Introduction: Still the Same But Different
Clare Kosnik Professor, Ontario Institute of Child Study/University of Toronto
Over the last two years I have worked with our second cohort of Eureka! Scholars. I was part of the initial cohort of Eureka! Scholars, which was one of the most fulfilling activities of my professional career. When Rosemary Evans, principal of the University of Toronto Schools, invited me to coordinate the second group, I immediately accepted. This second cohort built on the work of the first cohort because we had solid examples of teacher research and I had a much better understanding of the process for educators
to study their practice. This second cohort embraced the challenges of teacher research; their commitment to deepen their understanding of teaching and to improve the learning environment for their students was inspiring. The second cohort was slightly different from the first in that we included an elementary school teacher from the Dr. Eric Jackman Institute of Child Study. This crossover between institutions was important because it expanded our group, mixed elementary and secondary school teachers, and included a different perspective. Our group of Scholars “gelled” instantly – from the first meeting there was a wonderful dynamic among all participants. We became a research community characterized by support for each other while providing intellectual critique.
It was interesting that all of the participants came to the group with a fairly solid goal for their research. I feel that part of the reason for their clear
focus was that the first group of Eureka! Scholars had presented their work to the UTS community. Through informal conversations with UTS colleagues, formal presentations at faculty meetings, and professional development sessions, they showed that teachers can conduct rigorous research that improves teaching. They demonstrated that their research is of interest to others – beyond their own classroom. We used a format similar to our first group of Eureka! Scholars:
•Each meeting had an official agenda with a specific focus.
•All meetings began with us going around the group with each person providing an update of his or her work.
•We systematically worked through the research process.
Teacher learning has attracted a great deal of attention. What do beginning teachers need to know? How do teachers learn once they are on the job? How can they continue to learn over their
careers? So many initiatives have come and gone – from highly structured professional development sessions to mandated learning communities. All have a place, but we need to consider the learning processes that are important to individual teachers. One of the flaws of mandated professional development is that it overlooks what is a “burning” issue for the individual teacher. What is the individual educator’s struggle? Why is this important? What keeps a teacher awake at night? Addressing highly individualized questions cannot be done in a generic professional development session because these issues are personal and context-dependent, and it often takes a team of folks to address them. Teacher learning cannot be reduced to a quick fix or a single workshop because learning takes time and requires discussion, trial and error, data gathering, and sustained thought. There are no simple answers to the questions of education, especially as the learning environment shifts and expands as digital technology is incorporated into education. However, teachers need to “own” their own explorations of these questions, make sense of them, and find solutions that work for them and their students.
Constructivism as a learning process has been proposed repeatedly over decades. Although it is a widely embraced concept, it is difficult to put it into practice. Richardson (2003) explains why it has remained so nebulous:
Constructivist teaching as a theory or practice, however, has only received attention for approximately one decade. Current interest and writing in constructivist teaching leaves many issues unresolved. These issues relate, in part, to the difficulty in translating a theory of learning
into a theory or practice of teaching, a conversion that has always been difficult and less than satisfactory. (p. 1623)
To help understand what this philosophy looks like in practice, Ahsan and Smith (2016) identify some of its elements:
• Social interaction and dialogue
•Environment deeply rooted in culture
•More Knowledgeable Others (MKOs) helping students
•Scaffolding
•Progressing through the zone of proximal development (ZPD)
•Constructive and timely feedback
•Collaboration among students (p. 134)
I have been in education for many years and have long embraced the philosophy of constructivism but struggled with the practice. I feel that through the two Eureka! cohorts we have achieved a measure of constructivist teaching and learning. Our Eureka! Scholars actualized this philosophy of education because at our monthly meetings participants not only shared their work but also provided feedback. Our community had all of the elements of constructivism identified above. Discussion was rich because all of the teachers had the same inquiry stance, which was important because no one was looking for quick-fix solutions. They understood that the teaching/learning process is complex and that students are individuals. One of the key elements of constructivist teaching is building a safe community. According to Peterson (1992), “When community exists, learning is strengthened – everyone is smarter, more ambitious, and productive” (p. 2). This was certainly true of our group. One of the key elements of our discussions was understanding how a strategy that
works for one student may not work for others. The dialogue around the need to tailor education to individuals was one of the most interesting parts of the process for me because the educators appreciated the need to have a vast repertoire of teaching strategies while their inquiry stance encouraged them to think broadly and deeply. Rather than talk about the class of students as a homogenous group, they recognized that each class of pupils is composed of individuals. It is so rare to have a discussion that looks so carefully at the nuances of teaching.
In order to provide a scaffold for the research process, we followed these steps:
•Finding a doable research topic
•Locating literature on your given topic
•Designing an instrument to explore the topic
•Gathering data
•Analyzing the data
•Writing the chapters
•Discussing ways to disseminate our research
Our first group of Eureka! Scholars published their findings in a report entitled Eureka! Fellowship Program for Teacher Researchers. This publication provided a solid foundation for our new group because it was written in accessible language and provided examples of data that could be gathered by classroom teachers. The call for teachers to be studying their practice is echoed through all panels of education. Whether locally from the Ontario Ministry of Education or internationally from the American Education Research Association of America, many have struggled with the puzzle of teacher research groups. One of the challenges is having examples of how
teachers can do research in addition to their many other duties and showing that teacher-based research is valued by the wider educational community. Our Eureka! Scholars are an example of teachers studying their practice in a rigorous way that adheres to the standards of conventional research yet meets their individual needs.
Our second group of Eureka! Scholars explored a range of questions that ranged from looking at a specific teaching strategy (e.g., Kahoot!) to understanding pupils’ perception of a discipline (e.g., visual arts) to professional development for teachers (e.g., induction for teachers new to UTS). By examining teaching (e.g, from the students’ perception of strategies that teachers use) and learning in general (e.g., the role of executive functioning), we have touched on many topics that are part of the teaching/learning process. Through our learning community we learned a great deal about curriculum, learners, research methods, and the broader educational context. I believe our work will be of interest to other educators and that we have made a significant contribution to the growing literature on education. It was my true pleasure to work with such an outstanding group of educators. In many ways they were the same as the first cohort – smart, committed, funny, wise – yet were slightly different. They enriched my personal and professional life in so many ways. Their friendship and professional collaboration were gifts that I cherish.
In closing, I would like to thank the Newton Foundation for its generous funding of the Eureka! Scholars program. It has made a difference in the lives of teachers and students.
REFERENCES
Ahsan, S., & Smith, W. (2016). Facilitating student learning: A comparison of classroom accountability assessment. In W. Smith (Ed.), The global testing culture: Shaping education policy, perceptions, and practice (pp. 131–152). Southhampton, UK: Symposium Books Ltd.
Peterson, R. (1992). Life in a crowded place: Making a learning community. Richmond Hill, ON: Scholastic Canada.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–1640. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1046/j.1467-9620.2003.00303.x
Kahoot! in the History Classroom: An Exploration of the Value of Gamified Quizzes
Marc Brims
Instructional Leadership Facilitator - Canadian & World Studies Geography and History Teacher University of Toronto Schools
INTRODUCTION
For the past 10 years, I have been fortunate to teach curricula in England, Malaysia, and most recently, in Canada at the University of Toronto Schools (UTS). UTS is a Grade 7–12 preparatory school for high-achieving students that offers an accelerated Ontario curriculum comprised of enriched learning expectations. Since the outset of my career, I have been experimenting with a multitude of edutech tools, with varying degrees of success. No matter the country or curriculum, there always seems to be excitement on the part of students when learning with technological tools. In recent years, there has been a proliferation across curricula in the use of gamified quizzes to engage students, provide immed iate feedback, and support student learning. Simply put, gamified quizzes integrate game mechanics (e.g., scores/levels, time pressure, feedback loops) into the process of learning. Several platforms facilitate the gamification of quizzes, includ ing Quizlet, Socrative, and Poll Everywhere, to name a few. In particular, I have noticed heightened and sustained student enthusiasm when employing Kahoot!, a tool used to gamify quizzes in the history classroom. Students routinely ask if we are doing a Kahoot! and often ask to be assessed using the tool. This perceived interest on the part of students motivated me to investigate Kahoot! in an attempt to measure and assess the tool’s usefulness for improving student learning and overall wellness in Grade 8 history classrooms of high-achieving students at UTS.
PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH
Kahoot! was developed at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) and is funded in part by grants from the Norwegian Research Council. Founders Morten Versvik and Professor Alf Inge Wang assert that it will always be free for users (https://kahoot. com/). With so many new educational technologies flooding the market, the free cost coupled with its popularity with students make Kahoot! a natural choice when selecting from plentiful gamified quiz options. Plump and LaRosa (2017) note that Kahoot! has gained wide acceptance globally, with more than 30 million users worldwide; however, despite its growing popularity, there is a dearth of academic literature on the use of Kahoot! in history classrooms. It is apparent in my classroom experiences that a majority of high-achieving learners at UTS are excited about learning with Kahoot! However, I was curious to know to what extent Kahoot! was substantively impacting student experience. I was also curious about the few atypical students who seemed less enthusiastic about being assessed using the tool. Through exploring these issues, I hoped to get a clearer picture of the actual value of using Kahoot! with respect to its impact on the classroom environment.
The results of this research may inform my future use of Kahoot! in the classroom, as well as that of my teaching colleagues. I endeavoured to render student data that would help to answer some of the following questions:
-To what extent are Kahoot! options suitable for assessing high-achieving history students?
-What features of Kahoot! appeal to students?
-Do student survey responses warrant further differentiated approaches to assessment?
-Do the assessment data rendered from Kahoot! provide an accurate picture of student learning?
This study seeks to answer these questions in a bid to enhance the pedagogical foundations upon which Kahoot! is designed and employed in teaching and learning environments.
Furthermore, the future use of gamified quizzes as a mainstay in education is somewhat uncertain. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 53% of educators believed that gamification would be widespread by 2020, whereas 42% predicted that gamification would not evolve and become a larger trend (Zarzycka-Piskorz, 2016). Contrastingly, Mind Commerce, a research provider, projects that gamification in e-learning will grow to reach $319 billion by the year 2020, and college education and massive open online courses (MOOCs) will hold 69% of the market share (Zarzycka-Piskorz, 2016). The results of this research may contribute to a broader understanding of the usefulness of gamified educational technologies for teaching and learning in the future.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Educational researchers have begun to distill and articulate some of the positive impact that gamified quizzes can have on teaching and learning. Plump and LaRosa (2017) note that student experiences using Kahoot! in graduate and undergraduate classrooms are overall positive and indicate that students
welcome its use as a teaching and learning tool. Indeed, there is a general consensus that gamified quizzes can be highly engaging for students, and provide opportunities for immediate teacher-tostudent feedback (Cheong, Cheong, & Filippou, 2013).
Furthermore, in 2013 Dominguez et al. explored the practical implications and outcomes of gamifying learning experiences. Their qualitative data support the idea that gamification can have a positive social and emotional impact on students as well as a potential to increase motivation. However, their quantitative analysis suggests that “students who followed traditional exercises performed similarly in overall score to those who followed gamified exercises” (p. 391). They articulate that more rigorous evidence needs to be collected to measure real impact on student learning.
Similarly, Siegle (2015) asserts that games such as Kahoot! “can increase motivation by fostering a growth mindset in cultivating a persistent, optimistic motivational style of learning” (p. 193). He also notes that, typically, learning involves three separate processes: instruction, practice, and assessment. He contends that games like Kahoot! allow for all of these processes to occur under conditions familiar to the current generation of students. Siegle ultimately deems gaming a viable option for educators to provide differentiated learning experiences that can help gifted students reach their potential.
In terms of supporting student wellness, Wang (2015) found that Kahoot! can provide an outlet for students who are typically shy and quiet. Though these students are not active in the classroom
in the traditional sense, Wang found that Kahoot! managed to boost students’ engagement, motivation, and learning after using it repeatedly for five months. The core factor to keep the students’ attention after repeated usage was found to be the competitive nature of Kahoot!. The competitiveness fostered by Kahoot! is another aspect that will be examined in this research paper.
Lastly, Wang and Lieberoth (2016) explored the effect of awarded points and the audio functions of Kahoot! on student concentration, engagement, enjoyment, and motivation. Their research revealed that the audio affected classroom dynamics in a significantly positive way and that awarding points improved learning to a more limited extent.
As the literature suggests, Kahoot! can undoubtedly have a positive impact on student engagement, motivation, and participation in the teaching and learning process. However, the usefulness of Kahoot! in improving student learning and wellness in a history classroom of high-achieving students requires further investigation and analysis.
METHODOLOGY
To gather research data on Kahoot!, I initially developed an online survey (using SurveyMonkey) that rendered both qualitative and quantitative data. I successfully surveyed 49 Grade 8 history students, split between two class sections. Respondents were 54% female, 44% male, and 2% identified as non-binary. It should be noted that every student surveyed has an average level of achievement well above the Ontario
provincial standard in Grade 8 history (equivalent to a mark of 75%). Thus, the demographic surveyed comprised of high-achieving students. The survey posed questions that centred around three main themes associated with playing Kahoot!: level of enjoyment, competitiveness, and perceived impact on learning. To conclude the survey, students were also asked to vote on a preferred method for taking formative quizzes in the history classroom, pitting a traditional multiple-choice quiz against a Kahoot! quiz.
I also wanted to seek clarity on the issue of stress associated with the competitiveness of playing Kahoot! in order to ascertain the tool’s impact on promoting student wellness. My survey results could not differentiate between students who viewed stress as a positive motivator and those who saw it as an inhibitor to learning. To generate data on student perspectives of stress and competitiveness associated with playing Kahoot!, I recorded a class discussion centred on the issue and also took a vote on the two types of stress experienced by students (positive vs. negative stress).
Lastly, several UTS teachers use Kahoot! as a teaching tool, and I wanted to get an insight into their teaching and learning experiences. As such, I conducted five informal interviews with colleagues from multiple disciplines at UTS to learn about their experiences using Kahoot! in the classroom. These interviews rendered very interesting qualitative data that complemented and supported my research findings.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Finding #1: High-Achieving Students Enjoy Learning With Kahoot!
The data rendered from students pertaining to player enjoyment using Kahoot! as a learning tool were overwhelmingly clear: a large majority of students “love” playing the gamified quiz. Figure 1 shows that 61% of students “love” playing Kahoot!, 27% “really like it,” and the remaining 12% either “like it” or describe it as “OK.” No students indicate that they “dislike” playing Kahoot!. These data verify that high-achieving students enjoy learning with it and, moreover, confirm that no students “dislike” the edutech tool. It is rare to find a teaching tool that can uniformly be applied to two full classes of learners without any dissenting voices. Furthermore, these results provide confirmatory evidence for the claims made in the aforementioned research that Kahoot! is indeed an enjoyable gamified quiz option that can be used to engage learners, including, in this case, high-achieving learners in a Grade 8 history classroom. Lastly, on the basis of this evidence, it can be generalized beyond the data that Kahoot! promotes wellness in the classroom, as students enjoy learning with the tool. Figure 2 reinforces this finding, as 94% of students prefer to be assessed using Kahoot! than using a traditional multiplechoice history quiz. The particulars of how Kahoot! promotes student wellness will be examined later in this paper.
Figure 1. To what extent do you enjoy playing Kahoot! in the history classroom?
Figure 2. Do you prefer traditional multiple-choice quizzes (MCQ) or Kahoot! quizzes?
Figure 3: What feature do you most enjoy about learning with Kahoot!?
Finding #2: A Range of Kahoot! Features Appeal to High-Achieving Students
As Figure 3 shows, there are several game-like features that make Kahoot! an engaging learning tool.
When examining the most enjoyable features of Kahoot!, I included immediate feedback and hot streak as options in an attempt to see what percentage of students valued learning as part of the enjoyment of playing the gamified quiz. Immediate feedback is provided to students after each question is administered to clarify the accuracy of the answer, and the hot streak feature motivates students by giving them positive encouragement (i.e., feedback) if they correctly answer consecutive questions. Interestingly, immediate feedback garnered the lowest score on the spectrum of enjoyable features, with hot streak also yielding a small amount of responses. These data seem to suggest that only 15% of students enjoy Kahoot! primarily for the learning experience when juxtaposed against other options, such as the competitiveness elicited by the game.
When playing Kahoot!, a competition leaderboard showing the top 5-point earners is displayed after each question, thus fostering a competitiveness within the class. This competitive aspect brought forth by gamified learning dominated the enjoyable features, followed by the informal nature of the quiz, as demonstrated in Figure 3.The data appear to suggest that students predominantly enjoy playing Kahoot! as a result of the competition elicited by the tool, as well as the fact that it is employed in a manner that will not have a direct evaluative impact on their reported levels of achievement.
In conversations with colleagues, it was noted that many students desired competition and liked the immediate feedback provided by receiving their score in the gamified quiz. There is a clear divergence in preference for Kahoot! features and, as such, the survey instrument sought to further examine student perceptions of stress, competition, and overall experience when learning with the gamified quiz. Indeed, competition is an inherent part of most gamified learning tools (including Kahoot!), and the connections between student wellness and competition need to be considered.
Finding #3: A Significant Minority of High-Achieving Students Dislike a Competitive Classroom Environment
A look at the data in Figure 4 indicates that while a majority of high-achieving students do enjoy learning in a competitive classroom environment, there was a significant minority (10%) who do not. This finding was supported by conversations I had with my students around the positive and negative stress associated with playing Kahoot! While most thrived from the competition (positive stress), others sometimes felt pressure and a sense of unease (negative stress) both before and during the gamified quiz. Although students overall enjoy playing Kahoot!, stress and competition may not contribute to promoting wellness or positively impact learning outcomes for all students. This finding provides a deeper glimpse into those students in Figure 1 who cited Kahoot! as an “OK” learning tool option.
Furthermore, in my interviews with colleagues at UTS, teachers stated that, while they agreed Kahoot! was engaging for students, this was sometimes to the detriment of more meaningful learning. For instance, while using Kahoot! as a training tool for a Kids Literary Quiz Team, the tool was found to promote “trigger-happy” students who let competition take precedence over the accuracy of answers. This problem was cited by teachers across disciplines, who noted that students often selected incorrect answers accidentally due to the fact that they wanted to maximize their awarded points for speedy responses.
Finding #4: Overall, Kahoot! Can Have a Positive Impact on Learning in HighAchieving Students
The aim of the questions asked in the survey was to ascertain to what extent students valued learning with Kahoot!. The data from Figure 5 show that 69% of students find the feedback from Kahoot! “useful” to “very useful,” while another 22% find it “somewhat useful.”
Only 8% of students find the feedback “useless” or “seldom use” the formative guidance provided through learning with Kahoot!. Hence, from a student perspective, Kahoot! positively impacts learning. However, discussions with my colleagues and observations from my own practice reveal that a positive impact may not always be guaranteed. In tracking student data from each Kahoot!, teachers can make targeted interventions to assist students who appear to have knowledge gaps. It is imperative to note that when I discussed individual results with students, it was often revealed that incorrect answers had been accidentally keyed in as a result of rushing to get a higher score. Indeed, several teachers did not save student data precisely for this reason. Thus, the individual student data rendered from Kahoot! may be of less use than real-time class-wide feedback provided during the gamified quiz.
Catherine Wachter (2016) articulated that if students constantly receive feedback about their performance, it creates positive stress that perhaps they wouldn’t otherwise be aware of,
Figure 4. To what extent do you enjoy learning in a competitive classroom environment?
“It shows me what more I need to know before the summative of the unit, which really helps me make my projects better.”
“I use the feedback received by Kahoot! to reinforce the information that was already known to me, and replenish information that I had forgotten.
“Kahoot! makes wrong answers more memorable, so I learn better from my mistakes.”
“It helps me remember, because if I do not know the answer, I remember the time I got it wrong, and what the correct answer was.”
“It’s mostly fun to know how much more work you need to be better in history.”
“Learn forgotten information and realize new info that I never thought of.”
leading to actionable change. The student responses shown in Figure 6 illuminate an appreciation for the general feedback provided during Kahoot!, indicating that the edutech tool does facilitate meaningful learning for high-achieving students in the history classroom. However, it should be noted that the student statements
focus pointedly on knowledge and information, as opposed to higherorder thinking or application skills. This is likely a commentary on the way that the tool has been used in my classroom to reinforce basic knowledge and understanding of concepts before moving on to activities that promote deeper learning.
Figure 5. To what extent do you appreciate/use the immediate feedback provided through Kahoot!?
Figure 6: Student responses to the question “How do you use the feedback provided by Kahoot!?”
INTRODUCTION
The middle years – Grades 6, 7, 8, and even 9 – are some of the most challenging for students and parents (Wallace, 2016). Part of the challenge may lie in the fact that this stage of schooling is inconsistently defined across the country, with variations in each province and even within regions. At UTS, Grades 7 and 8 are referred to as the “foundation years” and Grades 9 and 10 as the “middle years.” Meanwhile, some middle schools in the Toronto District School Board begin in Grade 6 and others in Grade 7. Because UTS is a secondary school, with middle grades contained within it, the foundation years are taught and timetabled in a manner more typical of a high school. While the students at UTS are strong, inquisitive, and intelligent students, the current model has raised questions and concerns among some parents and staff about whether it is best for students at this age.
At UTS, most often, teachers have been trained to teach secondary school, with much less focus on child and early adolescent development. Likewise, anecdotally, this gap of middle-year specific training is true in many schools delivering Grade 7 and 8, with teachers either training for teaching at the secondary level or for the junior years. At the same time, parents of middle-school students are often puzzled by their children’s behaviour, especially as they become more and more independent (Stronks, 1990). Lastly, the variation in levels of maturity that I have observed is significant and can contribute to a student’s success, social integration, and overall well-being.
At UTS a third area of consideration emerges: Should all courses be taught by subject specialists? The benefits of
having subject specialists are relatively clear and have been discussed in research (National Research Council, 2000), especially when working with gifted or high-achieving students. Subject specialists can bring a rigour to the program that generalists may not have the skill or knowledge to match. However, the drawbacks may outweigh the benefits, especially in certain subject areas. First, subject specialists may spend more time concerned about content delivery rather than inquiry skill development. Pedagogical specialists may be a better fit for this age group if, as described above, it is such a complex stage of development. Second, subject specialists, trained at the secondary level, may deliver the material at a level that is too advanced for the students. The result may be that students lose interest or experience a decline in their self-esteem if they feel they are not capable of learning certain subject material. From my own observation, conventional wisdom at UTS has long held that subject content rigour is the most important factor. It is likely that subject specialization is a vital part of the foundation years. However, even if that is true, there is anecdotal evidence that there needs to be greater emphasis placed on the value of program delivery and skill development for these middleschool-aged students.
CHALLENGE/ISSUE ADDRESSED
A significant challenge faced by Grade 7 and 8 teachers is how to keep the students engaged, excited, and interested in learning:
Keeping
middle-school students
focused and engaged in the classroom is quite a challenge amidst all of the complex changes – physical, intellectual, emotional, and social –that they experience during this phase of their lives. (Maday, 2008)
Students at this level are often at widely varying developmental stages, despite being the same age. In addition, they are often experiencing a newfound independence from their parents as well as freedom within the school environment. The challenge, then, is to identify a repertoire of methods or instructional strategies for keeping a diverse group of Grade 7 students engaged in the classroom.
OVERARCHING RESEARCH QUESTION
What are the instructional strategies that students find most engaging and interesting?
Sub-Questions
What teacher characteristics do the students prefer?
From a student perspective, what does a well-structured school day look like?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Middle-school students seem to be a group that has been under-studied and not fully understood. What we do know is that children typically begin going through puberty in the middle years,
and this release of hormones can result in students who go through emotional highs and lows (Manitoba, 2014 , pp. 11–12). At the same time, these students are highly social and, in fact, are establishing who they are within their social circle. As a result, the middle years can be a challenging cohort of students to teach. Understanding what repertoire of instructional strategies the students prefer is essential for a teacher to be successful.
Being aware of some typical features of the middle-school student’s brain is vital when considering which instructional strategies she likes best. As noted by Wolpert-Gawron (2013), the prefrontal cortex is critical to analysis, judging, organizing, and determining what is valid information and what is not, as well as to the development of empathy and selfawareness. However, this portion of the brain is one of the last to develop, and is typically still doing so in the brain of a 12- or 13-year-old student. Therefore, these students can be easily distracted by a note passed during class, a passing comment in the hall, or stress at home (Wolpert-Gawron, 2013 ). The most effective teaching strategies should be varied, with consideration given to the variety of stages of development of the students in the classroom. The goal should be to ensure that the information will find its way to the prefrontal cortex. In other words, the strategies should engage the students in a way that pulls them back from any distractions that may be going on around them. It is important to acknowledge the role of routine and structure in a middle-school classroom in maintaining engagement (Johnson, 2013 , p.8). The majority of middle-school students feel most comfortable in a predictable classroom environment. Regular routines can help ensure this. Employing instructional
strategies that the children enjoy and are engaged by, in a classroom environment that is well structured and predictable, should improve learning for students. Finally, research has demonstrated that engagement results in learning (Manitoba Education , 2010). It is imperative that teachers of middlelevel students understand what type of classroom activities and instructional strategies will most engage the students. By receiving feedback directly from the students about how they feel they learn best and which types of activities they find most engaging, teachers can better prepare their lessons to address these needs.
In addition to understanding what engages and motivates the individual so that they learn best and avoid the distractions of the middle-school classroom, there are a number of characteristics of strong middleschool programs that also need to be recognized. These include:
1.Effective administrative leadership: Because the needs of middle-school students vary from those of either elementary or secondary students, leadership matters. Despite overlap, leaders need to develop specific skills for students at this stage of development.
2.Expectation of academic excellence: It is vital that students feel expectations of their performance are high.
3.Teachers must have vision and compassion: Teachers who are effective at the middle-school level are able to guide inquiry instead of lecturing. It is important to provide students with the opportunity to explore and learn, instead of simply take notes from a screen or board.
4.Developing a school within a school:
Divide students into smaller groups, under the guidance of a core group of teachers who become advisors.
5.Counselling: Make use of small-group learning and counselling.
6.Provide a meaningful learning experience: Instead of focusing on the correct answer, instructional strategies focus on the process of finding an answer – developing critical thinking and research skills.
7.Opportunities for integrated studies: Employ effective integration that promotes cross-curricular collaboration and requires students to draw on learning from a number of classes.
8.Employ a variety of teaching strategies in order to reach a variety of learners and learning styles.
9.Design an innovative schedule that promotes deep thinking: Shifting focus too often can be too difficult for middle-school students (especially if lessons are 45 minutes with only a short break in between). Instead, blocks should allow for lecture, inquiry, and discussion.
10.Provide courses that engage today’s preteen or early teen: Ethics, conflict resolution and bully-proofing behavior, media literacy, substance abuse, eating disorders – the full complement of issues faced by kids today – should be taught.
11.Have a thriving co-curricular program: It must engage a variety of interests and promote positive social and emotional development, as well as commitment. These opportunities should be equally available to all students regardless of experience or skill.
12.Have exploratory programs: These offer students a chance to try new things for short periods in order to determine which areas are of
interest for further investigation or learning. There might be 4 to 8 weeks in business, keyboarding, choir, homemaking and independent living, drama, foreign languages, arts and crafts, independent study opportunities, dance, or music.
13.Promote positive parental involvement in the student’s academic life as well as the life of the school.
14.Develop a comprehensive approach to develop executive skills. (Bauer, 2014 ; Manning, 2003; Glenn & Foy Larsen, 2012)
The importance of recognizing the specific needs of middle-school students and considering their interests and needs cannot be underestimated. Learning from the students what they find most engaging and enjoyable will help teachers better prepare to teach their lessons.
METHODOLOGY
This is a quantitative study. The data were collected in Grade 7 classes during January 2017, using a survey that was designed with input from the Eureka! cohort of researchers. There were 103 Grade 7 students, made up of 51 males and 52 females. The Grade 7 students were asked to complete a Google Form during a class dedicated to a year-long project. They were given a choice as to whether to participate.
One survey was administered to all of the students. The survey offered an opportunity for further discussion if the students were willing to participate in an individual interview or small group. However, due to time limitations, interviews were not completed. The students were told that the research was focused on what type of instructional
strategies or classroom activities they prefer, with the goal of better informing their teachers so that the teachers could develop lessons that better meet the students’ needs.
The survey questions were generated through a combination of literature review, observations, discussion with teachers involved in Eureka! research, and the personal experience of the researcher. As mentioned, the survey was developed in conjunction with the Eureka! fellows. Each participant in the Eureka! research group shared their instrument and received feedback and suggestions regarding the wording and other aspects of the questions from the team of researchers.
The survey was piloted with a small group of Grade 8 students at University of Toronto Schools in order to ensure the questions were well worded and made sense to the students. In addition, the goal of the pilot was to determine whether any questions were missing or repetitive as well as whether the students understood the nature of the instructional strategies listed. The survey was completed in a Google Form. The survey was not anonymous, as student emails were collected automatically by the survey, and students were aware of this.
The instrument contained 22 questions, which were multiple choice (select one answer), checklist (select all answers that apply), or short answer. There were nine open-ended questions, and the remainder were multiple choice or checklists. Openended questions provided opportunities for participants to explain what they liked or disliked about certain instructional strategies. The checklists offered the students a wide array of instructional strategies that they would have
experienced in the classroom. A typical multiple-choice or checklist survey question looked like Figure 1 below. Some offered students the chance to provide multiple responses, while others allowed for only one choice.
An example of an open-ended question is in Figure 2. The goal of these questions was to collect more detailed information about why the survey participant responded as they did.
The analysis was completed in two ways. First, all of the data generated through the multiple-choice and checklist questions were compiled into charts that could be more easily analyzed. In addition, the ranking questions were analyzed to determine which “statements” had the highest or lowest average ranking. Following this, the open-ended questions were coded in order to determine trends in the language and types of comments the students made about the instructional strategies that they prefer or find less effective. Coding was completed by hand, through reading the comments and identifying certain common terms or words and then quantifying the use of those terms. As themes emerged, the coded data were aggregated into a smaller number of categories. This quantitative data were then entered into a spreadsheet in order to generate visual representations of the results.
Not all of the data are presented here. The data representations shown here provide the best evidence for analysis of the research questions.
The analysis of the data was influenced by the perceptions and philosophy of the researcher. However, there is sufficient rigour to respond to the research questions.
FINDINGS
Preference for a variety of activities
When asked to rank the types of activities they prefer most in a class from the list of options shown in Table 1, students favoured those in which they experience a variety of activities.
Here are statements for ranking the type of class a student prefers:
I like classes in which
1.I get to have discussions with my peers.
2.I get to focus on my own work.
3.I get to move around the classroom from time to time.
4.The teacher provides detailed descriptions or explanations of the topic being taught.
5.We get to do a variety of activities during the period.
6.I know exactly what I should learn from the lesson.
Figure 3 shows that Statements 5 and 3 were given the highest average rank among the statements. These focus on completing a variety of activities, as well as moving around the classroom rather than staying at one desk or workstation.
Also of interest is the distribution of the rankings for each statement. In some cases a statement was consistently ranked either high or low by the students. For example, Statement 5, as shown in Figure 4, had more rankings in the top three than in the bottom three, suggesting that there was somewhat unanimous support across the group of respondents for this type of activity.
Conversely, some statements had polarized support, with large numbers
Figure 1. Sample checklist question.
Figure 2. A sample open-ended question.
Figure 3. Comparison of rankings of statements about the types of class experiences Grade 7 students prefer (ranked from 1 to 6, with 1 being the highest ranking).
Figure 4 . Rankings assigned by the students (from 1–6) for statement 5. More respondents assigned a ranking in the top half than the bottom half of the possible ranks.
Figure 5 . Rankings assigned by the students (from 1–6) for Statement 1.There seems to be a polarized view of this classroom experience.
ranking it at the top of their list or the bottom of their list. A good example is Statement 1 (“I get to have discussion with my peers”), shown in Figure 5. Approximately 23% of respondents ranked it at the top, and 24% ranked it at the bottom. In this case, this suggests that some students really enjoy or benefit from discussions with their peers, while others are less likely to find benefit in it.
Preference for student-focused activities
A second finding relates to studentfocused activities. Students were asked which experiences support their learning. They responded to the following question:
“Please indicate which type of studentfocused class activity you enjoy and learn the most from.”
Figure 6 suggests that students place greater value on activities that provide an experiential component, whether within the classroom or beyond. Students appear to place less value on activities that require them to read and respond to materials. Some may refer to this type of instructional strategy as “seat-work.” The least value was placed on peer teaching. Discussion with students suggests this results from concerns that peer instructors may not teach the right material, and leave the student in a position of being unprepared for the next assessment. There is a value to having peers deliver material to each other; therefore, consideration to this concern about being poorly taught by a peer must be given by the instructor in order to ensure students do not worry that they are not getting the material they need.
Figure 6 . Preferred student-focused activities.
Figure 7, below, displays the responses to the question “Why do you prefer those activities?” The data were collected through qualitative responses and was subsequently coded in order to be analyzed.
The coding of this data suggests that students prefer activities that offer an opportunity to interact with each other through collaboration, and that hands-on and active activities are preferred. Likewise, the importance of employing strategies that make the lesson more “fun” cannot be underestimated. Meanwhile, fewer respondents discussed the importance of the depth of material, or whether it was visual and required thinking. This does not mean these reasons are not important to the students, but rather that they were not discussed in their qualitative responses.
Preference for engaging activities
A third finding relates to the type of teacher characteristics the students find most engaging. Though many of the characteristics may not be easily changed, recognizing what the students value in a teacher and how the teacher acts towards the students is important . Figure 8 is a word cloud presenting the most commonly stated characteristics that appeal to a student. The larger the word, the more often it appeared in the survey results. Not surprisingly, “funny,” “enthusiastic,” “kind,” and “fair” were among the most common. Not every teacher will be a comedian; however, knowing the students value levity may influence how a teacher approaches a lesson.
Figure 9 displays the least appealing teacher characteristics identified by
Figure 7 . Indication of why students prefer these activities.
Figure 8. A word cloud of most common descriptors for preferred teacher characteristics selected by Grade 7 students at UTS.
Figure 9. A word cloud displaying the most commonly identified negative characteristics of teachers selected by Grade 7 UTS students.
the respondents. “Short-deadlines,” “homework,” “unfair,” and “unsupportive” all point to a concern among students that the teacher is not engaging with them and does not treat them well, and that they likely have trouble anticipating the teacher’s mood or behaviour. While some characteristics are hard to change, treating students with fairness and providing a supportive classroom should be characteristics that any teacher can strive for.
Preference for type of feedback
The fourth finding relates to the type of feedback students prefer to receive, ranging from peer reviews, to just a grade, to descriptive. Hattie (2012)
has demonstrated the importance of descriptive feedback for learning. Therefore, it is not surprising that, as illustrated by Figure 10, teacher feedback that includes descriptive comments is highly regarded by students. Likewise, in an educational environment in which “marks” are viewed with such importance, it should not be a surprise that grades are also viewed as very important. The student responses support providing detailed descriptions that explain where the student understood the material and where there is room for growth. The fact that a grade attached to the feedback is regarded as important by 75% of the students suggests that, despite the efforts of many, grades matter.
Figure 10. Graph presenting the favoured form of feedback received by students.
CONCLUSION
The results of this research are not entirely surprising. Nonetheless, they provide a guide for middle-school teachers interested in providing engaging, ageappropriate instruction to their classes. Teachers who provide lessons that are active with hands-on and experiential activities, who bring levity and fun into the classroom and are kind and fair, and who provide opportunities for collaboration and conversation with peers will likely experience the most success with the majority of their middleschool students at UTS.
Looking in on New Teacher Induction and Support
Dr. Nancy Dawe Instructional Leadership Facilitator, Expressive Arts Music, Integrated Studies, and AP Capstone Research Teacher
TEACHER INDUCTION: WHERE THE RESEARCH JOURNEY BEGAN
My interest in researching teacher induction stems from my personal experiences as a beginning teacher. In my first year as a teacher, my school board’s formal induction program and my principal’s support throughout the teacher evaluation process were critical to my success at the school and to my positive entry into the profession at large. The induction program provided opportunities to network with beginning teachers from other schools; to meet with the school board’s music consultant, who coached me in short- and long-term planning of teaching and assessment; and to understand Human Resources policies and procedures around benefits and contracts. My principal approved release time for m e to attend a provincial beginning teachers’ conference, and he was thoughtful and constructive with his feedback during all stages of the teacher evaluation process. I could not have asked for a better first year as a teacher.
The following year, I moved across the country, which meant starting over in a new school board with a different principal. I firmly believe that if my first year in that board had been my very first year of teaching, I would not be writing this paper as a teacher with 18 years of experience. (Two of my colleagues
at that school were just beginning their teaching careers, and both chose to leave the profession at the end of the year.)
In that second year, I participated in the school board’s formal teacher induction program, which largely consisted of watching and discussing video clips. At the end of the year, my principal wrote
a performance evaluation of me, never having stepped foot inside my classroom, and never having had a conversation with me about anything to do with teaching and learning. I had naively assumed that he had never observed me teach because I had only a temporary contract, so I was shocked to learn that the mediocre evaluation he had given me would be put in my permanent file. As a novice teacher with no job security, I said nothing.
Those contrasting experiences with teacher induction left their mark. Later, when applying to graduate school, my burning questions had to do with teacher induction. I wanted to know how I could have had two such disparate experiences as a beginning teacher. I wanted to find out if either was the norm, and I wanted to find out more about teacher retention in the early years of the profession. However, once I began my master’s degree, I ended up taking a different path completely, and even through my doctorate I never did explore these questions.
When the opportunity arose to join the University of Toronto Schools (UTS) Eureka! Fellowship Program, I knew I had found a place to revisit some of my burning questions from years ago. While my primary role at UTS is that of instrumental music teacher, at around the same time that I joined the Eureka! research group, I moved into a part-time leadership role at UTS. Within that role, my responsibilities included supporting the development and implementation of the new teacher induction program, helping ease the transition of new teachers, regardless of their years of experience, into the UTS community. Rather than investigating my own teaching practice, I investigated an institutional practice in which I played a leadership role.
INTRODUCING THE RESEARCH
Research Purpose
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the strategies used to support the induction of teachers in their initial year of employment at UTS. Specifically, my intentions were (a) to have these teachers self-assess their professional needs as new (to UTS) teachers, (b) to evaluate the effectiveness of the support practices currently in place, and (c) to consider next steps for strengthening teacher induction strategies and support at UTS.
Each year, amongst the teaching staff at UTS, there is a group of “new to UTS” teachers. The size of this group varies from year to year, and there is no typical profile for an incoming teacher. In any given year, there could be a mix of novice or early-career teachers and more established teachers with considerable experience. These teachers come from diverse educational settings, including public or independent Ontario schools, other Canadian schools, international schools from a variety of countries, and post-secondary institutions. Anecdotal evidence suggests that even for experienced teachers from other Ontario independent schools, adjusting to life as a teacher at UTS can carry a steep learning curve and, at times, can be overwhelming.
Research Questions
Three main questions guided this study:
1.What are the professional needs of teachers who are new to UTS?
a.of early career teachers?
b.of established teachers?
2.How successful have current strategies been in supporting the needs of
41
new (early career and established) teachers?
3.What modifications or additions could be made to the induction program in order to enhance the level of support provided to new teachers?
Significance
A review of research on teacher induction programs revealed a focus on the induction needs of novice (i.e., new to the profession) teachers, with a paucity of research on the induction needs of experienced teachers who are new to a particular school. This study will contribute to the growing body of knowledge (i.e., Aitken & Harford, 2011; Gant, 2009; Given, 2016; Slaughter, 1988) on the induction needs of experienced new teachers.
Boundaries
This study examined the teacher induction program specific to UTS and the needs of a group of teachers who were new to the school within a three-year period. While my research findings are specific to the participants in this study, the implications and recommendations have broader applications to the teacher induction program at UTS and to the fields of teacher induction and teacher professional development.
Research on the Induction of Experienced Teachers: What We Already Know
While teacher induction has been studied primarily through the lens of examining the experiences of novice teachers within the first year of the profession (e.g., Feiman-Nemser, 2010; Howe, 2006; Kearney, 2014; Kutsyuruba, Godden, Matheson, & Walker, 2016), a small number of researchers have focused their work on the induction of
“experienced new teachers” (Slaughter, 1988, p. 1), those teachers with previous teaching experience but who are new to a particular school or school system. Persistent concerns with teacher attrition and student achievement gaps drive much of the research on new teacher induction, with a goal of improving new teacher induction programs in order to strengthen the quality of teaching and learning in schools (Feiman-Nemser, 2010). It is possible that less attention has been paid to the induction needs of experienced new teachers due to an assumption that they have already proven their abilities to be successful within a prior teaching and learning context. A review of studies related to the induction of experienced new teachers reveals that the socialization of teachers into a new community and culture is of more pressing concern than the improvement of teaching and learning.
Defining induction
Through an extensive review of literature on policy and research relating to teacher induction, Feiman-Nemser (2010) found the term “new teacher induction” to be used in three different , though potentially overlapping, ways: (1)to describe a distinct phase in learning to teach that serves as an inservice extension of pre-service teacher education; (2) to describe a socialization process that helps new teachers “fit into schools” (p. 19); and (3) to describe a formal program “intended to provide some systematic and sustained assistance to beginning teachers for at least one school year” (Huling-Austin, as cited in Feiman-Nemser, 2010, p. 22). To aid in clarity, throughout this paper the standalone term “induction” will be used to refer to a hybrid of an informal process of socialization and a formalized systematic program of support, while the
42
term “induction program” will be used in reference to the latter alone.
Related studies
Slaughter (1988) established a foundation for the study of the induction of new teachers, as he was the first to identify “experienced new teachers” as a specific sub-group of teachers with professional needs that, if addressed, could ease their transition into a new school.
Slaughter recognized that in his district there was limited acknowledgement that most newly hired teachers needed support, as they were not brand new to the profession. However, through his research, he found that their needs for support were not entirely unlike those of novice teachers entering their first year of the profession. While Slaughter recommended the development of further research in this area, specifically with respect to the needs of experienced new teachers and the evaluation of supports provided to those teachers, little was published in that area until more than 20 years later.
Personal experiences with challenging transitions to a new school provided the impetus for Gant (2009) and Given (2016) to design studies in order to gain insights into the needs of experienced new teachers and to provide recommendations that could lead to more positive experiences as teachers move from one school or district to another. Given (2016) was also motivated to investigate how effective teacher induction might limit the rates of teacher attrition in her district, thereby strengthening teaching and learning school- and system-wide. Aitken and Harford (2011) had a similar research purpose, but they were motivated by a situation unique to their context: while Ireland is highly regarded for the calibre
of teacher education and the level of teaching in the profession, teacher induction is “widely recognized as inadequate” (p. 351).
Challenges Research shows that there is considerable overlap in the challenges novice and experienced teachers face in their initial year in a school (Aitken & Harford, 2011). Both groups report a desire for additional support around student discipline, administrative policies and procedures, and professional relationships and communication (Aitken & Harford, 2011; Gant, 2009; Given, 2016; Slaughter, 1988). More so than novice teachers, experienced new teachers struggle with the process of acculturation, as their “assumptions and frameworks for how schools work” (Given, 2016, p. 117) are disrupted by the social, economic, and political realities of their new schools (Aitken & Harford, 2011). Tensions may exist around adjusting to differences in the ways in which parent communities engage with student learning (Slaughter, 1988), adapting to new expectations around curriculum and assessment (Aitken & Harford, 2011; Gant, 2009), navigating how to rebuild a reputation within a school for achievements and areas of expertise (Aitken & Harford, 2011; Given, 2016), and negotiating the politics of “the way [things have] always been done” (Gant, 2009, p. 34).
Recommendations
A culture of collaboration and support is integral to ensuring that new teachers –whether novice or experienced – have positive transitions to teaching in a new setting. Further, such a culture should permeate across the entire school, and not be limited to the teacher induction program: all teachers and
administrators can play a role in easing the socialization of new teachers into the school community. While dedicated time within the school day for teachers to co-plan and intentional opportunities for teachers to socialize outside of the school day are recommended as practices that would contribute to the creation of a culture of collaboration, neither have been standard practice in the schools that have been studied (Aitken & Harford, 2011; Gant, 2009; Given, 2016; Slaughter, 1988).
Though the positive socialization of new teachers into a school community should be a shared responsibility, the designation of an individual as a primary source of support for new teachers has been noted to be imperative for a positive induction experience (Gant, 2009; Slaughter, 1988). The degree of formality can be variable –from a buddy system (Slaughter, 1988) to an official mentorship program (Gant, 2009; Given, 2016) – but a one-to-one relationship with somebody already deeply familiar with the culture of the school is key.
Frameworks for 21st-century learning place emphasis on making space for student voice and choice to guide decisionmaking around teaching and learning (Cook-Sather, 2015). Recommendations for the role of teacher voice and choice are no different within the context of teacher professional learning, including induction programs (Aitken & Harford, 2011; Gant, 2009; Given, 2016). Each teacher will have different needs stemming from their previous experiences and their career stages.
Regardless of the specific structure of a new teacher induction program, it is clear that such a program is necessary to support the transition of new teachers,
whether novice or experienced, into a new school setting (Aitken & Harford, 2011; Gant, 2009; Given, 2016; Slaughter, 1988).
METHODOLOGY Research Design
The purpose of this study is grounded in pragmatism in that it is problemcentred and consequence-oriented (Creswell, 2003), and concerned with action rather than philosophizing (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). I set out to develop a better understanding of the experiences of teachers who have been new to UTS, learning from their knowledge of teaching and learning as constructed in the realities of their worlds, in order to move forward with strengthening the induction program at UTS. Through the use of a survey tool consisting of Likert-type and open-ended questions, quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently in order to assess the professional needs of teachers new to UTS, to assess the effectiveness of the induction strategies in place at the school, and to consider next steps for strengthening the teacher induction program.
Research Context
At the time of the study, the staff at UTS included 64 teachers. In any given year, the number of teachers new to the school is variable, depending on retirements and leaves of absence. In a typical year, the cohort of new teachers includes both full- and parttime teachers who have been hired into either continuing contracts with oneyear probationary periods or temporary one-year contracts that – depending on multiple factors, including the staffing needs of the school the following year –may or may not lead to longer-term
employment. Most newly hired teachers come to UTS with prior full-time teaching experience in at least one other school. Regardless of contract status and years of experience, all teachers in their first year at UTS participate in the teacher induction program (R. Evans, personal communication, August 1, 2018).
The teacher induction program that was the focus of this research included a number of supports to address the socialization needs of teachers new to the school: an optional orientation meeting (optional, as it was held prior to the official start date of the teachers’ contracts); a handbook for new teachers in both electronic and paper formats; formal monthly after-school meetings led by two administrators; informal monthly “Teacher Talk” sessions organized by two teacher mentors; and the assignment of an informal peer mentor who could serve as a go-to person for everyday questions and concerns.
All new teachers were required to participate in the Teacher Performance Appraisal (TPA) process, which serves primarily to improve teaching and learning. This process includes informal opportunities for peer observation (to observe and to be observed), as well as formal observations, feedback, and evaluations by a member of the school’s administrative team. In some cases, either by request of the teacher, or when the teacher is brand new to the profession, the TPA process may continue into the second year of teaching at UTS (R. Evans, personal communication, August 1, 2018).
Participants
As the research questions were designed to gather information about a very specific experience within the school,
all teachers who had been new to UTS over the previous three academic years were purposefully selected to receive the survey. In total, 16 teachers received an email invitation to participate – five in their third year, three in their second, and eight in their first year at the school. Though this is a relatively small sample size, I deemed that three cohorts of new teachers would provide an appropriate number of responses in order to gather useful data without having to push people too hard to remember their induction experiences at UTS. Of the 16 surveys distributed, 14 teachers responded, for a response rate of 88%.
Survey
As this study used qualitative data to elaborate and provide clarification on the information provided through the Likert-type questions, in keeping with recommendations from Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989), quantitative and qualitative methods were “implemented simultaneously and interactively” (p. 267) in order to enhance interpretability. Using Google Forms, a link to an anonymous survey was distributed via email to the prospective participants. The survey (see Appendix) consisted of three sections:
(1)demographic information, (2) a selfassessment of professional needs in the initial year of teaching at UTS, and (3) an assessment of the support strategies that had been provided as part of induction to UTS.
The demographics section consisted of two multiple-choice questions to gather information about career stage and teaching contexts immediately prior to UTS. Responses revealed that six teachers were early career teachers with up to five years of experience, and eight were established teachers with more
than five years of experience. Teachers had moved to UTS from a variety of school settings, including independent and public schools in Ontario, elsewhere in Canada, and overseas (Figure 1).
The second section, a self-assessment of professional needs, included 21 Likert-type questions across four themes: Teaching and Learning, UTS-Specific Expectations (i.e., culture), Administration (i.e., policies and procedures), and Inter/Intrapersonal Relationships (including communication). These themes were chosen as they reflected the most commonly expressed areas of need in the research literature on induction of experienced new teachers (Aitken & Harford, 2011; Gant, 2009; Given, 2016). These themes were also reflected in needs assessment questionnaires for beginning teachers from multiple school districts (Mississippi Department of Education, n.d.; New Mexico Public
Education Department, 2008). Participants weighted their need for support for each area using a 5-point scale, with 1 representing little to no need for support, 3 some need for support, and 5 very high need for support.
The final section, an assessment of supports provided throughout the first year, listed 12 supports available to teachers in the first year of teaching at UTS. Participants rated the helpfulness of each of the supports using a 5-point scale, with 1 representing not helpful at all, 3 helpful, but other strategies were more effective, and 5 crucial to success in my first year. “Not applicable” was also provided as an option in this section, as one of the supports, “Teacher Talk,” had only been available to the most recent cohort of new teachers, and not all teachers may have availed of all 12 supports during their initial year.
Figure 1. Summary of prior teaching experiences.
The survey also included three freeresponse questions, which gave participants an opportunity to provide additional information with respect to their individual needs, supports they wished had been provided, and anything else related to new teacher induction at UTS.
Throughout the research process, the Eureka! research group acted as a “response community” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 132), providing feedback at all stages. They provided extensive feedback on an early draft of the survey, and their input was particularly valuable in shaping the structure of the final version, which was then piloted with one teacher before sending out to all potential participants.
Participants were able to complete the survey anonymously, as no names or email addresses were collected through the survey tool. Initially, one of the two questions designed to collect demographic data was seen to compromise confidentiality. In the pilot survey, Question 1 (“How would you characterize your career stage during your first year teaching at UTS?”) included three possible responses instead of two: “novice” (1–2 years); “early career” (3–5 years); and “established” (more than 5 years). The teacher who piloted the survey raised a concern that with such a small sampling of teachers, the response to “years of experience” combined with “setting of previous experience” would make it impossible to protect identity. As a result, the final survey included only two options for Question 1: “early career” (1–5 years) and “established” (more than 5 years).
Data Analysis
Data analysis was a recursive process that included both statistical and inductive approaches. As the primary data collected through this study were responses to Likert-type questions, findings were derived from descriptive statistics, including mean score, as well as the minimum and maximum values of each item. Values were calculated for three data sets: the responses from the early career teachers, the responses from the established teachers, and the combined responses from all participants. Given the small sample size, the quantitative responses were useful for revealing general trends and for making it very clear that 14 participants could produce 14 different responses. Analysis of the free-response questions was inductive, and a thematic analysis approach was used to make sense of the findings. Themes for discussion were chosen according to the intensity and frequency with which they arose in participant responses.
As with the revision of the survey instrument, the feedback from the Eureka! research group was instrumental as I worked through analysis of the data. Although I was initially frustrated that the data set did not reveal any particular patterns, through a group discussion I came to understand that “no pattern” could itself be a meaningful finding. Each group member brought unique perspectives to the table, and over the course of our monthly meetings, questions on my latest interpretation of findings helped me dig deeper and consider the data through different lenses. The very act of sharing aloud preliminary and draft findings with
the response community brought to the surface new insights that I incorporated into my revisions of the findings and implications.
Limitations
Given the small sample size of this study, it is possible that some participants did not feel they could be completely forthcoming about their needs for fear that they would be identified and exposed. This could have been particularly true for those teachers who had been hired into one-year contracts and had not yet secured a permanent position as a teacher. While I did not play a role in evaluating any of the new teachers on staff, I did play a leadership role in the teacher induction program itself, which could have had an effect on the level of vulnerability to which participants were willing to commit.
FINDINGS
First-Year Needs
The second section of the survey asked participants to rate their need for support in 21 areas across four themes: Teaching and Learning, UTS-Specific Expectations, Administration, and Inter/ Intrapersonal Relationships. This section also included a free-response prompt: “If applicable, please list any areas in which you needed support that were not listed above.” Together, the Likerttype responses and the free responses provided data to answer my first research question:
1.What are the professional needs of teachers who are new to UTS?
a.of early career teachers?
b.of established teachers?
Teaching and learning
Within the first theme, participants rated five potential areas of need for support: the Ontario curriculum; lesson and unit planning; assessment for, as, and of learning; the use of technology as a tool for teaching and learning; and differentiating for and supporting individual student learning differences. Participant responses indicated that, of the four broad categories in this section of the survey, in general the least amount of support was needed in this area. Not surprisingly, across most areas (curriculum, planning, assessment, and differentiation) the need for support amongst early career teachers was rated higher than for established teachers (Figure 2). Across all five areas, the established teachers did not rate anything higher than 3 (some need for support in this area), while there was at least one 5 rating (very high need for support in this area) from early career teachers in each of the areas of planning, assessment, and differentiation.
Administration
This section included four areas specific to the UTS experience as it relates to policies and procedures. Participants rated their need for support with respect to the use of technology for maintaining student records (e.g., attendance, grade book, reporting), accessing professional development opportunities, accessing funds for professional development, and accessing funds for classroom and office materials and supplies. Though the mean values for the early career teachers were higher than the mean values for the established teachers (Figure 4), at least one teacher from both groups rated each of the four areas
Figure 2. Mean values, where 1 = little to no need for support, 3 = some need, 5 = very high need.
Figure 3. Mean values, where 1 = little to no need for support, 3 = some need, 5 = very high need.
with a 5 (very high need for support in this area ). Need for support in these areas was reflected in the free responses as well:
It would be great to have guides to filling out forms, especially medical insurance. Step-by-step how-to guides for filling out forms (PD, Funds Requests, Medical Insurance) would be extremely helpful. (Survey response.)
Please add more specific (i.e., step by step) instructions around formsrelated processes like insurance claims, expense claims, PD funds, etc. (Survey response.)
Inter/intrapersonal relationships
Five of six areas of potential support within this theme focused on communication (communication with
parents, communication with colleagues, communication with administration, class management, and rapport with students), while the sixth area focused on the relationship with oneself (work–life balance). The mean values from these responses show that, on average, teachers required less than “some support” in these areas (Figure 5).
The greatest difference in ratings between early-career and established teachers was in the area of class management. Previous studies have shown that both novice and experienced teachers report discipline as a “major challenge” (Aitken & Harford, 2011, p. 354)in their first year at a school, but even the early career teachers at UTS, on average, reported only needing somewhere between little and some support in that area. However, we should not assume that discipline is not
Figure 4. Mean values, where 1 = little to no need for support, 3 = some need, 5 = very high need.
a significant issue for everyone. Though none of the established teachers rated class management as higher than 2, two early career participants identified class management as 4 or 5 (high or very high need for support ).
Summary of first-year needs
Based on the data from the second section of the survey, the needs of both early-career and established teachers align with the needs identified in the research literature on teacher induction (Aitken & Harford, 2011; Gant, 2009; Given, 2016; Slaughter, 1988). On average, the combined group of early career and established teacherparticipants expressed need for at least some support in all 21 areas identified in the survey. In fact, there was only one area that all established teachers rated with a 1 (little to no need for support): rapport with students.
Only one comment in the free-response section illuminated a need that was not explicitly listed in the Likert-type questions:
Understanding the school vision and culture – what does UTS value in students, teaching, teachers, and education? Even three years into this role, I have a hard time knowing if my own vision for my classroom is in line with the UTS vision in terms of the quality, kind, and diversity of education. What constitutes an enriched course? Do we have a unified vision? Am I able to make choices for my own course in what that looks like? Do I have support of admin, DC, colleagues to do that? (Survey response.)
This response highlights one of the limitations of this study, in that there was no opportunity for follow-up questions. I would be interested to know if this
Figure 5. Mean values, where 1 = little to no need for support, 3 = some need, 5 = very high need.
teacher had these thoughts two years prior, in their actual first year at the school, or if they are able to articulate this need so clearly now, having been in their position for three years. This response speaks to the heart of what it is to be able to understand the culture of teaching and learning within a school.
First-year Support Strategies
The third section of the survey asked participants to rate the effectiveness of 12 strategies for new teacher support that were available to teachers in their first year at UTS. These strategies were clustered into two themes: supports led by administration, and supports led by colleagues. The Likert-type responses provided data to answer my second research question:
2.How successful have current strategies been in supporting the needs of new (early career and established) teachers?
Support strategies (administration focus)
In the first cluster, participants rated the effectiveness of the new teacher orientation meeting (held in August, prior to the start of the school year); the monthly new teacher meetings (led by two members of the administration team); the new teacher handbook (provided in paper and electronic format); and mentorship by administration (level of formality was not specified). Participants found all four support strategies in this cluster to be helpful in their first year at UTS, with overall mean values of greater than 3 (helpful, but other strategies were more effective) for each strategy (Figure 6). More than one participant in each of the early career and established groups rated each of the four support strategies with a 4 or a 5 (crucial to success in my first year). While the handbook scored lower
with early career teachers, this could possibly be accounted for by one of the free responses: “There is a new teacher handbook?”
I was surprised by the positive responses to the orientation and monthly meetings, as meetings can have a reputation for being dreaded obligations. However, deeming the meetings to be “helpful” at the very least affirms that meetings matter: “Well-structured meetings around problems of practice improve teacher instruction … and build trust and relationships among participants” (Musanti & Pence, 2010). In addition to being mechanisms for providing information, the new teacher orientation and monthly meetings also provided opportunities for teachers to get to know each other and build a sense of community with each other.
Support strategies (colleague focus)
In the second cluster, participants rated the effectiveness of “Teacher Talk” sessions, support from Department Coordinators, support from teaching colleagues within their departments, support from informal mentors outside their departments, and professional activity time to collaborate with colleagues. Responses to these questions indicated that time spent with colleagues in their departments was most critical to success in the first year, with mean values of 4 or above in the three department-related supports (Figure 7). This aligns with the research of Pogodzinski (2012), who found that professional support from close colleagues rated higher in terms of helpfulness and socialization than the support received through formal, assigned mentors. More than one teacher in each of the early career and established groups assigned a rating of
Figure 6. Mean values, where 1 = little to no need for support, 3 = some need, 5 = very high need.
Figure 7. Mean values, where 1 = little to no need for support, 3 = some need, 5 = very high need.
5 (crucial to success in my first year) to all five colleague-focused support strategies.
Summary of first-year support strategies
The responses to the Likert-type questions affirm that UTS is on the right track with its new teacher induction program, and that one of the strengths of the induction program is the differentiated delivery of support. All supports currently in place have both positive intent and positive outcomes, and the bottom line is that each of the supports works for someone, and there is not any support that does not work for anyone. There are no patterns in the findings, and there are no generalizations that can be made about either the early career or the established teacher groups. There are overlaps in the responses in each group, but ultimately, each new teacher had unique needs and responded to the supports in their own way.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The final section of the survey included space for two free responses:
•If applicable, please list the types of supports you wish had been available to you in your first year at UTS.
•Other comments:
The responses to these prompts generated four themes (new teacher handbook, Teacher Performance Appraisal, mentorship, and relationships with colleagues) to answer my third research question:
3.What modifications or additions could be made to the induction program in order to enhance the level of support provided to new teachers?
New teacher handbook
As a supplement to the regular staff handbook, which is available online,
the current new teacher handbook is a valuable resource as a quick reference for matters most relevant to settling into the school. Based on feedback gathered through the surveys, the handbook could be further enhanced by including information from Finance and Human Resources on policies and procedures (e.g., spending, expense claims, insurance forms), as well as a directory of “who’s who” in terms of responsibilities within the school. An accompanying FAQ section would be helpful in terms of helping direct teachers to the right person based on area of need. Shifting to the exclusive use of an electronic handbook could be most efficient and effective, as information could be updated in real time. This would also be particularly useful for teachers who begin their contracts partway through the school year.
Survey responses indicated that the new teacher handbook was a valuable support, and the free responses provided feedback that could make the handbook even more effective, such as:
Include a list of staff members and their responsibilities to make it easier to know who you need to speak to for different matters. (Survey response.)
Give an overview of the school’s strategic goals, courses, clubs, camps, and staff members’ roles. (Survey response.)
Clearly state expectations around cocurricular supervision and attendance at school events. (Survey response.)
Participants expressed that further clarity would increase efficiency and better guide them towards meeting expectations. This finding aligns with the recommendation put forward by Gant (2009):
A school-wide manual detailing all the requirements, duties and responsibilities for teachers at that school can be a very valuable tool … As those expectations change during the school year, the manual should be updated. (p. 38)
Teacher Performance Appraisal process
The TPA process aligns with what is typically seen as the primary purpose of teacher induction: to improve the quality of teaching and learning in a school (Feiman-Nemser, 2010). While additional research would be required to determine if the process is meeting those goals, participants reported that the TPA process was helpful to their induction at UTS. Several comments provided as free responses indicate that greater clarity of assessment criteria, format, and feedback could improve the TPA experience:
The success criteria is very important, but I didn’t feel it was clearly articulated. Something like, “to be a successful teacher at UTS, you need to …”
It would have been easier to have had the criteria and format for professional evaluation provided at the beginning of the year. This would have helped to eliminate added work around the time I was preparing for parent–teacher interviews. (Survey response.)
Setting expectations for the focus of observations would have helped me know if my instincts were heading me in the right direction. (Survey response.)
During the TPA process, a balance of constructive and positive feedback
to provide pedagogical support and encouragement would be valuable. (Survey response.)
Ensuring that learning goals and success criteria are clear from the outset would reduce misunderstandings and increased pressures on teachers throughout the year. OECD (2005) recommends having “a statement of teacher competencies and performance standards at different stages of their career … and a clear set of expectations about teachers’ own responsibilities for their on-going development” (p. 10). A strength of the TPA process at UTS is the integration of principles of an adult learning framework (Knowles, 1984): teachers have autonomy to establish their own professional learning goals. To ensure that teachers are able to appropriately align their personal professional goals with the expectations of the school as a whole, administration has a role to play in ensuring that the strategic priorities and vision for the school and the expectations of teachers have been clearly communicated.
Mentorship
UTS does not have a formal mentorship program. However, some departments may assign informal mentors, and in the year this survey research was conducted an informal peer mentorship program was being piloted. Survey responses from those who had not experienced the peer mentorship program revealed that they would have likely appreciated such an initiative:
I would have liked a formal mentorship program with a colleague who has signed up to be such … Having someone who I know I can go to with even small and mundane questions would make me
feel much more comfortable getting settled at UTS.
I did not have an assigned mentor, which would have been comforting to have for any question or concern that came up. My department was great in sharing this responsibility, since I had a million and one questions. (Survey response.)
These recommendations align with extant research on teacher induction and mentorship. Slaughter (1988) emphasizes the importance of pairing all new teachers with someone who knows the students, community, curriculum, and school polices, while Aitken and Harford (2011) stress that “it is impossible to overstate the importance of supportive, collegial relationships in terms of the emotional well-being of teachers” (p. 354).
While mentorship is an integral aspect of a teacher’s transition to a new school environment, the degree of formality of this mentorship can vary. Keeping in line with an adult learning model, it is crucial that teachers are able to direct their own learning, and a formal mentor may not be what everyone needs. Survey responses indicated that having someone simply to answer questions was the critical need. The key factors are that everyone has a point person to go to with questions, and that the point person is someone who has voluntarily expressed interest in fulfilling that role.
A teacher mentorship program or buddy system can ease the process of new teacher socialization, as the mentor will hold valuable insider knowledge of the culture of the school:
The culture of any building often incorporates community and
government expectations, subtleties of past teachers and administrators, history of innovations attempted and failed, and these elements come together to govern patterns of “the way we do things.” (Given, 2016, p. 119)
Having access to such insider knowledge can aid new teachers in “seeking first to understand” (Covey, 1989), an effective approach to learning how to integrate personal beliefs and values based on prior knowledge and experiences into a new context.
Relationships with colleagues
In addition to the supports provided through the new teacher handbook, the TPA process, and mentorship (whether formal or informal), time for socialization can be invaluable to the experiences of teachers transitioning to a new school. As Feiman-Nemser (2010) has clearly stated, “the typical school organization … maintains teachers’ independence and isolation from one another” (p. 21), and within a secondary-school context it is perhaps difficult to get to know colleagues even within one’s home department unless they teach common courses. Data from survey responses reflect a collective desire to have more opportunities to get to know their colleagues in a social setting:
I wish that there had been more time to get to know my colleagues (and especially, those in my department) outside of course planning time and assessment moderation. (Survey response.)
I would love to see more social events! I think that it’s really important for new teachers to get to know returning teachers as soon as
possible (especially those teachers in their own departments). Time to socialize in a casual setting and freely ask questions would be so invaluable. (Survey response.)
Information is important, but it is easy to get overwhelmed at the beginning of the year. I have found that when I am new to a school I really appreciate the chance to make friends in order to feel more comfortable and appreciated in my new work environment. (Survey response.)
These responses resonate with the findings of Given’s (2016) case study on the induction of new experienced teachers:
In the “Beyond Novices” case study, participants’ reflections and comments supported that the most important element to transitioning successfully into a new school was the amount and quality of time spent with colleagues, both in and out of school settings. (p. 134)
The benefits of providing time for teachers to build relationships with each other – both in professional learning and in social contexts – are not limited to positive transitions for new teachers. Strong relationships between teachers can lead to “more effective collaborative partnerships” (Given, 2016, p. 122), thereby improving teaching and learning across the school.
Any priority within a school requires time for experimentation and implementation. As time will always be at a premium, creative solutions may be required in order to provide time and space for meaningful socialization amongst teachers.
Implications for Future Research
This study provided an excellent starting point for the review of the teacher induction program at UTS. With additional time for the collection of data, more indepth qualitative responses would have been valuable. Individual interviews and/ or focus group discussions could have provided opportunities to ask follow-up questions based on the survey data in order to gain insights into the nuances and particularities of which support strategies work especially well, which do not, and most importantly, to understand why this is.
Feiman-Nemser (2001) posits that the induction phase for beginning teachers lasts at least three years, as they learn to master instruction, understand their classroom contexts, and develop their identity as teachers. This has prompted me to consider the following questions for possible future research:
What might a three-year induction model look like for novice, early career, and established teachers at UTS, differentiated based on individual needs and experiences?
In cases where teachers – either by choice, or by request of administration – participate in the TPA process throughout their second year at UTS, how could that process look different from, while still building upon, the TPA experience in the first year?
Elsewhere, Feiman-Nemser (2010) discusses the idea of shifting away from new teacher induction and evaluation as a discrete program for new teachers, reconceptualizing it as “a lever for fostering professional community and promoting a continuum of teacher
development across experience levels” (p. 26). Further research could lead to the creation of a model for this continuum grounded in principles of adult learning (Knowles, 1984) and transformational learning (Mezirow, 2009).
CONCLUSION
Previous research has shown that there is a need to provide specific programs of induction support for teachers who are new to schools, regardless of years of teaching experience (Aitken & Harford, 2001). The findings of this study have shown that the new teacher induction program at UTS has been valuable to early career and established teachers alike. Beyond valuable, each of the supports available through the induction program has been critical to the success of one or more teachers in their initial year at the school.
As the diverse supports available to new teachers at UTS have been successful, a differentiated approach to teacher induction should continue. In addition, to build upon the insights of this study, regular program review is recommended in order to continue to strengthen the induction process and to be responsive to the particular needs of each group of new teachers. In keeping with principles of adult learning (Knowles, 1984), drawing upon the wealth of experiences that new teachers bring to the table –particularly previous experiences with teacher induction – could lead to further enhancement of the program as a whole. In addition to the informal check-ins that take place in the monthly new teacher meetings, providing time at regular intervals throughout the year for a more thorough debriefing of how things
are going could be beneficial. Moving forward, the survey developed for this study could be adapted and modified in order to regularly assess the needs of new teachers and to evaluate the induction supports that are in place. Reflections and Acknowledgements
When I returned to teaching in a secondary school setting two years after completing my PhD, I wondered how I might find opportunities to continue to conduct educational research while carrying out the responsibilities of a fulltime teaching position. I extend sincere appreciation to Richard Ingram (Newton Foundation) for funding practitioner research and for recognizing the value of a collaborative approach to the development, implementation, and dissemination of research.
Becoming reacquainted with my academic voice was more of a challenge than I had anticipated. Without question, the generosity, enthusiasm, and patience of Clare Kosnik was critical to my success. Ten years ago, while I was teaching at OISE, my 10th-floor office was adjacent to the Centre for Teacher Development lounge, where Clare would meet with her WIPs (works-in-progress) class, and I would listen in, in awe of the community she had created amongst her graduate students. Thank you, Clare, for having fostered such a community amongst the Eureka! research group at UTS.
One of the findings of my research was the importance of having time to converse with colleagues about the problems of teaching and learning. Such time is meaningful not only to new teachers but to all who are immersed in the work of education. How rewarding it was to spend time in meaningful conversation with Elizabeth Rosales,
from OISE, who co-facilitated with Clare; Chriss Bogert and Tara Rousseau from the Dr. Eric Jackman Institute of Child Study; UTS Principal Rosemary Evans and Vice-Principal Garth Chalmers; and my teaching colleagues Marc Brims and Jenny Pitt-Lainsbury. Thank you to Amy
Paradine and Heather Henricks, formerly of UTS, who initially encouraged me to join the Eureka! research group. And, of course, I extend tremendous gratitude to the 14 UTS teachers who gave generously of their time to thoughtfully participate in my research.
REFERENCES
Aitken, R., & Harford, J. (2011). Induction needs of a group of teachers at different career stages in a school in the Republic of Ireland: Challenges and expectations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 350–356. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.003
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cook-Sather, A. (2015). Sound, presence, and power: “Student voice” in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-873X.2006.00363.x
Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2010). Multiple meanings of new teacher induction. In J. Wang, S. J.Odell, & R. T. Clift (Eds.), Past, present, and future research on teacher induction: An anthology for researchers, policy makers, and practitioners (pp. 15–30). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gant, A. B. (2009). Experienced new teachers. AILACTE Journal, 6, 29–40.
Given, K. (2016). Beyond novices: A case study of the socialization, induction, and mentoring of new experienced teachers (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No. 10144998)
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.
Howe, E. (2006). Exemplary teacher induction: An international review. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(3), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14695812.2006.00195.x
Huling-Austin, L. (1990). Teacher induction programs and internships. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), The handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 535–548). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
Kearney, S. (2014). Understanding beginning teacher induction: A contextualized examination of best practice. Cogent Education, 1(1), 967477. https://doi.org/10.1080/2 331186X.2014.967477
Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kutsyuruba, B., Godden, L., Matheson, I., & Walker, K. (2016). Pan-Canadian document analysis study: Understanding the role of teacher induction and mentoring programs in teacher attrition and retention. Kingston, ON: Faculty of Education, Queen’s University. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34962.45760
Mezirow, J. (2009). Transformative learning theory. In J. Mezirow & E. W. Taylor (Eds.), Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education (pp. 18–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mississippi Department of Education. (n.d.). Needs assessment questionnaire for beginning teachers. Retrieved from https://www.mdek12.org/sites/default/ files/Offices/MDE/OA/OTL/Teacher%20Center/2c-mod-2-needs-assessmentquestionnaire-for-beginning-teachers_v1.pdf
Musanti, S. I., & Pence, L. (2010). Collaboration and teacher development: Unpacking resistance, constructing knowledge, and navigating identities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(1), 73–89.
New Mexico Public Education Department. (2008). Support for new teachers through high-quality mentoring and induction [resource packet]. Retrieved from http:// teachnm.org/uploads/docs/mentor_packet.pdf
OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/school/34990905.pdf
Pogodzinski, B. (2012). Socialization of novice teachers. Journal of School Leadership, 22, 982–1023.
Slaughter, S. F. (1988). Experienced new teachers: Who are they, and what support do they need? (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No. 8818252)
How Children See Art; How They See Themselves As Artists
Tara Rousseau Visual Art Teacher, OISE/UT
PERSONAL INTRODUCTION
I have been the art teacher at the Dr. Eric Jackman Institute of Child Study Laboratory School at the University of Toronto since July 2009. Prior to this, I briefly taught French at the Institute, and I came to Toronto by way of Seoul, South Korea, where I spent seven years teaching English as a second language to learners of all ages, the majority of whom were kindergarten- and elementary-aged children.
MY CHALLENGE
No matter the discipline being studied, children’s self-image is always delicate and vulnerable. I have found this truth to be at its most profound when it applies to children’s self-evaluation of their worth in the creative pursuits in general, and, specific to my role as a teacher, in the visual arts. There remains a stubborn misconception among students that skills are not improvable in this realm – you either have them or you don’t. Indeed, many adults I speak to about this issue are equally intractable, if not more so. My
anecdotal experience has shown me that a student’s confidence can be damaged at any age, and that he or she can very easily abandon the growth mindset as it relates to skills in the visual arts, dismissing the discipline as solely related to “talent.” By ages 8 to 10, however, this becomes more widespread, as peer relationships take centre stage and relative comparisons are the norm rather than the exception. Students at this age seem much less likely to become absorbed in their art to the point where they are immune to unfavourable comparisons with the artwork of their
peers. These comparisons can come from others, but are just as likely to come from themselves; and though it is the main goal of my program to ensure the security of my students and help them to retain confidence in, and enjoyment of, varied art media, I feel I am no match to the tidal wave of student self-doubt.
This research is of great interest to me because coming to understand more about why, and in what circumstances, children are most vulnerable to losing their confidence as artists would be invaluable towards my goal of bolstering student self-efficacy in this discipline.
Art teachers everywhere grapple with how to help students who lose, or have trouble developing, their confidence as artists. Learning more about what students are thinking and feeling in this realm can only illuminate the path towards future interventions in this area.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Currently, I have found only one paper related to this question. Rosemary Richards of the Massey University Institute of Education in New Zealand presented a paper entitled “‘My drawing sucks!’ Children’s Belief in Themselves as Artists” at the NZARE/ AARE Joint Conference in 2003 In her abstract, Richard states that “it is commonly held that children show a decline in spontaneous art at the age of about seven and that the messages children receive [have an] impact on art confidence. Despite this prevailing view little research has been undertaken with children to explore the relationship between art confidence and messages.” This study was published in 2003;
unfortunately, there continues to be little research in this area, as I have found no more recent studies.
Through her literature review, however, Richards (2003) did lead me to revisit the work of Rhoda Kellogg (1979), Howard Gardner (1982), and Maureen Cox (1992). These three researchers all speak to the age at which children’s attitudes towards drawings change.
Gardner (1982) speaks of “some corrupting force” that extinguishes “a golden age of creativity” that takes place during preschool, causing most people not to become artists when they grow up (p. 86). He says further that, while by adolescence, people have a more nuanced view of art, “Children around the age of ten are quite literal-minded and think that a painting should be a painstaking copy of reality. Unlike younger children, ten-year-olds believe that there are ways of deciding whether a work is good or bad: the criterion of judgement is the degree of realism achieved” (p. 104). Should students not continue art into adolescence, this narrow realism-linked judgement of artistic quality could easily remain with them indefinitely.
In advocating for the benefits of formal instruction over self-directed creativity alone, Cox (1992) says that it is acceptable to prioritize creativity with children up to 8 years of age, but between the ages of 8 and 10 “children start to become dissatisfied with their work and they substitute rather fussy and detailed drawings for their former bold and more confident efforts; reliance on ruled lines and on the eraser is much in evidence” (p. 205). Kellogg (1979) says that drawings made around the age of 8 can be a “last gasp” for some learners, “especially boys” (p. 215).
In her study, Richards (2003) examines the effect of messaging on young artists working with a group of 136 children between the ages of 4 and 9 years old. She employs Bandura’s (1986, p. 139)definition of self-efficacy theory to help explain people reacting differently to similar experiences, and defines drawing self-efficacy as “concerned with people’s judgement of their own drawing capabilities” (Richards, 2003, n.p.). She also employs Bandura’s (1986) sources of self-efficacy messages – experience, verbal persuasion, vicarious experience, and emotional state – to help guide her questionnaire and inform her findings.
Richards (2003) found, through interviews, that topics in general were still gendered, with some seen as more appropriate for one gender than another –and this included drawing topics. She found that boys tended to have more negative drawing experiences, and that their peer-to-peer verbal exchanges were also more negative. The children also commented that effort, ability, and persistence were important for success in drawing, and that “children with the highest drawing self-efficacy levels were more likely to give and receive positive verbal messages,” but also “to tell others what to do, how to do it, and when they were making ‘mistakes’” (n.p.).
Of concern for me as a classroom teacher were Richards’s (2003) findings concerning the power of peer feedback over that of the teacher:
While the commonsense view places the teacher as the central provider of verbal feedback, the children had the dominant role in verbal persuasion
... Although vicarious experience through modelling was provided by two teachers, children’s interactions
provided the greatest source of vicarious experience and to a large extent groupings of children reflected existing efficacy levels ... Teachers encouraged positive responses to art. However some interactions in the classrooms were subtle, and children were socially isolated, ignored, or criticized by peers. ( n.p.)
METHODOLOGY
The methodology was co-written with my fellow Eureka! research group members. The survey I developed is largely quantitative, but concludes with three qualitative questions. I hoped this methodology would provide a strong student voice by providing questions they could answer without a preponderance of writing, which might have seemed intimidating for students of that that age group. A class of 22 Grade 4 students were selected for this survey, and 19 students from this class participated on the day the survey was introduced. I selected this class and this age group because I hoped that they would be developmentally prepared to persevere throughout a survey of this length with a strong degree of independence. Their age group also coincided with the age at which Kellogg (1979), Gardner (1982), and Cox (1992) agreed that interest in art waned.
The survey consisted of 17 questions, most of which addressed the students’ views of art forms, their participation in making and viewing art inside and outside school, and how they rated their own efficacy as artists. I also included one exploratory question about their knowledge and use of digital artmaking platforms to gauge the extent of
influence and to hopefully inform future directions in my classroom curriculum. Sample questions included identifying media they consider to be art, and whether it is always, sometimes, or never art.
The accumulation and analysis of the findings were done using SurveyMonkey. The results were studied through charts and graphs. Data from the survey were imported into PowerPoint to generate graphs. The graphs quickly revealed a range of findings. I then read through the open-ended responses, which provided further depth of understanding. I returned to the graphs and selected ones that I felt best answered my overall research questions. All of the data could not be fully analyzed because they can be approached from multiple perspectives. I will return to these data in future research.
FINDINGS
Positive Attitude Towards Art
The first survey question asked students to rank their top three favourite subjects. Of the 19 respondents, 16 rated visual arts in their top three subjects (six ranked it first, eight ranked it second, and three ranked it third), signifying a generally positive attitude towards art as a school subject. These results are shown in Figures 1–3.
Overall Positive Attitudes and OpenMindedness Displayed Towards Visual Art in Its Many Forms
Question 2 (shown in Figure 4) displayed the open-mindedness with which the students approach media. The students were asked to rank a variety of items as always, sometimes, or never art, using a scale of 1 to 5. While they have worked
first-hand with a variety of media in the art classroom, including painting, ceramics, photography, and pictures made with Plasticine, their acceptance of forms more associated with the digital and consumer advertising realms suggests a broad vision in their approach to art in the world around them. This could be due to exposure to images in the art classroom, the influence of family and family members’ opinions of what constitutes art, or conclusions they have come to themselves, having been exposed to the images that surround them on a day-to-day basis. It is striking that at this age they can see a Nike shoe advertisement as potentially art, and this may speak to the current calibre of work coming out of the advertising industry as a whole.
Enthusiasm for Art, and Exposure to Art both Inside and Outside School
I have grouped Questions 3, 4, 11, and 12 because I feel they speak to an overall positive attitude towards doing art inside and outside school. In Question 4 (Figure 5), 18 of 19 respondents answered positively to very positively about doing/ making art if they had the choice to do so. I feel this positively informs the three other questions I have highlighted here. I believe all three could be read as being potentially less the choice of the respondent and more the choice of the caregivers in their lives, had the responses to Question 4 been less firmly positive. As it stands, in Question 3 (Figure 6), 12 of 19 students answered that they did art outside school almost every day or every day, whereas in Question 12 (Figure 7) only 4 of 19 stated that they participated in art classes more than once a year outside school, and 7 stated that they never have taken classes at all. This speaks to a strong percentage of students choosing to
enjoy an art practice in their spare time, outside of prescribed extra-curricular curricula. Question 11 (Figure 8), asking respondents whether or not they had art on walls or shelves in their bedrooms or homes, did not specify art made by themselves or a family member, as opposed to art that has been purchased. All respondents responded positively, suggesting support for the arts in general, the respondents’ art in particular, or a combination of both happening in the home. The socio-economic status of the school community should be taken into account here. There is, generally speaking, a degree of financial freedom among many families in the community that allows them to take advantage of opportunities to view and experience art that could have positively influenced some respondents’ exposure to the arts in general. Further, the visual arts are largely embraced in all of the grade classrooms in the school, art is featured in the school’s daycare program, and a very supportive parents’ association often funds visiting artists, enhancing student experience in the school and ensuring that the visual arts are not relegated to one period per week in the schedule.
Despite positive attitudes and influences, students, in keeping with previous research, are still not generous with themselves when describing themselves as artists. There is still a prevailing negativity when self-assessing, and a
continued emphasis on inherent ability. In Question 14 (Figure 9), 12 of the 18 respondents (one student was unwilling or unable to answer) rated themselves middling to poor as artists. As their teacher, this was quite disheartening to see. However, it is both in keeping with the conclusions of Kellogg (1979), Gardner (1982), and Cox (1992) and reflective of the prevailing dominant discourse surrounding the visual arts and the arts in general – the fixed mindset that values “talent” over practice, and the idea of who “gets to be an artist” and who does not. Despite other highly positive elements within the survey, pointing to an art program that seems to be making positive inroads against normalized discourse, these advances cannot compete with how society is organized and ordered around these social norms.
Building on this question is one of the write-in questions, Question 16 (Figure 10). The list of the most-often-used words to describe artists is pictured above. The word “talented” is tellingly the secondmost-used word, flanked by “amazing” and “awesome” as powerful, yet vague and often unattainable, qualities. It is encouraging that the word “patient” comes up more than once – pointing to a more realistic definition of what it takes to be an accomplished artist. But, no matter how positive the words chosen, the fact remains that an unambiguous majority of respondents would not use these words to refer to themselves.
Figure 1. Students’ reported favourite subject.
Figure 2. Students’ reported second-favourite subject.
Figure 3. Students’ reported third-favourite subject.
Figure 4. Measures of student open-mindedness towards art.
Figure 5. Student responses to making art.
Figure 6. Student art-making outside of school.
Figure 7. Students’ experience with art classes and camps.
Figure 8. Art in students’ homes.
Figure 9. Students’ self-description as artists.
REFLECTIONS
The first survey question asked students to rank their top three favourite subjects. Of the 19 respondents, 16 rated visual arts in their top three subjects (six ranked it first, eight ranked it second, and three ranked it third), signifying a generally positive attitude towards art as a school subject. These results are shown in Figures 1–3.
I am very interested in continuing this research, as the current survey has prompted more questions about students’ perceptions of art and of themselves as artists. I would like to begin by surveying the same group of students during their sixth grade, this upcoming school year. I would also be interested in interviewing some of the respondents in an effort to expand the data and, potentially, the understanding. In a second survey, I would modify some of the questions in order to gain
information of a less ambiguous nature. I would clarify Questions 4 and 5, which relate to art respondents would like to do and try, as they were ambiguous in their wording and confusing to readers. Question 15 asked whether or not and to what degree students’ attitudes towards art had changed since kindergarten. I would like to ask this question again, and include a clear positive/negative qualifier to ensure understanding of exactly how the attitudes had changed.
I would ask respondents to volunteer their gender, including binary and nonbinary options in response choices. Past research, including Richards (2003), has found gender differences when looking at children and art – I feel it continues to be an important variable to consider. I have also become very interested in self-efficacy, and will spend time researching this theory deeply and keep it in mind when crafting survey questions. I am particularly interested
Figure 10. Words students used to describe artists.
in candid survey responses regarding whether students are more affected by the opinions of their peers than their teachers regarding their artwork.
As I move forward in the role of teacher, there are many things to consider in my practice. Cox’s (1992) theories advocating explicit instruction by age 8 lead me to revisit my curriculum. While explicit instruction is currently blended with choice and creative latitude throughout my program from the early years throughout the elementary years, I will review my drawing lessons in particular to ensure that progression of instruction is presented in a way that most likely mitigates declining self-efficacy.
Richards (2003) has suggestions for classroom interventions in her implications and recommendations, which include (1) the encouragement of full participation through studentinitiated themes, greater teacher involvement and positive feedback, high quality resources, and art activities which inspire greater physical activity; (2) theme- and inquiry-based programs in keeping with the Reggio Emilia approach; (3)art-based language and discussion
involving a shared vocabulary between the teacher and student, empowering students to articulately talk about their art, solve problems, and strategize; (4)continued teacher development to ensure confident instruction reflecting current pedagogy; (5) encouraging children to model activities, share ideas, and talk about their art; and (6) an increased teacher understanding of drawing self-efficacy (n.p.). Many of these suggestions are already incorporated into my practice; however, I feel my next steps include developing a deeper understanding of the research behind drawing self-efficacy, so that I can be more effective in supporting and encouraging my students.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the following people, without whom this research would not have been possible: Audrey Gardner for kindly giving of her time and expertise to be a critical friend; Rosemary Evans and the Eureka! research group for providing an inspiring and supportive atmosphere that made me a better researcher; and Clare Kosnik for her invaluable and unwavering support throughout this project.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. J. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognition theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cox, M. (1992). Children’s drawings. London, UK: Penguin Books.
Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind, and brain: A cognitive approach to creativity. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kellogg, R. (1979). Children’s drawings/children’s minds. New York, NY: Avon Books.
Kellogg, R. (1969). Analyzing children’s art. Palo Alto, CA: National Press Books.
Richards, R. D. (2003, November/December). “My drawing sucks!” Children’s belief in themselves as artists. Paper presented at the NZARE/AARE joint conference, Auckland, New Zealand.
