http://jte.sagepub.com/Journal of Teacher Education

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/36/1/42The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/002248718503600110

1985 36: 42Journal of Teacher EducationGary A. Griffin

Teacher Induction : Research Issues  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)

can be found at:Journal of Teacher EducationAdditional services and information for    

  http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/36/1/42.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Jan 1, 1985Version of Record >>

at UNIV OF NORTHERN COLORADO on October 12, 2012jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

42

Teacher Induction:Research Issues

INDUCTION

Gary A. Griffin

In this article, Griffin defines the conceptof induction and summarizes research

findings available for use in planningteacher induction programs. As part of

the summary, preliminary hunches

gleaned from current research on the

effects of teacher induction programs

are described. Cautions with respect to

using "effectiveness" research in such

programs are noted, and questions andissues worthy of future research focusare identified.

Griffin is Dean, College of Education,University of Illinois at Chicago.

n 1984, reports on schooling haveinundated the profession and haveinundated the profession and havet influenced media attention given to

the schools. Newspapers and popu-lar magazines have focused on what

they term &dquo;the failure of the schools,&dquo;and the federal government has made atoken investment in finding out the

degree to which the criticisms are validby funding commissions on schoolingand teacher education. Most important-ly, there is generalized public dissatis-faction with the quality of publicelementary and secondary educationalopportunities.

It has been obvious to many in theschools and universities that attention tothe quality of classroom life would

eventually shift to the quality of teachereducation programs. Although one

might argue that teachers and theirbehaviors are but one piece of a com-plex puzzle, the public role of theteacher is a convenient target for thosewho are dissatisfied with the outcomesof schooling. And, it is logical to assumethat if teacher quality is at issue, the

quality of education provided to

teachers will also be at issue.One aspect of teacher education is

the provision of assistance for the begin-ning teacher, that person who is makingthe transition from &dquo;student of teach-

ing&dquo; in a college or university to full-time teacher in an elementary or

secondary classroom. The current catch-word for the period during which thistransition occurs is induction.

The available research on new

teachers and on induction programs fornew teachers has serious limitations,and we are also faced with a number ofdifficulties in applying that research tothe development of new induction

programs. However, we can increaseour knowledge about teacher inductionand develop induction programs with agreater certainty of success if we askeffective research questions and use anappropriate blend of qualitative and

quantitative research methods to answerthese questions.

Research Available forUse in Induction Programs

The above heading is purposefullyused. It could have read, &dquo;AvailableResearch on Induction Programs.&dquo;However, there is very little suchresearch. The first years of teachinghave received research attention onlyrecently in this country, although theyhave been more extensively studied inGreat Britain and Australia.What we in the United States have

done is to use research findings fromstudies of other educational and teach-

ing phenomena as bases for makingdecisions about induction programs. Inaddition to findings derived from

inquiry into educational issues, we havealso turned to the research, theory, andpropositions from related social sciencefields such as sociology, psychology, andanthropology.McDonald (1980) noted:

We have little information about howteachers pass through the transition stage,other than to know that some apparentlydo so successfully, some do not. We haveno detailed information on how thosepeople who master the transition perioddo so. Nor do we have information onhow different kinds of assistance or helpdirectly or indirectly influence theteachers’ successful mastery of the induc-tion period. (p. 44)

We can and should make a distinc-tion between research that describes the

experience of new teachers and researchthat gives attention to the influence ofintentional interventions in the lives andwork of new teachers. Most of us areaware of the self-reported horror storiesrecounted by new teachers and byteachers who remember their first yearsin classrooms. Sume of these self-reportsare the products of disciplined inquiry,others are not.

Research on new teachers hasconcentrated primarily on what mightbe called &dquo;the adjustment phenome-non.&dquo; That is, research questions andprocedures examine the degree to which

at UNIV OF NORTHERN COLORADO on October 12, 2012jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

43

new teachers &dquo;fit&dquo; into their new roleand context. These studies tend to be

problematic because they simplydescribe the frustrations, fears, anxiety,and dilemmas that new teachers face.

Ryan, Newman, Mager, Applegate,Lasley, Flora, and Johnston (1980) pre-sented findings that approximate thismode. The findings point out the frus-trations of new teachers, the difficultiesassociated with accommodating person-al and professional lifestyles, the enor-mous time and energy demands made

upon new teachers, the feelings of beingon the &dquo;low end of the totem pole,&dquo; andthe general powerlessness that new

teachers associate with their roles in theclassrooms and schools. More implicitlythan explicitly, the Ryan et al. studydemonstrates the absence of carefullydesigned programs aimed at ameliorat-ing the reported problems of new

teachers.One way to look at the entry of new

teachers into the school is to consider itfrom the perspective of socializationinto the norms and standards of an

existing organization. Lacey (1977)used this approach and found that newteachers are quick to respond positivelyto the norms of the schools in which

they find themselves and, in fact, aban-don the norms, standards, and expecta-tions of the preservice teacher prepara-tion programs from which they havecome. This study and others demon-strate the power of the school setting totransform rather than to foster use ofthe knowledge and skills included in

professional preparation courses of

study.In some instances, research shows

that this abandonment is either tempo-rary or resisted from the start. Theresearch is not clear about whetherthese conditions are the consequences of

particularly strong preservice programsor the results of a clash between theschool culture and the personal predilec-tions of new teachers. It is possible tohypothesize that, as Goodlad (1983)has asserted, teachers teach as they weretaught in elementary and secondaryschools rather than as they were told toteach in college and university programsof study. Alternately, one could also

hypothesize that some new teachershave developed strong belief systemsthat force them to ignore the norms ofthe schools in which they demonstrate

their first years of full-time teaching.Regardless of these conjectures, how-ever, the research is relatively clear thatnew teachers are not as powerfullyinfluenced by higher education pro-grams as might be expected or desired.Two studies (Edgar and Brod, 1970;

Mahan and Lacefield, 1976) offersome explanation for the abandonmentof preservice standards. Both studiesshowed that new teachers are stronglyinfluenced by people in the new schoolsettings. This specificity allows us to

conjecture that linking new teacherswith the best professionals in the

settings may result in recreating qualityperformance in the new teachers. Theidea that new teachers are influenced bypersons already in the schools runs

somewhat counter to the finding that&dquo;many new teachers function in a

professional desert, abandoned by theinstitutions where they received their

preservice education and neglected byoverburdened supervisory personnel&dquo;(Howsam, Corrigan, Denemark, andNash, 1976, p. 101). What we see

from research, then, is that, on the onehand, teachers can be unsystematicallyinfluenced by teachers and administra-tors in the schools where they beginpracticing their teaching skills and, onthe other hand, they can believe thatthey are abandoned and helpless in theface of the complexities of teaching.Much of the research on first-year

teachers has focused directly on teach-ing activity and particularly on levels ofcompetence. Along with the popularpress, research findings more often thannot conclude that new teachers are less

competent than is considered to bedesirable. Johnston and Ryan (1980)identified four common problem areasfor new teachers: planning and organi-zation, evaluation of students’ work,motivation of students, and adjustmentto the teaching environment. This list isnot surprising to either practitioners orhigher education academicians. Pigge(1978), for example, found thatteachers in general have concerns

similar to the Johnston and Ryan prob-lem areas. In fact, classroom manage-ment is the focus of the largest numberof studies of new (and experienced)teachers.

Again, much of the difficulty in

using these and other findings lies in thesource of the data used to advance

them. Most often the results are basedon self-reports of teachers. Self-report isan important source of informationabout teaching, but it does need more

objective data to support it. If teachers

report that they have important prob-lems during their first years of experi-ence, and researchers and other percep-tive observers agree, the question arises,what systematic means to ameliorate theproblems are adopted by teacher educa-tion institutions?

Until recently, few examples of newteacher programs were available for

study. Tisher, as recently as 1979,proposed a set of questions that mightguide study of such programs:

What impact do different types of schoolenvironments have upon the induction

experiences of different types of begin-ning teachers? What are the relationshipsbetween beginning teachers’ latent cul-ture and features of the school environ-ment including its organizational charac-teristics, staff collaboration and moraleand collegiate professionality? (p. 10)These questions, and others like

them, are important. They are, how-ever, normative; they ask for answers inthe absence of an intentional interven-tion to deal with the issues theyidentify. Given the current interest informulating and implementing state andlocal programs for new teachers, otherquestions may also be helpful as we tryto understand the first years of teachingand make those years an experience thatcan contribute to the development of aneffective cadre of teachers in our

nation’s schools.

Colleagues at the Research and

Development Center for Teacher Edu-cation grappled long and hard as theybegan to study two in-place state induc-tion programs. The results of their

thoughtful interactions form a set of

questions that are both normative andevaluative. They not only describe theprograms ond suggest relationshipsbetween the descriptions, but they alsoexamine the relative effectiveness ofcertain program interventions in accom-

plishing their goals.Recognizing that the emerging

induction programs are, more oftenthan not, the consequence of policydecisions made by state legislatures, theResearch in Teacher Education (RITE)study is examining the effects of thesepolicies at state, district, school, andclassroom levels of activity. The RITE

at UNIV OF NORTHERN COLORADO on October 12, 2012jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

44 /

study, like many others before it, also

gives attention to the feelings, percep-tions, and activities of the peopleinvolved at all of the levels. This broad

conceptualization will allow discussionsthat heretofore have received relativelyshort shrift. For example, the RITE

study will be able to examine not onlyhow effective a strategy for workingwith new teachers is on its own terms,but also what unanticipated conse-

quences it has on people, for example,or on the redistribution of institutionalresources.

It is much too early to present withany certainty the results of the RITE

study, but preliminary hunches can bestated with the understanding that theyare still open to verification. Thesehunches include the following:

Teacher induction programs place unac-customed demands upon school officialsand teachers, demands which are often inaddition to rather than instead of conven-tional responsibilities.New teachers, in the main, agree to

induction program requirements even

when they express mild or strong reserva-tions about those requirements.The RITE sample shows little evidencethat the induction programs are directlyrelated to observed competence of newteachers’ instructional activity.Induction program dimensions are oftenseen as positive resources to experiencedteachers, especially if they are derivedfrom research.

The more technological/methodologicalthe program is, the more difficult it is toachieve fidelity with the original inten-tions of the program.

New teachers tend to perceive inductionprogram dimensions as different fromtheir preservice programs.Implementation problems include the

training of experienced teachers to

assur.1P the roles of peer teachers, provi-sion of time for new teachers and for

support team members to interact, devel-opment and appropriate use of observa-tion schedules and other data collection

procedures, and differences in interpreta-tion of program requirements amongparticipants.Research on teaching has achieved a

respected and valued status in school

systems and schools.

The validity and reliability of instrumen-tation is open to question.No teachers in the RITE sample weredenied certification as a consequence ofprogram implementation.

While these preliminary findings are

tentative and represent only a fractionof the information that will be forth-coming from the RITE study, they doillustrate ~he difference betweenresearch that examines new teacherswho are receiving little systematic atten-tion and research on new teachers whoare being assisted by the power, author-ity, and, in varying degrees, resources ofthe educational system. (For more

information about these studies, see

Griffin, Barnes, Defino, Edwards,Hoffman, Hukill, and O’Neal, 1983.)

Using Research Findings inInduction Programs

Much of the content of many currentinduction programs, especially thosetied to certification of new teachers, isdrawn from the past two decades’ worthof research on teaching. That is, theresearch on effective teaching is used toderive a set of standards for new

teachers to meet, and if they are notmet, interventions are designed to

assure that the new teachers come up tothe expected standard.

This use of research findings has

many virtues. Among them are (a) thegrowing awareness that research hassome utility beyond adding to a collegeprofessor’s vita, (b) the focus on teach-ing, (c) the classification of teachingfunctions into conceptually cohesive

behaviors, and (d) increased sensitivityto the need to tap our knowledge basewhen making instructional and other

important decisions.However, several dilemmas are asso-

ciated with using research on teachingfindings as the central core of inductionprograms. These dilemmas arise partlyout of the body of research itself and

partly out of the use to which theresearch is put.

In regard to the research itself, muchresearch is correlational; the teachingbehaviors associated with positive pupiloutcomes were discovered in existingclassroom settings. They were, if youwill, naturally occurring phenomena inan untampered-with context. Few

studies have been designed to determineif the same behaviors, when introducedexperimentally into classrooms, result inthe same pupil outcomes. We are, then,still on uncertain ground when we

require that new teachers demonstrateeffective teaching as described in corre-lational research studies.

Also, much of the effective teachingresearch is situation specific, tied to

certain grade levels with certain studentpopulations in specific demographic andsocial contexts. Therefore, the results

may not be generalizable to other situa-tions. Because a teaching behavior isfound to be related to positive pupiloutcomes in a third-grade, inner-citymathematics class is probably insuffi-cient reason to include it as a behaviorstandard for a new teacher in a sub-urban, eleventh-grade social studiesclass.

Another, and, to me, more importantdilemma is the restriction of standardsfor new teachers to those that can besupported by research. In some areas ofthe country, policy makers appear to

have an almost mystical reliance uponresearch as the basic if not the onlyfoundation upon which to construct

programs for new teachers. This is, I

believe, a mistake, not only because ofthe inappropriate use of research find-ings, but also because of the narrowfocus of much of the research and theunrealized potential of using othersources of information to include inteacher induction efforts.

There seems to be an ever-increasingtrend toward &dquo;forcing&dquo; teaching into ascience. We are all aware of the con-

tinuing debate about whether teachingis an art or a science. Many inductionprograms tend toward taking a scientificpoint of view. Many of us in both theresearch and the practitioner communi-ties prefer, however, to &dquo;mix andmatch&dquo; our perspectives according to

what we perceive as the needs and possi-bilities inherent in educational situa-tions. Certainly, it is appropriate to usescientifically-derived principles of teach-ing effectiveness when the applicationof these principles makes some practicaland conceptual sense. To apply themacross the board, however, is dangerous.

Programs designed to help new

teachers become proficient shouldinclude not only the appropriate scien-tific bases but also knowledge thatemerges out of collective understandingsof the craft - out of practices that&dquo;work,&dquo; according to experiencedteachers. Programs should also includeattention to values and beliefs aboutwhat good teaching is. By values andbeliefs, I do not mean whims and specu-lations. I mean carefully and thought-

at UNIV OF NORTHERN COLORADO on October 12, 2012jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

45

fully constructed concepts of suchmatters as the basis of a learning com-munity, the relation of the school to thebroader society, the provision of multi-ple stimuli under multiple conditions toteach diverse learners, and &dquo;the goodlife&dquo; in schools and classrooms.

Another dilemma associated with

using research findings as sole or evenprimary sources for decisions aboutwhat new teachers are expected to

accomplish or demonstrate is the

tendency to place expectations ofteachers and their activities at what

might be called the &dquo;lowest-common-denominator&dquo; standard. When an

induction program is tied to certifica-tion, a powerful incentive is placed uponteacher acquiescence to prescribed stan-dards of behavior. Should we use thisincentive only to ensure that teachersmeet minimal criteria derived fromresearch, or should we use the incentiveto help the teachers move, along withthe rest of us, toward a standard ofexcellence, however defined?

The difference between expectationsat a minimal level of competence andthe expectations rooted in a more

comprehensive view of quality teachingis a fundamental and largely unad-dressed issue in teacher induction

programs.To aim toward excellence is to evaluateinstead of inspect, to involve instead ofisolate, to promote risk-taking instead ofpreservation of the status quo, to

celebrate change instead of fearing it, toconcentrate on growth rather than on

remaining static, to acknowledge publiclyinstances of excellence rather than ignor-ing them, and to make involvement indecision making the norm rather than anexception to it. (Griffin, 1984, p. 17)

The dilemmas presented here are notmeant to deflect or otherwise diminishthe potential that research has for con-tributing to the professional well-beingof teachers who are new to classrooms.

They are presented more as warningsthat may help us make sound decisionsabout the role research findings can playin formulating and implementinginduction programs.

Future Research onTeacher Induction

This list of research questions would,if answered, increase our knowledgeabout teacher induction so that current

programs could be more_ effective and

future programs could be formulatedwith more certainty of success than hasyet been possible. They are presented inno order of priority.

To what degree can/do induction pro-grams promote or hinder teacher decision

making?To what degree can/do induction pro-grams promote or hinder reflection by thenew teacher?

Do effective teaching behaviors that arediscovered in experienced teachers’

repertoires produce the same student out-comes in the classrooms of new teachers?

What are the underlying assumptions ofcurrent induction programs about thenature of teaching, the nature of learn-ing, and the role of the school andteacher in society?Is there a distinction between outcomes in

situation-specific induction programs andthose that are mandated by larger geo-graphic and municipal units such as statesand counties?

What is the effect on preservice programsof certification-tied induction programs?Can knowledge of new teachers’ prac-tices, beliefs, and orientations contributeto the formulation of theories of teachereducation and theories of teaching? In

what ways?How can closer linkages between college-based and school-based teacher education

programs be created?

What institutional regularities in schoolsare most influential upon the success ofselected induction programs? What is thereciprocal influence of programs on insti-tutional regularities?To what degree do induction programsadapt to the &dquo;ethos&dquo; or self-perceivedclimate of the school into which newteachers move?

What are the differential implementationeffects in terms of new teachers who arebelieved to be strong and those who arebelieved to be weak?

What beliefs and values are most influen-tial upon a new teacher’s perception ofthe value of an induction program?What, over time, are the consequences ofinduction programs in terms of such out-comes as number of teachers denied certi-fication, effectiveness of peer teachers,training for implementers of programs,relationships with pupil outcomes, and

impact on subsequent legislation regard-ing the professional lives of teachers?

A host of other questions could beasked and, as with this list, the answerswould provide more information uponwhich to base decisions about induction

programs. The list does, however, sug-gest the need to carefully consider howwe might go about finding answers.

It is probably too obvious a point tobelabor in any detail, but programs ofactivity involving multiple actors andcarried forward in multiple contexts

demand multiple approaches or meth-odologies. For years, educationalresearchers debated the use of qualita-tive versus quantitative modes of study-ing and interpreting educational issues.That debate has abated to a degree, andwe appear to have a somewhat uneasyresolution that might be summarized as,&dquo;It depends.&dquo; Although most of us

carry a tradition of research methodolo-

gy, partly as a consequence of our edu-cation and partly as a result of personalpredilection, there seems to be a grow-ing tendency for persons with differentperspectives to respect the orientationsof others. However, this respect has yetto result in large numbers of studies thatexemplify the best of multiple traditionsin a single inquiry. To understand theinteractions around and within complexcontexts such as schools, I believe it

absolutely necessary that we make muchmore vigorous use of methodologiesthat blend and explain, that answer andprovide needed detail, and that nameand describe. This blend is only possiblewhen complementary although basicallydifferent conceptions of scientificinquiry can be used in tandem.Among the most pressing research

issues for our times, both academicallyand practically, are the following:

1. We must determine to what

degree research findings, when used ascontent for teacher induction programs,accomplish the same pupil outcomes asare reported in the original correlationalstudies. The very heart of many induc-tion programs is the phrase, &dquo;Researchsays.&dquo; In the interests of integrity andaccountability, we must be able to sup-port that assertion or else alter therationales we use to include certainbehaviors as standards that teachersmust meet.

2. We must find out, from a varietyof perspectives, if teacher inductionprograms contribute to or hinder newteachers’ estimations of their own effi-cacy and whether or not a perceivedsense of efficacy is related to effective-ness. There are hints that some newteachers believe their teaching is con-fined too narrowly by the expectationsof some induction programs. If this istrue to any large extent, we should

at UNIV OF NORTHERN COLORADO on October 12, 2012jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

46

modify our conceptions of what shouldbe expected in teacher induction

programs.3. We must discover the degree to

which teacher induction programs do,in fact, serve a &dquo;gatekeeping&dquo; function,sorting more effective teachers intoschools and less effective teachers out.When teacher induction programs aretied to state certification, one implica-tion is that they will identify teacherswho should be counseled out of their

important social roles.4. We must determine whether or

not the procedures and practices asso-ciated with some teacher induction pro-grams are, as is claimed, valid andreliable. Because many persons chargedwith carrying out the procedures are

unfamiliar with the canons of datacollection and interpretation, they maybe unaware of the possibilities for error.If the procedures are flawed in their

use, the results are open to legal andmoral question.

5. We must gain a better under-

standing of the ways in which currentand proposed induction programs alignwith conceptions of excellence in teach-ing. Naturally, definitions of excellence

abound and are often in conflict withone another. A fear held by some, how-ever, is that the search for excellence

may, unless carefully pursued, maketeachers into automatons rather than

professionals, workers rather than deci-sion makers, followers rather than lead-ers, and conformers rather than risktakers.

References ―――――――

Goodlad, J. I. (1983). A place calledschool. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Griffin, G. A. (1984). Crossing thebridge: The first years of teaching.Paper presented to the NationalCommission on Excellence inTeacher Education, Austin, TX.

Griffin, G. A., Barnes, S., Defino, M.,Edwards, S., Hoffman, J., Hukill,H., and O’Neal, S. (1983). Teacherinduction: Research design for a

descriptive study. Austin, TX: TheUniversity of Texas at Austin,Research and Development Centerfor Teacher Education.

Howsam, R., Corrigan, D., Denemark,G., and Nash, R. (1976). Educatinga profession. Washington, DC:American Association of Colleges for

Teacher Education.

Johnston, J., and Ryan, K. (1983).Research on the beginning teacher.In K. Howey and W Gardner(Eds.), The education of teachers: Alook ahead. New York: Longman.

Lacey, C. (1977). The socialization o fteachers. London: Methusen.

Mahan, J. M., and Lacefield, W E.(1978). Educational attitude changesduring year-long student teaching.Journal of Experimental Education,46, 4-15.

Pigge, F. (1978). Teacher competen-cies : Need, proficiency, and whereproficiency was developed. Journal ofTeacher Education, 29, 70-76.

Ryan, K., Newman, K., Mager, G.,Applegate, J., Lasley, T, Flora, R.,and Johnston, J. (1980). Biting theapple: Accounts of first year teachers.New York: Longman.

Tisher, R. (1979). Teacher induction:An aspect of the education and pro-fessional development of teachers.Paper prepared for the NationalInvitational Conference, ExploringIssues in Teacher Education: Ques-tions for Future Research, Austin,TX.

at UNIV OF NORTHERN COLORADO on October 12, 2012jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from