberman, 1995). Elmore (2002) argues that the purpose of
professional development is to develop the capacity of teachers to solve problems
collaboratively, in the context of their teaching assignments and schools. The focus
should be the improvement of schools and school systems not just the people who
work in them. Hollins (2006) synthesizes the essence of this purpose.
To truly improve teaching, urban schools need to transform their culture of
practice from one that assumes that barriers to learning reside in the students
to one that expects teachers to collectively assume responsibility for making
sure all students learn (Hollins, 2006).

This learner-centered purpose driven by learning communities and teacher
collaboration (referred to earlier in this review as a reform-minded model of teaching
and learning-to-teach) is the framework within which effective professional
development activities must function. This section of the review will define the
characteristics of effective professional development and will establish indictors of
effective practice that are the predicted results of successful application of the
defined characteristics.
48
Characteristics of Effective Professional Development
In the context of research on effective professional development for teachers
in learner-centered schools, Abdal-Haqq (1995) outlines 11 characteristics of
effective professional development. He claims that effective professional
development is:
1. On going;
2. Includes training, practice, and feedback; opportunities for individual
reflection and group inquiry into practice; and coaching or other follow-
up procedures;
3. Is school based and embedded in teacher work;
4. Is collaborative, providing opportunities for teacher to interact with peers;
5. Focuses on student learning, which should, in part, guide assessment of
its effectiveness;
6. Encourages and supports school-based and teacher initiatives;
7. Is rooted in the knowledge base for teaching;
8. Incorporates constructivist approaches to teaching and learning;
9. Recognizes teacher as professionals and adult learners;
10. Provides adequate time and follow-up support; and
11. Is accessible and inclusive.
Wilson and Berne (1999), in their examination of research on professional
development, are skeptical of lists like Abdal-Haqq’s. They warn us that, “New is
not always right” (1999) and they claim that little is known about how teachers learn.
49
In an attempt to discover more about the acquisition of professional knowledge,
Wilson and Bern (1999) collected research from “exemplary instances” of
professional development. Their selection of examples was based on three criteria.
Each professional development project had to 1) have a clear commitment to
conducting research, 2) consider both the what (curriculum) and how (pedagogy) of
teacher learning, and 3) include knowledge of subject matter, of individual students,
of cultural differences across groups of students, of learning, and of pedagogy. Their
study reveals several common themes of contemporary professional development in
action. First, all of the projects they studied involved communities of learners
redefining teaching practice. Second, the idea that teacher learning ought to be
unbound and activated, rather than delivered via an act of dissemination, was also a
recurrent theme. Finally, all the projects they studied privileged teachers’ interaction
with each other in a manner that struggled to promote “…trust and community while
aiming for a professional discourse that includes and does not avoid critique” (1999).
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999), in the same publication as Wilson and Bern
(1999), provide further detail related to the professional knowledge of teachers or,
what they call, “conceptions of teacher learning.” They identify and define three
distinct conceptions that contribute to the enactment of effective practice. The first
conception, knowledge-for-practice, is defined as formal knowledge and theory
(including wisdom of practice) generated by experts. The assumption of this
conception is: The more one knows about subject matter, educational theory,
50
pedagogy, and instructional strategies acquired from experts outside the classroom,
the better one will be able to teach.
The second conception, knowledge-in-practice, is concerned with practical
knowledge “…embedded in practice and in teachers’ reflections on practice”
(Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999). This conception assumes that knowledge is
imbedded in the artistry of practice. This kind of knowledge in action is revealed in
reflection on practice, practical inquiries, and narrative accounts. Exploration of
knowledge in this way is usually produced in the context of teacher communities or
facilitated groups of collaborating teachers.
The third conception, knowledge-of-practice, is much more abstract than the
previous two conceptions. It is defined more as a construction of knowledge rather
than a discovery of knowledge that already exists in either the expert (knowledge-
for-practice) or within oneself (knowledge-in-practice). “Teacher networks, inquiry
communities, and other school-based collectives in which teachers and others
conjoin their efforts to construct knowledge are the major contexts for teacher
learning in this conception” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999).
From their study of the relationships of inquiry, knowledge, and professional
practice in urban communities, Cochran-Smith and Lytle present the knowledge-of-
practice conception as the theoretical springboard to launch a description of a
construct for effective professional development, inquiry as stance. They define the
construct as “…the position teachers and others who work together in inquiry
communities take toward knowledge and its relationships to practice” (1999). The
51
authors make a clear distinction between the common notion of inquiry (i.e., a close-
ended study or experiment) and the on-going, life-long process of inquiry as stance.
The inquiry stance is not a time-bound act but rather an ongoing action that works to
generate knowledge as a formative, life-long culture of practice. The effectiveness of
the inquiry stance in practice is well noted in recent literature about teacher
development (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Donnelly, Morgan, DeFord, Files,
Long, Mills, Stephens, & Styslinger, 2005; Goodlad, 1990; Labaree, 2003; Rodgers,
2002; Zeichner, 1993). It is also noted in research as an effective model for
developing new teachers as they work to resist the regression away from reform-
minded practice brought on by the enculturation process discussed earlier in this
review (Fecho, Price, and Read, 2004; Schulz, & Mandzuk, 2005; Snow-Gerono,
2005).
Standards of Effective Professional Development
National Staff Development Council (NSDC), established in 1969, published
its original staff development standards in 1995, which built on similar research
Abdal-Haqq had used. NSDC is a non-profit association committed to ensuring
success for all students through staff development and school improvement. Their
mission and intent are aligned with supporting and promoting the kind of reform-
minded practice, described in the first section of this review, that is essential for the
persistence of teacher quality throughout a given teacher’s development. In 2001,
NSDC published a revision of its original standards to incorporate the research
supporting the inquiry stance models of professional development. The NSDC
52
Standards for Staff Development (2001) provide a grounding set of standards for
professional development supported by extensive and current research (see Appendix
A for a detailed copy of the NSDC standards including web links to NSDC’s
supporting research for each element). Essentially, the elements of the NSDC
standards are divided into three categories described in Appendix A
As was described previously in this review, for systems of induction to be
effective they must work to develop new teachers pedagogically and social-culturally
and are characterized by a commitment to community and collaboration (Lazovsky
& Reichenberg, 2006; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Wong, 2002; Moir & Gless, 2001;
Williams, 2001). This vision parallels both the intent of Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s
(1999) inquiry as stance and is imbedded in the NSDC standards (2001). The
learning theories that support the processes of effective professional development
presented here are grounded in research supporting sociocultutural pedagogy. In
other words, the activities that characterize effective professional
development/induction systems emphasize the inseparable nature of personal,
interpersonal, and community planes (Rogoff, 1995). “It is through participation in
sociocultural activity that mind, community, and culture mutually create one
another” (Tharp, 1997). Most importantly, in the context of the subject of the study
that is to follow this review (induction programs), the sociocultural perspective is
also showing promise in recent research as an effective mediator of enculturated
regression away from reform-minded practice in new teachers (Kelly, 2006; van
Huizen, et al., 2005).
53
Those teachers that are able to maintain and innovate do so because of a
sociocultural orientation to professional development and practice (Rogan, 2007). To
help researchers recognize sococultural orientation in action the Center for Research
on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE) have synthesized a broad
consensus of research on teaching and learning and developed a model of
sociocultural pedagogy. In a CREDE report, Dalton (1998) presents this model in
terms of five standards (Appendix B) and outlines the supporting research for their
development. Included within each standard is a set of indicators that describe
specific teacher actions. For further description of the Standards for Effective
Pedagogy see Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, and Yamauchi (2000) and the CREDE website
(crede.berkeley.edu). The effectiveness of these standards as a framework for
developing effective teachers and for analyzing effective teacher practice has been
supported by research (Estrada, 2005; Teemnant, Smith, Pinnegar, & Egan, 2005;
Doherty, Hilberg, Epaloose, & Tharp, R., 2002).
Characteristics of Effective Professional Development Systems
McLaughlin and Talbert (1993) represented the construct of the sociocultural
perspective within an educational system as successively contextualized
organizations or layers. Each layer is imbedded within the other (Figure 2.1). Tharp
(1997) further explains, “Language is the primary force that defines and connects
these planes. Through the signs and symbols—primarily linguistic—meaning and
interpretation are carried from communities, through interpersonal activity, into the
individual mind. Reciprocally, the creation of new forms and symbols of expression
54
Environment: Subject Matter Cultures, Educational
Goals & Norms of Practice, Reform Initiatives
Professional Contexts: Association, Collaboratives,
Alliances, Networks, Teacher Education Programs
Higher Education Institutes: Standards for
Admission & Student Achievement
Parent Community/Social Class Culture
School System
School Organization
Subject Area/Department
Classroom: Subject and Student
by individuals shapes interaction and culture.” Through this kind of social epistemic
process, systems cease to function as top down colonizing constructs (Apple, 1995).
Rather, because knowledge is found in the dialectic among the participants on all
planes—personal, interpersonal, and community (Rogoff, 1995)—the binary
oppositions of educator/student, principal/teacher, and mentor/protégé are
necessarily deconstructed.

Figure 2.1: Successively Contextualized Layers
McLaughlin and Talbert (1993)
55
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) envisioned the enactment of their inquiry as
stance, described earlier, as this same kind of deconstructive act. Specifically, the
stratification of beginning and experienced teachers dissolves through their need to
“engage in similar work” and be “sensitive to particular and local histories, cultures,
and communities.” “An across-the-life-span perspective on teacher learning is more
relational—making salient the role of communities and intellectual projects of
groups of teachers over time (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999).” Following the same
line of reasoning as the inquiry stance and the sociocultural perspective, it is logical
to assume that for educational systems to run effectively, to serve increasing diverse
student populations, they must equally engage in the life-long, dialectic process of
meaning construction with all participants (i.e., teachers, parents, students,
administrators…). Simply stated, effective systems are what Senge (1990) would call
learning organizations.
Boreham and Morgan (2004) conducted a three-year empirical study into
organizational learning in order to clarify practices. They interpreted the
organizational learning practices they discovered through the lens of sociocultural
theory. In doing so they identified three relational practices that underpinned the
pedagogy of organizational learning:
1. Opening space for the creation of shared meaning—This relational
practice demands a revision of the long-established assumptions about the
autonomy of the adult learner. Dialogue is the essence of organizational
56
learning. Knowledge sharing is not seen in negative terms, but rather,
know-how is shared in the context of collaborative activity.
2. Reconstituting power relationships—This relational practice demands
that “..the workforce neutralizes the tendency for individuals and groups
to dominate others by cornering knowledge and using their rank to assert
their own views” (2004). This reconstitution of unequal power
relationships in a more egalitarian way grows out of an open space and is
essential for the creation of it.
3. Providing cultural tools to mediate learning—This relational practice is
what emerges from the dialectic processes imbedded in the previous
practices. These “tools” may be physical products or specific actions but
they first and foremost are symbolic embodiments of the collective
knowledge.
The essence of this pedagogical framework of learning organizations is grounded in
the assumption that “social practices are ‘carried’ by members of the
community…and a particular social order…is established when people living
together in that community reproduce particular types of practice in their everyday
interactions” (Boreham and Morgan, 2004).
Framework for Methodology
In the context of research and study of organizations it can be concluded that
the basic unit of analysis in sociocultural theory is “everyday action” (i.e., the tools
that mediate knowledge) or what Tharp (1997) calls the activity setting. “Because
57
each activity setting encompasses all planes, a study of a specific reading lesson, a
specific self-help seminar for teachers, or a specific school board meeting can reveal
the personal, interpersonal, and community planes in simultaneous operation…”
(1997). Sociocultural theory charges one to analyze who creates meaning and who
controls meaning by analyzing the tools that mediate knowledge. The question that
this study is ultimately attempting to answer is, what induction program design
features define teacher quality? The activity setting contained within this question is
the everyday act of teaching and the tools are the products that document teaching,
the evaluators of the teaching, and the professional development activities that work
to shape teaching/teacher knowledge. Through the lens of sociocultural theory one
would hypothesize that a study of these activities should evidence an integration of
the community, interpersonal, and personal planes in effective systems of induction.
Before a discovery of what induction program design features define teacher
quality, the features that define existing programs must be discovered. As such, this
study must first query, what is the variability among induction program design
features? Studies of effective learning organization designs in schools are fairly
consistent in their descriptions of guiding principles (Blankstein, 2004) and build
upon Senge’s (1990) five disciplines of learning organizations (originally designed
for corporate settings): systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, team
learning, and shared vision. NSDC Standards specifically reference the structural
conditions of professional learning communities described by Kruse, Louis, and
Bryk (1994) and the characteristics of professional learning communities described
58
by DuFour and Eaker (1998). Table 2.7 illustrates the guiding principles that the
NSDC Standards draw upon to define the organization’s vision of staff development
for the purpose of improving the learning of all students in the context of organizing
adults into learning communities whose goals are aligned with those of the school
and district.

Table 2.7: NSDC Guiding Principles and Vision
Author Guiding Principles NSDC Vision
Kruse, S., Louis, K., &
Bryk, A. (1994)
1. Time to meet and
talk,
2. Physical proximity,
3. Interdependent
teaching roles,
4. Communication
structures, and
5. Teacher
empowerment and
school autonomy
DuFour and Eaker (1998) 1. Mutual
collaboration,
2. Emotional support,
3. Personal growth, and
4. A synergy of efforts
The most powerful forms of staff development
occur in ongoing teams that meet on a regular basis,
preferably several times a week, for the purposes of
learning, joint lesson planning, and problem solving.
These teams, often called learning communities or
communities of practice, operate with a
commitment to the norms of continuous
improvement and experimentation and engage their
members in improving their daily work to advance
the achievement of school district and school goals
for student learning.
(www.nsdc.org/standards/learningcommunities.cfm)

From the guiding principles and vision, presented in Table 6, units of analysis
to define features of a given induction program design can be established that
parallel the rhetoric of sociocultural activities. In other words, the ways in which
given programs enact the principles of learning communities will provide this study
with a framework for the categorization of program design variability. How a given
induction program enacts the guiding principles and the degree with which a
59
program represents the NSDC vision of learning communities will be investigated.
Similar programs, based on these criteria, will be grouped together along a
continuum of design variability. Representative programs will be purposefully
selected from along the continuum of design variability to achieve a maximum
representative sample. It is from this sample that participants that have successfully
completed induction, been recommended for their professional career, and have
persisted in their current teaching assignment through induction into their third year
of teaching will be randomly selected as a basic unit of analysis to answer our second
question: What induction program design features define teacher quality?
60
CHAPTER THREE
Methodology
Introduction
This chapter will present the design of the study that is the subject of this
report. The purpose of this study is to investigate what variations of induction
program design features define teacher quality. To meet the intended purpose, the
methods and research that are to follow have been designed and executed in two
stages. First, the study discovered and classified the range of features that govern the
functioning of existing induction programs in BTSA Cluster Region 4. Second, the
instructional quality of program graduates was assessed. The sample of program
graduates was selected from programs that represented a maximum variation sample
of induction program designs. To direct this purpose the following research
questions were established:
1. What is the variability among induction program design features?
2. What induction program design features define teacher quality?
The purpose of this study was inductive in nature. It was designed to collect
data for the purpose of establishing a theory of effective induction program design
that produces greater teacher quality. Therefore, a mixed methods (qualitative and
quantitative) inquiry process was selected for data collection. Descriptive data
collection methods were used to investigate the variability of program design
features and investigate the instructional quality of program graduates. The first
61
stage of the study utilized surveys of individual BTSA program directors in BTSA
Cluster Region 4 to answer the first research question.
After the analysis of data from the first stage of this study provided an answer
to the first research question, a maximum variation sample of four program designs
was purposefully selected. From each program in this sample, it was the intent of this
study to randomly select two program graduates of a consistent and similar
professional profile. As will be discussed, conditions emerged that made it necessary
to make some modifications to this sample. From this population of teachers, the
second stage of data collection occurred in order to define the quality of each
teacher’s practice. This stage of data collection utilized observations of the selected
program graduates, interviews with the site administrators responsible for evaluating
the program graduates, and a review of program graduate induction portfolio
documents when available. It was the intent of this study to analyze this data,
utilizing an assessment protocol that is consistent with the conceptual framework of
this study, to discover which program or programs defined greater teacher quality.
From these conclusions, a theory has been developed to describe what induction
program design features define teacher quality.
Roll of the Researcher
In the interest of full disclosure, a description of the researcher’s roll in
relation to the topics and subjects that this study examined must be presented. The
individual that has conducted research for this study was concurrently employed by
Torrance Unified School District as a BTSA staff development resource teacher. The
62
researcher had been employed in this position since August 1999. The duties
associated with this position included the coordination and implementation of all
professional development and operational systems associated with the TUSD BTSA
Induction Program. Additionally, the researcher was the co-author of the TUSD
BTSA Induction Program’s Commission-approved induction program plan
(approved July 1, 2003), served on numerous formal and informal BTSA program
review teams, and was a certified support provider trainer. The researcher has trained
over 200 new BTSA support providers and has also provided services to over 35
TUSD program participants as a BTSA support provider.
The TUSD BTSA Induction Program is a member of BTSA Cluster Region 4
and, subsequently, the researcher has had direct, professional contact with almost all
program directors prior to the implementation of this study. It is important to note
that the researcher has had no authority over the design, implementation, or review
of any program that was included in this study. Further more, the author’s district
was eliminated from the Cluster 4 sample to eliminate any conflicts of interest or
questions of personal bias that might be associated with analysis and assessment of
one’s own program.
Sample and Population
Because of the staged nature of this study, two separate samples functioned
as sources. The first research question required that induction programs be sampled
and studied to determine the variability among design features. The second research
63
question required that teachers who have successfully completed induction programs
be sampled and assessed to define the quality of their instructional practice.
Commission-Approved Induction Programs
At the time of this study, all Commission-approved induction programs in
California were divided in six different geographic regions and include a total of 157
separately identified programs (www.btsa.ca.gov). This study initially focused on the
BTSA Induction Programs that were members of BTSA Cluster Region 4. The
geography of the regional boundaries followed those of greater Los Angeles County.
The statewide BTSA website identified 41 separate programs (www.btsa.ca.gov) that
were members of BTSA Cluster Region 4 and represented 26% of the identified
programs statewide.
This population was purposefully selected to be surveyed because it offered
convenience of access for the researcher who lived in the Los Angeles County area
and worked for a BTSA program that was a member of Cluster 4. It also was
selected because it offered a large sample of programs that served a broad scope of
school districts with wide ranging demographic and socioeconomic conditions. As
the purpose of the first research question is to discover the range of variability
among program design features, a broad scope of differing contexts was essential if a
maximum variation sample was to be achieved. Additionally, although the
qualitative elements and purposefully limited scale of this study precludes the
generalization of findings from program to program or region to region, data that has
64
been purposefully selected from maximum variation program samples ensures
themes that cut across a great deal of variation have been identified (Patton, 2002).
Eight of the identified programs in Cluster 4 were consortiums or multi-
district programs that consisted of two or more separate school districts that pool
their professional development and administrative resources, are funded as a single
program, and function as a Commission-approved induction program under a single
program plan and design.
Ten of the identified individual programs were all members of Los Angeles
Unified School District (LAUSD), which was the largest school district in California
and second largest in the United States. The third largest school district in California,
Long Beach Unified School District, was also a member of Cluster 4.
It should be noted that the researcher that is the author of this study was a
BTSA staff development resource teacher that worked for a single district program
in Cluster 4, Torrance Unified School District (TUSD). Because the purpose of this
study was evaluative in nature, the TUSD BTSA Induction Program was removed
from the Cluster 4 sample to eliminate any conflicts of interest or questions of
personal bias that could have resulted from the evaluation of ones own program. As
such, a total of 40 program directors identified on the state BTSA website in Cluster
4 (excluding the director of the TUSD program) were surveyed regarding individual
program design features. Twenty-six program directors (65%) responded to the
survey.
65
Analysis of the collected survey data was used to create a continuum of
maximum program design variability. The sample populations for the second stage
of this study, induction program graduates, were intended to be selected from four
programs that represent maximum variations in program design features (Program A,
Program B, Program I, and Program J). Patton (2002) informs us that heterogeneous
sampling such as this will help to ensure that a broad range of design features is
represented in this study.
Induction Program Graduates
In order for new, preliminary credentialed multiple and single subject
teachers in California to earn their clear credentials and maintain licensure beyond
their fifth year of credentialed practice, they must successfully complete a
Commission-approved induction program and be recommended by that program for
their second tier of licensure (i.e., clear credential). Because the second research
question of this study queried what program design features define teacher quality, it
is logical that induction program graduates must be sampled and the level of their
instructional quality must be assessed.
The researched intended to randomly select a limited set of program
graduates that share common professional characteristics from each of the maximum
variation programs. A common, or homogeneous, sample was purposefully selected
for this phase of the study to “reduce variation” and “simplify analysis” of the data
gathered across programs and was used to inform in-depth understanding rather than
empirical generalizations (Patton, 2002).
66
The sample of two program graduates was selected from the population of
program participants who had completed each of the maximum variation sample
Commission-approved induction program at the end of the 2006-2007 school year
and had been recommended by their given program for their clear credentials.
Additionally, only those teachers who were in their third year of contracted
employment as classroom teachers, had persisted at the same school site throughout
the three-year employment period, and were currently teaching upper elementary
students (to include third, fourth, or fifth grade) functioned as the source for this
study population. The list of candidates from which the sample population was
selected, based on the above stated limits, was developed in collaboration with the
program staff of each of the represented programs. The last names of each qualified
individual was listed alphabetically and assigned a sequential number (1, 2, 3…).
Utilizing a table of uniform random numbers computed by Howell (2004), the
sample group was be randomly selected from the purposefully selected population
and asked to consent to participate in this study. The randomization process was
repeated as needed until sufficient number of individuals consented to participate.
This final randomization was conducted to minimize problems associated with
selection bias. However, because the study subjects consented to participate,
complete elimination of selection bias is not possible.
The reasoning for limiting the population to only those teachers that have
completed a single induction program and been recommended for their clear
credentials was to ensure that they had fully engaged in one program from start to
67
finish and therefore were outcome products of their programs. The limiting of the
population to only those teachers that were in their third year of employment as
classroom teachers was intended to reduce confounding variables associated with the
duration of treatment. For example, participants who completed alternative
certification programs that serve both presevice and induction purposes, such as
internships, were eliminated using this model. Also, teachers who persisted in a
program beyond the two standardized years of participation, or completed a program
early, were also eliminated from consideration for this study.
The reasoning for limiting the population that the sample was drawn from to
only those individuals who taught upper elementary was to facilitate the analysis of
in-depth qualitative data. Specifically, the researcher observed each subject teaching
an English/language arts lesson. The observation of each subject was followed by an
interview of the site administrator of each subject and a document review of each
subject’s induction portfolio for the purpose of confirming the reliability of the data
gathered in the observation. This data was then assessed to determine the quality of
each teacher’s practice. The intent of this limit was to diminish the impact that
developmental age and subject specific pedagogy might have on the instructional
actions of each teacher and therefore simplify the comparability of assessment
outcomes.
Methodological Modifications
The set of program graduates was to be limited to upper elementary teachers
(grades 3, 4, and 5) in their third year of practice who had persisted at the same
68
school site for all three years. Additionally, it was the researcher’s intent to further
limit the set to only those teachers who held SB 2042 preliminary California
credentials during their period of participation and had completed their respective
induction program in June 2007 and been recommend by their programs for their
clear California credentials.
Through the process of conducting stage two of this study, some adjustments
needed to be made to the originally intended methodology. First, in two cases, the
grade level limitation of the sample had to be expanded to find at least two qualified
program graduates. The grade level limitation was set by the researcher to reduce the
impact of the developmental levels of a given subject’s student population on the
range of instructional strategies used by that subject. One of the maximum variation
programs (Program B) had only one, fifth grade graduate that qualified for the study
and no third or fourth grade candidates. The grade-level parameters were first
expanded to second grade. When no qualified second grade candidates where
discovered, the parameters were then expanded to include a sixth grade teacher
housed at a K-6 elementary school. Also, another maximum variation program
(Program J) had only one, fourth grade candidate and no third or fifth grade
candidates. The grade-level parameter was expanded to include a second grade
teacher housed at a K-5 elementary school.
The small number of candidates that met the purposefully limited profile
originally established for this study was an unanticipated variable discovered through
the course of the study. In fact, it was not necessary to randomly select any of
69
subjects for participation in this stage of the study. All selected subjects represent the
total population of elementary-level program graduates once the necessary grade-
level expansions were made. Therefore, despite the sacrifices that were made to the
grade-level limitation, it is hypothesized that because the selected programs represent
a maximum variation sample that cut across a wide variety of program themes
(Patton, 2002), this would likely have been a common problem among many of the
other programs and would have been a necessary parameter for the study.
Finally, after much probing, this researcher, apparently unbeknown to the
program director and his/her staff prior to communication regarding this study,
discovered that another of the maximum variation programs (Program I) had no
participants required to complete an induction program in order to earn their clear
California credentials. In other words, none of the program’s participants had ever
held an SB 2042 preliminary California credential. The program initially provided
the researcher with one upper elementary candidate. The researcher conducted a
search of the candidate’s credential using the Look Up a Teacher’s Credential
function on Commission on Teacher Credentialing web site (www.ctc.ca.gov) and
discovered that the candidate in fact held a Ryan preliminary California credential.
The possession of a Ryan credential meant that the preliminary credential program
that the candidate completed was governed by a different set of program design and
performance standards and the candidate was not required to complete an induction
program in order to be recommended for a clear credential. This vastly different
treatment in the education and development of such a candidate makes this variable
70
logically insurmountable and therefore the researcher definitively disqualified the
candidate and program from the second stage of the study.
Due to the length of time that it took for the program and the researcher to
come to the conclusion that Program I no longer qualified, it was impossible for
another program to be selected as a replacement. The act of restarting the
recruitment, informed consent, and selection process with another program would
have made the collection of candidate observation data prior to the end of the 2007-
2008 school year unlikely and would have meant the demise of the entire study.
Because of this time constraint, the decision was made by the researcher to move
forward with only three sample programs from which candidates were selected (n
3
=
6). Program I was selected as the program most characteristic of PLC characteristic
(4 points), however, Program A also received a score of four on the PLC matrix. As
such, Program A’s program design features will be used to serve as the analysis of
subjects within both the program design feature and PLC matrixes.
It should be noted, as it was stated earlier in this chapter, Program I is one of
the smallest BTSA induction programs in California averaging less than 10
participants per year, according to a conversation between the researcher and the
program director. However, this program’s confusion regarding the credential status
of its candidates was not an isolated incident and therefore not necessarily a
byproduct of its size. Two of the other three sample programs also provided this
researcher with candidates that held the incorrect preliminary credentials. The
researcher, via the CTC online credential system, made the discovery of each of
71
these selection errors. In each instance it was necessary to increase the grade-level
parameters until an n = 2 per program was achieved.
Instrumentation
As the structure of this study was conducted in two stages, the instruments of
data collection will be presented in the context of the stage and research question
they were developed to address. Each instrument will be linked the conceptual
framework informing each stage. The first stage instruments functioned to gather
data to discover the variability among induction program design features and took
the form of a survey of induction program directors. The second stage instruments
were used to gather data that was analyzed to define the quality of a selection of
program graduates drawn from a sample of programs representing maximum
variations among program design features. The second stage instruments took the
form of observations, interviews, and document review protocols.
Stage One: Induction Program Design Features
The survey that was completed by induction program directors to investigate
the variability of induction program design features consisted of both open-ended
and close-ended items developed by the researcher (survey items and organizational
structure are presented in Appendix C). The Induction Standards were utilized as the
primary framework to inform item development. Based on sociocultural theory that
states that the basic unit of analysis for all planes of a given system is the activity
setting (Tharp, 1997), the form and function of individual program completion
requirements mandated by Induction Standard 14 was utilized as the source for the
72
development of survey items 1 through 11. The outcomes that induction programs
require participants to produce in order to demonstrate program completion are the
enacted products of each induction program’s design features. Additionally, this
theoretical frame also informs us that knowledge is found in the dialectic among
participants (Rogoff, 1995) across all the successively contextualized planes of an
educational system (McLaughlin and Talbert, 1993). Items 12 through 14 were
developed to locate the planes of mutual collaboration that the National Staff
Development Council (NSDC) vision (see Chapter 2, Table 6) identifies as essential
components of effective professional development programs.
Finally, to ensure that an in-depth set of data informing the design variables
among each program is collected, two open-ended narrative items were added. The
first of these items asks program directors to report program design features that they
perceive have the greatest impact on teacher quality. The second, and final, item
offers the opportunity for program directors to identify any unique or powerful
design features that may not have been revealed through any of the previous items.
The items of this survey were delivered to program directors via an on-line
community to which all BTSA program directors in Cluster 4 belong,
BTSASupport.com. The privately owned and managed web-based system known as
BTSAsupport.com has a pre-established system for the posting of surveys and
assessments that program directors complete regularly. The BTSA Cluster 4
Regional Director provided the researcher with access to the system to upload the
survey items. Individual program directors were informed of the survey and its
73
purpose via email automatically sent by the system to all program directors and via a
news item posted on the BTSAsupport.com home page. Reports of individual
program responses to each survey item and Cluster-wide averages for each response
option for each survey item were automatically generated by the system. These
reports were accessible by the BTSA Cluster 4 Regional Directors, the Webmaster
that runs BTSAsupport.com, and this researcher. Individual program directors did
not have access to any of the response data.
Stage Two: Assessment of Teacher Quality
The purpose of the second stage of this study was to gather data to define the
quality of a selection of program graduates. The selected program graduates were
drawn from a sample of programs representing maximum variations in program
design features that were evidenced in the first stage of this study. The instruments
that were used to gather data to inform the definition of teacher quality were an
observation data collection form, an interview protocol, and a document review
protocol.
Since the purpose of this phase of the study was to support the evaluation of
teacher quality, it was logical that the categories of observation reflect those that are
used to by site administrators in California to evaluate teacher quality during the
performance evaluation process (California Education Code 44661.5). The
California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) define the scope of what a
teacher in California should know and be able to do in order to be an effective
instructor and it is this set of standards that site administrators use to gage teacher
74
competence during the teacher evaluation process. This same set of standards is also
the framework of teacher knowledge and skill that all formative assessment systems
adopted by BTSA Induction Programs must utilize (Induction Standard 13).
The CSTP consist of six separate standards that describe what California
teachers should know and be able to do. Some of these standards lend themselves to
certain forms of data collection more readily than others. All of the elements of
Standard One: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning and Standard
Two: Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning are
directly linked to what can be seen and heard during any given instructional event
and should overtly be evidenced by teacher and student actions and environmental
observations. Some elements of Standard Three: Understanding and Organizing
Subject Matter for Student Learning might also be observable during the
instructional act (i.e., 3.1 Demonstrating knowledge of subject matter content and
student development or 3.5 Using materials, resources, and technologies to make
subject matter accessible to students). However, Standard Four: Planning
Instruction and Designing Learning Experience for All Students can only be truly
evidenced via a the instructional plan prior to the instructional experience and
evaluated through reflection upon the instructional outcomes in the context of the
intended outcomes set forth in the plan. Observational evidence of Standard Five:
Assessing Student Learning can also only inferred during the act of teaching and is
only truly evidence by the outcomes, or assessments, themselves. Finally, Standard
75
Six: Developing as a Professional Educator is not directly linked to any act of
instruction and is not relevant to any observation of the instructional act.
Observation Instrument
Considering the description and conditions related to form and function of the
CSTP presented above, the observation instrument selected for the observational act
included space to collect observational data for all of the elements of CSTP 1 and 2.
It also provided space to collect observation data for CSTP 3.1. This instrument was
designed to emulate an observation tool that is a component of the California
Formative Assessment and Support System for Teachers (CFASST).
This researcher has used this same tool as an observation instrument through
his work as a BTSA support provider. In the role of support provider, this researcher
has supported BTSA program participants as they engaged in focused formative
professional development utilizing CFASST to inform inquiry, gather evidence, and
reflect upon the quality of their practice. Over a span of eight years, this researcher
has been a support provider to 37 BTSA participants. Over the last seven years this
researcher has trained over 200 new BTSA support providers and approximately 70
site administrators to utilize this same instrument as a tool for gathering
observational evidence of instructional practice.
This observation instrument was not designed for the purpose of gathering
evaluative comments and is only validated as tool for collecting observational
evidence (CFASST Training Manual). The data that was collected on the observation
tool consisted solely of evidence of what was seen and heard during the observed
76
instructional event. The researcher did not document any of his evaluative comments
on the observational tool, although entries in a reflective journal were made
following each observation to facilitate researcher meta-cognition of the observed
event. The collected evidence took the form of student and teacher comments,
descriptions of objects that were in the environment, room arrangements, movement
patterns, and frequencies of recurrent events (i.e., number of boy and girls called on
by the teacher). The researcher classified each piece of observation evidence during
the observed event into one or more of categories of CSTP elements that appeared on
the observation tool. A given piece of evidence may have been relevant to more than
one CSTP element and therefore may have appeared more than once on the
observation tool.
Interview and Document Review Protocol
Due to limited resources, it was only be possible to observe each subject one
time. As such, the confirmation of the reliability of the data gathered during the
observation was paramount if it was to be taken as representative evidence of a given
teacher’s practice. An interview with each study subject’s site administrator and a
review of each subject’s induction portfolio (i.e., the collection of artifacts that
documents evidence that supports an individual’s completions of a Commission-
approved induction program) was conducted after the researcher observed the
subject. The researcher purposefully selected specific follow-up questions derived
from the established descriptors for each CSTP element (CTC, 1998). Responses to
these descriptive questions were generated to confirm that the data gathered during
77
each observation was typical and representative of the observed teacher’s everyday
practice. This same process was used to inform both the development of site
administrator interview questions and the development of questions that focused the
review, by the researcher, of induction portfolio documents.
Data Analysis
The analysis of collected data was conducted in the context of the two
research questions that guided this study:
1. What is the variation among induction program design features?
2. What induction program design features define teacher quality?
To address the first question, the BTSA program director survey data was analyzed
to inform the categorization of the induction programs that were the subjects of the
first phase of this study along a continuum ranging from the most common program
design to the least common program design. A maximum variation sample of 4
programs was selected from the population of respondents. Once the maximum
variation program samples were selected, then the second stage of this study began
its task of studying the quality of teachers in each program to determine which
design features defined teacher quality. Using the selection method described in a
previous section of this chapter, two graduates from each selected program were
studied to provide the data for this phase. Observations of each subject teaching,
interviews with each subject’s site administrator, and reviews of each subject’s
induction portfolio provided the data that was analyzed to define the quality of each
teacher’s practice. The results of these assessments in the context of each program
78
design was then used to develop a theoretical construct of induction program design
features that define teacher quality.
Program Design Analysis
BTSAsupport.com, the survey delivery system, calculated the percentage of
programs that selected each radial button for each close-ended item. For each open-
ended item, the researcher sorted together similar responses and calculated the
percentage of similar responses. More specifically, scaled points were assigned to
each item’s responses from least to most popular selected response. The least
frequently selected response received one point and the next most frequently selected
response was assigned two points, etc., with the most frequently selected response
for a given item receiving the highest points. The total points for each of the
programs that responded to the survey were then calculated. All programs
represented by the respondents were placed on a program design continuum from
most typical (highest points) to least typical (lowest points). Once all the programs
were categorized, then maximum variation samples were selected from the
population of programs that responded to the director’s survey. The most typical
program and least typical program were selected as two of the four maximum
variation samples.
Additionally, the NSDC vision of staff development that supports the purpose
of improving the learning of all students in the context of organizing adults into
learning communities (presented in the literature review of this study) was used as
the theoretical construct for the reclassification of the population of programs in
79
Cluster 4 that responded to the survey. The NSDC specifically references the four
characteristics of professional learning communities (PLC) identified by DuFour and
Eaker (1998) as the guiding principle for its vision: mutual collaboration, emotional
support, person growth, and synergy of efforts. As it was stated in Chapter 2, these
personal, interpersonal, and community planes are inseparable (Rogoff, 1995). In
order to utilize this theoretical framework for the classification among program
design features, programs were assessed as to which respondents most closely
reported the presence of these conditions in their programs (PLC) and which did not
(Factory Model). A detailed list of both Factory Model characteristics and PLC
characteristics, as they are described by DuFour and Eaker (1998), are listed in Table
3.1.

Table 3.1: Factory Model and Professional Learning Community Characteristics
Factory Model Characteristics PLC Characteristics
• “Get it right—then keep going” • “Get it right, and then make it better and better and
better.”
• Focus on procedures • Focus on results
• Accountability based on
adherence to the system
• Uniformity
• Standardization
• Rigid sense of time
• Commitment to continuous improvement
• Orientation toward action
• Collective inquiry
• Willingness to experiment
• Hierarchical top-down
management
• Centralization
• Bureaucracy
• Collaborative teams
• Shared mission, vision, and values
• Mutual cooperation (community plane)
• Emotional support (interpersonal plane)
• Personal growth (personal plane)
• Accomplishment is achieved through a synergy of
efforts (inseparable nature of the planes)
Adapted from DuFour and Eaker (1998)
80
Based on the degree of presence or absence of characteristics listed in Table 3.1 in
each program’s narrative responses, the researcher assigned an overall, holistic rating
for each program using the rubric presented in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Program Design Characteristics Rubric
Points Evaluative Criteria
1 Narrative comments provided by the respondent very closely represent characteristics of the Factory
Model. Almost no PLC characteristics appear to be present.
2 Some PLC characteristics appear to be present is some of the respondent’s narrative comments.
However, the bulk of the program characteristics reported indicate that the Factory Model can most
closely characterize the program’s design.
3 Some Factory Model characteristics appear to be present is some of the respondent’s narrative
comments. However, the bulk of the program characteristics reported indicate that the PLC
descriptors can most closely characterize the program’s design.
4 Narrative comments provided by the respondent very closely represent characteristics of the PLC.
Almost no Factory Model characteristics appear to be present.

Once each program was assigned a score based on the Program Design
Characteristics Rubric (Table 3.2), the researcher then sorted the programs by like
score. To achieve the maximum variation sample for this matrix, the researcher
selected one program from the 1 point score category and one program from the 4
point score category. The selection of each program from their respective point
categories was made subjectively based on degree to which the researcher
determined each was most representative of the characteristics of their categories and
least like the first two programs selected using the previous matrix.
81
Analysis of Teacher Quality
The observation, interview, and document review data collected on each
selected program graduate was analyzed to define the quality of each teacher’s
practice. As it was described previously in the literature review, effective systems of
induction must acknowledge the purpose of pedagogical and social-cultural
development of teachers in the induction phase of their careers and are characterized
by the commitment of community and collaboration to meet this purpose (Lazovsky
& Reichenberg, 2006; Smith & Igersoll, 2004; Wong, 2002; Moir & Gless, 2001;
Williams, 2001). The Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence
(CREDE) has developed and validated an assessment instrument based on
sociocultural theory that supports this purpose. This study utilized the CREDE
assessment rubric and Flow Chart for Raters to establish an overall level of teacher
quality for each subject (crede.berkeley.edu/index.html).
The Standards Performance Continuum (SPC) is a five-level rubric that
measures implementation of CREDE’s Five Standards for Effective Pedagogy
(Appendix B) that promotes positive outcomes for students (Doherty, et al., 2002).
The CREDE Standards and Indicators are listed in Appendix B (Pedagogy Standards
and Indicators). To support the analysis of data and assignment of rubric score for
each of the five standards CREDE has developed a SPC Flow Chart for Raters
(crede.berkeley.edu/standards/spac_chart.shtml).
The researcher first coded the observation, interview, and document review
data for each subject based on the indicators for each of the Five Standards for
82
Effective Pedagogy. The codes and indicators are listed on the Pedagogy Standards
and Indicators document located in Appendix B. Utilizing the SPC Flow Chart for
Raters, the researcher assigned a rubric score for each standard. A combined score
for each subject was calculated. Subjects with the highest subject scores were
determined to have the greatest teacher quality.
Generalization of outcome scores was not possible due to the limited scope of
the sample populations and qualitative nature of portions of this study. However, the
intent of this study was to develop a theoretical construct of induction program
design features that define teacher quality. Further quantitative and qualitative
studies (including the replication of this study on a much greater scope) will need to
be conducted to validate any theoretical constructs that are the outcome of the
analysis of the data generated during this study.
83
CHAPTER FOUR
Analysis of the Data and Interpretation of the Findings
Introduction
The collection of data to support this study proceeded in two stages aligned
with the each of the guiding research questions: 1) What is the variability among
induction program design features? 2) What induction program design features
define teacher quality? The subjects for stage one were drawn from the population of
induction program directors in BTSA Cluster Region 4 (greater Los Angeles
County). The tools for data collection consisted of a survey of program design
features and director perceptions completed by 65% (n
1
= 26) of the Cluster 4
program directors that were offered the survey (N = 40). Based on the survey
responses, two matrices where used to analyze and sort the responding programs into
two separate program design continuums. From the extreme ends of each continuum,
programs were selected as maximum variation sample programs (n
2
= 4). Utilizing
this maximum variation sample, the subjects for stage two of this study were drawn.
To assess the impact of the n
2
sample programs on teacher quality, the researcher
intended to randomly select two program graduates from a purposefully limited
population from each n
2
program. The researcher then planned to observe each
program graduate teaching a lesson, interview each graduate’s site administrator, and
conduct a document review of each graduate’s induction portfolio (when available).
Ultimately, only three of four maximum variant programs had program graduates
from which to select subjects to observe (n
3
= 6). Based on the evidence collected,
84
qualities of each graduate’s practice were assessed and defined. The analysis and
interpretation that follow will be organized around each of these stages.
The Variability Among Induction Program Design Features: Data and Findings
As it was predicted in Chapter One and reported by the University of
California Riverside (UCR) evaluative study (Mitchell, et al., 2007) cited in Chapter
Two, there does appear to be great variability among induction program design
features. Where as the UCR study framed its analysis of finding around a framework
of conditions born out of standards-based accountability, the survey that was
designed by this researcher and presented to Cluster 4 BTSA program directors was
constructed based on a framework defined by sociocultural theory. As such, the
items presented on the survey were designed to be located in what Tharp (1997)
called the “activity setting.” The survey included items that queried the manner in
which participants were asked to demonstrate competency of practice and the
perceived levels of mutual collaboration across stakeholders located in what
McLaughlin and Talbert (1993) illustrate as successively contextualized layers.
Additionally, two open-ended items were added to elicit narrative descriptions from
respondents related to perceived unique or powerful program design features and
program design features perceived to have the greatest impact on teacher quality.
The survey (Appendix C) was posted on a web-based survey system between
November 25, 2007 and January 26, 2008. The survey system is located within an
online community to which the 41 BTSA program directors in Cluster Region 4
belong (www.btsasupport.com). Cluster 4 program directors log-on to this
85
community to register for Cluster-wide events, complete regularly posted surveys,
and access program related information. The lead researcher for this study is also a
BTSA program director who is a member of this community and has eliminated his
program from the population to avoid any conflicts of interest associated with the
study and assessment of one’s own program. The remaining population (N = 40) was
sent an initial recruitment email upon posting the survey and the online survey
system automatically sent out reminder emails every other week to any members of
the population who had not logged-on and completed the survey. After the survey
closed, this researcher discovered that one program director did not receive any
follow-up emails due to a system profile error. Also, after sending out the initial
recruitment email, one program director contacted the researcher and specifically
declined to participate in accordance with his/her district policy prohibiting
participation in external studies and therefore was removed from the targeted list and
also received no reminder emails. Upon closing, 65% of the population (n
1
= 26) had
responded to the survey. Each of the respondents was randomly assigned a
pseudonym corresponding to a letter in the alphabet utilizing the method and table of
uniform random numbers presented by Howell (2004). The first program selected
became Program A, the second became Program B, and so on.
Survey Content and Structure
The online system utilized to deliver this survey allowed for the construction
of tiered, response-dependent items. To clarify, items numbered 1 through 16
(Appendix C) were posed to all respondents. Radial buttons were assigned to items
86
1-14 and items 15 and 16 were designated as open-ended response items. Based on
the radial-responses selected for items 1-14 follow-up items were posed to the
respondents. The tiered structure used to organize the presentation of the items
identified in Appendix C reflects the flow of the response-dependent items. In all, the
survey offers 45 separate data collection points. Additionally, the system allows for
the specification of single, multiple, or open-ended responses. Respondents only see
one item at a time. The system does not allow respondents to skip items however, it
does allow one to go backward and change a previous response.
Survey items 1-11 were designed to specifically query program design
features associated with participant completion requirements as defined by the
Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction Programs
(CTC, 2002). The bulk of the response-dependent items in this first set queried the
duration and frequency of program treatments. Also, several of these items offered a
radial response of “other” that could be selected if a respondent felt that the pre-
selected responses were insufficient to describe a particular program feature. If
“other” was selected, an open-ended response item was posed to query a narrative
description. Perceived levels of mutual collaboration between program stakeholders
were queried in items 12-14. The levels were designated as low, medium, or high.
All respondents were asked to qualify their perceptions for these items with follow-
up, open-ended queries. The final two open-response items were used to delve any
perceived unique, powerful, and effective features that may not have been revealed
in previous responses.
87
The system reports response data in two different formats, an aggregated
report and individual respondent reports. The aggregated report automatically
calculates the number and percentage of responses for all radial items. It also lists the
narrative responses created for all open-ended items. This report anonymously
presents all data collected for each of the 45 different collection points spanning the
16 root queries. The individual reports provide a text of each item and response
completed by each individual respondent. Utilizing these two reports in tandem, the
design features of each program and the variability among the program design
features was analyzed. Two separate measures served as matrices for analysis:
common design features calculation and professional learning community (PLC)
characteristics analysis. The data and analysis that emerged from the application of
each matrix will be presented in turn.
Common Design Features Calculation
This stage of the data analysis process is designed to rank the programs that
responded to the survey based on the commonality of reported and quantifiable
design features. It includes data gathered from collection points contained in survey
items 1-4, 6-12, and 14 (Appendix C). The purpose of this quantitative analysis
process is to first inform the query posed in our first research question regarding the
variability among induction program design features. To serve this end, descriptive
data will be presented related to the general variability among program designs of the
responding programs. Second, the resultant ranking of the responding programs will
also allow us to identify two programs that represent maximum variations among
88
program design features. These extreme programs will then be assigned as part of the
maximum variation sample from which program graduates will be selected to inform
our second research question: What induction program design features define teacher
quality?
Ranking Process
Each radial button response on the survey was assigned a point ranking with
the most popular response in each collection point assigned the highest point value
and the least popular response assigned the lowest point value. The point values were
assigned sequentially. For example, if a survey item contained three possible
responses, each response choice was assigned 1, 2, or 3 points in ranked order of
popularity. No distinction was made for the degree of popularity. The result is a
matrix that measures the frequency of a given program’s alignment with the most or
least popular design features with no consideration of the degree of popularity. For
example, survey item one queried, “Which formative assessment system did your
program adopt for use with participating teachers who completed your program in
July 2007?” Note the distribution of responses to item one illustrated in Table 4.1 in
comparison to the ranked points assignment.
89
Table 4.1: Which formative assessment system did your program adopt for use with
participating teachers who completed your program in July 2007?
Responses Respondents Percent Points
California Formative Assessment and Support System for
Teachers (CFASST)
16 61.54% 3
Formative Assessment System (FAS) 8 30.77% 2
Locally designed instrument 2 7.69% 1

It should be noted that many survey items offered respondents the
opportunity to construct narrative responses for items if the respondent felt his/her
program was not aligned with the predetermined, researcher selected responses. The
researcher analyzed each of the aligned narratives responses and, if item alignment
was discovered, points were awarded to the responding program as appropriate. For
example, Table 4.2 shows the distribution of responses for survey item 5 (Appendix
C). Note that all but one program reported that participants are required to meet
weekly with their support providers. The lone respondent who selected “other” as
his/her response was automatically asked a follow-up question by the survey system
to “describe the frequency that participants are required to meet with a support
provider.” Program F responded as follows: “[T]hree times per month required—to
take care of months with time problems—November, December, January[.]” It is
logical to assume that the 25 other programs that reported to require weekly meetings
are also waiving weeks when school is not in session due to holidays. Basically,
Program F is requiring meetings more frequently than bimonthly and, with
adjustments made for holidays, about once per week. Under this assumption, all 26
90
programs (100%) appear to require participants to meet weekly with their support
providers.

Table 4.2: How frequently are participants required to meet with a support provider?
Responses Respondents Percent Points
More than weekly 0 0.00% N/A
Weekly 25 96.15% N/A
Bimonthly 0 0.00% N/A
Monthly 0 0.00% N/A
Other (see item 19 for follow-up response) 1 4.00% N/A

During the analysis process, data from survey items 6 and 13 (Appendix C)
were removed from the final calculation. Data aligned with item 6 and its follow-up,
narrative query revealed that 100% of the respondents reported that participants are
required to meet at least weekly with their support providers. Therefore, assigning
ranking points based on the popularity of the specific features in these items makes it
moot. Similarly, data aligned with item 13 revealed that the respondents are evenly
divided in their perception of the level of mutual collaboration between participants
and support providers with 50% of the respondents reporting high-level collaboration
and 50% reporting medium-level collaboration. Without a dominant feature evident
for this item, assigning ranking points based on the popularity of the specific features
defined in this item makes it moot.
91
Descriptive Data
All descriptive data was calculated and the resultant figures were created by
the researcher utilizing the statistical methods, formulas, and models described by
Howell (2004). Based on the point calculations for each program, the descriptive
data presented in Table 4.3 has emerged. To illustrate the variability among the
programs, a boxplot (Figure 4.1) and leaf-and-stem display (Figure 4.2) were
created. The boxplot (Figure 4.1) based on this data illustrates how the central
portion of the distribution (second and third quartiles) is reasonably symmetric.
However, as the stem-and-leaf display (Figure 4.2) illustrates, the median is skewed
slightly high with the second quartile having a range of 9 points and the third quartile
having a range of 7 points (Figure 4.2). The boxplot also illustrates that the overall
distribution has a slight negative skew because the lower whisker (9 points long) is
slightly longer than the upper whisker (6 points long). There are no outliers; all
programs fall well within the H-spread. Note that the range of points distributed
across each quartile is almost identical to the standard deviation (9.82). Also the
mean (52.62) and the median (53) scores are almost identical. A normal, or perfect,
distribution for our population (n
1
= 26) if a standard deviation of 9.82 would
approximate that 17.33 programs, or two-thirds of the population, would be within
one standard deviation of the mean. As it stands, exactly 17 programs lie within one
standard deviation above or below the mean. Ultimately, what emerges is a
reasonably symmetric distribution with approximately two-thirds of the programs
lying within one standard deviation above or below the mean. At this point we can
92
reasonably conclude that the data collected via the program design survey indicates
that there is an even distribution of program designs across a very broad range of
program design features with no extreme outliers.

Table 4.3: Descriptive Data
Population n
1
= 26
Total possible points 75 points
Point range 33 points
Mean 52.62 points
Median location 13.5 points
Median 53 points
Variance 96.49
Standard deviation 9.82
Quartile location 7 points
Lower quartile 43 points
Upper quartile 61 points
Quartile ranges 1
st
Quartile = 10 points
2
nd
Quartile = 9 points
3
rd
Quartile = 7 points
4
th
Quartile = 7 points
H-spread 18
Maximum of upper whisker Largest value ≤ 88 = 67 points
Maximum of lower whisker Smallest value ≥ 16 = 34 points
93

Figure 4.1: Boxplot
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51

50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
Induction Program Design Variables (Points)
31
Note: In single boxplot displays like the one presented here, the width of the box is arbitrary. The
intent of a boxplot is to represent the dispersion of data (Howell, 2004). In this case, the dispersion is
presented along the y-axis to illustrate response variation.
94

Figure 4.2: Stem-and-Leaf Display
Points Programs Population Distribution
Quartile Ranges
(Total Range = 33 points)
34 F
35
36
37 J
38 I
39 S
40
41
42
1
st
Quartile
43 R, D, G
7 Programs 10 Point Range
44
45
46 V
47
48 C
49
50 X
51 W
2
nd
Quartile
52

4 Programs 9 Point Range
Median 53 A, M, Y 3 Programs
54
55
56
57 L, T
58 K, O
59 P
3
rd
Quartile
60
5 Programs 7 Point Range
61 H
62 E
63
64 N, Q, U
65
66 Z
4
th
Quartile
67 B
7 Programs 7 Point Range
Note: The dotted lines represent approximately one standard deviation (9.82) above (62.44) and below
(42.80) the mean (52.62)
95
Analysis of Design Feature Frequency Data
Returning to our guiding question in the context of the common design
features calculation matrix, we can now begin to present an analysis of the variability
among program design features. As it was revealed by way of the descriptive
statistics presented above, the commonality of design features ranges greatly. To
more specifically describe the variability among the programs, a comparison among
the design features specific to the three median programs (Programs A, M, and Y),
the three upper-most programs (Programs B, Z, and U), and the three lower-most
programs (Programs F, J, and I) will be presented.
The three median programs each received 53 total points. They were assigned
the same points on four out of twelve calculated items. They all require participants
to develop and implement individual induction plans twice per year, utilize full-time
classroom teachers as support providers, and perceive that there is a medium level of
mutual collaboration between participants and support providers and participants and
program staff. Upon examination of each program’s individual report it was revealed
that all three programs require participants to demonstrate competency of practice
aligned with the teacher induction standards via a portfolio of evidence selected by
the participants. This link spans six out of 12 additional locations of program
alignment. However, Program A also requires the completion of case studies and
Program Y requires participants to complete assignments during specific courses of
study to demonstrate the standards.
96
Despite Program Y’s requirement linked to assignments completed during a
specific course of study, Program Y requires a much lower quantity of attendance
time at workshops than the other two programs. Program Y requires twelve hours of
attendance at after school workshops (three two-hour workshops per year) plus
attendance at an eight-hour orientation. Program A requires 44 hours of attendance at
after school workshops (eight two-hour seminars during year one and twelve two-
hour seminars during year two). Program M requires attendance at 36 hours of
participant-selected professional development that is delivered via three-hour or six-
hour workshops offered after school, on weekends, and during the summer. Program
M specifies that they instruct participants to select workshops based on the induction
standards, their professional goals, and the individual needs of their students.
Programs Y and A do not specify that participants have any flexibility in the
selection of workshop topics or session times. In summation, the median programs
share alignment on components of ten out of twelve items and there is a distinct
difference in the quantity of workshop time required by one program. It should be
noted that only the format of workshop requirements not the quantity of workshop
hours required by a given program was included in the point calculation.
The upper-most programs represent the programs with more features in
common with all of the other programs. Program B, with a total score of 67, is the
upper most variant program and represents the highest quantity of popular design
features. Programs Z and U follow closely with scores of 66 and 64 respectively.
Clearly, many of the features that linked the median programs are also present in the
97
upper-most programs. Some additional features shared by the upper programs that
are worth noting include a peer collaboration requirement and formal review of
formative assessment system documents. Over 92% of all respondents utilize one of
two commercially available formative assessment systems at a ratio of two CFASST
users to every one FAS user. Similarly, Programs B and U have adopted to use
CFASST and Program Z has adopted to use FAS. Both formative assessment
systems serve the purpose of formatively guiding the on-going development of
individual participants in collaboration with a support provider through the collection
of and reflection upon evidence of the participant’s practice (i.e., lesson plans,
student work, and support provider documented observation data). To conduct a
formal review, program staff would need to conduct a document review of the
collected evidence and notes of reflective conversations held between the support
provider and participant. Both systems offer a structured framework for collection
and documentation that serves this purpose.
As it was with the median programs, there is some variability among the
number of hours required by each of the upper programs. Over the two-year span of
program participation, Programs B requires 40 hours of workshop participation via
both sponsored release time and after school and summer workshops. Program Z
only requires 18 hours of workshop attendance over the span of program
participation, however, they also offer 27 additional hours of optional professional
development time offered plus 3 hours of orientation. Program U has the largest
workshop attendance requirement among the three upper programs at 108 hours. As
98
a unique feature, Program U also requires participants to spend an additional 6 hours
observing experienced teachers.
As it was stated previously, all three programs include among their required
workshop attendance, participation in peer collaboration meetings. Interestingly,
despite this common and planned collaborative requirement among these programs,
all three responding program directors rated their level of peer-to-peer mutual
collaboration as medium. When asked to comment on their perceived rating of a
medium-level mutual collaboration that occurs between program participants
(follow-up query to survey item 12), all three programs appear to qualify that they
have lowered their ranking because of a lack or unknown amount of consistent peer
collaboration outside of induction program activities (i.e., at school sites and other
district sponsored events).
Finally, the three lower-most programs represent the programs with the least
common occurring design features among the sample of survey respondents.
Program F emerged as the most unique program in this matrix with a total point
score of 34. Beyond the consistent selection of responses that were less likely to be
present in the other program (i.e., FAS user, one required individual induction plan
per year, perceived low-level of mutual peer-to-peer collaboration), one feature
emerges from an analysis of this program’s responses that set it apart from all other
programs that responded to the survey. Program U overtly involves the site
administrator in the assessment of participant competency as defined by the
induction standards. This involvement includes the completion of a site administrator
99
check list that “verifies application of key teaching behaviors”, as well as,
participation in an individual educational plan and 504 plan meetings for special
population students (to include general and special education students). No other
program in this study reports the involvement of site administrators in the assessment
of participant competency in relation to the induction standards.
Program J, with a point total of 37, is the next most unique program in this
sample. Based on previous information discovered during the construction of the
literature review in Chapter 2, it is known that this single district program is one of
the largest and longest running programs in California. As such, it is only one of two
programs in the sample that utilize a locally designed instrument of formative
assessment. Because this local instrument is not commercially available for purchase
or use by other induction programs in California, the instrument is a unique and
singular system particular to Program J. The other feature that sets this program apart
is a total reliance on a course work model of assessing participant competency in
relation to the Induction Standards. The program director reports that all candidates
are required to demonstrate all of the performance standards via assignments
completed by participants during a specific course of study or workshop (survey
items 7-11 in Appendix C).
The program that emerges next as we move up the point calculation matrix is
Program I with 38 total points. Unlike the previous two programs that definitively
reported unique features not present in the other programs, Program I actually shares
design features that are consistently among the most popular. It is a CFASST user
100
that requires participants to develop and implement individual induction plans twice
per year. The demonstration of participant practice consistent with the Induction
Standards is assessed via a portfolio of evidence selected by the participant. Even the
perceived levels of mutual collaboration among program stakeholders are
consistently aligned with the most popular responses. The justification of a low score
for this program’s design must be assigned to a noticeably minimal construction.
Although the reported design features for Program I are among the most popular, the
low quantity of design features reported are what set this program apart as unique
among the sample. Program I is a single district program that is among one of the
smallest programs in California. The minimalist construction of this program’s
design might be an outcome of the program’s size but, it would be remiss of this
researcher to make any definitive conclusions at this point in the analysis.
Common Design Feature Calculation: Maximum Variation Sample
In order to answer our second research question regarding what program
design features define teacher quality, a maximum variation sample (n
2
) of program
designs must be selected to insure that themes that cut across a great deal of variation
will be present (Patton, 2002). As such, the common design feature calculation
results clearly identify the maximum variation programs. The descriptive statistics
presented previously in this chapter have assured us that the distribution of programs
is relatively consistent with no extreme outliers. Program F with 34 total points and
Program B with 67 total points represent the upper and lower whisker scores
illustrated in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. Therefore, Program F and B were initially selected
101
as the maximum variation sample programs for this matrix. However, one of the pre-
established limitations assigned to the teacher sample (n
3
) selected from each of the
maximum variation programs is that each teacher must be currently teaching an
upper elementary classroom assignment (grades 3, 4, or 5). Upon further
investigation it was discovered by the researcher that Program F is a single district
program the serves a unified group of high schools and therefore has no elementary
teachers from which the teacher sample can be drawn. Therefore, the next maximally
variant program was selected for this sample, Program J with 34 total points.
Professional Learning Community (PLC) Characteristics Analysis
In order to add further depth and complexity to the analysis of the variability
among induction program design features within the theoretical framework that
guides this study, a second matrix was applied to the narrative data collected in the
survey responses. The data set for this matrix included the content of all narrative
responses constructed by each program. Due to the tiered, response-specific query
structure of the survey (Appendix C), the quantity of narrative responses and the
specific query prompts were not consistent from program to program with the
exception of the final two data collection points. Survey items 15 and 16 were posed
to all programs and both required narrative responses. All other open-ended response
queries were posed based on the selected responses to the root queries by each
program director. Because of this, respondents were not given equal opportunities to
provide narrative data for analysis. However, all root query dependent items are
designed to further probe each program’s design features and therefore offer
102
opportunities for greater qualitative depth of analysis that are specifically linked to
each program’s individual design. In this way, the inconsistencies in narrative
collection points from program to program were necessary in order to provide the
researcher with access to rich and individualized data specific to each of the
responding programs.
As it was described in the literature review in Chapter 2, effective systems for
induction are characterized by a commitment to community and collaboration
(Lazovsky & Reichenberg, 2006; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Wong, 2002; Moir &
Gless, 2001; Williams, 2001). This same declaration is carried through the National
Staff Development Council (NSCD) professional development standards (Appendix
A) in its call for the establishment of professional learning communities. DuFour and
Eaker (1998), specifically referenced by the NSCD standards, synthesize the
characteristics of learning communities in an educational context and contrast these
characteristics against factory model characteristics that they report currently
dominate most educational systems. These contrasting characteristics were identified
in Table 3.1. Note that the identified PLC characteristics are reflective of what
Rogoff (1995) reported where also effective characteristics of induction systems that
honor the sociocultural activities that emphasize the inseparable nature of personal,
interpersonal, and community planes.
Rubric Development and Scoring
In order to analyze the variability among the program designs within this
matrix, it is necessary to discover which respondents most closely report the
103
presence of these conditions in their programs (PLC) and which do not (Factory
Model). Based on McLaughlin and Talbert’s (1993) construct of the sociocultural
perspective within an educational system as successively contextualized layers
imbedded within each other, an analysis of the narrative responses created by the
program directors for the degree of presents and/or absence of PLC/factory model
characteristics should provide us with an indicator of what kind of organization is
being reproduced by each program. In other words, a discovery of the degree with
which PLC and factory model characteristics are present and/or absent among the
programs will further serve the discovery of the variability among induction program
design features.
To facilitate this analysis, the researcher created the rubric presented in Table
3.2. Used in conjunction with the PLC and factory model characteristics described in
Table 3.1, the researcher analyzed all narrative responses for each respondent and
assigned a single, holistic PLC characteristic score to each program. The researcher
constructed a reflective analysis of the narrative responses for each program based
on the characteristics listed in Table 3.1. From this analysis a rubric score (Table 3.2)
was then assigned by the researcher to each program. Clearly, the analytic reflections
and scores created by the researcher are subjective representations of the researcher’s
assessment of each program based on a limited set of narrative responses in
comparison to the afore mentioned characteristics (Table 3.1). The inconsistent range
of queries posed, each respondent’s personal perceptions, each respondent’s ability
to accurately communicate program features on the survey, and ultimately the
104
quality of the researcher’s assessment of each program’s responses can potentially
impact the accuracy of each score. As such, the results of this matrix should be taken
as an overall indicator of program-wide trends among design features of the
responding programs as opposed to a definitive assessment of each program’s design
characteristics.
Results
Data collected for survey item 5 and its follow-up query (Appendix C)
revealed that all of the responding programs require participating teachers to meet
weekly with a support provider and data collected for item 13 (Appendix C) revealed
that all of the program directors perceive that the level of mutual collaboration that
occurs between program participants and support providers is medium to high. This
means that one of the most frequently occurring and consistently required
professional development experiences across all of the responding programs is the
act of mutual collaboration. The foundation of this collaboration is an inquiry-based
formative assessment system. Considering the nature of this dominant treatment and
its alignment with PLC characteristics, sociocultural theory would predict a
reproduction of PLC characteristics across the sample of induction programs being
studied (McLaughlin and Talbert, 1993).
Not surprisingly, based on the researcher’s assessment of PLC characteristics
evident in each program’s narrative responses, 73% (19 out of 26 respondents) were
assigned a score of 3 (35%) or 4 (38%) by the researcher resulting in a mean overall
score of 2.96. The calculated standard deviation from the mean is 1.16, which further
105
serves to reveal the upward skew of these results. This data implies that there is a
predominance of PLC characteristics represented among the responding programs.
Note, as it was stated earlier, all statistics derived for this study are based on the
formulas and processes presented by Howell (2004) and calculated by the researcher.
The number of programs and the resultant percentage for each of the possible scores
is presented in Table 4.6. Additionally, the table includes, for comparative purposes
to be discussed next, the range of points assigned to each program in the previously
explicated common design feature matrix.

Table 4.4: PLC Score Distribution
Rubric Scores f % Common Design Feature Points Range
1 4 15 34-64
2 3 12 50-62
3 9 35 37-66
4 10 38 38-67

Unlike the previous matrix, the PLC characteristics matrix reveals much less
variation among the program designs. Additionally, the assigned PLC scores appear
to have little or no relation to the degree of common design features of a given
program. To illustrate this, note the points range presented in the Common Design
Feature Points Range column in Table 4.4 in comparison to the PLC scores. A PLC
score of 1 is represented by four programs whose common design feature points
ranged from 34 to 64 points. This range includes the lowest common design feature
106
point score for (34 points), two of the median programs (53 points), and a fourth
quartile program (64 points). A PLC score of 4, consisting of 10 (38%) of the total
respondents, spans all four quartiles and includes one median score. A PLC score of
3 also includes programs that span all four common design feature quartiles. Finally,
a PLC score of 3 includes a program in the second quartile and two programs in the
fourth quartile.
The evidence presented in Table 4.4 seems to indicate that the degree of
variability among the common design features possessed by any given program
appears to provide little indication that a program will be more or less representative
of PLC characteristics. According to the evidence presented here, one matrix is in no
way an indicative predictor of the other matrix. However, the two most extreme
programs present in the common design feature matrix (Program F with 34 points
and Program B with 67 points) both appear in opposite extremes in the PLC matrix.
Program F was assigned a PLC score of 1 and Program B was assigned a PLC score
of 4. Although Program F has been excluded from the maximum variation sample,
Program B has already been selected (explained previously).
PLC Characteristics: Maximum Variation Sample
The task of selecting maximum variant programs from the PLC matrix was a
purely subjective task based on specifically defined characteristics (Table 3.1). To
achieve a maximum variation sample for this matrix, the purpose of the selection
process was to choose one program from the range of four programs that were
assigned a score of one and one program from the range of ten programs that were
107
assigned a score of four. First, Program F was disqualified from the one point set for
the same reason it was disqualified from the previous matrix. Next, Program B was
disqualified from the four points set because it had already been selected as a
maximum variant program in the previous matrix. All survey responses and the
narrative analysis for each of the remaining programs in each set were then
reexamined by the researcher to discover which program appeared to be the most
representative of PLC (4 points) and Factory Model (1 point) characteristics.
After the subjective review of the available information was completed,
Program L was initially selected as the most representative of PLC characteristics.
However, when this program’s director was informed about his/her program’s
selection to participate in stage two of this study, (s)he declined to continue
participation. Program I was then selected as the next program most representative of
PLC characteristics. Of the three remaining programs in the one point set, Program A
emerged as the most representative of Factory Model characteristics.
Program I was selected as the most representative of PLC characteristics
among the available programs for this set because the focus of this program is on
creating a synergy of effort with district “culture and history.” The respondent stated
in his/her survey responses, “We weave the district culture into the BTSA program
as much as possible.” Release time is provided to all teachers for “required” peer
collaboration. The respondent also stated that an explicit program goal is to “avoid a
cookie cutter approach to new teacher professional development.” This is reflected in
108
the nature of how the program requires its participants to demonstrate the induction
standards via a portfolio of evidence selected by the participants.
However, it should be noted that one indicator of the presence of a learning
community is the use of outcome data in the justification of perceptions. The
director’s survey responses and judgments of quality are often times justified with
statements of access not in terms of actual outcomes. For example, when asked to
comment on the reported high level of support provider and participant collaboration
the respondent states, “We document contacts between SP and PT.” Similarly, when
asked to comment on the reported high level of collaboration between participants
and program staff the respondent provided a description of program staff allocation
(i.e., “one full time release teacher and the district director of curriculum”). Despite
this one contradiction, what emerges from an analysis of this program’s responses is
that there is a clear mission to resist the factory-like tendencies of uniformity and
standardization.
Program A was selected as the least representative of PLC characteristics
because, despite the fact that teacher to teacher collaboration is stated as perceived
strength, no program effort or structure is identified as a means of achieving this
outcome. Is collaboration part of the district structure already and therefore lays
beyond specific program design functions? Or, is the perception wrong? There is a
distinct lack of useful information present in the narratives provided by the
respondent. No clear profile emerges from the narratives to give a clear indication of
a program identified purpose or focus. Subjectively speaking, the program design
109
seems to be a passive happening, something seen by the respondent as opposed to
something that is guided by any particular direction or mission. There does not
appear to be sufficient evidence of definitive design characteristics. This kind of
deficit in the responses provided by a program’s director could be interpreted as
contra-indicative of PLC characteristics.
Conclusion of Stage One: Induction Program Design Features
Ultimately, what has emerged from the first stage of this study is the
discovery that there is an indication that BTSA induction programs vary vastly
among their operational design features but vary to much lesser degree among their
representation of PLC characteristics. More specifically, there appears to be a great
range of program requirements that participants must complete in order to be
recommended for their clear credentials. There is also an indication that most BTSA
induction programs are likely to display characteristics that are representative of
learning communities. Based on these results, not surprisingly, the program
requirements that showed the least variation among program design features were
those rooted in the collaborative tools and actions that occupy support provider and
participating teacher interactions (i.e., formative assessment, time spent
collaborating, and the perceived level of support provider and participant
collaboration).
Professional collaboration and the activities that support professional
collaboration are all strong indicators of professional learning communities (DuFour
and Eaker, 1998). Therefore the data presented thus far has found that the theme that
110
seems to cut across the full range of program design feature variations among the
induction programs sampled is professional collaboration and activities that support
professional collaboration. According to sociocultural theory (Tharp, 1997; van
Huizen, et al., 2005; Kelly, 2006; Rogan 2007) and in alignment with the NSCD
guiding principles and vision (Table 2.7), systems of professional development that
promote this kind of activity are more likely to produce new teachers better equipped
to resist regression away from reform-minded practice.
Program Design Features that Define Teacher Quality: Data and Findings
Returning to our theoretical framework, in order to discover what induction
program design features define teacher quality, it is necessary for us to return to the
activity setting, to those who create meaning and who control meaning (Tharp,
1997). The activity setting in this case is that act of everyday instruction. Therefore,
the evidence gathered via a classroom observation can be an indicator of the
successive contextualized layers that surround it (McLaughlin and Talbert, 1993). In
other words, evidence of classroom enactments is, through the lens of sociocultural
theory, evidence of the community, interpersonal, and personal planes that
characterize effective induction systems (Lazovsky & Reichenberg, 2006; Smith &
Ingersoll, 2004; DuFour and Eaker, 1998). As it was described in Chapter Two,
those teachers that are able to maintain and innovate do so because of a sociocultural
orientation to professional development (Rogan, 2007). The studies of Flores (2006)
and Sabar (2004) reified the important role that induction programs play in helping
new teachers resist an inservice regression to the mean away from reform-minded
111
practice. As such, using the four maximum variant programs (Programs A, B, I, and
J), the second stage of this study was conducted to gather evidence of the activity
setting of each program—program graduates instructing students.
The second stage of this study was designed to probe what program design
features define teacher quality. In order to study this question, the researcher
intended to randomly select two program graduates from each of the four maximum
variant programs (Programs A, B, I, and J). As it was described in Chapter Two, due
to a lack of qualified subjects Program I was removed from this stage of the study.
After selecting two subjects from the three remaining programs, the researcher
conducted one observation of each subject teaching an English/language arts lesson,
conducted a follow-up interview with each subject’s principal, and, when the
documents were available, conducted a review of each subject’s induction portfolio.
The purpose of the interview and document review was to help ensure that the data
gathered during the observation was representative of each subject’s regular practice.
Finally, the data collected on each of the subjects was assessed against the Rubric for
Observing Classroom Enactments of CREDE Standards of Effective Pedagogy
(http://crede.berkeley.edu/standards/spac.shtml.).
The CREDE rubric was designed to rate evidence of instructional activity
against indicators of sociocultural actions. Through this vehicle, sociocultural theory
would predict that the higher the score of individual program graduates, the more
likely a given program’s design supports the maintenance of reform-minded practice
through a sociocultural orientation to professional development. Although the
112
limited scale and qualitative elements of this study do not allow for the
generalization of findings from program to program, because the subjects were
drawn from maximum variant programs, themes that cut across all the programs that
are sampled will be revealed (Patton, 2002). As such, the selected program graduates
will be relevant indicators of outcomes that are defined by each program’s design. In
this manner, it is hoped that the analysis of the teacher quality in the context of the
design features of each of the sample programs can be used to inform a theory of
effective induction program design that will support and maintain reform-minded
practice in new teachers.
Summary of Observation, Interview, and Document Review Data
The researcher gathered the observation data for each of selected program
graduates (n
3
= 6) via direct observations of instruction. The observations occurred
between April 9, 2008 and April 28, 2008. The length of each observation ranged
from 25 minutes to 55 minutes. Each subject was observed teaching one
English/language arts lesson. The researcher followed each observation with an
interview of each subject’s principal and a review of each subject’s induction
portfolio, as available, in order to query further evidence of each teacher’s regular
practice. What follows here is a summary of the observed lesson for each subject and
a brief description of the interview and document review process for each subject.
Subject A1
The observation of Subject A1 was conducted on April 9, 2008. The
observation lasted 35 minutes and spanned a fifth grade integrated social science and
113
English/language arts lesson. The instructional objectives included the development
of student knowledge and understanding of the reasons why the British colonies in
America declared independence from England and the development of students’
ability to construct a persuasive letter. The primary student activity was the drafting
of a letter to the King of England from the perspective of an American colonist.
The lesson began with a review of a writing assignment organizer, displayed
on an overhead projector. The class was familiar with the organizer and it had clearly
been part of previous instructional experiences. The organizer defined the author’s
role (colonist), the audience (King of England), format (persuasive letter), and the
topic (declaring independence from England). The student’s were told that they
would be trying to persuade the King to give the colonies independence form
England. Next, Subject A1 played a CD that read aloud from the student text as the
students followed along. The selected reading provided background vocabulary and
preliminary information about why the American colonies wanted independence
from England. Finally, the student began drafting their letters. Subject A1 wrote a
framework for the first two sentences of the letter on the overhead and instructed the
students that they needed to write seven more sentences to finish the letter. The
students were instructed to work alone or with a partner to complete the assignment.
While the students worked, Subject A1 visited each student at his/her desk to answer
questions, praise, and provide further direction as needed.
The analysis of Subject A1’s practice was based primarily on the observation
evidence collected by the researcher during the lesson described above. Additionally,
114
the researcher conducted a 20-minute interview with Subject A1’s principal just
following the observation. The purpose of the interview was to ensure the
observation evidence that was gathered provided a reliable picture of Subject A1’s
regular practice. The subject’s induction portfolio was not available for document
review. The subject reported that (s)he turned it in to the program office upon
completion and the program director reported that the program did not save a copy of
the portfolio. The data collected during the interview corroborated observed practice
but also added several points that were not necessarily evident during the short
observation period. For example, the principal reported that the school participates in
a home visitation grant and that the subject has visited the home of all of his/her
students at least once this year.
Subject A2
Subject A2 teaches at the same school as subject A1. The observation of
Subject A2 was conducted on April 9, 2008 just following the observation of Subject
A1. The observation lasted 25 minutes and spanned a fifth grade English/language
arts lesson. The instructional objective was to develop student’s understanding about
how characters solve problems in stories to support students’ ability to analyze
literature and understand conflict resolution. The primary student activity was the
whole group application of a problem solving graphic organizer applied to a familiar
student problem, a broken pencil. Beyond serving the literary analysis instructional
objective, the activity also served as a thinking-map and metacoginitive model for
students to support the resolution of problems and conflicts that they may face in
115
their really life. The lesson ended with students beginning to apply the problem
solving process to an analysis of a story but the class ended before the reading
activity could be completed.
The lesson began with Subject A2 introducing the instructional goal and
describing the lesson activities. Students where asked to brainstorm with their
neighbors some common problems that students have to deal with in classrooms
everyday. The subject randomly selected students, using number sticks drawn from a
jar, to share partner-generated ideas. The class then voted on one problem to become
the focus of the lesson, sharpening a broken pencil when classroom pencil sharpener
is not working (apparently a real and ongoing problem for this particular class).
Following this same think-pair-share process the whole class moved through a five-
step problem solving graphic organizer that help the class to 1) define the problem,
2) brainstorm possible solutions, 3) identify the pros and cons of possible solutions,
4) select the best solution, and 5) create a plan to carry out the solution. After the
class had worked through the problem-solving organizer for the broken pencil
problem, Subject A2 distributed a copy of a one-page story and began applying the
problem-solving organizer as a tool for analyzing the story. The structure of the story
activity appeared as if it was going to serve the purpose of guided practice with
students working in pairs and the teacher interacting with pairs of students and the
whole class as they applied the new learning but the bell rang to dismiss students for
break and activity was stopped with only the character’s problem identified.
116
The analysis of Subject A2’s practice was based primarily on the observation
evidence collected by the researcher during the lesson described above. Additionally,
the researcher conducted a 20-minute interview with Subject A2’s principal just
following the observation. The purpose of the interview was to ensure the
observation evidence that was gathered provided a reliable picture of Subject A2’s
regular practice. The subject’s induction portfolio was not available for document
review. The subject reported that (s)he turned it in to the program office upon
completion and the program director reported that the program did not save a copy of
the portfolio. The data collected during the interview corroborated observed practice
but also added several points that were not necessarily evident during the short
observation period. For example, in addition to participating in the same home
visitation grant as Subject A1, the principal also reported that Subject A2 is bilingual
(Spanish and English) and often provides primary language support to his/her
students.
Subject B1
The observation of Subject B1 was conducted on April 28, 2008. The
observation lasted 35 minutes and spanned a sixth grade English/language arts
lesson. The objective of the lesson was to develop student understanding of literary
conflict (i.e., man vs. self, man vs. man, man vs. nature, and man vs. society). The
instructional period was divided between two activities. The lesson began with a
whole group discussion that moved to a small group activity then back to a whole
group discussion.
117
The opening whole group discussion began with a general teacher query that
asked the class to define conflict. Students provided responses to include obstacle,
problem, fight, and disagreement. The subject then told the class, “We often have
conflict in literature.” (S)he then put up signs on the board for each of the kinds of
literary conflict. She told the students about a conflict that she faced in her life and
the students where asked to speculate what kind of conflict it represented. After the
whole group introduction of literary conflict, the students were divided into small
groups and told to brainstorm examples of each type of conflict. While the students
worked in groups the subject moved from group to group to monitor progress and
offer support. The students then returned to their seats. Each student shared an
example for one of the types of literary conflict that was then posted on the board
under the correct category.
The analysis of Subject B1’s practice was based primarily on the observation
evidence collected by the researcher during the lesson described above. Additionally,
the researcher conducted a 20-minute phone interview with the subject’s principal
two-days after the observation and the subject’s induction portfolio was made
available during the observation period for document review. The purpose of the
interview and document review was to ensure the observation evidence that was
gathered provided a reliable picture of Subject B1’s regular practice. The data
collected during the interview and evidenced by the subject’s induction portfolio
corroborated observed practice. Although the document review did not provide any
additional evidence, the interview added several points that were not necessarily
118
evident during the observation period. For example, the principal reported that the
subject makes extensive use of “Kaplan’s ICONS for depth and complexity” (for
more information see Differentiating the Core Curriculum and Instruction to
Provide Advanced Learning Opportunities reflecting the ideas of Sandra Kaplan and
created jointly by the California Department of Education and the California
Association for the Gifted, 1994).
Subject B2
The observation of Subject B2 was conducted on April 28, 2008. The
observation lasted 40 minutes and spanned a fifth grade English/language arts lesson.
The lesson was in progress when the observation began. The lesson was designed to
teach students to identify prepositions and prepositional phrases. The instructional
activities consisted of teacher lead modeling and questioning to the whole group and
students working silently on independent practice.
When the observation began the subject had a large tree drawn on the board
and had a picture of a hedgehog. The subject was asking the students where she
could move the hedgehog in relation to the tree. Based on the student responses the
subject created a list of prepositions and prepositional phrases on the board. The
students and teacher engagement in the activity was playful. Student and subject
laughter permeated this activity. As the level of laughter increased the number of
students willing to volunteer responses increased. Using a sentence template written
on the board students then choose one example to write in their English journals with
the preposition underlined. The subject then asked the class to try and create a
119
definition for preposition. Student then raised their hands. The subject selected
students to answer his/her queries and provided Socratic-like follow-up questions
that guided the student/teacher dialogue toward a definition of a preposition. The
students then copied the definition in their English journals. The students were then
instructed to pick two nouns and write a sentence using a prepositional phase. Some
students were asked to share their examples with the class. The students were then
instructed to take out their English workbooks and complete a worksheet on
prepositions. While the students worked independently on the worksheet the subject
visited most of the students to check their sentences. For the closing activity, the
subject wrote a sentence containing three prepositional phases and queried the whole
class to identify each of the prepositions.
The analysis of Subject B2’s practice was based primarily on the observation
evidence collected by the researcher during the lesson described above. Additionally,
the researcher conducted a 25-minute phone interview with the subject’s principal
two-days after the observation and the subject’s induction portfolio was made
available during the observation period for document review. The purpose of the
interview and document review was to ensure the observation evidence that was
gathered provided a reliable picture of Subject B2’s regular practice. The data
collected during the interview and evidenced by the subject’s induction portfolio
corroborated observed practice. The interview also added several points that were
not necessarily evident during the observation period. For example, the principal
described a recent mathematics lesson in which (s)he observed the subject guide
120
students as they role-played the movement of decimal points in order to illustrate
how decimal point movement affected the quantity.
Subject J1
The observation of Subject J1 was conducted on April 23, 2008. The
observation lasted 50 minutes and spanned a fourth grade English/language arts
lesson. The subject provided the researcher with an unsolicited copy of his/her lesson
plan before the observation. The written plan’s objectives and activities are
consistent with what was observed during the instructional period. The instructional
objective described in the written plan and explained to the students during the
instructional period was for the students to identify text clues and utilize these clues
to draw conclusions about the meaning of the given text. The subject employed a
graphic organizer (Drawing Conclusions Flow Map) to facilitate the collection and
organization of text clues. The progression of the lesson activities followed a direct
instruction model (i.e., input regarding the content and strategies, modeling,
checking for understanding, guided practice, independent practice, and closure). The
subject did deviate from the plan briefly after checks for understanding revealed
students needed additional modeling.
The lesson began by revisiting a story that had been read on the previous day.
Using information provided by the students related to the previous day’s story the
subject introduced the graphic organizer, explained the lesson objectives, and
modeled the identification of text clues that supported the conclusions that students
had already made about the previous text. The students were then asked to work in
121
small groups to draw a new conclusion related to the same familiar story and find
new text clues to support their new conclusions. The students then engaged in the
same activity in partner teams and finally completed the assignment independently
with a new piece of unfamiliar text. Interwoven throughout the lesson the subject
employed a think-pair-share strategy that provided all students with processing time
during whole group queries and discussions. The subject also visited each of the
students at their desks at least three times to monitor progress and provide individual
guidance and support. At the end of the lesson students where directed to write a
conclusion statement utilizing the text clues to support their conclusion.
The analysis of Subject J1’s practice was based primarily on the observation
evidence collected by the researcher during the lesson described above. Additionally,
the researcher conducted a 15-minute phone interview with Subject J1’s principal six
hours after the observation. Portions of the subject’s induction portfolio were saved
electronically by the program director and were emailed to the researcher for
document review one week after the observation. The purpose of the interview and
document review was to ensure the observation evidence that was gathered provided
a reliable picture of Subject J1’s regular practice. The data collected during the
interview and evidenced by the subject’s induction portfolio documents corroborated
observed practice. The interview also added several points that were not necessarily
evident during the short observation period. For example, the principal reported that
the subject “makes extensive use of Kagan cooperative learning strategies” and has
122
participated in district workshop on utilizing these strategies (see
www.kaganonline.com).
Subject J2
The observation of Subject J2 was conducted on April 21, 2008. The
observation lasted 55 minutes and spanned two second grade English/language arts
lessons. The first lesson, on the –er and –est suffixes, was in progress when the
observation began and spanned 20 minutes of the observation period. The second
lesson, an expository text reading lesson taken from the basal, spanned 35 minutes of
the observation period.
The suffix lesson was conducted in a teacher-lead whole group call and
response format. Students were seated in forward facing horizontal rows. Students
worked individually to complete a series of word lists that required them to choose
and write the correct suffix based on orally delivered scenarios. Each student utilized
individual slates and dry-erase markers to write words with the correct endings. After
each exercise, the subject instructed the students to hold up their slates so (s)he could
monitor their progress.
For the second lesson, the students moved from their desks to a semicircle on
the rug. The students were instructed to bring their basal readers. The lesson focused
on an expository text selected from the basal. The lesson began with the subject
instructing the students to look at the pictures in the text and predict what the text
would be about. The teacher then read aloud from the text while students followed
along in their own books. The students chorused each of the highlighted vocabulary
123
words contained in the student text as the subject read aloud. After reading half the
text, students then returned to their desks and copied the highlighted vocabulary
words from the text into a vocabulary notebook. They were then instructed to look-
up each word in the book’s glossary and copy the definition into their vocabulary
books.
Students worked individually to complete all activities. No student-to-student
interaction was observed. The subject asked copious critical thinking questions
throughout all activities. Usually, answers to queries were given via individual or
chorus call outs. The slates were used to provide students with pre-thinking,
activating, and processing time. There was a constant and apparently conscious focus
on vocabulary support and development. Academic and social vocabulary was
constantly being rephrased and reframed by the subject throughout the entire
observation period.
Especially noteworthy was the consistently seamless transitions and highly
efficient routines. The only time spent off task was lost when student moved from
their desks to the circle on the rug to read and then back again after reading.
However, the movement occurred with almost no oral prompting on the subject’s
part and was so efficient that it is hardly worth documenting. No students needed
redirection or restatement of directions at any point during any of the observation
period even when complications occurred. For example, at one point, a student’s dry-
erase marker stopped working. Without hesitation the student silently held up the
pen, the subject nodded to the student, the student went to the back and grabbed a
124
blank sheet of paper, and returned to his seat and continued to work with pen and
paper instead of using the slate.
The analysis of Subject J2’s practice was based primarily on the observation
evidence collected by the researcher during the lesson described above. Additionally,
the researcher conducted a 20-minute interview with Subject J2’s principal
immediately after the observation. Portions of the subject’s induction portfolio were
saved electronically by the program director and were emailed to the researcher for
document review ten days after the observation. The purpose of the interview and
document review was to ensure the observation evidence that was gathered provided
a reliable picture of Subject J2’s regular practice. The data collected during the
interview and evidenced by subject’s induction portfolio documents corroborated
observed practice. The interview also added several points that were not necessarily
evident during the short observation period. However, the principal revealed during
the interview that this was his/her first year at the school. (S)he confessed that his/her
newness on campus made it hard for him/her to know too many specifics about the
subject. Expectedly, his/her responses were not very specific. (S)he did say however
that (s)he has observed the subject a couple of times and (s)he was very confident
that the subject’s management success was born out of a focus on prevention created
by strongly established routines early in the year. (S)he stated, “It took me years to
achieve the same level of effective management.”
125
Results
At the onset of this reporting of results that emerged from the observations, it
must be stated that all subjects were observed to have, in the opinion of this
researcher, exceptionally positive and productive relationships with their students.
The results that follow are not meant to criticize or imply that any of the subjects
were unsatisfactory in their performance. What follows is not an assessment of the
competence of these instructors. No student outcomes where collected and analyzed
as a component of this study. It is the opinion of this researcher that without such
evidence of student outcomes, it would be irresponsible of this study to pass
judgment on effectiveness of a subject’s practice. What follows instead is an
assessment of each subject’s instructional actions aligned with indicators of
sociocultural pedagogy. The resultant ratings that emerged from and analysis of this
alignment, according to CREDE (crede.berkeley.edu) and its supporting research
(Estrada, 2005; Teemnant, Smith, Pinnegar, & Egan, 2005; Doherty, Hilberg,
Epaloose, & Tharp, 2002), are indicators of teacher quality from a sociocultural
perspective.
The results of the analysis and rating of each subject are presented in Table
4.5. The Rubric for Observing Classroom Enactments
(http://crede.berkeley.edu/standards/spac.shtml), also known as the Standards
Performance Continuum (SPC), offered ratings for the five CREDE Standards for
Effective Pedagogy (Appendix B) in the following leveled categories: not present,
emerging, developing, enacting, and integrating. To facilitate the reporting of each
126
subject’s SPC ratings, a rubric score was assigned by the researcher to each level (0–
4 points sequentially). As it is presented in Table 4.5, two distinct rating patterns
emerged from the assessment of each subject. Half of the subjects received
Integrating ratings (4 points) for all five standards. The other half received
Integrating ratings for the Language and Literacy Development (LLD), Making
Meaning (MM), and Complex Thinking (CT) standards and Emerging ratings (1
point) for the Joint Productive Activity (JPA) and Instructional Conversation (IC)
standards. Notice that each program produced subjects that represented both score
patterns.

Table 4.5: SPC Results
Subject JPA LLD MM CT IC
Common
Design
Score
PLC
Rating
Subject A1 1 4 4 4 1
Subject A2 4 4 4 4 4
53 1
Subject B1 4 4 4 4 4
Subject B2 1 4 4 4 1
67 4
Subject J1 4 4 4 4 4
Subject J2 1 4 4 4 1
37 3

In all cases where an Enacting rating was assigned for the JPA and IC
standards, there was a distinct lack of complex collaborative work being completed
by students and the subjects during the observation period. To be more specific,
during the observation period for Subjects A1, B2, and J2 students were not observed
127
to collaborate on a joint product and there was not an activity in which the subjects
conversed with a small group of students on an academic topic. As a matter of fact,
no student-to-student interaction was observed occurring during Subject B2’s lesson
or Subject J2’s lesson. Subject A1 did make frequent use of the think-pair-share
strategy to give students time to process teacher queries. This social interaction did
appear to support student processing of teacher queries but did not probe into the
realm of a jointly produced product. Students were given the choice to collaborate on
the production of a joint product (drafting a persuasive letter). However, none of
Subject A1’s students were observed to actually collaborate on the joint product. The
lessons for Subjects A1, B2, and J2 could be best characterized as functioning on
two levels: teacher-to-whole group query-response and independent student work
time. It is clear that the indicators associated with collaborative student and teacher
interaction play an important role in the indicators for the JPA and IC standards.
Without the presence of small, collaborative groups it is unclear how a higher rating
in these standards could be achieve.
It should be considered that the clustering of scores that resulted from the
analysis and rating of each subject could be due to a lack of experience in the
application of SPC ratings on the part of the researcher. Although the researcher has
extensive experience in the collection of teacher observation evidence (described in
Chapter Three), this study is the first time that the researcher has made use of SPC
ratings as a means of assessing teacher quality. However, based on the information
collected during the interviews of the principals of Subjects A1, B2, and J2 and the
128
review of induction portfolio documents for Subjects B2 and J2 taken in conjunction
with the observation data collected, this researcher feels confident that the use of
small collaborative groups is not a component of these subjects’ regular instructional
activities. Additionally, the corroboration of data the existed between the interviews,
document reviews, and observation evidence for all subjects suggest a strong
likelihood that the analysis and rating of each subject in all SPC standards is based
on reliable data. The high likelihood of a reliable data set for each subject analyzed
by the researcher utilizing a careful application the SPC Flow Chart for Raters
(http://crede.berkeley.edu/standards/spac_chart.shtml) created by CREDE to help
ensure rater reliability establishes confidence that the SPC ratings assigned to each
subject for each standard are also likely to be reliable.
Finally, what the data reveals is that despite the reason for the selection of
each of the maximum variant programs each program has produced graduates that all
display strong indicators of three of the five SPC standards. Each of the three
programs produced a graduate that was weak in the same two SPC standards and this
weakness was due to a lack of student and teacher engagement in collaborative
activity. The maximum variant programs from which the subjects were drawn
represent samples from both extremes of each of the two program design feature
matrixes, as well as, the medians of both matrixes. Without a discernable pattern of
outcomes distinguishing one program from the other, how can these outcomes
inform the answer to our final research question? How can one conclude what
program design features define teacher quality?
129
Teacher Quality Outcomes in the Context of Design Feature Variability and
Commonality: Discussion

As it has been revealed, assuming reliable application of the assessment tool
has been applied, no discernable pattern of teacher quality has emerged thus far
relative to any particular program design matrix established for this study. Table 4.5
shows both the Common Design Feature scores and PLC ratings for each of the
selected programs from which the subjects were sampled. As it was reported in the
first part of this chapter, there is a broad and evenly distributed range of design
features among the programs represented in the survey sample. These programs,
based purely on the level of popularity of program design features, showed great
variability among their design features. Conversely, most survey respondents were
likely to characterize their programs as having high levels of PLC characteristics.
Through this matrix the variability among program designs diminished greatly.
Although no theory that governs teacher quality was linked to the level of
commonality that programs share among design features (Olebe, 2005), there was a
strong theoretical foundation presented to connect the presence of PLC
characteristics with teacher quality (NSDC; DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Unfortunately,
no such link has apparently emerged from the outcome of this study. For example,
Program A is one of the three median programs that emerged from the common
design feature scores. However, it was selected as a maximum variant program
because of its low PLC score. As such, through the lens of sociocultural theory
(McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993), one would expect that the reproduction of Factory
130
Model characteristics (Table 3.1) throughout the successive layers of Program A’s
organization would lead to minimal enactment of the SPC indicators during an
observation of a program graduate’s practice. Using this same logic, because of
Program B’s high PLC rating, one would expect the opposite outcome to be
evidenced in the practice of its graduates. Yet again, all three of the sampled
programs produced apparently identical patterns of teacher quality outcomes. As
Berry and Hopkins-Thompson (2002) and others (Lazovsky & Reichenberg, 2006;
Smith and Ingersoll, 2004) have illustrated through their studies of induction
programs, effective induction programs are more than funding, mentors, and
workshops. This research supports an assumption that great variability among
program design features may have little impact on the definition of teacher quality.
If common outcomes seen through a lens that highlights variability among
program design features is obscuring the answer to our question of what program
design features define teacher quality, then logic dictates that we look at the question
through a new lens. The confounding outcome is that all three maximum variant
programs produced similar outcomes. All six subjects were assigned the highest
rating (Table 4.5) in three of the five SPC standards (Appendix B). These high
ratings are suggestive of effective practice (Doherty, et al., 2002) and illustrate a
persistence of reform-minded practice in at least three of five assessed areas. How
could three so apparently different programs achieve results so similar? What if the
design features that define this quality are not located in what makes these programs
different, but rather in what is common among these programs? Clearly, instead of
131
looking at this as a problem of program variability, we must look instead through a
lens that highlights commonalities among program design features.
What design features do each of these programs hold in common? To
discover this, we must return to program design survey results and the common
design feature calculation data. Most notable among the common features that
spanned all of the responding programs, was a requirement that all participants meet
weekly with their support providers. Also, the programs were split between medium
and high in their rating of the perceived quality of support provider and participant
mutual collaboration. The primary curriculum that guides all support provider and
participating teacher interactions during their weekly meeting is each program’s
adopted formative assessment system.
Although each of the selected programs reported the use of different
formative assessment systems (Program A uses FAS, Program B uses CFASST, and
Program J uses a locally designed instrument), the Standards of Quality and
Effectiveness Professional Teacher Induction Programs (2002) specify that each
program must employ a valid system of formative assessment. Therefore, despite the
differences among the systems represented in our maximum variation sample, all
support provider and participant interactions are guided by some valid system of
formative assessment and all participants are required to complete their programs’
adopted system. Additionally, imbedded within all valid formative assessment
systems is a process for the development of individualized professional development
plans, or individual induction plans. Each induction plan is developed by the
132
participant in collaboration with a support provider and is based on the individual
participant’s formatively assessed areas of strength and areas of need as they are
measured against the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CTC, 1998).
All three of the maximum variant programs require participants to develop and
implement an individual induction plan twice per year. Finally, all three of the
programs from which a sample of teacher quality was assessed reported to utilize
full-time classroom teachers as support providers. In fact, only one of the 26 survey
respondents reported to exclusively utilize full-time release, non-classroom teachers
as support providers. Because this variable was not included in our maximum
variation sample, it would be remiss to imply whether or not the type of support
provider might play a role in the definition of the quality of program graduates. Only
through the selection and assessment of a sample of this program’s graduates could
such a speculation be implied.
Conclusion
In summation, the definition of teacher quality that has emerged from this
study of the variation among program designs may not be born in the realm of design
features that distinguish induction programs from one another but rather among the
design features that induction program hold in common. This study followed a mixed
method approach to data collection and analysis on a limited scale. The results and
analysis presented in this study should not be taken as empirically evident of any
specific finding. However, it is clear that, due to the selection of a maximum
variation sample, according to Patton (2002), certain themes have been observed to
133
cut across the programs that elected to participate in this study and these common
themes in the context of a sociocultural framework may work to define the quality of
induction program graduates. Namely, the theme that appears to span our sample of
programs and teachers is the collaborative work of support providers and participants
around valid formative assessment systems that include the development and
implementation of two individual induction plans per year. Subjects who received
this treatment during their induction program experiences demonstrated consistent
quality in the areas of Language and Literacy Development, Contextualization, and
Challenging Activities. As Sabar’s (2004) study highlighted, the function of effective
induction programs is to support the enculturation of new teachers in a manner that
facilitates their entrance into and participation in contrasted and realized school
communities while simultaneously maintaining the idealized identities born in the
preservice stage of their development. Do these common elements among program
design features support this kind of enculturation? If so, how? A theoretical stance
and recommendations for further study based on these outcomes will be presented in
Chapter Five of this study.
134
CHAPTER FIVE
Implications and Recommendations
Summary
Throughout the review of research and in the context of the data presented in
the previous chapters of this study, evidence exists that suggests that the
implementation of systems of teacher induction can make a positive impact on
teacher quality outcomes. At the most functional and empirically measurable level,
teachers who participate in induction systems, like one that is in place in California,
are much more likely to persist in the profession (Tushnet et al, 2002; Smith &
Ingersoll, 2004; Mitchell, et al., 2007). Considering the research that supports the
assertion that teacher effectiveness rises sharply after the first few years of classroom
experience (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 1998; Kain & Singleton, 1996), it is not
unreasonable to assume that, at least indirectly, induction programs impact teacher
quality. However, despite persistence in the profession, teachers who are initially
employed in high-poverty schools are less likely to persist at their original school
sites in comparison to their peers who are initially employed at more affluent schools
(Darling-Hammond and Sykes, 2003). Using this logic, high rates of retention in the
profession are not enough to define teacher quality at the highest needs schools.
Darling-Hammond and Sykes (2003) state that it is the uneven implementation of
induction programs across California that complicates the discovery of definitive
conclusions about how induction programs contribute to solving this problem.
135
The purpose of this study has been to probe the variability among existing
induction program designs and work toward discovering what induction program
design features define teacher quality in a manner that supports the success of all
students, especially those students at the highest risk for failure. To examine the
question of what induction program design features define teacher quality in this
manner, it was necessary to employ a theoretical framework that supported what
Feiman-Nemser (2001) coined “reform-minded” practice as a means of both
developing teachers and enacting instructional practice. The research, methodology,
and standards developed the by Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and
Excellence (CREDE) provided such a framework. The CREDE conception of
sociocultural theory and pedagogy has been employed as a framework for the
development of methodology, process of data collection, and interpretation of data
that has been the subject of this study.
The resultant data that emerged and was reported in Chapter 4 further
supports assumptions that have already been made that suggest induction programs
in California indeed vary greatly in their designs (Mitchell, et al., 2007). The data
also revealed that vast variations in design features among the induction programs
that participated in this study seemed to have no variant impact on the assessed
quality of the selected teachers who had graduated from the programs. The qualities
that were assessed were consistent among the subjects selected from the three
maximum variation sample programs. What explanations are there for this lack
136
variation in teacher quality considering the great variations that existed among the
programs studied?
Implications
It is the lack of variation among teacher quality outcomes from program to
program in the context of the great variability among their respective programs’
design features that opens the door for the establishment of a theoretical stance for
this study. As the studies of Flores (2006) and Sabar (2004) illustrated one of the
most powerful impacts of effective induction systems is it ability to sustain new
teachers as they work to resist regression away from reform-minded practice. The
teachers sampled and assessed for this study seem to have resisted this kind of
regression. The high Standards Performance Continuum (SPC) ratings for all
subjects in at least three of the five CREDE Standards of Effective Pedagogy suggest
that reform-minded practice has been maintained across each subject’s practice in
most pedagogical areas. Despite the great variability among program design features
that each of the selected teachers experienced during their tenure in their respective
induction programs, similar outcomes were observed among the programs. Also,
despite the great variability among the range of design features, specific design
features were universally present in all programs sampled. This data suggests that the
variability among the design features of induction programs may not be as
significant as the similarities among programs.
The methodological and theoretical framework for this study has revealed
themes that reach across all programs sampled for this study. The data reveals that
137
the bulk of the professional development experiences associated with induction
programs were applied to program participants via one-to-one weekly contact with
support providers. The core vehicle for this collaboration was some valid system of
formative assessment and the development and implementation of individual
induction plans. These features are held in common among all programs sampled for
this study. The framework for this treatment, with the exception of the specification
of frequency of contact with a support provider, is mandated by the induction
program standards. Through the lens created by this study, the concerns of Darling-
Hammond and Sykes (2003) related to the uneven implementation of induction
programs may not be as confounding a condition as they lead one to believe.
The data has found that the elements of induction that contribute to teacher
effectiveness are found in the weekly collaboration of a participant with a support
provider focused on the completion of a valid system of formative assessment and
the development and implementation of individual induction plans. As was reported
in Table 2.2 (Developmental History of Induction Systems in California) and Table
2.3 (Old and New Induction Standards Alignment), this element has been an ever
present design feature of induction programs in California. The recently published
evaluation study of California’s induction program system reported this same
assumption. The report found the contribution of this element so compelling and
important to the successful development of new teachers that it specifically
recommends a focus on the recruitment, training, and support for the professionals
who serve as support providers within induction systems (Mitchell, et al., 2007).
138
Starting with the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year, in alignment with
stipulations established by Senate Bill 1209, induction programs in California will
have a revised set of standards governing their program designs. At this pivot-point
what direction should induction programs take? What questions should program
directors be asking as they (re)vision their designs? In the context of this study, one
question must be raised, how complex and unique must an induction system be in
order to effectively function to produce high quality teachers for the children who
need them most? It is clear from this study that support providers and formative
assessment systems play an important role in the development of high quality
teachers. The data suggests that this treatment may be more important than any other
features that a program may construct.
Recommendations
As induction programs look toward their future designs, decisions must be
made about both the form and function induction systems. Based on the data and
implications presented for this study the following recommendations are presented in
two categories. Fist, recommendations related to induction program design and
revision will be presented. The strength of this study’s findings in combination with
current research on effective induction and professional development systems allow
this researcher to present these program design recommendations with a strong
degree of confidence. However, many questions remain unanswered therefore
recommendations for further research will be made.
139
Program Development
In light of the solid and consistent research on what constitutes effective
professional teacher development systems (Lieberman, 1995; Guskey, 2000;
Grossman, et al., 2001; Elmore, 2002; Blankstein, 2004; Hollins, 2006; DuFour, et
al., 2006) in combination with the implications of this study, it is recommended that
the development and (re)vision of induction systems locate and structure reform
efforts in places that promote what Hollins calls “collective responsibility for making
sure all students learn” (2006). The outcomes of this study suggest that this place can
be found in the exchanges between professional peers in the context of the act of
formative assessment of professional practice. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999)
found a similar conclusion present in the conception of knowledge-of-practice where
teachers work together in on-going inquiry communities toward the generation of
knowledge as part of a formative, life-long culture of practice.
As such, the following specific program development recommendations are
made based on the action settings surrounding support providers collaborating with
participating teachers utilizing valid formative assessment systems:
• The implications of the data collected for this study echoes the
recommendation made by the UC Riverside study (Mitchell, et al., 2007) that
encourages a focus on the recruitment, training, and support for the
professionals who serve as support providers within induction systems.
Considering their pivotal role in the induction process, the commitment of
140
resources and energy directed toward the selection and on-going development
of high quality support providers is justified.
• Additionally, programs should take a critical look at the reasoning behind the
complexity of their designs. There is strong evidence presented in this study
to suggests that the great range of design features that programs are
implementing may not be as important to the definition of teacher quality as
support provider collaboration with participants and the completion of a valid
formative assessment system, complex systems of mandatory activities that
go beyond this scope may not be necessary. Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s
(1999) inquiry stance construct for effective professional development is
described as a network of teacher and others that conjoin their efforts to
construct knowledge not a complex bureaucratic system of mandates.
• Finally, considering the successively reproductive nature of educational
systems (Apple, 2004; Rogoff, 1995; McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993), by
limiting formative assessment and inquiry actions to the binary construct of
mentor/protégé, truly collective responsibility for student success is closed-
off. As such, it should be the mission of induction programs to locate
themselves among district initiatives instead of separate or added onto them.
The established collaborative and formative inquiry process that is already
part of California’s vision of induction should not be seen as a separate
treatment applied only to new teachers and their support providers but, rather
an imbedded model of interaction that can be reproduced across educational
141
systems. District and school site leaders need to take advantage of these
already systematized interactions that are being nurtured in their newest staff
members. Teacher-leaders and support providers need to begin seeing
themselves as more than mentors or facilitators. They need to take on active
roles as participants in the process of inquiry, as well. In this way, the models
and practices that are at work in California’s induction program have the
potential to serve as an impetus for system-wide, grassroots reform that can
positively impact the success of all students.
Further Research
As it is usual with studies in education, we conclude here with a call for
further research. Further qualitative and quantitative studies must be conducted in
order to provide us with the depth and complexity and the solid correlative data that
educators and educational leaders need to grow and move forward purposefully and
effectively. As programs of induction construct and reconstruct themselves, it would
behoove program leaders to keep this need in mind. Systems of data collection and
methods of analysis should not be secondary considerations in a program’s design
but rather parallel constructs. We must make explicit the good work that induction
programs do and the good work that the educators that populate these programs do.
The implications drawn from the data collected and analyzed for this study
lead this researcher to recommend that this kind of work should begin with the
activities at play between program participants and support providers as they
negotiate formative assessment systems.
142
• The study of which formative assessment design and implementation features
contribute to the definition of teacher quality is essential. To serve the same
agenda of this study, efforts should examine how the experience of
engagement in a formative assessment system develop teachers capacity to
solve problems collaboratively (Elmore, 2002) and assume responsibility for
making sure all students can learn (Hollins, 2006).
• Taking into account the basic unit of analysis in sociocultural theory, the
activity setting (Tharp, 1997), we also need to see, hear, and document the
everyday interactions of support providers and participating teachers. We
need to compare and contrast variations in treatment (i.e., formative
assessment systems, contact time, method of interaction). We need to sample
and examine longitudinal data from both observations of instructional
practice and from measurable student outcomes.
• Most importantly, we need to target and conduct case studies of systems that
effectively support high-needs schools. We need to discover how induction
systems are significantly contributing to the retention of teachers in these
schools and developing teachers that can truly and successfully teach all
students.
143
REFERENCES
Abdal-Haqq, I. (1996). Making time for teacher professional development. ERIC
Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher
Education.

Anzaldúa, G. (1987). Borderlands/La Frontera. San Francisco: Spinsters/Aunt Lute
Book Co.

Apple, M. (1995). Education and power. NY: Routledge.

Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum, 3
rd
edition. NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Bartell, C. A. (2005). Cultivating High-Quality Teaching Through Induction and
Mentoring. CA: Corwin Press.

Berliner, D. C. (1994). The wonder of exemplary performance. In J. N. Mangieri &
C. C. Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students. Fort
Worth: Harcourt Brace.

Berry, B., Hopkins-Thompson, P., & Hoke, M. (2002). Assessing and supporting
new teachers: Lessons from the southeast. North Carolina: The Southeast
Center for Teaching Quality.

Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student
achievement in high-performing schools. CA: Corwin Press.

Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (2002). Reframing the Path to School Leadership: A
Guide for Teachers and Principals. CA: Corwin Press.

Brooks, J. & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for
constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Bryk, A. S., and Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school
reform. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40-44.

Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation prepared:
Teachers for the 21
st
century. Washington, DC: Carnegie Forum on the
Education and the Economy.

144
Carver, C. L. & Katz, D. S. (2004). Teaching at the boundary of acceptable practice:
What is a new teacher mentor to do? Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5),
449-462.

Charnock, B., & Kiley, M. (1995). Concerns and preferred assistance strategies of
beginning middle and high school teachers. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco,
CA.

Clark, R. E. and Estes, F. (2002). Turning Research into Results: A Guide to
Performance Solutions. GA: CEP Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). The teacher research movement: a decade
later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.

Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. (Eds.) (1993). Teaching for
understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Cooke, B. L. & Pang, K. C. (1991). Recent research on beginning teachers: Studies
of trained and untrained novices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(1) 93-
110. [no e-copy]

Costigan, A. (2004). Finding a name for what they want: a study of New York City’s
Teaching Fellows. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 129–143.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lesson from Exemplary
programs. CA: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support
professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-
604.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy
for education: The right way to meet the "Highly Qualified Teacher"
challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33).

Doherty, R. W., Hilberg, R. S. Epaloose, G., and Tharp, Roland G. (2002). Standards
Performance Continuum: Development and Validation of a Measure of
Effective Pedagogy. Journal of Educational Research, 96(2), 78-89.

Dong, Y. R. (2004). Preparing secondary subject area teachers to teach linguistically
and culturally diverse students. Clearing House, 77(5), 202-207.
145
Donnelly, A., Morgan, D. N., DeFord, D. E., Files, J., Long, S., Mills, H., Stephens,
D., & Styslinger, M. (2005). Transformative professional development:
Negotiating knowledge with an inquiry stance. Language Arts, 82(5), 336-
346.

DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, VA: Association
of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Dufour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A
handbook for professional learning communities at work. IN: Solution Tree.

Eccles, J. S. and Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 109-32.

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute.

Estrada, P. (2005). The courage to grow: A researcher and teacher linking
professional development with small-group reading instruction and student
achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(4), 320-364.

Fecho, B., Price, K., and Read, C. (2004) From Tununak to Beaufort: Taking a
critical inquiry stance as a first tear teacher. English Education, 36(4) 263-
288.

Feiman-Nemser, S. & Remillard, J. (October 1995). Perspectives on learning to
teach. Issue paper 95-3. East Lansing: National Center for Research on
Teaching and Learning.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to
strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013–1055.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2003). What new teachers need to learn. Educational
Leadership, 60(8), 25-29.

Fessler, R. & Christiansen, J. (1992). The teacher career cycle: Understanding and
guiding the professional development of teachers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Flores, M. A. (2006, October). Settings: Struggles, continuities, and discontinuities.
Teachers College Record, 108(10), 2021–2052.

146
Fosnot, C. T. (Ed) (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. NY:
Teachers College Press.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, Trans. A.
Sheridan. NY: Vintage Boods.

Freeman, D. (1999, July). Towards a descriptive theory of teacher learning and
change. Paper presented at the International Study Association on Teacher
Thinking (ISATT) conference, Dublin, Ireland.

Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Studying the education of educators: from conception to
findings. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 698–701.

Gregory, G. H. and Chapman, C. (2002). Differentiated Instructional Strategies: One
Size Does Not Fit All. CA: Corwin Press.

Hargreaves, A. (2005). Educational change takes ages: Life, career and generational
factors in teachers’ emotional responses to educational change, Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21, 967–983.

Harrison, J. K. (2001). The induction of newly qualified teachers. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 27(3), 277-279.

Hawley, W. D. & Valli, L. (1998). Guide to the national partnership for excellence
and accountability in teaching (NPEAT). ERIC Digest. Washington, DC:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.

Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close
the gap. Thinking K-16, 3(2), 1-14.

Haynes, N. M, Emmons, C. L., and Woodruff, D. W. (1998). School development
program effects: Linking implementation to outcomes. Journal of Education
for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 3(1), 71-85.

Hollins, E. R. (2006). Transforming practice in urban schools. Educational
Leadership, 63(6), 48-52.

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers. A report of the Holmes Group. MI:
Holmes Group.

Howell, D. C. (2004). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences, 5
th
edition.
CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

147
Hoz, R. & Peretz, A. (1996) The residence teaching practicum internship at Ben-
Gurion University of the Negev, Journal of Education for Teaching, 22(2),
149–170.

Huberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers College
Record, 91(1), 31-57.

Humphrey, D. C., Adelman, N., Esch, C., Riehl, L. M., Shields, P. M., and Tiffany,
J. (2000, September). Preparing and supporting new teachers: A literature
review. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Kelley, L. M. (2004). Why Induction Matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5)
438-448.

Kelly, P. (2006). What is teacher learning? A socio-cultural perspective. Oxford
Review of Education, 32(4), 505-519.

Killeavy, M. (2006). Induction: A collective endeavor of learning, teaching, and
leading. Theory into practice, 45(2), 168–176.

Kruse, S., Louis, K., & Bryk, A. (1994). Building professional community in schools.
Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring Schools.

Labaree, D. (2003). The peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers.
Educational Researcher, 32(4), 13–22.

Lazovsky, R. & Reichenberg, R. (2006). The new nandatory induction program for
all beginning teachers in Israel: Perceptions of inductees in five study tracks.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(1), 53-70.

Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development. Phi Delta
Kappan, 76(8), 591-597.

Long, S. (2004). Separating rhetoric from reality: Supporting teachers in negotiating
beyond the status quo. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(2), 141-153.

McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and
learning: Strategic opportunities for meeting the nation’s educational goals.
CA: Stanford University, Center for Research on the Context of Secondary
School Teaching.

Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school
in Harlem. MA: Beacon Press
148
Minh-ha, T. T. (1989). Woman, native, other. Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Mitchell, D. E., Scott-Hendrick, L., Parrish, T., Crowley, J., Karam, R., Boyns, D.
and Mitchell, T. K. (2007). California Beginning Teacher Support and
Assessment and Intern Alternative Certification evaluation study: Technical
report. CA: University of California Riverside.

Moir, E. & Gless, J. (Winter 2001). Quality induction: an investment in teachers.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(1).

Moir, E. & Gless, J. (Winter 2001). Quality induction: an investment in teachers.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(1).

Monkman, K., MacGillivray, L., & Leyva, C. (2003). Literacy on three planes:
Infusing social justice and culture into classroom instruction. Bilingual
Research Journal, 27, 245-258.

National Commission for Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters
most: Teaching for America’s future. NY: NCTAF.

Olebe, M. (2001). A decade of policy support for California’s new teachers: the
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 28(1). 71-84.

Olebe, M. (2005). Helping new teachers enter and stay in the profession. The
Clearing House, 78(4), 158-163.

Pardini, P. (2002). Stitching new teachers into the school’s fabric. Journal of Staff
Development, 23(3), 23-26.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3
rd
edition. CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.

Reed, D., Rueben, K. S., & Barbour, E. (2006). Retention of new teachers in
California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.

Renard, L. (2003). Setting new teachers up for failure…or success. Educational
Leadership, 60(8).

Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: another look at John Dewey and reflective
thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866.

149
Rogan, J. M. (2007). How much curriculum change is appropriate? Defining a zone
of feasible innovation. Science Education, 91(3), 439-460.

Rogoff, B (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory
appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P.
Del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind. NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Sabar, N. (2004). From heaven to reality through crisis: Novice teachers as migrants.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 145–161.

Schulz, R. and Mandzuk, D. (2005). Learning to teach, learning to inquire: A 3-year
study of teacher candidates’ experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education,
21, 315–331.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. NY: Doubleday.

Siebert, C. (2005). Promoting preservice teachers' success in classroom management
by leveraging a local union's resources: A professional development school
initiative. Education, 125(3), 385-393.

Smith, T. M. & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and
mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Eductaion Research
Journal, 41, 681-714.

Snow-Gerono, J. L. (2005). Professional development in a culture of inquiry: PDS
teachers identify the benefits of professional learning communities. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 21, 241–256.

Spivak, G. C. (1990). The post-colonial critic: Interviews, strategies, dialogues, Ed.
S. Harasym. NY: Routledge.

Sunita, M. (2005). Preservice Teachers' Developing Perspectives on Assessment and
Remediation of Struggling Readers. Reading Improvement, 42(3), 164-179.

Teemnant, A., Smith, M. E., Pinnegar, S., and Egan, M. W. (2005). Modeling
sociocultural pedagogy in distance education. Teachers College Record,
107(8). 1675-1698.

Tharp, R. G. (1997). From at-risk to excellence: Research, theory, and principles for
practice, research report 1. CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity
& Excellence.
150
Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., and Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching
transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony.
Boulder. CO: Westview Press.

Thompson, S. & Smith, D. L. (Fall 2004 & Spring 2005). Creating highly qualified
teachers for urban schools. The Professional Educator, 27(1 & 2), 73-88.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of
All Learners. VA: ASCD.

Tushnet, N., Briggs, D., Elliot, J., Esch, C., Haviland, D. Humphrey, D., Rayes, N.,
Riehl, L., &Young, V. (2002). Final report of the independent evaluation of
the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA). CA:
WestEd.

van Huizen, P., van Oers, B., and Wubbels, T. (2005). A Vygotskian Perspective on
Teacher Education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(3), 267-290.

Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teacher. Review of
Educational Research, 54, 143-178.

Walsdorf, K. L. & Lynn, S. K. (2002). The early years: mediating the organizational
environment. The Clearing House, 75(4).

Weasmer, J. & Woods, A. M. (2000). Preventing Baptism by fire: Fostering growth
in new teachers. The Clearing House, 73(3), 171-173.

Wildman, T. M., Niles, J. A., Magliaro, S. G., & McLaughlin, R. A. (1989).
Teaching and learning to teach: The two roles of beginning teachers.
Elementary School Journal, 89(4), 471-93.

Williams, A., Prestage, & S., Bedward, J. (2001), Individualism to collaboration:
The significance of teacher culture to the induction of newly qualified
teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 27(3), 253-267.

Wilson, S. M. and Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of
professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary
professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-209.

Wong, H. K. (2002). Induction: The best form of professional development.
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 52-54.

151
Zeichner, K. (1993). Connecting genuine teacher development to the struggle for
social justice. Journal of Education for Teaching, 19(1), 5–20.

Zeichner, K. M. and Conklin, H. G. (2005). Teacher education programs. Studying
Teacher Education: The Report of the AREA Panel on Research and Teacher
Education, ed. M. Cochran-Smith and K. M. Zeichner. Washington, D. C.:
AERA.
152
APPENDIX A

NSDC's Standards for Staff Development
(Revised, 2001)

Context Standards
Staff development that improves the learning of all students:
• Organizes adults into learning communities whose goals are aligned with those of the
school and district. (Learning Communities)
http://www.nsdc.org/standards/learningcommunities.cfm
• Requires skillful school and district leaders who guide continuous instructional
improvement. (Leadership) http://www.nsdc.org/standards/leadership.cfm
• Requires resources to support adult learning and collaboration. (Resources)
http://www.nsdc.org/standards/resources.cfm

Process Standards
Staff development that improves the learning of all students:
• Uses disaggregated student data to determine adult learning priorities, monitor progress,
and help sustain continuous improvement. (Data-Driven)
http://www.nsdc.org/standards/datadriven.cfm
• Uses multiple sources of information to guide improvement and demonstrate its impact.
(Evaluation) http://www.nsdc.org/standards/evaluation.cfm
• Prepares educators to apply research to decision making. (Research-Based)
http://www.nsdc.org/standards/researchbased.cfm
• Uses learning strategies appropriate to the intended goal. (Design)
http://www.nsdc.org/standards/strategies.cfm
• Applies knowledge about human learning and change. (Learning)
http://www.nsdc.org/standards/learning.cfm
• Provides educators with the knowledge and skills to collaborate. (Collaboration)
http://www.nsdc.org/standards/collaborationskills.cfm

Content Standards
Staff development that improves the learning of all students:
• Prepares educators to understand and appreciate all students, create safe, orderly and
supportive learning environments, and hold high expectations for their academic
achievement. (Equity) http://www.nsdc.org/standards/equity.cfm
• Deepens educators' content knowledge, provides them with research-based instructional
strategies to assist students in meeting rigorous academic standards, and prepares them
to use various types of classroom assessments appropriately. (Quality Teaching)
http://www.nsdc.org/standards/qualityteaching.cfm
• Provides educators with knowledge and skills to involve families and other stakeholders
appropriately. (Family Involvement) http://www.nsdc.org/standards/family.cfm

NSCD, 2001
153
APPENDIX B

Pedagogy Standards and Indicators

Standard I: Joint Productive Activity (JPA): Teacher and Students Producing
Together
Facilitate learning through joint productive activity among teacher and students.
Indicators The teacher:
• Designs instructional activities requiring student collaboration
to accomplish a joint project.
• Matches the demands of the joint productive activity to the
time available.
• Arranges classroom seating to accommodate students’
individual and group needs to communicate and work jointly.
• Participates with students in joint productive activity.
• Organizes students in a variety of groupings, such as by
friendship, mixed academic ability, language, project, or
interests, to promote interaction.
• Plans with students how to work in groups and move from one
activity to another, such as from large group introduction to
small group activity, for clean-up, dismissal, and the like.
• Manages student and teacher access to materials and
technology to facilitate joint productive activity.
• Monitors and supports student collaboration in positive ways.

Standard II. Developing Language and Literacy Across the Curriculum
(LLD)
Develop competence in the language and literacy of instruction across the
curriculum.
Indicators The teacher:
• Listens to student talk about familiar topics such as home and
community.
• Responds to students’ talk and questions, making “in-flight”
changes that directly relate to students’ comments.
• Assists language development through modeling, eliciting,
probing, restating, clarifying, questioning, and praising, as
appropriate in purposeful conversation.
• Interacts with students in ways that respect students’
preferences for speaking style, which may be different from
the teacher’s, such as wait-time, eye contact, turn-taking,
spotlighting.

154
• Connects student language with literacy and content area
knowledge through speaking, listening, reading, and writing
activities.
• Encourages students to use content vocabulary to express their
understanding.
• Provides frequent opportunities for students to interact with
each other and with the teacher during instructional activities.
• Encourages students’ use of first and second languages in
instructional activities.

Standard III. Making Meaning (MM): Connecting School to Students’ Lives
Connect teaching and curriculum with experiences and skills of students’ home
and community.
Indicators The teacher:
• Begins with what students already know from home,
community, and school.
• Designs instructional activities that are meaningful to students
in terms of local community norms and knowledge.
• Learns about local norms and knowledge by talking to
students, parents, and community members, and by reading
pertinent documents.
• Assists students to connect and apply their learning to home
and community.
• Plans jointly with students to design community-based
learning activities.
• Provides opportunities for parents to participate in classroom
instructional activities.
• Varies activities to include students’ preferences, from
collective and cooperative to individual and competitive.
• Varies styles of conversation and participation to include
students’ cultural preferences, such as co-narration, call-and-
response, and choral, among others.

Standard IV. Teaching Complex Thinking (CT)
Challenge students toward cognitive complexity.
Indicators The teacher:
• Assures that students, for each instructional topic, see the
whole picture as the basis for understanding the parts.
• Presents challenging standards for student performance.
• Designs instructional tasks that advance student understanding
to more complex levels.
• Assists students to accomplish more complex understanding by
relating to their real-life experience.
155
• Gives clear, direct feedback about how student performance
compares with the challenging standards.

Standard V. Teaching Through Conversation (IC)
Engage students through dialogue, especially the Instructional Conversation.
Indicators The teacher:
• Arranges the classroom to accommodate conversation between
the teacher and a small group of students on a regular and
frequent schedule.
• Has a clear academic goal that guides conversation with
students.
• Ensures that student talk occurs at higher rates than teacher
talk.
• Guides conversation to include students’ views, judgments,
and rationales, using text evidence and other substantive
support.
• Ensures that all students are included in the conversation
according to their preferences.
• Listens carefully to assess levels of students’ understanding.
• Assists students’ learning throughout the conversation by
questioning, restating, praising, encouraging, and so forth.
• guides the students to prepare a product that indicates the
Instructional Conversation’s goal was achieved.

Pedagogy Standard Codes:
JPA = Joint Productive Activity
LLD = Language and Literacy Development
MM = Making Meaning
CT = Complex Thinking
IC = Instructional Conversation

Dalton, 1998
156
APPENDIX C

BTSA Director Program Design Feature Survey

The following survey items were posted and made available to the population of
BTSA program directors in Cluster Region 4 (N=40) on the BTSAsupport.com
online assessment system between November 25, 2007 and January 26, 2008. It
should be noted that the BTSAsupport.com assessment system allows for the
construction of response-dependant items. The tiered organizational structure of the
following items reflects the flow of items associated with specific responses. In other
words, sub-bullet questions are only posed if a respondent selects the initial root
item. For example, the query Please specify the frequency that you require
participants to develop and implement an individual induction plan per year is only
presented to a respondent if that respondent selects More than twice per year as the
root radial response to item two.

1. Which formative assessment system has your program adopted for use with
participating teachers who completed your program in July 2007? (Induction
Standard 13 & 14.a.iii)
Select one:
• CFASST
• FAS
• Locally designed instrument
2. How frequently does your program require participants to develop and
implement an individual induction plan during each year of participation?
(Induction Standard 14.a.ii)
Select one:
• Once per year
• Twice per year
• More than twice per year
o Please specify the frequency that you require participants to develop
and implement an individual induction plan per year. (Open response)
3. How does your program require participants to document application of the
CSTP and state-adopted frameworks and adopted curriculum materials in one
content area in the context of his/her instructional practice, showing response to
individual needs, beyond what was demonstrated for the preliminary credential?
(Induction Standard 14.a.iii)
Select all that apply:
• Completion of the adopted formative assessment system
• Formal review of formative assessment system documents
• Portfolio of evidence selected by the participant to demonstrate the
elements described in Induction Standard 15: K-12 Core Academic
Content and Subject Specific Pedagogy
157
• Assignments developed by participants during a specific course of study
or workshop
• Completion of a case study
• Other
o Please specify the other ways that your program requires participants
to document application of the CSTP and state-adopted frameworks
and adopted curriculum materials in one content area in the context of
his/her instructional practice, showing response to individual needs,
beyond what was demonstrated for the preliminary credential? (Open
response)
4. What is the structure, duration, and frequency of planned events that participants
are required to attend? (Induction Standard 14.a.iv.a)
Select all that apply:
• Workshops during sponsored release time
o What is the duration of each session? (Open response)
o How many are participants required to attend? (Open response)
• Weekend workshops
o What is the duration of each session? (Open response)
o How many are participants required to attend? (Open response)
• Summer workshops
o What is the duration of each session? (Open response)
o How many are participants required to attend? (Open response)
• After school workshops
o What is the duration of each session? (Open response)
o How many are participants required to attend? (Open response)
• Peer collaboration meetings
o What is the duration of each session? (Open response)
o How many are participants required to attend? (Open response)
• Other structured events
o Please describe the nature of any other planned events that
participants are required to attend. (Open response)
5. How frequently are participants required to meet with a support provider?
(Induction Standard 14.a.iv.b)
Select one:
• More than weekly
• Weekly
• Bimonthly
• Monthly
• Other
o Please describe the frequency that participants are required to meet
with a support provider. (Open response)
158

6. Which support provider model does you program utilize?
Select one:
• Full-time release (to include district employees and/or retired teacher
consultants)
• Full-time classroom teachers
• Balance of full-time release and full-time classroom teachers
• Other
o Please describe the support provider model that your program utilizes.
(Open response)
7. How are candidates required to demonstrate their ability to use technology to
support learning as it is described in Induction Standard 16? (Induction Standard
14.a.v.a)
Select all that apply:
• Portfolio of evidence selected by the participant to demonstrate the
elements described in Induction Standard 16
• Assignments developed by participants during a specific course of study
or workshop
• Completion of a case study
• Other
o Please describe other ways that participants are required to
demonstrate Induction Standard 16. (Open response)

8. How are candidates required to demonstrate their ability to teach all students in a
manner that supports equity, diversity, and access to the core curriculum as it is
described in Induction Standard 17? (Induction Standard 14.a.v.b)
Select all that apply:
• Portfolio of evidence selected by the participant to demonstrate the
elements described in Induction Standard 17
• Assignments developed by participants during a specific course of study
or workshop
• Completion of a case study
• Other
o Please describe other ways that participants are required to
demonstrate Induction Standard 17. (Open response)
9. How are candidates required to demonstrate their ability to create a supportive
and health environment for student learning as it is described in Induction
Standard 18? (Induction Standard 14.a.v.c)
Select all that apply:
• Portfolio of evidence selected by the participant to demonstrate the
elements described in Induction Standard 18
• Assignments developed by participants during a specific course of study
or workshop
159
• Completion of a case study
• Other
o Please describe other ways that participants are required to
demonstrate Induction Standard 18. (Open response)
10. How are candidates required to demonstrate their ability to teach English
language learners as it is described in Induction Standard 19? (Induction
Standard 14.a.v.d)
Select all that apply:
• Portfolio of evidence selected by the participant to demonstrate the
elements described in Induction Standard 19
• Assignments developed by participants during a specific course of study
or workshop
• Completion of a case study
• Other
o Please describe other ways that participants are required to
demonstrate Induction Standard 19. (Open response)
11. How are candidates required to demonstrate their ability to teach special
populations as it is described in Induction Standard 20? (Induction Standard
14.a.v.e)
Select all that apply:
• Portfolio of evidence selected by the participant to demonstrate the
elements described in Induction Standard 20
• Assignments developed by participants during a specific course of study
or workshop
• Completion of a case study
• Other
o Please describe other ways that participants are required to
demonstrate Induction Standard 20. (Open response)
12. How would you rate level of mutual collaboration that occurs between program
participants (peer to peer collaboration)?
Select one:
• Low
o Please comment on your perceived rating of low-level mutual
collaboration that occurs between program participants (peer to peer
collaboration). (Open response)
• Medium
o Please comment on your perceived rating of medium-level mutual
collaboration that occurs between program participants (peer to peer
collaboration). (Open response)
• High
o Please comment on your perceived rating of high-level mutual
collaboration that occurs between program participants (peer to peer
collaboration). (Open response)
160
13. How would you rate the level of mutual collaboration that occurs between
program participants and support providers?
Select one:
• Low
o Please comment on your perceived rating of low-level mutual
collaboration that occurs between program participants and support
providers. (Open response)
• Medium
o Please comment on your perceived rating of medium-level mutual
collaboration that occurs between program participants and support
providers. (Open response)
• High
o Please comment on your perceived rating of high-level mutual
collaboration that occurs between program participants and support
providers. (Open response)
14. How would you rate the level of mutual collaboration that occurs between
program participants and program staff?
Select one:
• Low
o Please comment on your perceived rating of low-level mutual
collaboration that occurs between program participants and program
staff. (Open response)
• Medium
o Please comment on your perceived rating of medium-level mutual
collaboration that occurs between program participants and program
staff. (Open response)
• High
o Please comment on your perceived rating of high-level mutual
collaboration that occurs between program participants and program
staff. (Open response)
15. What features of your program’s design do you perceive might have the greatest
impact on teacher quality? Pleas explain (Open response)
16. Please comment on any unique or powerful program design features that have
not been characterized in this survey Please explain. (Open response)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study is to investigate what variations of induction program design features define teacher quality. First, the study will discover and classify the range of features that govern the functioning of new teacher induction programs in the Los Angeles County area. Second, the instructional quality of a sample program graduates will be assessed. To direct this purpose the following research questions have been established: 1) What is the variability among induction program design features? 2) What induction program design features define greater teacher quality? The purpose of this study is inductive in nature. Therefore, a predominately qualitative inquiry process has been selected for data collection. This study is designed to collect data for the purpose of establishing a theory of effective induction program design that defines teacher quality.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

No teacher left behind: an examination of beginning teachers' preconceptions and attitudes about induction

PDF

Mentoring outcomes in education: the perceived impact for mentors in induction programs

PDF

District implementation of California's induction policy: key elements and challenges of developing a high quality program

PDF

A comparative study of novice and veteran teachers in response to principal initiated efforts to cultivate a positive school culture

PDF

A comparative study of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and retention of beginning urban science teachers

PDF

The spill over effect: an examination of differentiated curriculum designs in a heterogeneous classroom

PDF

Collaborative team approach to mentoring beginning teachers: a case study of a collaborative elementary school

PDF

Beginning teachers' perceptions of effective practices used by their mentor

PDF

Teachers' choices of curriculum and teaching methods and their effect on gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions of strategies and skills affecting learning of gifted 7th graders in English classes

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

Effects of individualized professional development on the theoretical understandings and instructional practices of teachers

PDF

Factors affecting the transfer of differentiated curriculum from professional development into classroom practice

PDF

Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching

PDF

BTSA and California's beginning teachers: how technology affects California's teacher induction process

PDF

Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice

PDF

A school's use of data-driven decision making to affect gifted students' learning

PDF

Relationships between teachers' perceptions of gifted program status and instructional choices

PDF

Internationalizing education: a study of the impact of implementing an international program on an urban elementary school

PDF

Teachers helping students: a sociocultural perspective

Asset Metadata

Creator Robertson, David Lee (author)

Core Title The impact of induction: a study of program designs and teacher quality outcomes

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 07/17/2008

Defense Date 05/19/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag induction,OAI-PMH Harvest,Teacher education

Place Name Los Angeles County (counties)

Language English

Advisor Pensavalle, Margo (committee chair), Kaplan, Sandra N. (committee member), Ragusa, Gisele (committee member)

Creator Email dlrobert@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1351

Unique identifier UC1433557

Identifier etd-Robertson-20080717 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-86325 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1351 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Robertson-20080717.pdf

Dmrecord 86325

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Robertson, David Lee

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu