THE INFLUENCE A DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP PROCESS
HAS ON HIGH SCHOOL NOVICE TEACHER INDUCTION EXPERIENCES
By
Steven C. Delp

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
K-12 Educational Administration
2012

i

ABSTRACT
THE INFLUENCE A DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP PROCESS
HAS ON HIGH SCHOOL NOVICE TEACHER INDUCTION EXPERIENCES
By
Steven C. Delp
As more and more attention is directed towards public schools and the improvement of
student academic achievement, one staggering finding keeps resurfacing in educational research:
roughly half of all new teachers leave their current position within their first five years of
entering the teaching profession. Although it is likely dozens of different professional and
personal factors can influence such a choice, the literature suggests that building leadership has
the potential to play a significant role in this decision. Thus, a few studies have examined the
role principals play in novice teachers’ induction experiences, yet such studies have primarily
examined the issues at the elementary and middle school levels. Therefore, this study was
originally designed to make a contribution to the literature by examining the influence the high
school head principal has on novice teacher induction experiences in order to measure if the
principal is a factor or not when a novice teacher is deciding whether or not to remain in his or
her current teaching position. However, what the study evolved into was not limited to only an
investigation of the principal’s influence on induction, but rather an examination of the larger
influence a distributed leadership process has on high school novice teachers’ induction
experiences.
In order to examine the influence leadership has on induction, a qualitative case study
was designed to explore the beliefs and perceptions principals, assistant principals, department
chairs, mentor teachers, and novice teachers had regarding school leadership’s influence on the
induction process. Using volunteers who held these positions within two large suburban

ii

Michigan high schools, subject data was collected through semi-structured interviews. Interview
data was then transcribed and analyzed through Spillane and Diamond’s (2007) distributive
perspective. What emerged from the data was the idea that a variety of high school building
leaders are involved in the induction process. This distribution of leadership ranged from formal
leaders such as head principals, assistant principals, and department chairs to informal leaders
such as department peers.
The ways leadership is distributed within schools has been written about extensively, and
many different models of distributed leadership have been presented in the literature; however,
little attention has been paid to the influences a distributed leadership process has on specific
leadership tasks. Therefore, this study will begin to fill the gap in the research in two ways: 1)
the study will examine the direct and indirect influences distributed leadership has on the specific
task of novice teacher induction, and 2) the study will examine this influence at the high school
level.

iii

Copyright by
Steven C. Delp
2012

iv

Dream lofty dreams, and as you dream, so shall you become.
Your vision is the promise of what you shall one day be;
your ideal is the prophecy of what you shall at last unveil.
--James Allen

v

For Gina, you supported me from the moment I first began this
undertaking even though it meant having to make numerous
sacrifices of your own, yet you never waivered and were a rock of
continuous support and encouragement.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Susan, I have no words to express my gratitude for the guidance and support you have
provided to me over the last couple of years. Throughout this process, you have helped me to
find my best and breathe a bit easier on many occasions. As a result, when I think of the impact
you have had on me, I cannot help but be reminded of Emerson’s definition of success, “To
laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children...to
find the best in others; to leave the world a better place...to know even one life has breathed
easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded.” Although society tends to measure
success by accolades and recognition, in my eyes you have succeeded first and foremost because
you are a teacher through and through; you have won both my respect and affection because of
it, and I will be forever grateful for it.
Peter, you were the first one to nurture the idea that eventually became this study.
Whether working with me on an independent study or lending assistance when I was developing
my interview protocols, you were always willing to make time to help. As a result, you have my
utmost gratitude for being involved in this project from start to finish.
BetsAnn and Kristy, I cannot tell you how grateful I am for your willingness to serve on
my committee at the last minute. I truly appreciate the fact you would lend your assistance,
especially when it meant increasing what I can only imagine is an already tremendous workload.
Your willingness to do so speaks loudly about your commitment to the students of this great
university.
The educators who volunteered to be the subjects of this study, thank you for your
willingness to participate and for your honesty. I truly appreciate you giving up planning
periods, lunches, and time after school in order to help a fellow educator.

vii

Finally, my family for supporting me throughout this journey. Whether watching the kids
for a few hours, ensuring leftovers were sent home after one of the many family get-togethers I
missed, or simply providing positive encouragement, you continuously gave me the support,
space, and time I needed in order to see this project through to its completion. As is evident by
the pseudonyms used in this dissertation, you were with me throughout the process and always in
the back of my mind. Still, I can’t tell you how happy I am to be a fully participating member of
this family again.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................ xii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH PROBLEM............................................................1
Chapter Overview ................................................................................................................1
Why Leadership and Induction? ..........................................................................................1
An Overview of the Issue ....................................................................................................3
A Conceptual Framework: The Principal’s Direct and Indirect
Influence on Novice Teacher Induction...................................................................4
Research Questions..............................................................................................................7
CHAPTER 2
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..............................................................................................9
Chapter Overview ................................................................................................................9
Direct Influences Principal Leadership Has on Induction ...................................................9
Principal Leadership Practices.................................................................................9
Setting Direction ....................................................................................................11
Developing People .................................................................................................13
Induction Perceptions.............................................................................................18
Indirect Influences Principal Leadership Has on Induction...............................................20
Department Chair Influence...................................................................................21
Subject Department Influence................................................................................25
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................27
CHAPTER 3
A STRATEGY FOR INQUIRY ....................................................................................................28
Chapter Overview ..............................................................................................................28
Rationale for Qualitative Research Design........................................................................28
Sample................................................................................................................................30
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................36
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................37
Limitations .........................................................................................................................41
CHAPTER 4
DESCRIBING THE DATA: AN EXAMINATION OF NOVICE TEACHER INDUCTION ....43
Chapter Overview ..............................................................................................................43
Novice Teacher Case Studies.............................................................................................43
Emily – Novice Math Teacher...............................................................................43
Rosie – Novice English Teacher............................................................................47
Rich – Novice Social Studies Teacher...................................................................51
Michelle – Novice Math Teacher ..........................................................................54
Induction Leadership Data.................................................................................................58

ix

Induction Perceptions.............................................................................................58
Leadership Data Regarding Specific Induction Components................................61
CHAPTER 5
ANALYZING THE DATA: EXAMINING A DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP PROCESS’S
INFLUENCE ON NOVICE TEACHER INDUCTION....................................................73
Chapter Overview ..............................................................................................................73
Examining the Roles of Induction Participants .................................................................74
Head Principals ......................................................................................................74
Induction into the School and Department Settings ..................................74
Mentoring...................................................................................................81
The Formal Evaluation Process .................................................................82
Assistant Principals................................................................................................83
Induction into the School and Department Settings ..................................84
Mentoring...................................................................................................86
The Formal Evaluation Process .................................................................86
Department Chairs .................................................................................................87
Induction into the School and Department Settings ..................................88
Mentoring...................................................................................................90
The Formal Evaluation Process .................................................................91
Mentors ..................................................................................................................91
Induction into the School and Department Settings ..................................92
Mentoring...................................................................................................92
The Formal Evaluation Process .................................................................94
Novices ..................................................................................................................94
Induction into the School and Department Settings ..................................95
Mentoring...................................................................................................98
The Formal Evaluation Process .................................................................99
Examining the Induction Components.............................................................................101
The School and Department Settings...................................................................101
The Mentoring Program.......................................................................................103
The Formal Evaluation Process ...........................................................................105
CHAPTER 6
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS .............................................................109
Chapter Overview ............................................................................................................109
Findings ...........................................................................................................................109
A Distributed Leadership Process........................................................................109
Conclusions and Implications ..........................................................................................113
Implications for Practitioners...............................................................................113
Implications for Policy Makers............................................................................115
Implications for Preparation Programs ................................................................116
Contributions to the Literature.........................................................................................117
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................119

x

Appendix A: Research Questions, Interview Protocols,
and Target Question Matrixes....................................................................120
Appendix B: Matrix of Findings and Sources for Data Triangulation ............................131
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................135

xi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Sample Schools Student Data..........................................................................................32
Table 2: Novice Teacher Subject Overview ..................................................................................33
Table 3: Principal and Assistant Principal Subject Overview .......................................................33
Table 4: Department Chair Subject Overview...............................................................................35
Table 5: Mentor Teacher Subject Overview..................................................................................35
Table 6: Emily’s Math Department ...............................................................................................45
Table 7: Rosie’s English Department ............................................................................................50
Table 8: Rich’s Social Studies Department ...................................................................................53
Table 9: Michelle’s Math Department...........................................................................................56
Table 10: Leadership Data Regarding Induction into the Building and Department Settings ......62
Table 11: Leadership Data Regarding the Mentoring Process ......................................................67
Table 12: Leadership Data Regarding the Formal Evaluation Process .........................................70
Table 13: Induction Component Responsibility ............................................................................74
Table 14: Head Principal Target Question Matrix.......................................................................122
Table 15: Assistant Principal Target Question Matrix ................................................................124
Table 16: Department Chair Target Question Matrix..................................................................126
Table 17: Mentor Teacher Target Question Matrix.....................................................................128
Table 18: Novice Target Question Matrix ...................................................................................130
Table 19: Building & Department Induction Findings ................................................................131
Table 20: Mentoring Findings .....................................................................................................132
Table 21: Formal Evaluation Findings ........................................................................................133
Table 22: The Principal’s Influence.............................................................................................134

xii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Principal Influence and Induction: A Theoretical Model of the Direct
and Indirect Influence Principals have on Novice Teacher Induction.............................6
Figure 2. Constituting Elements of Leadership Practice (Spillane, Halverson &
Diamond, 2004) ..............................................................................................................40
Figure 3: The Principal’s Direct Influence on Novice Teacher Induction.....................................76
Figure 4: Revised Theoretical Framework: Novice Teacher Induction as
Influenced by a Distributed Leadership Process...........................................................110

xiii

CHAPTER 1:
An Introduction to the Research Problem

Chapter Overview
In this chapter, I introduce the issue of leadership’s influence on novice teacher
induction. I do this by first providing a brief explanation as to why and how I became interested
in this topic. I then provide a brief overview of what the literature has to say about leadership
and induction before pointing out where the literature is lacking and explaining how this study
will begin to fill the gap. Next, I explain my conceptual framework, which describes the direct
and indirect influences building leadership has on novice teacher induction. Finally, I present
my research questions.

Why Leadership and Induction?
At 24 years old I had just completed my student teaching and was hired to teach English
at a large suburban high school. I considered myself very fortunate as the school that hired me
was viewed as one of the better high schools in the area due to above average standardized test
scores and graduation rates, excellent athletic and performing arts programs, and a recent
expansion and update to the building itself.
When the start of the school year rolled around, I was assigned to the drama room, which
was referred to by the staff and students as “the dungeon”. The room was in the performing arts
wing of the building, and as a result, the choir and band classrooms were the only other rooms in
close proximity. This in itself did not bother me whatsoever; instead, what really bothered me
about the drama room was that it was downstairs and at the opposite end of the building from the
other English classrooms. The distance separating me from the rest of the English department

1

not only meant I could not easily talk with my peers, but it also meant other English teachers,
including my mentor teacher, did not come down to talk with me either. As a result, I rarely saw
another English teacher, or any other teacher for that matter, for most of the school day. The
only staff member who did ever come to my room was the principal, and that was only when he
came to observe me once each semester. However, instead of lending support and helping me to
improve my teaching, he simply sat in the back of the classroom and did paperwork for an hour.
Having just finished my student teaching a few months earlier, and being used to the security
that came from having my mentor teacher in the room with me as well as frequent visits from my
field instructor, this classroom isolation was unfamiliar and unwanted. Yes, I went upstairs
during my planning period and after school, but I immediately discovered I was unable to ask a
quick curricular question or simply have a two-minute conversation with another adult between
classes, and I hated my job because of it. As a result, I applied for another job outside of the
field of education at the end of the first semester. Today, I am thankful I did not get that other
job, or I most likely would have been one of the teachers the research has identified as leaving
within their first five years; in my case, I would have lasted a whole semester.
In sum, my induction experiences as a novice teacher and my current desire to be a
school administrator are what combined to lead to an exploration of this problem. It is my full
intent that exploring this issue in depth will assist me in preventing future novice teachers I may
one day work with from having the same negative experiences and feelings I had as a beginning
teacher.

2

An Overview of the Issue
A novice teacher’s first few years of teaching are a time of transition from pre-service
preparation to a time of practice (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). It is during this time that he or she
will form a professional identity, much of which will derive from his or her induction
opportunities and experiences. However, there is a nearly 50% chance that same beginning
teacher will leave his or her current teaching position within the first five years of teaching
(Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004; Moir & Gless, 2001). Therefore, the issue of novice
teacher induction has grown in importance seeing as a worthwhile induction experience
improves teaching quality and retention (Kelly, 2004).
Induction programs are defined as, “high quality support programs for new teachers”
(New Teacher Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz [NTC], 2007, p. 1) that provide
“support, guidance, and orientation programs…for beginning elementary and secondary teachers
during the transition into their first teaching jobs” (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004, p. 681). More
specifically, such programs provide a beginning teacher the attention, support, and guidance that
foster’s professional growth. Examples of the different elements these programs consist of
include: a multi-year time frame, a strong mentoring program, professional development
opportunities, peer/professional networking communities, common planning time with peers, and
assessment of new teacher growth (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; NTC, 2007). Overall, a teacher who
receives such guidance benefits from improved instructional practices and is less likely to leave
the profession (Kelley, 2004).
A variety of factors (school climate, subject departments, teacher leadership, unions,
paperwork, class size, parental interaction, etc.) contribute to a teacher’s overall induction
experience. In addition to these factors, the principal, as the building leader, has a strong

3

influence on the induction experiences had by a novice teacher and ultimately helps to shape the
novice’s commitment levels and retention decisions (Brown & Wynn, 2007). Ingersoll found
that about one third of teachers exiting their current position named the school administrator’s
lack of support as the main reason for their leaving (as cited in Brown & Wynn, 2007, p. 667). It
is easy to understand that a novice teacher leaving his or her position would see the principal as
one of the major factors contributing to job dissatisfaction as the principal is the focal point of
the school and the one who establishes the school climate and socialization of staff members
(Angelle, 2006; Roberson & Roberson, 2009). The principal finds himself or herself in this
position with a novice teacher because he or she is the person primarily responsible for creating a
supportive building-level environment for a new teacher (Brown & Wynn, 2007) and
determining when and where to lend, or not lend, assistance to that teacher (Gold, 1996).
Based on such findings put forth in the literature, this study will examine the direct and
indirect influences the principal has on high school novice teacher induction experiences. In
addition, the study also examines the roles a variety of other formal and informal leaders play in
the induction process in order to shed light on the influence a distributed leadership process has
on induction experiences had by novice teachers at the high school level.

A Conceptual Framework:
The Principal’s Direct and Indirect Influence on Novice Teacher Induction
The existing literature suggests that a novice teacher sees the principal as having an
influence on his or her induction experiences, yet the literature that examines the influence the
principal has on a variety of induction services does so mainly at the elementary and middle
school levels (Carver, 2005; Feiman-Nemser, 2003; Huling-Austin, 1992; Moir, 1999). In
contrast, the question of how the principal’s direct and indirect influences on the induction

4

process combine to influence novices’ overall induction experiences at the high school level has
gone largely unexplored. Such an examination is needed because the induction experience had
at the high school level is not solely based on the induction opportunities provided to a novice,
but also centers around the way the novice is acclimated into the existing culture found within
his or her sub community(s).
While there are other variables that impact teacher induction (teaching philosophies,
student and parent relationships, union influences, professional networking, etc.), Figure 1
depicts the ways the principal, as one variable, directly and indirectly impacts induction
1

experiences. The first such way the principal might impact the induction process is directly.
Such an influence would be based on the ways the principal directly addresses individual novice
teacher development. This would include the direct actions the principal takes to make
decisions regarding induction influencing factors such as teacher evaluation, professional
development, mentoring, teaching assignments, and planning time. All of these factors may not
be specific components of the formal induction program offered by the school, but all of them
play a role in determining a beginning teacher’s overall induction experience, resulting in the
principal having a direct impact on that experience. Secondly, the potential exists for the
principal to indirectly influence the induction process. One way the principal would have such
an influence would be through the department chair. Although the principal has a direct
influence on the department chair, such an influence on induction would be indirect since it is the
department chair that exerts a direct influence on his or her department through such

1

The relationships between these organizational members often have a two-way influence on one
another. However, for the purposes of this study, only the induction leaders’ influences will be
examined in order to best determine the role the leadership plays in the induction of a novice
teacher.
5

Figure 1. Principal Influence and Induction: A Theoretical Model of the Direct and Indirect
Influence Principals have on Novice Teacher Induction

Principal Leadership

2

Department Chair Leadership

Setting Direction
- Articulating school vision

Setting Direction
Developing People

Developing People
- Professional development
- Mentoring
- Teacher evaluation

Redesigning the Organization

Redesigning the Organization
- Common planning time
- Teaching assignment

Subject Department Culture
Norms
Curriculum
Teaching Practices

Novice Teacher
Induction Experiences

______________________________________________________________________________
Chart
______________________________________________________________________________
2

Leithwood et al. (2004) describe he following practices: setting directions, developing people,
and redesigning the organization as the basic core of successful leadership practices.
6

departmental norms as novice teacher departmental roles and input, curriculum acclimation,
teaching practices, etc. Along with the department chair, there is also the potential for the
principal to indirectly influence the induction experience through the subject department itself.
This possibility exists because of the direct influence principal leadership can have on a subject
department including factors that determine the culture of the department and its processes
concerning the induction of teachers within the department. In sum, these separate foci combine
to potentially shed light on the overall influence the principal has on a beginning teacher’s
induction experience.
Based on the model presented in Figure 1, a theory can be hypothesized that describes the
influence the principal has on the overall induction experience. The theory that leadership and a
subject department’s culture combine to determine the success of a beginning teacher’s induction
experience holds that the principal directly affects a novice teacher through the professional
learning opportunities provided to that beginning teacher. Furthermore, the principal
additionally influences the induction experience indirectly by collaborating with the subject
department chair, paying close attention to the supports and opportunities provided to a novice
teacher within his or her respective department. In turn, the department plays a major role in
determining the supports, learning opportunities, and professional beliefs a novice teacher is
exposed to on a daily basis. As such, the principal directly and indirectly influences the quality
of the induction experience had by beginning teachers.

Research Questions
Previously, I developed a theoretical rationale for investigating the extent to which the
principal’s direct and indirect actions influence a novice teacher’s opinion of whether or not the

7

teacher has had a positive induction experience. To determine the validity of this rationale, the
level of influence the principal directly and indirectly has on different induction components will
be studied in order to determine if certain principal influences are stronger than others when it
comes to influencing a teacher’s induction experience.
Specifically, I pose the following research questions to guide the exploration of factors
that might explain the direct and indirect influence the principal has on the novice teacher
induction experience:
•

What direct and indirect influence does a principal have on a novice teacher’s
induction experience?

•

How does the principal influence the formal induction experiences of novice
teachers?

•

How does the principal’s interaction with department chairs influence department
culture?

•

How does the principal’s influence on department culture impact the induction
experience of novice teachers?

•

Does a novice teacher’s induction experience influence the decision to remain in
or leave the current teaching position?

8

CHAPTER 2:
A Review of the Literature

Chapter Overview
This review examines previous research regarding beginning teacher induction. I do this
by first looking at the direct influences principal leadership has on the induction process by
examining the specific induction micro tasks the principal is directly involved with. Secondly, I
look at the indirect influences principal leadership has on the induction experience through the
department chair and the subject department as a whole.

Direct Influences Principal Leadership Has on Induction
This section of the review examines the influence principal leadership has on specific
micro tasks associated with the induction program in order to get a better idea of the direct
influence the principal has on the induction experience.

Principal Leadership Practices
When it comes to principal leadership and novice teacher induction, studies have
historically looked at the topics as two separate issues. For example, studies examining principal
3

leadership styles tend to do so in a broad school context (Blase & Blase, 1999; Bryk &
Schneider, 2004; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004; Marks & Printy, 2003). In
essence, such studies tend to focus on the influence principal leadership has on all of a school’s
teachers as opposed to specifically concentrating on the influences principal leadership has on

3

For the purpose of this proposal, the term “school context” will refer to the different cultures,
sub communities and levels of relational trust found within schools.
9

beginning teachers. As for the literature regarding induction, Carver (2003) explained that
studies have focused on the different components found within induction programs, yet
historically have not paid attention to the role the principal plays in such programs. However,
several studies in the last decade (Angelle, 2006; Brown & Wynn, 2007; Carver, 2002;
McGraner & Henrick, 2008; Wood, 2005; Youngs, 2007) have begun to examine the principal’s
role in the induction process, yet these studies have been primarily limited to the elementary and
middle school levels.

4

In order to systematically examine these studies and the direct influence principal
leadership can have on induction, different leadership practices will be used as a lens to explore
5

the different influences a principal can have on a variety of induction components as it is
believed this will allow for a more fluid review of the literature. While there are a variety of
instructional leadership models, such as those developed by both Sodder and Hallinger, Duke,
and Andrews (as referenced in Leithwood et al., 2004), Leithwood et al. (2004) found that within
many of the different leadership models used by educators there exist three “core” leadership
practices: developing people, setting direction, and redesigning the organization. Since these
practices are seen as the foundation of many leadership models, there is a likelihood that many
principals incorporate one or more of them into how they work with school personnel. As such,
two of the leadership practices identified by Leithwood et al. (2004) that are perceived to be
incorporated into the task of leading the induction program will be used as a guide when
examining the different induction components principals offer to novice teachers. Doing so will

4
5

The exception is Wood’s (2005) study, which included data gathered at urban high schools.

The literature on induction components is extensive. However, as the focus of this review is to
examine leadership’s influence on the induction process, only a basic overview of the ideal
purposes of primary induction components will be provided.
10

organize the principal’s interaction with varying induction components around particular
leadership practices.

Setting Direction
To begin, it is through the practice of setting direction that the principal will help the
novice develop an understanding of the school, including its overall goals and vision, which is
key to making a novice feel like he or she has a stake in the school. Leithwood et al. (2004)
explain, “People are motivated by goals which they find personally compelling, and well as
challenging but achievable. Having such goals helps people make sense of their work and
enables them to find a sense of identity for themselves within their work context” (p. 6). Clearly
communicating goals and vision should be a priority for the principal since a novice will be less
likely to “buy-in” to the school if he or she feels there is a disconnect between his or her
professional philosophies, the overall direction the school is headed, or simply does not feel a
valued member of the school.
Once a novice is familiar with the direction the school is heading, another one of the
principal’s organizational goals should include how the novice is socialized into the school.
Kardos, et al. (2001) state, “A new teacher’s introduction to the school’s professional culture will
be affected by the presence or absence of formal and informal structures that provide the novice
with opportunities for interaction, true mentoring, reflection, and exchange” (p. 256). A specific
example of a structure factoring into how a novice is socialized into a school include a building’s
overall teacher composition, which Kardos, et al. (2001) define as either novice-oriented,
veteran-oriented, or integrated. This socialization into the school community will take place
regardless of whether the school is effective or not and might ultimately lead to either novice

11

teacher retention or attrition (Angelle, 2006). This should be an important focus for the principal
as different school cultures are likely to have different effects on how a beginning teacher is
socialized into the school. As such, the way a principal establishes the socialization of a new
teacher into the school is going to have a direct influence on the novice’s induction experience.
After ensuring a teacher is properly socialized into the school, the principal can focus on
establishing organizational norms that create positive collaborative environments for the teacher.
The principal can provide such collaboration by allowing time for teachers to work in teams in
order to discuss issues and questions that are focused on student achievement including
curriculum, standards, and assessment (Carver, 2003; DuFour & Marzano, 2009). Creating such
an environment will help a teacher better facilitate his or her work (Leithwood et al., 2004). One
of the simplest ways for the principal to allow for this collaboration is by assigning a teacher, and
especially a novice, a common planning time with other teachers teaching the same course(s).
Additionally, in order for teacher collaboration to be most effective, it is important for a teacher
to be assigned to a grade level that aligns with his or her content knowledge, experience, and
interest in order for him or her to grow (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Gold, 1999; Little, 1999). Such
effectiveness is going to be directly influenced by the principal through teaching assignments
and how much time is granted for peer collaboration. As such, the principal should recognize
that the more time a novice is allotted to collaborate with peers, the more likely it is that he or
she will be effectively inducted into the teaching profession.
Overall, the norms a principal has established for inducting a new teacher into the school,
which will include how the principal expresses school goals and vision to that teacher, will have
a direct influence on that novice teacher’s induction experience. This is the case since a teacher
who is socialized into the school in a positive manner and understands the school’s overall goals

12

and vision is more likely to have a positive induction experience than a teacher who is poorly
socialized into the school and does not clearly understand the direction the school is headed. As
such, it is important the principal establishes norms that successfully integrate a new teacher into
the school as well as clearly communicates school goals to that teacher.

Developing People
Having worked to induct a novice into his or her school, the principal must then focus on
the novice’s continued development as a teacher. The argument can be made that this is the
leadership practice through which the principal will potentially have his or her greatest direct
impact on the induction process. Such an influence exists because the practice of developing
people is where the leader is going to provide support and models of best practice to members of
the organization (Leithwood et al., 2004).
With regard to induction, developing people means the principal needs to articulate
support for the beginning teacher, provide on-sight support, participate in program development
and evaluation, and have an understanding of how the mentoring process works (Carver, 2002;
Wood, 2005). McGraner and Henrick (2008) support this argument when they write, “Principals
who effectively induct teachers into the profession understand the continuum of teacher
development, design structures supportive of the developmental needs of novices, and address
the content and pedagogical content knowledge teachers should possess to teach effectively” (p.
8). This will require the principal to give consideration to a variety of teacher support services
which include: “…placing new teachers; providing orientation to the site and resource assistance,
managing the school environment; building relationships between principals and teachers;
providing leadership for instructional development through formative and summative evaluation;

13

and facilitating a supportive school context” (Carver, 2002, p. 34). More specifically, this
includes the principal making sure the novice teaches in his or her content area, providing a
favorable teaching schedule, classroom resources, curricular support, discouraging the novice
from taking on too many extra-curricular activities, and providing time for the novice to be
observed and given feedback by his or her peers (Roberson & Roberson, 2009). In fact,
Roberson and Roberson (2009) feel the main component necessary to a novice teacher’s
successful induction is interaction among the novice, other teachers, and the principal, which
allows for giving and receiving feedback as well as sharing experiences. The researchers go on
to explain that providing such feedback at critical times throughout the school year will foster the
necessary changes and improvement a beginning teacher needs to make in order to realize school
6

goals.

The first major induction component that a principal has a direct influence on is the
7

school’s mentoring program. It is important for the principal to implement and oversee an
effective and appropriate mentoring program as it is one of the primary ways principals can
ensure that interaction and feedback are being provided to the novice teacher (Carver, 2002;
8

Wood, 2005). Effective implementation of a mentoring program includes ensuring each novice

6

Expecting a principal to be able to competently implement all of the practices described in this
paragraph is unrealistic as no principal will be able to do all of these things (Carver, 2002).
7
Feiman-Nemser and Carver (2007) found a mentoring program is pivotal when it comes to new
teacher retention and development. Specifically, such a program can reduce the attrition rate of
first year teachers by about 30% (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004).
8
The argument could be made that it is not the principal, but instead the mentor who is
providing direct interaction and feedback to the novice teacher. However, it is the principal’s
direct influence that creates the conditions within which such interaction and feedback occur. As
this is the case, the direct influence a principal has on the overall mentoring program will be the
focus in this section and not the direct influence a mentor has through the interaction and feeback
he or she provides to the novice.
14

teacher is assigned an appropriate mentor who is competent in both the novice’s content area and
the mentoring program itself, providing release time for the mentor and novice to collaborate,
and ensuring the mentoring process is focused improving student achievement (Togneri &
Anderson as cited in Wood, 2005, p. 50).
As far as directly monitoring the mentoring program, the principal will need to recognize
whether or not the mentor/mentee relationship is successful in order to contribute to the
program’s effectiveness. This includes being aware of an appropriate match between the mentor
and novice teacher, expectations the mentor and mentee have for one another, and what the
mentor and beginning teacher do with their time together (Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005).
More specifically, the principal will need to assess whether or not the mentor is providing
appropriate types of support to the novice and make appropriate changes to mentor/mentee
9

pairings that are not effective.

As nine out of ten beginning teachers find the mentoring process helpful (Smith &
Ingersoll, 2004), the effectiveness with which the overall mentoring program runs will likely be a
contributing factor when measuring the level of success the novice teacher experiences in his or
9

Basically, there are two types of mentors: those that answer questions, provide technical advice
and lend emotional support, and those who are “educative” mentors (Norman & Feiman-Nemser,
2005). While it will most likely be necessary for mentors to lend emotional support to the novice
teacher, mentors that simply provide shoulders to cry on do not provide long-term solutions to
problems or help the novice develop and grow as a professional. On the other hand, educative
mentors “still respond to new teachers’ present needs while helping them interpret what their
students say and do and figure out how to move their learning forward” (Norman & FeimanNemser, 2005, p. 680). Norman and Feiman-Nemser (2005) go on to write that these educative
mentors see novice teachers as learners and help these teachers develop effective teaching
practices. This will include the mentor addressing issues such as classroom management,
instructional methodology, and content knowledge through formal and informal conferencing,
planning, and conversation (Huffman & Leak as cited in Gold, 1996). Furthermore, mentors will
ideally help novice teachers grow as learners, which will include: 1) extending the new teacher’s
thinking through questions, probing, brainstorming, etc., 2) directly teaching the beginning
teacher about content knowledge and teaching strategies he or she does not yet possess, and 3)
promoting accountability to district and state standards (Helman, 2006).
15

her induction program. As such, it is necessary that the principal be able to conceptualize,
implement, and sustain a mentoring program.

10

Along with mentoring, which will ideally provide individual support and feedback to a
novice teacher, the principal also has a direct influence on the professional learning opportunities
presented to teachers. As such, professional development is the other primary induction
component that falls within the leadership practice of developing people. Professional
development is important because it is through this induction component that the principal will
provide, “work-related learning opportunities for practicing teachers” (Feiman-Nemser, 2001, p.
1038).
In order for professional development to be implemented effectively, it is important that
professional learning be seen as a process and that professional development sessions serve as an
enhancer to professional growth (Drago-Severson, 2007).

11

Furthermore, effective professional

development must “be planned and purposeful and every activity must be executed with intent”
(Boone, Hartzman, & Mero, 2006, p. 12). The principal can do this by ensuring professional
development is focused on student learning and aligned with the school’s student achievement
goals (National Association of Secondary School Principals [NASSP], 2001). An example of

10

There are a variety of problems associated with mentoring (a mentor who only provides
emotional support, a mentor unfamiliar with the novice’s content area, a lack of mentoring
program over site and structure, etc.) which have the potential to contribute to a mentoring
program’s ineffectualness.
11
Professional development learning opportunities are too often presented to teachers as
mandated staff development sessions (Feiman-Nemser, 2001) or one-time workshops comprised
of the latest educational ideas (Ball & Cohen, 1999). Such experiences rely on the fact that
teachers gain some sort of knowledge from a supposed expert and then apply that knowledge to
their teaching (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). However, these “conventional” forms of professional
development are inferior in the sense that they do not help teachers develop or apply new
knowledge to their teaching practices because they do not focus on the primary issues of
curriculum and learning (Cohen & Hill as cited in Ball & Cohen, 1999; Feiman-Nemser, 2001).
16

one such avenue is for the principal to create “discourse communities focused on teaching and
learning” (Putnam & Borko, 2000, p. 9). Hopefully, such communities will help a teacher to
become a learner focused on improving his or her practice instead of simply acquiring teaching
strategies and activities (Ball & Cohen, 1999). As such, some schools have begun implementing
professional development activities that bring teachers together to work collaboratively on issues
teachers might have historically worked on individually. These professional development
activities include collectively analyzing student work, looking at goals, lessons, and pedagogy to
determine whether or not students are learning, and bridging different ideologies (Ball & Cohen,
1999; Hawley & Valli, 1999; Little, 1999; Little, Gearhart, Curry, & Kafka, 2003; McDonald,
2001). Such a move is being made in order to foster teacher learning, nurture professional peer
support, and pursue school reform (Little et al., 2003; Moir & Gless, 2001).
Overall, well thought out and meaningful professional development has the potential to
help all school staff members grow and develop as teachers. With regard to induction, it is
important for the principal to be able to plan effective professional development opportunities
that are going to support the professional growth of a novice teacher. Ensuring that professional
development is tailored to meet the needs of a novice will help the novice feel that he or she is
growing and learning as a professional. As such, the principal needs to be aware that the ways
professional development is planned and implemented will be a contributing factor in the
measured success of a novice teacher’s induction experience.
Continuing to look at the leadership practice of developing people, the principal also
directly influences the induction experience based on how he or she introduces a novice to the
observation and assessment process. Ideally, the principal will take time to explain this process
to the beginning teacher in order to help the novice differentiate between evaluation, which tends

17

to be associated with effectiveness or ineffectiveness, and assessment, which provides feedback
to a teacher so he or she is able to make appropriate adjustments to his or her teaching (Gold,
1996). The principal should make this differentiation for the novice in order to present the
observation and assessment process in a way that helps the novice realize observations can be
used to improve teaching instead of simply evaluating whether or not the teacher is competent in
his or her job performance.
Once the novice understands the observation process, spending time in the teacher’s
classrooms is going to allow the principal to provide summative feedback focused on the
improvement of practice as well as eventual formative assessment (Carver, 2003).

12

Such

feedback will include what Wood (2005) describes as “pedagogical approaches, content
knowledge, and classroom management strategies” (p. 48).

13

Ideally, a novice receiving

observational feedback will contribute to the improvement of the novice’s teaching practice and
a positive experience regarding this induction component. Such a result would be directly
influenced by principal’s ability to make the novice comfortable receiving critical feedback.

Induction Perceptions
Having examined novice teacher induction through two of Leithwood et al.’s (2004)
leadership practices, focus must also be given to the ways the principal and beginning teacher
perceive both different induction components and the working relationship they have with one

12

Unfortunately, the formal assessment process as it is currently known in the majority of
schools only allows teachers limited opprtunities to improve because principals have limited time
and opportunities to evaluate them (DuFour & Marzano, 2009).
13
Problems arise from principals lacking sufficient context expertise to provide authentic
suggestions for improvement as well as teachers simply being unreceptive to feedback provided
because of personality conflicts (DuFour & Marzana, 2009).
18

another throughout the induction process. Such an examination is necessary as the way the
principal and novice teacher perceive and participate in the induction process is likely to play a
role in determining the effectiveness of the induction experience.
First, it is common for a novice teacher and the principal to agree on several issues
including the problems the first year teacher faces, the importance of novice teacher orientation,
and the significance of mentors (Andrews, Gilbert, & Martin, 2006; Brock & Grady, 1998).
However, Brock and Grady (1998) also found that teachers identified the importance of
principals in the induction process and a teacher’s need for assistance in his or her first year,
neither of which were areas principals identified as important. Furthermore, the services being
predominantly provided to a novice teacher (being assigned a mentor, holding an orientation
meeting, providing a handbook/guidelines, and having beginning teacher professional
development sessions throughout the school year) are not the services and opportunities the new
teacher most values (Andrews et al., 2006). Instead, a teacher wants the opportunity to observe
other teachers, common planning time, smaller classes, and non-evaluative observations
(Andrews et al., 2006). Even though the teacher and principal are frequently in agreement
regarding the importance of induction services, the principal is not always aware of, nor always
provides, the particular services the new teacher values. This creates a subjective mismatch
between what the novice wants and what the principal sees as important.
Some of the discrepancy between the induction services desired and those being provided
arise from the way the principal understands the components that contribute to an effective
induction process. Unfortunately, McGraner and Henrick (2008) found many principals do not
have a developed conceptualization of induction. Simply put, the principal frequently lacks the
knowledge necessary to effectively offer and participate in the induction process. A principal’s

19

ability to conceptualize quality induction is based on the principal’s subject knowledge; those
with weak knowledge of a specific subject are more likely to have a weak conceptualization of
how to provide learning opportunities for a teacher in that content area (McGraner & Henrick,
2008). As such, the principal tends to view induction in one of three ways: as emotional support,
a way to provide material resources, and as a right of passage (McGraner & Henrick, 2008)
instead of viewing it as an opportunity to develop teachers and improve student achievement.
Understanding how both the principal and novice teacher view induction should be a
priority for the principal, as that perception will have an influence on the induction experience.
Furthermore, it is necessary for the principal to reflect on the induction services being provided
to a teacher, the manner in which those services are provided, how those services are received by
the teacher, and services the teacher desires which are not offered. Such reflection will help the
principal envision and implement an induction program that will be beneficial to the novice
teachers in his or her school. Additionally, continuous reflection on the effectiveness of the
induction program is necessary as Carver (2002) found the support of new teachers is likely to
shift with changing needs, interests, and contexts.

Indirect Influences Principal Leadership Has on Induction
As the purpose of this review is to examine the overall influence the principal has on
novice teacher induction, this section of the review will focus on the direct influence the
principal has on both the department chair and the overall subject department and how that
influence results in the principal having an indirect influence on novice teacher induction.

20

Department Chair Influence
Along with directly influencing the induction program, the principal is also going to
indirectly influence the induction experiences had by a novice teacher. One way the principal
will have such an influence is through the department chair. This indirect influence on induction
exists because the principal has a direct influence on the department chair who in turn then
influences his or her department and the teachers within it, including novice teachers.
However, before examining the relationships the department chair has with both the
principal and the teachers working in the department, a brief overview of the department chair’s
job is appropriate. First, a department chair can be referred to as an instructional leader as the
term is not just limited to the principal but also applies to other leaders within a school
(Wettersten, 1992). Although there are a variety of different definitions that can define the role
of an instructional leader, Sergiovanni’s definition, which refers to the, “coordination,
supervision, and evaluation of curriculum and instruction within an academic discipline” (as
cited in Wettersten, 1992, p. 5) is most appropriate for the high school department chair because
of the way high school departments are divided by subject (Wettersten, 1992).
Understanding that the department chair is an instructional leader, then, like the principal,
the role of the department chair can also be examined through Leithwood et al.’s (2004) core of
successful leadership practices. First, as the department leader, the chair is going to have
influence over both setting direction and redesigning the organization at both the school and
department levels. This is the case as Brandt found an instructional leader is given,
“…opportunities and responsibilities in administrative policy making” (as cited in Wettersten,
1992, p. 5). According to Siskin, the department chair is going to have opportunities to
recommend ideas for overall school improvement as a teacher may turn to the chair with ideas

21

for improvement rather than the building principal. The department chair finds himself or
herself in this position because he or she is often the leader a teacher is most comfortable with
(as cited it Wettersten, 1992). Additionally, while the department chair, as an instructional
leader, is going to have opportunities to influence administrative policies that affect the school as
a whole, he or she is also likely to design and set direction within their department. Supporting
this claim, McLaughlin and Talbert (2001) explain department leadership expectations shape
teacher communities similar to the ways the principal has a large impact on the school
community. Such direction will include influencing curriculum and instructional techniques
used by teachers within the department (Siskin, 1991). Overall, such a leadership position,
which has the department chair working with both teachers and the principal, allows the
department chair to contribute to the direction of both his or her department and the school as a
whole.
Along with setting the direction of the department, the department chair is going to have
the opportunity to develop the people working within the department, which has the potential to
perhaps be where the chair has his or her largest leadership influence. This is the case because
the department chair is supposedly an expert in his or her subject matter, and as such, is in a
position were he or she can provide appropriate support and feedback to a teacher regarding
curriculum and instructional techniques (Zepeda and Kruskamp, 2007). Further supports include
providing leadership responsibilities, such as curriculum and instructional development, to other
department members who have the interest and expertise necessary to experience a leadership
role (Wettersten, 1992). If a department chair is effective in working with a teacher in the
department, then that teacher is likely to have a positive departmental experience. Printy (2008)
supports this point by stating, “Departmental leadership is the most influential factor in

22

determining the quality of teachers’ participation in communities of practice” (p. 214). Applying
such a belief to a novice and his or her induction experiences, if the department chair’s influence
leads to a novice teacher’s departmental experiences being positive, that is likely to equate to a
more positive induction experience for that teacher.
In sum, the leadership responsibilities of the department chair are similar to those of the
principal, with the main focus of those responsibilities being the difference between the two
leadership positions. Specifically, as the building leaders, the principal is most often applying
his or her focus to the entire school community while the department chair is primarily focused
on the department community.
Having described the department chair’s leadership roles, attention must be given to the
working relationship the department chair has with the principal, as this relationship is going to
impact one way the principal indirectly influences the induction experience had by a novice
teacher. Examining this relationship is important because the department chair serves as a bridge
between the principal and teachers since the chair understands the needs of both the principal and
the teachers working within the chair’s department (Wettersten, 1992). Looking at the
relationship the department chair has with the principal, it is acknowledged that both the
principal and the department chair will have an influence on each other. This was seen when
Wettersten (1992) found a department chair can “…influence school policy through regular
contact with the administrative team of each school” (p. 18). If a department chair is influencing
school policy through contact with the principal, then that contact is going to influence the
principal as well. However, as this study examines the influences the principal has on novice
teacher induction, only the impact the principal has on the department chair, and thus the indirect
influence the principal has on induction, will be examined in this review.

23

To begin, much of a principal’s influence on the department chair is going to stem from
the amount of support and responsibilities a principal gives to the department chair. While the
amount of support and encouragement that is provided to a department chair will vary from
principal to principal, delegated responsibilities may include developing and working with
curriculum, supervising and evaluating teachers, and sometimes with administrative approval,
hiring and firing teachers (Wettersten, 1992). Sergiovanni explained that further responsibilities
will include the department chair implementing administrative policies and school programs
within his or her department (as cited in Wettersten, 1992). Even if a department chair were to
receive absolutely no support and was not delegated any specific responsibility by the principal,
that too would have an impact, albeit most likely a negative one, on the chair. Since the
department chair is the recognized instructional leader within the department, it is important that
the principal provides the department chair with the appropriate support and responsibility
necessary for the chair to be a successful instructional leader who works with both administrators
and teachers (Wettersten, 1992). Principal support given to the department chair, although
perhaps not specifically targeting induction, will trickle down to effect a novice teacher’s
induction experience since the support a department chair receives from the principal will effect
how the chair interacts with teachers in his or her department.
Based on the presumption that the department chair is an instruction leader and given the
proximity with which he or she works with teachers, the principal needs to realize that the
influence he or she has on the department chair will have an indirect influence on a novice
teacher’s induction experience. As the induction experience will play a large role in determining
how effective the beginning teacher is in the classroom, it is of the utmost importance that the
influence the principal has on the department chair is a positive one.

24

Subject Department Influence
Transitioning from department leadership to departments themselves, it must be
explained that high schools are different from elementary and middle schools because of the way
a teacher specializes in his or her individual subject instead of teaching a variety of different
subjects as lower grade level teachers often do (Siskin, 1991). Because of each high school
teacher’s specialization in one (or possibly two) subject(s), teachers tend to be organized by
subject departments instead of by grade levels. This division into subject departments tends to
separate faculty into different sub-communities that demonstrate distinct cultures (Siskin, 1991).
Recognizing that high school teachers are organized into culturally distinct subject
departments is important when examining factors that influence the induction experience. Such
recognition is necessary as the department is the community closest to the teacher’s individual
classroom and is likely to influence a teacher’s professional experiences on a day-to-day basis
(McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001). As the department serves as a daily workplace for a teacher, this
intersection of culture and organization leads to the department having a strong influence on a
teacher’s professional identity and determining teaching beliefs (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001;
Talbert, 1995). Specific influences include ideological differences that exist within different
departments such as departmental consensus about teaching practices and commitments to
teaching, (Talbert, 1995) to the interpretation of questions concerning school climate (Siskin,
1991). Such a strong professional influence will undoubtedly play a role in determining whether
a teacher’s induction experience is a success or failure. Further complicating the issue of this
influence is the fact that different department communities and their varying ideologies can lead

25

to novice teachers having vastly different induction experiences even when they are teaching in
14

the same building.

When it comes to the principal, he or she is going to have an influence on how
departments function, as the principal is a major factor in determining how well teachers work
together in their professional communities (Printy, 2008). Considering that the principal has an
influence on a department and that the department has an impact on induction, then recognized
by the principal or not, he or she is going to have an indirect influence on the novice teacher
induction experience through the subject department. This stems from the fact that the principal
helps establish a teacher’s social relations which carry over to how the teacher works in his or
her individual communities (Printy, 2008). As such, the principal must be knowledgeable about
the subcultures within which a novice teacher resides as well as how the principal influences
those subcultures. This includes the principal being cognizant of existing variations within
subject departments so that he or she is better able to meet the induction needs of novice teachers
within different departments. In sum, the parameters a principal establishes for a teacher
working in a professional community, although perhaps not specifically targeting induction, will
impact the induction experience.

14

A department might be a larger or smaller influence on a teacher and his or her development
depending on the school where the teacher works. A department at a smaller school does not
have as many teachers in it as does a department at a larger school, so there is a likelihood a
teacher within the smaller department is not bound to an individual department like a teacher at a
larger school. If a teacher within a school teaches across two or more departments, he or she is
less likely to be subjected to the influences of a single department. This might help with teacher
acclimation into the building and lead to a more positive induction experience because the
potential for a novice teacher to be subject to the negative experiences provided by just one
department are less likely.
26

Conclusion
The research studies discussed in this review of the literature provide an overview of the
research regarding principal leadership and the role it plays in teacher induction, the impact
school leadership has on school communities, and the influence those communities can have on
teachers. Although these studies are of an overwhelmingly quantitative design, they do provide a
useful explanation of a) the importance, program components, and perceptions of teacher
induction, b) the influence principal leadership can have on a department chair and the subject
department as a whole, and c) the different ways school culture and a subject department can
influence a teacher.
However, the majority of research does not directly address the high school principal, but
instead focuses on the role the principal plays in the induction process at the elementary and
middle school levels. Even more vague is how the principal’s direct and indirect influences
combine to affect a teacher’s induction experiences. Furthermore, studies that do incorporate the
high school level into their studies focus largely on how school leadership and school
communities influence all of a school’s teachers instead of how these two influences specifically
affect a novice teacher and his or her induction experience. For example, Kardos, et al. (2001)
explore high school cultures, and while briefly acknowledging the different factors that can go
into creating such cultures, the researchers do not fully explain how these different cultures
influence a beginning teacher’s induction experience, why it is important to know about and
understand these different cultures, and ways in which the principal can promote certain types of
cultures.

27

CHAPTER 3:
A Strategy for Inquiry

Chapter Overview
This section describes the study’s research design, including its rationale, sample,
measures, data collection, analysis, and limitations.

Rationale for Qualitative Research Design
The design of this study called for a qualitative methods approach as such an approach
allowed me to understand the influence the principal has on the induction experience. My
rationale for using such methods was based on the literature’s explanation of qualitative research.
In defining qualitative research, Creswell (2007) wrote:
Qualitative research begins with assumptions, a worldview, the possible use of a
theoretical lens, and the study of research problems inquiring into the meaning
individuals or groups ascribe to a social of human problem. To study this problem,
qualitative researchers use an emerging qualitative approach to inquiry, the collection of
data in a natural setting sensitive to the people and places under study, and data analysis
that is inductive and establishes patterns or themes. The final written report or
presentation includes the voices of participants, the reflexivity of the researcher, and a
complex description and interpretation of the problem, and it extends the literature or
signals a call for action. (p. 37)
Such a definition appeared to describe the way I expected to conduct my study for a variety of
reasons. First, Creswell's (2007) explanation of how one should begin a qualitative study
seemed appropriate in describing where I found myself at the start of my study. That is, I had an

28

assumption as to how the principal influences the induction process, and I developed that
assumption into a hypothesized theory. Patton (2002) also suggested that the development of
such a theory is in line with starting a qualitative study as he explained one of the primary
purposes of qualitative research is to produce and test theory. Secondly, to test my theory, I
planned to use a qualitative approach to my inquiry (Creswell, 2007). This included conducting
interviews with subjects within their schools and looking for relationships and patterns to emerge
in the data. Finally, Creswell's (2007) explanation of what the final report should include was in
line with my plan for presenting my findings. Specifically, I expected to provide a detailed
description and explanation of the problem and findings by using the different voices of the
subjects with the goal that such findings would contribute to an extension of the literature.
Having discerned that a qualitative approach was most appropriate for my study,
attention was also paid to the specific paradigm through which my methods would be derived.
Guba and Lincoln (1994) explained, “A paradigm may be viewed as a set of basic beliefs...It
represents a worldview that defines, for its holder, the nature of the “world,” the individual's
place in it, and the range of possible relationships to that world and its parts...” (p. 107). Having
developed a theory based on my beliefs regarding the issue of principal influence and induction,
the paradigm position that I, as a researcher, took was a postpositive perspective (Creswell,
2007; Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Creswell (2007) explained such an approach, “...has the
elements of being reductionistic, logical, an emphasis on empirical data collection, cause-andeffect oriented, and deterministic based on a priori theories” (p. 20). This explanation suggested
that based on the theory I developed and the methods I described in this section, my research
should be framed within a postpositive approach. My belief that such an approach was
appropriate was further solidified when Creswell (2007) explained, “In terms of practice,

29

postpositivist researchers will likely view inquiry as a series of logically related steps, believe in
multiple perspectives from participants rather than a single reality, and espouse rigorous methods
of qualitative data collection and analysis” (p. 20). Such a description was is in line with my
study, including the beliefs I was bringing to this study, as explained earlier in this section, as
well as my proposed sample and data collection methods, both of which are described later in
this section.
Overall, I feel a qualitative postpositive approach is what generated the data that set me
down the path of broadening my examination of induction and leadership and ultimately led to
the findings presented in this study. More specifically, using such a research approach is what
generated the data that suggested the principal’s influence was not the sole leadership influence
that affected novice teacher induction experiences, but rather it is the process of leadership being
distributed among a variety induction leaders that has the true potential to influence a novice
teacher’s induction experiences.

Sample
Patton (2002) explains that, “Qualitative inquiry typically focuses on relatively small
samples…selected purposefully to permit inquiry into and understanding of a phenomenon in
depth” (p. 46). Patton (2002) goes on to explain that when it comes to purposefully selecting a
sample for qualitative research, there are a variety of different types of samples, each of which
serves a distinct purpose. One such type of qualitative sampling is homogenous sampling, which
is used “to describe some particular subgroup in depth” (Patton, 2002, p. 235). This idea of a
small homogeneous sample selected purposefully for in-depth understanding was applied to this
study so that the sample could be derived from two suburban high schools that have similar

30

demographics. The specific reason for the selection of this homogenous sample was simply for
the personal reasons that I teach in a suburban high school and have a desire to one day be a
school administrator in a suburban high school. As a result, I picked sample parameters with
homogenous elements that would be most likely to produce data I could use when making
leadership decisions about novice teacher induction.
When looking at the specific demographic requirements required of participating schools,
buildings were required to have large student enrollments of more than 1,500 students. This
enrollment number was chosen because it seemed likely that schools of this size would be big
enough that most teachers would only teach in one content area making them less likely to be
influenced by multiple departmental cultures. Each of the participating departments were
required to be comprised of a minimum of five teachers, as it seemed such a number was large
enough to create a unique departmental culture. Each department was also required to have at
least one novice teacher within his or her first four years teaching. Furthermore, schools were
required to have a similar number of minority and economically disadvantaged students and
achieve similar scores on proficiency tests. Careful consideration was given to find schools with
similar student demographics so that student demographics were not a variable within the study
(see Table 1 for specific sample schools student data). Finally, the two schools had to be within
a 60-mile radius of the researcher. Such a distance removed proximity issues for the research
and removed possible variables that might have arisen if the two schools were in different
regions of the state or country.
With regard to the subjects themselves, qualitative researchers believe qualitative data
allots for multiple perspectives to be uncovered (Creswell, 2007; Lodico et al., 2006; Marshall &
Rossman, 2006). As such, the sample included subjects involved in the induction process as

31

Table 1
Sample Schools Student Data
2010/2011 School Year
Student Population
% Minority Students
% Free and Reduced Lunch
Graduation Rate
Standardized Test Scores

East High School
1997
<15%
Unknown
95%
Above State/National
Average

West High School
1650
<15%
21%
90%
Above State/National
Average

Table 1 Sample Schools Student Data

both leaders and followers in order to gain multiple perspectives on the influence(s) the principal
has on the induction process. First, the sample included a novice teacher from each school’s
15

English or social studies department and math department

(see Table 2 for an overview of the

subjects). Next, the head principal from each building was interviewed (see Table 3 for an
overview of the subjects).
After data was collected from these two subject groups, a revision was made to the design
of the study in order to include assistant principals (see Table 3 for an overview of the subjects).
This was done after initial data analysis made it clear that assistant principals do play a role in
novice teachers’ induction experiences. Assistant principals were not included from the start as

15

In order for the study to yeiled a greater plethora of subject data, it was my intent to avoid
interviewing too many likeminded individuals. Therefore, the English or social studies and math
departments were chosen with the hope that the differences in subject content would result in a
wider variety of personalities participating in the study.
32

Table 2
Novice Teacher Subject Overview
Name
School
Subject
Age
Gender
Tenure

Emily
East High
School
Math
24
Female
½ year

Rosie
East High
School
English
24
Female
2 months

Michelle
West High
School
Math
26
Female
3 years

Rich
West High
School
Social Studies
30
Male
4 years

Martha
West High
School
Assistant
Principal
15 years
Special Ed
Female

Neil
West High
School
Assistant
Principal
6 years
Social Studies
Male

Table 2 Novice Overview

Table 3
Principal and Assistant Principal Subject Overview
Name

Ron
East High
School

Kevin
West High
School

Leadership Role

Principal

Principal

Tenure
Subject Taught
Gender

1 year
Social Studies
Male

7 years
English
Male

School

Table 3 Principal and Assistant Principal Overview

33

the study was originally designed to solely measure the head principal’s influence on novice
teacher induction. Although looking back one can now see it was an obvious oversight in the
design of the study, it was my perception at the time that assistant principals were a noninfluencing factor when it came to the ways head principals were personally involved in the
induction process, nor were assistant principals perceived to have a leadership role within
departments. As a result, assistant principals were not viewed as being associated with the direct
and indirect influences head principals were considered to have on the induction process. The
minimal literature that existed on assistant high school principals did nothing to alter this
perception.
Along with novice teachers and building administrators, the study included the chair of
each novice’s department (see Table 4 for an overview of the subjects) and each novice’s mentor
16

teacher

(see Table 5 for an overview of the subjects). These subjects were included in the

study in order to gain a better understanding of the influences the principal has on the induction
process, yet their participation is what eventually allowed for the study to examine the ways
leadership is distributed within the induction program. It should be noted that each district’s
central office was contacted in order to obtain any written job descriptions that applied to either
department chairs or mentor teachers. However, both districts responded that a written job
description for these two positions did not exist. The only place either position was discussed in
writing was in the West School District’s teacher contract where the financial stipend mentor
teachers received was explained.

16

The exceptions was Molly as she was not officially serving as Rosie’s mentor. Rosie had not
been assigned a mentor, so Molly, who had previously served as a mentor at another school, was
interviewed as a veteran department peer.
34

Table 4
Department Chair Subject Overview
Name
School
Tenure
Subject
Gender

Evan
East High
School
5 years
Math
Male

Susan
East High
School
10 years
English
Female

Sally
West High
School
7 years
Math
Female

Owen
West High
School
13 years
Social Studies
Male

Molly
East High
School
9 years
English
Female

Gina
West High
School
8 years
Math
Female

Ryan
West High
School
16 years
Social Studies
Male

Table 4 Department Chair Overview

Table 5
Mentor Teacher Subject Overview
Name
School
Tenure
Subject
Gender

Katie
East High
School
11 years
Math
Female

Table 5 Mentor Overview

In sum, a total of 16 subjects who participated in the induction process in one of five
different roles were interviewed for this study.

35

Data Collection
One way to collect data when conducting qualitative research is through interviews
comprised of broad, open-ended questions (Creswell, 2007; Lodico et al., 2006; Patton, 2002).
These questions are “…designed to explore, interpret, or understand the (subject’s) social
context” (Lodico et al., 2006, p. 264) by “yield(ing) in-depth responses about people’s
experiences, perceptions, opinions, feelings, and knowledge” (Patton, 2002, p. 4). Marshall and
Rossman (2006) go on to explain qualitative studies allow for the researcher to understand the
deeper perspectives of “thoughts, feelings, beliefs, values, and assumptive worlds…that can be
captured through face-to-face interaction” (p. 53). Mishna makes a similar claim that interviews
provide a qualitative methodology that “capture context, personal interpretation, and experience”
(as cited in Marshall & Rossman, 2006, p. 54). As such, semi-structured interviews were
conducted with the 16 different subjects in order to probe into the direct and indirect influence
the principal has on the induction process. Specifically, interview questions asked about: 1)
working relationships between the principal, assistant principals, department chairs, mentor
teachers, and novice teachers, 2) perceptions and influences surrounding the induction process,
and 3) the types of induction services offered to a novice teacher, who offers them, and who
participates in them. See Appendix A for interview protocols and question target matrixes.
When it came to the location of the interviews, a person's environment has a large influence on
his or her actions; therefore, people should be studied in their natural setting (Denzin & Lincoln,
2005; Marshall & Rossman, 2006). As a result, interviews were conducted in the participants’
schools. Interviews lasted 30-60 minutes and were recorded using a digital voice recorder.
Follow up interviews were not conducted with any of the subjects.

36

Data Analysis
While preparing my literature review, I came across Carver’s (2002) research, which
used a case study design to examine the ways principals support teacher induction at the
elementary level. In her study, Carver (2002) referenced, “the three interrelated tasks proposed
by Wolcott (1995) when transforming data: description, and analysis, and interpretation” (p. 34).
Knowing that I too was going to be using a case study design, I kept Wolcott (1995) in the back
of my mind. After my data had been collected and transcribed, I went back to Wolcott (1995)
and recognized the same three tasks would be necessary when examining and transforming my
own data. As a result, my first go around with the data was spent describing the data (see
Chapter 4) and attempted to capture the feelings, beliefs, and opinions the subjects had about
school leadership’s influence on the induction process. Once the data was described, I began to
analyze the data by looking for patterns to emerge (see Chapter 5). It was at this point that it
became obvious induction leadership does not lie solely with the head principal, but rather
leadership is distributed among a variety of induction leaders. Therefore, I realized the assistant
principals, department chairs, and mentor teachers were not simply describing their views of the
principal’s influence on induction, but instead, they were describing the roles and influences they
themselves had on the induction process.
Due to the realization that leadership’s influence on novice teacher induction does not
rest solely with the principal but rather a distributed leadership process is more likely to
influence a novice teacher’s overall induction experiences, it is necessary to generally define
distributed leadership as it exists in a school setting. To begin, it must be acknowledged that
much attention is currently being paid to how distributed leadership exists within schools (Harris,
2008; Leithwood, Mascall, & Strauss, 2009; Spillane & Diamond , 2007). This is the case as,

37

according to Spillane et al (2004), there is a desire to better understand how leadership is spread
across a variety of participants within the school setting (as referenced in Firestone & Martinez,
2009). Copland (2003) defines distributed leadership in schools as, “…a set of functions or
qualities shared across a much broader segment of the school community that encompasses
teachers and other professionals and community embers both internal and external to the school”
(as referenced in Harris, 2008, p. 28). Furthermore, Harris (2008), referencing Spillane (2006)
and Harris (2006), explains, “At the core of distributed leadership is the central notion that
leadership is not the preserve of an individual but results from multiple interactions at different
points in the organization. This conception of leadership moves beyond trying to understand
leadership through the actions and beliefs of single leaders to understanding leadership as a
dynamic organizational entity” (p. 33). Finally, Harris (2008) references Harris and Lambert
(2003) when explaining,
…distributed leadership is a form of leadership not restricted by organizational or
structural constraints. Rather it is a model primarily concerned with leadership practices
and interactions, rather than the actions of individuals in a leadership position or role. It
is also a model of leadership i.e. involving teachers, other professionals, students, parents,
and the wider community in decision making (p. 38).
Simply put, as various organizational members seek or are appointed leadership responsibilities,
leadership begins to exist in a distributed fashion (Harris, 2008).
When discussing what it takes for leadership to be successfully distributed, Harris (2008)
references Leithwood et al’s (2007) findings in that 1) “Leadership needs to be distributed to
those who have, or can develop, the knowledge or expertise required to carry out the leadership
tasks expected of them” (p. 52), and 2) “Effective distributed leadership need to be coordinated,

38

preferably in some planned way” (p. 52). As such, Gronn (2002) proposed distributed leadership
may exist in three different forms: 1) spontaneous collaboration which is a group of individuals
with different skills and backgrounds who come together to complete a task and then go their
separate ways once the task is completed, 2) intuitive working relations which develop over time
as two or more individuals develop a working relationship and come to depend on each other,
and 3) institutionalized practice in which distributed leadership most often arises through
committees and teams (as referenced in Harris, 2009).
Having generally defined distributed leadership, the decision was made to use Spillane
and Diamond’s (2007) distributed perspective as an analytic lens when it came time to interpret
the data. This decision was made as Spillane and Diamond (2007) explained their “distributed
perspective on leadership and management” (p. 146, emphasis in original) grants that many
individuals, not only those in official leadership positions, contribute to the running of a school.
As such, this framework was used to analyze and interpret the findings of this study as the study
had evolved to examine the specific roles of principals, assistant principals, department chairs,
and mentors when it comes to novice teacher induction experiences. Furthermore, Spillane and
Diamond (2007) went on to state, “A distributed perspective frames this practice in a particular
way; it frames it as a product of the interactions of school leaders, followers, and aspects of their
situations” (p. 7, emphasis in original). As such, Spillane and Diamond’s (2007) framework
allowed for an examination of the ways principals, assistant principals, department chairs, and
mentors (the leaders) influences novice teachers (the followers) through major components of the
induction process (the situation). See Figure 2 for a diagram of this framework. Spillane and
Diamond’s (2007) distributed perspective was chosen as an analytic lens over other conceptual
designs of distributed leadership because of their perspective on leaders, followers, and

39

Figure 2. Constituting Elements of Leadership Practice (Spillane, Halverson & Diamond, 2004)

Situation

Leadership
Practice
Leader(s)

Follower(s)

Diagram

situations. In contrast, distributed leadership models, such as the one conceptualized by Harris
(2008), focus on the ways schools organize leadership whereas this study is not about how
leadership is organized but instead the influence leadership has on novice teachers. As such,
Spillane and Diamond’s (2007) distributed perspective framework better served the purpose of
this study as the framework examines the interactions between induction leadership and novice
teachers as they work through the induction experience.

40

Limitations
There are undoubtedly a wide variety of limitations that exist with almost any research
as, “…there may be other, related variables that have not been measured” (Lodico, Spaulding, &
Voegtle, 2006, p. 216); therefore, I was aware before I began my study that there were a variety
of limitations to my research.
First, a small sample size limited to two schools would prohibit me from making all
encompassing comments about leadership’s influence on novice teacher induction. Such
limitations existed due to the relatively small number of subjects participating and a perspective
that does not include variation in school size, setting, or demographics. It very well may be that
leadership in different sized schools found in rural or urban settings may influence induction in
much different ways than leadership in large suburban high schools. However, the intent of this
study is to simply begin the conversation about leadership’s influence on induction on a larger
scale, and it does so by providing a snapshot of such influences at two high schools that are
similar in size and make-up.
When it comes to the actual issue of induction, the likelihood exists a wide range of
professional and personal factors influence novice teacher induction experiences, the majority of
which I would not be examining. For example, I felt such influence most likely included but
were not limited to student and parent interactions, involvement in extra-curricular activities,
union concerns, family situations, etc. As a result, I knew that the principal’s influence on a
novice teacher’s induction experiences was only one piece to a much larger induction puzzle and
would not allow for comments to be made about novices’ overall induction experiences.
Next, I felt the possibility existed that variations in the ways different individuals at the
two schools interact with each other would have an affect on the way the principal was perceived

41

to influence the induction experience. As a result, I was aware there was a possibility that the
rational approach I was taking in this study might not lead to the outcomes I intended.
Finally, once I made the revision to include assistant principals in this study, limitations
involving this group of subjects emerged. Primarily, limited time and access to assistant
principals did not allow for the collection of extensive assistant principal data. Such limitations
resulted in data only being gathered from assistant principals at West High School. Therefore, it
is acknowledged that the assistant principal data included in this study is minimal and only
includes data from a limited perspective.

42

CHAPTER 4:
Describing the Data: An Examination of Novice Teacher Induction

Chapter Overview
In this chapter, I begin by introducing the data collected from the four novices regarding
their induction experiences. In order to more thoroughly examine how such perceptions
influenced the novices, each novice will be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Second, as
Wolcott (1995) explained that the first step when transforming data is to describe it, I provide a
description of the data collected from the head principal, department chairs, and mentor teachers.

Novice Teacher Case Studies
Emily - Novice Math Teacher
At the time of her interview, Emily was in her first year of teaching at East High School.
She was highly qualified to teach math, and although she also had a minor in Earth science, she
was not highly qualified to teach the subject, as she could not pass the certification test. Emily
did not have any other work responsibilities outside of the classroom. It must also be noted that
Emily graduated from the school she taught at, so there were several times in her interview
where she referenced her experiences as a student and gave credit to her familiarity with certain
aspects of the building to her having previously be a student at the school.
When it came to working with induction leaders, Emily had different opinions of how
effective those relationships were. For example, Emily had varying levels of comfort with the
different principals, which was mainly associated with the different levels of interaction she had
with them. For example, Emily met with her head principal at a once-a-month meeting held for
new teachers to discuss procedural issues, such as how to use the grade book and log

43

17

professional development hours.

Emily’s principal also communicated some of the norms and

expectations of the school to her through group emails sent to the building’s entire teaching staff
(issues discussed included putting grades in the grade book in a timely manner and appropriate
dress for staff). She also had varying levels of interaction with the building’s assistant
principals, from working closely with the assistant principal who evaluated her to having never
interacted with the eleventh grade assistant principal.
Other induction leaders Emily worked with also had varying degrees of influence on her.
For example, Emily liked her department chair but had little interaction with him and only
viewed him as influential because he was the head of her department. In contrast, Emily felt she
had a great relationship with her mentor teacher. Emily stated she spoke with her mentor every
day and that most of their conversations focused around behavior and procedural issues.
However, Emily’s experiences with her mentor were different from those of the other novices
participating in this study in the sense that she and her mentor did talk about instructional
practices to a slight degree. Emily also differed from the other novices in the sense that she said
she would like classroom observations to take place between her and her mentor. Overall, out of
the four novices participating in this study, Emily appeared to have seen the mentoring process
as being the most beneficial. Additionally, and also different from the other novices, Emily felt
having a mentor was the most influential induction component offered to her thus far and that her
mentor had more influence on her than any other individual she worked with.

17

It is interesting that Rosie, the other first-year novice from Emily’s school, did not say
anything about these meetings throughout her interview.

44

Table 6
Emily’s Math Department

•

Department was comprised of 15 teachers; many teachers with 20+ years and less than 10
years of experience, very few teachers with 10-20 years of experience.

•

All math rooms were together in one section of the school.

•

Department members were friendly towards each other and had a good working
relationship.

•

Senior teachers were willing to answer questions and share curricular pacing guides, but
had a, “close your door and teach your own thing,” mentality.

•

Many veteran teachers hesitant to discuss curricular alignment.

•

Emily had little interaction with the department chair and only viewed him as influential
because he was the head of the department and somewhat in a position of leadership.

•

Department had a common goal in that all department members want all students to begin
liking math.

•

All department members ate lunch together every day. This allowed them to informally
discuss a wide range of departmental issues on a daily basis.

Table 6 Department Overview

With regard to the relationships Emily had with informal induction leaders, she felt her
department peers had a large influence on her (see Table 6 for an overview of Emily’s
department). This influence was mostly positive and stemmed from her fellow department
members being readily accessible when Emily had questions and their willingness to share
curricular materials with her.

45

When it came to her experiences regarding specific induction components, Emily felt
different components had varying influences on her. For example, Emily explained that the
evaluation process consisted of several steps: 1) being informed of the day the assistant principal
wanted to come in and observe her, 2) a 15 minute pre-observation conference with the assistant
principal a few days before the observation, 3) a full class period observation, 4) a debriefing
immediately after the observation, and 5) a post-observation meeting where Emily received her
written evaluation. However, Emily felt the process was mostly procedural and that she would
eventually like to receive more critical feedback from the process. On a positive note, the
process did allow Emily to get to know her evaluating principal whom she might not have felt
comfortable going to for help had she not gotten to know him through the evaluation process.
In comparison, Emily’s professional development experiences were a bit lacking. She
attended a new teacher orientation meeting prior to the start of the school year, professional
development opportunities were geared towards all teachers, and the principals were around but
not heavily involved. This was in contrast to the positive experiences she had when it came to
the mentoring process, which has been previously discussed.
Overall, it was Emily’s fellow teachers who had the most influence on her, as the
principals appeared to be mostly hands off with her development and were only directly involved
to any extent with the formal evaluation process. As such, Emily felt the principals influenced
her experiences about 15% of the time even though she wished she knew her principals better
and had more interaction with them. As far as other induction leaders, Emily had not had much
interaction with her department chair, but felt her mentor teacher and her department peers were
extremely valuable in assisting her with everything from curriculum to discipline issues.

46

Rosie - Novice English Teacher
At the time of her interview, Rosie was a highly qualified English teacher who had only
been teaching for six weeks. She had conducted her student teaching at East High School during
the fall semester, and when an English teacher resigned in December, Rosie was hired to fill the
position. Throughout her interview, Rosie frequently referred back to her experiences as a
student teacher to explain her experiences and familiarity with the school, which suggested her
student teaching experiences influenced her perceptions of the school and the role she played in
the building.
When it came to describing the norms of her building, one got the sense Rosie had not
had time to get a very good feel for the school’s overall culture. For example, when asked if
there are any negative aspects to her school’s culture, Rosie responded, “I don't think so, not that
I can notice.” Such a generic response and a failure to recognize any negative aspects
demonstrate Rosie did not have a true understanding of the school’s culture, which is not
completely unexpected for a teacher so new to a building.
Additionally, because Rosie had been teaching in her school for such a short period of
time, she had not developed meaningful relationships with many of the individuals who were
serving as induction leaders. For example, Rosie claimed she had minimal interaction with the
building principals,
…for the most part, every time I’ve talked to [the principals] would just be mostly advice,
and like some the principles here I have never spoken to, and I don't really even…I don’t
know very well…I think that the two I know are the ones that I’ve had to, you know, like
are the ones that are obviously more grade specific. But even like my main classes this
year are 10th graders, and I don't know the 10th grade principal. I don't know if I've ever

47

really been formally introduced to him, so like I know who he is so I could find him and I
could know where to find him, but I haven't had any issues with my 10th graders, I
haven't had to go to him, but I still wish there was more of a formal meet and greet of all
the principles, and, I mean, I guess I'm kind of partially to blame for that. But even
student teaching, I thought that I would have more of the meet and greet with all the
administrators so I at least knew who they were and could seek them out whenever I
needed to.
This lack of relationships with the principals influenced Rosie in a negative way, as she felt she
would only ask a principal for help as an absolute last resort. This was partly due to Rosie’s lack
of interaction with the principals, but it was also a result of her perception that the principals
were largely unavailable during the school day due to meetings and that she was bothering or
interrupting them if she did have a question. Rosie might have also had a somewhat negative
opinion of the principals because she did not see them place much emphasis on the development
and support of novice teachers. Rosie was asked how this lack of support made her feel, and she
said,
I don't know, I think I wish it would be a little different. Like I wish that they would
maybe try to check on me a little bit more, I mean, like I can handle it on my own, but I
just think it would feel nice to just know that you have…you know, the principals, like
they have your back and that they are going to support you, and just to even see if you
have any questions because sometimes if you feel like they are unavailable, just to kind of
check-in, so I think that if that was the case then I feel that they were more of an
influence, but I just haven't had too much interaction with any of them to even think that
that there was any.

48

Along with feeling like she did not having working relationships with the principals,
Rosie also claimed to have never had a conversation with Susan who was the English department
chair. Susan confirmed this claim as she said she had not had a conversation with Rosie. Susan
felt Rosie knew who she was, and if Rosie had questions, she could come and find her;
otherwise, the veteran teachers located near Rosie were able to lend assistance when Rosie had
questions or needed help.
Rosie’s lack of relationships with formal leaders resulted in her most frequently looking
to her department for help (see Table 7 for an overview of Rosie’s English department).
However, Rosie’s description of the English department was again a bit general and vague.
Much like her description of her school's culture, one got the sense she did not really know how
to articulate an answer to the question. Additionally, in order to answer questions about
departmental influences and supports, Rosie continuously referred back to her student teaching
experiences. Obviously, being a student teacher in the department provided Rosie with a lot of
insight that helped prepare her to take over in the middle of the school year. However, as Rosie
drew upon her student teaching experiences so frequently, one cannot help but wonder if she
truly saw herself as an equal member of the English department? Still, Rosie felt the teachers
who taught around her were helpful, and she felt comfortable going to them several times a week
for assistance. However, she commented that she had not had any formal sit-down meetings
with anyone, so it would appear that all of the conversations she did have with other department
members were very informal. Rosie felt this was a bit of an issue when it came to curriculum
planning, as she would have appreciated some curricular guidelines to follow for the
Myth/Science Fiction course she was teaching. Ironically, the department chair had been
working to have curriculum binders put together for new teachers, yet the department chair

49

Table 7
Rosie’s English Department

•

The department had 22 teachers and was the largest department in the school; the average
department member was in his or her late thirties and had 10-15 of teaching experience.

•

The department was physically divided as half of the department was upstairs and the
other half was downstairs. This caused problems with group dynamics and working
relationship.

•

Department goals came from building administration.

•

There was a lack of leadership among the department’s teachers as no one wanted to be
the department chair. As a result, the current department chair was appointed the position
even though she had been serving as a gym teacher and the chair of the physical
education department prior to this.

•

The department was quite contentious (teachers were critical of one another) and cliquey.
The principal had been forced to get involved earlier in the year and talk to department
members about their behavior. The department chair attributed these problems to a
culture of non-collaboration and jealousy.

•

There were not any formal departmental induction supports in place for new teachers.

•

Teachers in close proximity to the novice provided informal procedural and discipline
assistance.

•

Veteran teachers created curriculum binders for their courses, but they were not making
their way to novice teachers.

•

Novice teachers were assigned to teach whatever class sections were open.

Table 7 Department Overview

50

suggested it was up to the novice to come and get the binders from her. Obviously, there was a
disconnect between these two individuals, and as hard as it seems to believe, it would appear that
the two never had any sort of conversation. As no one in the department recognized Rosie’s
desire for curricular help, and since she was obviously unwilling to voice her needs to her
department members, one has to wonder how much support she was truly receiving from her
conversations with her department peers?
In addition to not having had to time to develop in-depth working relationships with
people in her building, Rosie had yet to experience many induction components. Specifically,
and in sharp contrast to the other three novices participating in this study, Rosie had yet to be
assigned a mentor teacher even though she had a strong desire to sit down with another teacher
to discuss curriculum. Along with not experiencing the mentoring process, Rosie had yet to be
formally evaluated or attend any required professional development activities. She only had
vague ideas of what these induction components look like or what they entail, and did not seem
to think they experiencing them was a pressing concern.

Rich - Novice Social Studies Teacher
Rich was a highly qualified social studies teacher in his fourth year of teaching at the
time he was interviewed. Rich was also the school’s spring play director and had just become
the social studies department chair two months earlier. Before Rich was hired, he spent both one
year as a student teaching intern and one year as a long-term substitute teacher at his current
school. Prior to becoming a high school teacher, Rich spent 10 years teaching anger management
classes and family-nurturing classes, was part of an early childhood literacy program, and trained
Peer Assistance Listeners (PALS) on conflict mediation.

51

When discussing his school, Rich commented that he liked working in his building and
initially stated that he thought the school’s culture was fairly positive. However, as his interview
went on, Rich explained that he felt there were some negative aspects to his building’s culture.
Such negative aspects included a passiveness and passive aggressive behavior among frustrated
young teachers and union loyalists. What Rich did not discuss was how the negative aspects of
the school culture affected him personally; however, he did comment, “I do try to stay above
that fray, I try to define negativity as just individual frustration, and I try not to bounce it back,”
but he did not elaborate on whether or not he had been successful in those endeavors.
As far as working with building leaders, Rich felt his principals were available and
helped him to negotiate the norms and expectations of the school, yet they did not place a lot of
emphasis on his development as a novice teacher, as Rich stated, “On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10
being the most, I'd say 3 or 4. I felt it was up to me to develop myself professionally…and I don't
think it's because they don't care, I think it's because they're very busy putting out immediate
fires.” The only induction component Rich felt the principals were directly involved in was the
evaluation process. However, Rich felt evaluation was more a formality than anything else as
his evaluations never provided any real critical feedback. As such, Rich gave the impression that
he became indifferent to the entire evaluative process once he observed that 1) nothing of value
or importance was going to come from the process, and 2) he and the principal were just going
through the evaluative motions because they were contractually obligated to do so. Overall,
aside from the formal evaluation process and being available to answer general questions, Rich
did not feel his development, as a novice, was a priority for his principals. As a result, Rich tried
his best to stay out of his principals’ “hair” because he felt they expected him to be able to
handle many of this own problems, and they always appeared to be extremely busy.

52

Table 8
Rich’s English Department

•

The department had 12 teachers; gender was balanced; only one teacher had more than 15
years of experience. Some teachers focused solely on academics while others were
focused a bit more on coaching and other extra-curricular activities.

•

Department goals are centered around standardized test and advanced placement course
requirements.

•

All social studies rooms were together in one hallway of the school.

•

Novice teachers are assigned leftover classes that the veteran teachers do not want to
teach; planning periods are assigned as an afterthought after the department’s master
schedule has been created.

•

The department culture was friendly, yet the department was described as laissez-faire
when it came to collaboration on issues such as creating common assessments.

•

There are no formal supports in place for working with novice teachers and inducting
them into the department.

•

Informal conversations about procedural issues are quite common and is the only true
type of assistance that the department lends to novice teachers.

Table 8 Department Overview

In contrast, Rich felt he had a good relationship with the other teachers in his department
and they had a positive influence on his induction experiences (see Table 8 for an overview of
Rich’s department). First, Rich has a positive working relationship with the teacher who served
as his department chair during his first three years of teaching. Rich felt comfortable going to
him with questions, and Rich liked the fact the department chair helped provide him with
curriculum when he first got hired. Rich also felt comfortable asking his department peers for

53

assistance, yet when it came to gaining professional knowledge from his department peers, most
of Rich’s interactions with these teachers was self-initiated. For example, Rich had to make
informal observations about issues such as different classroom set-ups and structures and enquire
about behavioral, and academic issues rather than have other department members voluntarily
put forth such information. When it came to his mentor, Rich stated they had a friendly
relationship, but their meetings were very informal and the only thing they discussed was
procedural issues. Additionally, Rich claimed there was never a time when his mentor came to
him and said, “Hey, we need to talk about this issue.”
Overall, Rich took a lot of responsibility for his own teaching and learning, and he was
hesitant to assign blame for perceived problems with his induction experiences. For example,
Rich’s feeling that he was primarily responsible for his lack of professional development
experiences varied from that of some of the other novice teachers interviewed for this study;
whereas other novices felt the district could have done more, Rich saw professional development
as primarily being his responsibility.

Michelle - Novice Math Teacher
Michelle was hired at her high school six months after graduating from college and was
in her third year of teaching at West High School at the time of her interview. She was highly
qualified to teach math and speech; however, she primarily served as a math teacher. Michelle
was also a band color guard coach in the fall. What was also evident was that Michelle was a
young woman with a lot of confidence when it came to her teaching abilities and that she had
some very strong opinions about the overall culture of her school, her department, her role as a
teacher, and her induction experiences in general.

54

Overall, Michelle really liked teaching at her high school; however, she thought the
school had a veteran-oriented culture. As such, she had a somewhat pessimistic outlook when
discussing what building conditions were like for novice teachers. She also felt there was a
misconception among the staff that they were “one big family.” Based her responses, Michelle
sounded slightly jaded when discussing the school’s cultural norms, attitudes, and behaviors she
experienced in her first couple years of teaching.
When it came to the emphasis principals at her school place on the development and
support of beginning teachers, Michelle stated she felt the assistant principal assigned to her
department made it a priority because she felt like her development was important to this
particular assistant principal. For example, Michelle felt the assistant principal did a good job
explaining the evaluation process to her and liked that the assistant principal was straightforward
with her when it came to discussing her evaluation. Additionally, the assistant principal sent
Michelle to professional development conferences, helped Michelle acquire resources she
desired for her classroom such as a set of graphing calculators, and had small group meetings for
new teachers. However, Michelle did not feel her development was important to the other
principals in the building as she never really saw them around the school nor had they ever been
in her classroom, “[Principal A] and [principal B] and [principal C] have never been in my
classroom in three years.”
When it came to her peers in the math department (see Table 9 for an overview of
Michelle’s department), Michelle felt her department played a large role in helping her become a
functioning member of the school and probably had the single largest influence on her induction
experience. She believed this had been the case because she felt the school departmentalized
resulting in her simply talking with her department members more than other colleagues.

55

Table 9
Michelle’s Math Department

•

The department was comprised of 13 teachers, most of whom were female.

•

Teachers were assigned to teach a mix of high level and lower level functioning classes,
yet novices still tended to teach all of the bottom level courses.

•

The department offers procedural supports to novice teachers but does not have any
formal induction services in place; no departmental resources are devoted to novice
teacher induction.

•

The department was fairly unified most of the time, but a divide between the veteran and
novice teachers could arise when discussing issues such as curriculum alignment and
common assessments.

Table 9 Department Overview

However, she felt there was a bit of a divide between the novice and veteran teachers in her
department which led to challenges. This sentiment was also shared by Sally, the math
department chair, who stated,
There has been slight division as of late between the teachers with higher seniority, there
are two people who have been here for a long time, and I think they kind of feel
sometimes that they're not valued by the younger teachers...there's that fine line of being
a go-between between the younger teachers who can learn from people who have a lot of
experience, and yet, at the same time, when you look at somebody who's been doing the
same thing for so long and they're unwilling to change, that's kind of where it's coming
from right now.

56

As for informally communicating with her department colleagues, Michelle was fairly
aggressive about talking with her peers and was not afraid to pop into their classrooms if she
needed something. Michelle also said she found that different department members had different
strengths, so she went to different department members for help depending on the situation. The
two exceptions were the relationships Michelle had with the department chair and with her
mentor. Michelle did not discuss her department chair except for when she gave the example of
who she turned to when looking for a particular supports, and she implied the mentoring process
was not beneficial as she and her mentor talked informally but never had formal sit-down
mentor/mentee meetings, as was evident when Michelle stated, “Okay, don't tell on me, but we
never actually meet. Like, we never actually log in hours or anything…” Instead of formal
meetings, Michelle would just pop her head into her mentor’s room if she had a question (i.e.,
how to teach a concept). Michelle attributed this to the fact that her mentor did not establish a
formal meeting schedule. However, Michelle’s strong personality and high level of selfconfidence might also have played a role in defining the relational norms established between
Michelle and her mentor as her mentor stated,
[Michelle] has a really strong personality, and [Michelle] and I decided, you know, when
she first got her classroom I helped her unpack and I kind of, you know, explained how
the school functions. Once we kind of got past the first couple of months, I learned from
[Michelle] personality, I said to her, “Would you be okay, rather than me coming to you
once a week or rather than me coming to you every morning before school and asking
you what can I do as your mentor, what you need from me, what can I do, are you okay
with me just kind of having an open door policy where our classrooms are right across
the hall, when you need something...”

57

As such, the likelihood existed that Michelle’s mentor was somewhat intimidated by Michelle’s
personality and did not have the nerve to implement a meeting schedule because she was afraid
of what Michelle’s response might have been.
Aside from the formal evaluation and mentoring processes, the only other induction
component Michelle discussed were her experiences regarding professional development.
Michelle attended several professional development seminars outside of the school that she felt
were very beneficial yet felt the professional development that took place in her school was a
waste of time. She believed nothing ever came from the building sessions and that the majority
of staff was indifferent or non-receptive to what was being presented. There was never any
follow-up and often times Michelle was unaware of what she was supposed to do with the
information she received or how it connected with what the school was doing. As a result,
Michelle had a somewhat negative attitude about professional development, as it was her
perception that nothing useful had come from the professional development opportunities offered
to her by her school.
Overall, Michelle had a negative attitude about her induction experiences and was very
outspoken about people’s behaviors and what she thought could have been done differently.
However, one might make the claim that Michelle’s own strong personality greatly contributed
to her experiences.

Induction Leadership Data
Induction Perceptions
When looking at the data collected from the subjects, the participants had varying
thoughts on the induction process, from its priority level, to who is primarily responsible for it, to

58

failing to realize induction was an issue at all. As a result, a brief overview of the general
perceptions surrounding induction will be presented before moving on the data regarding specific
induction components.
To begin, Evan, the math department chair at East High School, was like many of the
participant as he explained that he saw the development of novice teachers as his, “number one
responsibility” without providing any specific examples of how he personally supported novices
aside from lending procedural support and having informal conversations with novices.
Similarly, Neil, an assistant principal at West High School felt induction was one of his main
priorities without providing specific examples of his involvement,
…when you say, ‘How much time [is devoted to induction]?’ it’s a lot of informal time. I
mean, a lot of time, I’m just walking down the hall and you know, I’ll make sure I pop my
head in every math and science room almost every day, could be before school starts,
could be right at the end of the day, could be during lunch, could be, you know, during
breaks, so to develop that new teacher, it’s going to depend on the teacher, it’s going to
depend on the individual. Some, it takes a lot more time than others. Some are really
good to go and mature and have had some experience and it comes easy for them. Some
struggle a little bit…
Additionally, Ron, the principal at East High School, saw induction as important, but like many
of the induction leaders, he believed individuals other than himself were more influential than he
was in the induction process, “I think [departments influence induction] a lot, probably more so
than I do. I think department chair and leaders and departments have a lot more input and
impact on a novice teacher than I do.”

59

Although many of the subjects stated that novice teacher induction was one of their main
priorities, several subjects, and especially the building administrators, went on to explain why
they did not think induction received more attention. For example, Ron stated that he believed
principals do put an emphasis on induction but do not have the time and resources required to do
the program justice,
I wish there was more financial and time support for something that’s important and
there’s just not. You know, you spend your whole summer hiring these people, and then
you pretty much throw them to the wolves the first day, and they learn on their own, and
there’s just not enough…you know, you’d like to be able to pull them out once every two
weeks and give them the support that you think they need, but you just don’t have that
ability anymore…When I first started this job, we had formal, paid mentor roles, you
know, paid release time once a month, department release time, you know, and we don’t
have those abilities anymore to give release time that much [so] people can go and work
on becoming a good teacher while they are doing it. You know, it’s pretty much at the
end of the first year, ‘Okay, take a breath, how did it go?” In the past, there was much
more financial support for leave time, for support for mentor/mentee programs.
Similarly, Kevin, the principal at West High School explained there were multiple reason more
attention was not paid to the induction program, including: 1) senior teachers can be selfish and
have a sense of entitlement, 2) induction gets overlooked because schools are focusing on “bigmoney items” such as Annual Yearly Progress, ACT test scores, and college readiness
benchmarks, and 3) large numbers of new teachers are infrequently hired, so when only one or
two teachers are hired, induction is not a priority.

60

Finally, the induction leaders were in agreement that little to no interdependency existed
between them. Asked if her school’s administrative team ever discusses the issue of induction,
Martha said such conversations never take place. Similarly, Katie did not recall a building
administrator ever talking with her about the novice teacher she mentored, “Our department
head has checked in periodically, saying, “How do you think she's doing?” but only our
department head. I haven't had any administrators check in with me about how she's doing.”

Leadership Data Regarding Specific Induction Components
The data gathered from the formal and informal induction leaders regarding novice
induction into the building and department settings, the mentoring program, and the formal
evaluation process is presented in the following three tables (Table 10 Leadership Data
Regarding Induction into the Building and Department Settings; Table 11 Leadership Data
Regarding the Mentoring Process; Table 12 Leadership Data Regarding the Formal Evaluation
Process). The data presented in each table is divided up into one of three sections (low, medium,
or high) depending on the level of consequence associated with each comment.

61

Table 10
Leadership Data Regarding Induction into the Building and Department Settings
Data suggesting a high level of consequence was associated with the induction component:
None
Data suggesting a mid level of consequence was associated with the induction component:
KN - Well, I think [departments] can have a huge influence, and I would say that influence can
take two forms. It can be a very positive influence, but it can also be a very negative influence as
well. I've seen it, not in this building, but I've seen it during my career where a department, or
perhaps personalities within that department, have made a very tough on a novice teacher for
whatever reasons, and usually it comes down to just a total lack of support or willingness or
desire to help that novice teacher. In that sense, in a worst-case scenario, they can have a really
negative impact on a novice teacher. In my career, I've seen novice teachers who by the end of
the year they hated their job and a lot of that has to do with how they are treated within that
department or how they perceive themselves to be treated. On the reverse side, it's huge. In those
best case scenarios, not only do those teachers feel supported, the novice teachers, but they also
feel, I've seen them…some departments are very close. There are departments even within this
building where they do stuff as a department and they take those new teachers under their wing
and they make them…it's almost like a family atmosphere, so they're doing things, they're all
eating lunch together, they're all doing stuff on the weekends together, so in a best case scenario
those novice teachers who have the benefit of, by subject matter sometimes, of being in that type
of department, I think they really benefit and they're the ones that walk away feeling really good
about themselves and about their career choice and feeling confident at the end of the day.
MR - I attach myself to their hip. I let them know, I have personal conversation, I make sure
they have all the materials they need, I connect them with their department chair or chairs, I
connect them with the folks in their department, I give them as much information as I can about
the department, about the school, about the student population, about the community so that
without being…also giving them the opportunity to form their own thoughts by their experiences
with the folks. You know, you have to be very careful about how you present the entire package
to novices so that you, you know, you don’t want them to have any preconceived thoughts or
anything about departments or curriculum or students or community members or whatever the
case may be. And then I just avail myself at all given times to whatever it is that they need. I
make sure I’m in their classroom as much as they want me to be, but I leave that open to them,
and I don’t want them to feel that I’m hovering over them and watching their every move. I want
them to know that I’m willing to spend as much time in their classroom, with them and their
student body, with their parents, doing whatever they want me to be doing.
Continued on next page
Note: KN = Kevin; MR = Martha

62

Table 10 (cont’d)
N - I think the most helpful tool I can offer to novices is to make them understand or get them to
understand that I’m here to help them and want them to improve their delivery. I think it’s a
matter of my approach that I’m not here to hammer you. I’m here to make you the best teacher
you can with the least amount of anxiety. Often young teachers try to do too much and then, in
turn, by doing too much, they don’t do anything really, really well, so what I do when I talk to
them, I only have them work on two or three things on each evaluation, not ten, so we just focus
on those things and then when I go back to that room, I just look specifically for those areas, and
then when they’ve done well with them, then I’ll add another area or two that they can work on.
O - I don't think there's an explicit focus, but at department meetings reiterating some of the
things that are of value to this department. At the beginning of the year talking about AP scores
and how we did on the previous tests, talking about the number of sections we have and some of
our elective courses and how that compares. Doing that early on in the year, middle of the year,
late in the year, talking to teachers reminding them to advertise the opportunities that our
department offers as part of getting more students in there, recommending top-notch students
into the AP programs, and then discussing the MEAP results, even seeing where we were and
how we did…Bringing them up at meetings would be the only indoctrination as such, but it's not
explicit to new members, ‘Here (are) some of the things we focus on,’ it's having joined the
community and department and seeing what is talked about and what is valued.
Data suggesting a low level of consequence was associated with the induction component:
R - I would say it's more about the minimum support, you know, paperwork, health insurance,
the district provides those kind of things, you know, a month of meetings before they come on in
the summer, a day of orientation…so it's very, very informal right now for our new teachers.
R - …and then we do some very informal meetings after school, you know, talk about
procedures, policies, all those good things.
R - I go to department meetings when I’m invited, but my communication to the department goes
through the department chair, and then he or she brings it to them.
R - [I don’t discuss induction with department chairs] at all. I mean, we’ll talk about teachers,
I’ll go to the department chairs and say, ‘Hey, have you these struggles? I’m getting the parent
phone calls.’ We will have informal discussions about my novice teachers, but nothing where
there is a formal process that we work together on.
E - First off, the department is all centered in this area, basically in the span of two wings of the
school the whole math department is together. All but two of our more senior teachers, we all
share lunch together at the same time, so it's a chance to not only be around the novice teachers
Continued on next page
Note: N = Neil; O = Owen; R = Ron; E = Evan

63

Table 10 (cont’d)
and be able to be there if they have any individual questions but also to talk to them casually
about issues they're having, problems they've got. We meet as a department once a month, we're
always talking to each other out in the hall, so what we try to do to start the year, because they
were brand new hires in September, was try to immerse them in the school, let them know that
they had a mentor teacher that was, and they could pick the mentor teacher, and just be
available to them if they have any questions and offer any kind of support or encouragement or
anything that they needed…We help them with lesson plans if they have any…try to be a
sounding board for them, and one of the things that I like about being the department head is
that because it wasn't so long ago that I was brand new, that some of the things that I remember
I can now get in front of the problems that she might see like talking to a more senior teacher
about an issue that she's got, maybe something is going on out in the hallway that's disrupting
her class that a more senior teacher might deal with, if there's a discipline problem, if there's a
problem with a parent, if something was going on in class that was getting in the way of teaching
to the rest of the classroom. ‘How could you handle it?’ That kind of stuff.
SN - I do know that downstairs they have taken [Rosie] under their wing. I know she wants for
nothing. If she asks a question, there are a majority of people down there that will help her. I
know there are some things in place for asking questions. [Novices] know, obviously, who I am.
They never ask. They find their teachers that they like, and they stick with them.
SN - There are absolutely [no department supports offered to novice teachers] because when I
first came here from P.E., and I went to four different teachers to say, ‘Could I get this?’ They
were like, ‘No. I don't have it.’ I, when I got here, took the initiative, and I created a curriculum
binder. I asked for a syllabi and information from every class that we have, and I created a
letter and a tab, so each class has its syllabi, the books we read, the things we should cover, a
portfolio checklist...all that kind of stuff, that to me, I needed that first day I got here, and nobody
was willing to do that for me, and to get that was like pulling teeth. I still have teachers who
haven't given me information. I had one of them say, ‘She doesn't need that stuff from me. It's
none of her business.’ That's the kind of problems we run into.
SN - …[novices] have to come to me, and they got to ask for [the curriculum binder], and they
have to know it's there. How many times can [I say,] ‘This is what I have. Come and see me.
This is what I've got.’ It's not here yet. Are we sharing it with new teachers? We don't have new
teacher meetings anymore. That would have been a great opportunity to come at the first part of
the year, ‘I'm your English chair. This is what I have. This is what I am. Come get me.’ I didn't
even know [Rosie] was here until she had been here three months because nobody ever
introduced her to me…She's downstairs. Our department is so fractionalized that they didn't
think it was significant.
KN - When we hire new teachers the district has a program that new teachers go through prior
to the start of the school year, it is a three or four-day program. At that point they learn about
Continued on next page
Note: SN = Susan; KN = Kevin

64

Table 10 (cont’d)
expectations, and policies and do forth for the district, and from there, within their buildings they
are assigned a mentor teacher who works with them. Beyond that we don't have a real formal
induction program.
KN - …they are offered handbooks, orientation programs within the building.
KN - “…if I'm being very honest with you and myself, we probably don't do nearly as good a job
of [inducting novices into the school] as we could. I think, again, the fact that we don't have a
real formal [induction] program, I think that hurts us in some ways…
MR - Well, if we had a new teacher induction program, I would explain it to you. Unfortunately,
I’m not very proud to say that there is no new teacher…we just really don’t have a structure for
our teachers. It’s, there’s no program, there’s nothing we take them through, some things are
done at central office…On a building level, we really lack in providing structured training and
in-service to our new teachers…We don’t hand teachers a packet that has a full set of materials
in it that I can say I know everybody gets. We don’t sit down at the table with all brand new
teachers at the same time.
MR - I think it’s a natural thing, whether we like to admit it or not, we, when we take them and
we’re doing induction with them and we’ve done our piece, we turn them over to the department
chair and the department and then I believe that that’s where a let down happens, and I think we,
in this building, believe and feel that they’re going to get the care and nurturing that they need
within the department and the building level. That’s really, although they do, that’s not
acceptable to drop the ball, to just say, “Okay, now that’s done, and I don’t have to go back
there and follow up with that.”
O - There's nothing particularly structured. We follow the contractual mentor program, and then
in terms of in the last half dozen years or so when a new teacher comes to the building or comes
to a course they work with the team of teachers that do that course. They'll get the common
course assessment, the exam, and then any other materials, but there's no structured program
that our department does explicitly for novice teachers…We'll close our doors and do our own
thing, but invariably we always are, ‘Come ask us if you need something, here's what we do for
this, that, or the other thing,’ and again, sometimes binders are put together, ‘Here is what I do
for this semester or trimester for this course,’ but that's about it. Informal conversations. We're a
pretty social group, we get along generally pretty well, so when somebody has a question or
concern they’re usually pretty open to come get the information from somebody else.
O - There's nothing at the department level [that] has been specifically about [induction], and
again some of it is done in terms of coursework development that when a teacher comes, whether
a veteran or novice comes into a course they haven't taught before, then there's some work about
getting them up to speed per say on the course, but it's not explicitly new teacher induction or
Continued on next page
Note: KN = Kevin; MR = Martha; O = Owen

65

Table 10 (cont’d)
training or mentoring.
SL - We don't have anything other than, they recommend, of course, your meeting with the
mentor, but in terms of department time, it's more like, ‘If you need help, seek it.’ Other than
that, I personally will ask them. I try to visit the teachers that are new and speak to them, let
them know that I would like to help them in any way, but really, I'm busy, they're busy, and
sometimes they don't know they need help until it's over.
Note: SL = Sally
Table 10 Building and Department Data

66

Table 11
Leadership Data Regarding the Mentoring Process
Data suggesting a high level of consequence was associated with the induction component:
None
Data suggesting a mid level of consequence was associated with the induction component:
KT - We've talked a bit about the difference between just a lecture versus self-discovery and how
to integrate them together.
KN - I know our human resource director for the district kind of works with the mentors in terms
of what the expectations are and so forth, so I can't speak as well as [he] could perhaps, but I
think the expectations are going to be meet regularly with that person and be available to them
and they are your resource development, and I would like to think that sometimes act as a gobetween between administration and the new teacher as well…To me those are the best, in my
years doing this, those are the best mentors, the ones that can take the new teachers under the
wing, and certainly the classroom instruction is part of it, but there is a piece that is just as
important, I think, and that's just helping them understand the culture of the building and
expectations of the building and those types of things. A true mentor, I think, it’s not all about
just the reading and writing and arithmetic it’s about the bigger picture in helping that new
teacher feel comfortable not only within the classroom but in the building as a whole and
become part of the culture and so forth.
N - Now the mentor is, again, there’s guidelines by the contract with that. Mentor teachers are
compensated some for what they do. The process is that we track how often and how much time
the mentor teacher spends with the mentee. For the first couple of years, there’s a required
amount of time and then actually it reduces the last couple of years, so the mentor teacher is
actually part of the new teacher’s hiring process and their development for their entire part of
their probationary period, and the mentor teacher is normally selected from, we get interested
candidates and then we look and see if it’s the same subject, you know we want them to be
teaching similar subjects, if it’s a right fit personality-wise, and then we assign the mentor to the
mentee.
G - I had to be a tenured teacher, that's all I remember is that because I was a tenured teacher I
could mentor, so as far as I know, I think that was my only qualification…and that I taught the
same subjects as the mentee.
Continued on next page
Note: KT = Katie; KN = Kevin; N = Neil; G = Gina

67

Table 11 (cont’d)
Data suggesting a low level of consequence was associated with the induction component:
R - This is the most unstructured, informal [mentoring program] I've ever been part of…Here it
is very informal. The teachers are picking their mentors in terms of in their departments,
someone they are comfortable with, they know, and they related well.
R - We hold informal meetings with our novice teachers after school, and we’ll go through
policy and stuff, and I have a trusted teacher who’s running that, and I sit in on those meetings,
but no formal role for me.
KT - Honestly, I don't know that we've had an overall mentoring program. Like I said, my first
year here, I was assigned to a senior teacher as a mentor, and I don't remember any paperwork
or any follow-up on it, and I’ve got nothing this year now, there's been no paperwork. Nothing
formal…there's been nothing formal as far as mentoring program that I'm aware of.
KT - Usually, I would try and check in with her a couple of times a week at the beginning of the
year…A lot of times, she will just pop over if she has a question…
KT - A lot of [what we talked about] had to do with just procedural things, like filling out certain
paperwork, and when certain issues came up, who was the right administrator to talk to, or do
we do it with an administrator or police liaison officer or counselor or, you know, who was the
right person to talk to? And just some general stuff like how some of the different schedules
worked when we got our weird schedules for different days and things of that nature.
ML - …you know, I've been at four different schools, and I've never seen much resource at all. I
don't even know that they pay the mentors. It's just a, ‘Will you do it?’ ‘Yeah.’ ‘No,’ kind of
thing.
KN - The mentoring program, we have a mentoring program. Again, my opinion…is that it's
something that we need to look at and perhaps do differently. For the most part, the mentoring
program involves the most senior teachers volunteering to be mentors, and based on that
seniority, they are given priority, and that's good sometimes because some of our best teachers
are most veteran teachers and they have a lot to offer. It’s bad because unfortunately that is not
always the case, and so you have teachers just based on seniority, not because they have any
interest or any expertise necessarily, but based on seniority they are assigned as mentors. So no,
I would like to see us become much more intentional about assigning mentors and again, really
thinking about paying attention to things like qualifications and the quality of the mentor…
G - I would say it is pretty laid back. It is pretty… in terms of how it's done and how the system is
run, I mean, once you've been assigned a mentor teacher, it's kind of up to you as to how you
want to handle that relationship.
Continued on next page
Note: R = Ron; KT = Katie; ML = Molly; KN = Kevin; G = Gina

68

Table 11 (cont’d)
G - We never had formal sit-down meetings. The closest we came to a formal sit-down was if we
were assigned the same lunch for a given trimester, you know, we might do lunch together and
talk things over, but a common occurrence is she would come over to my room for five or ten
minutes before school one day or, you know, when I'd pop in those couple times, I'd swing by her
room after school, but you know, it would be informal, we never sat down and hashed things out
in a formal setting…
G - No. I don't remember anybody ever sitting me down and giving me a crash course on being a
mentor teacher. I think, when I became a mentor for the first time, so this would have been four
years ago, I think, they might have given me a couple of sheets of paper that gave some sort of
recommendations or something, but no, nobody ever sat me down, I was never brought to a
meeting for new mentor teachers to be taught or even pointers, no discussion.
G - I'd say minimal…in terms of looking at [mentoring], comparing it to other activities and
programs in the school, I think it's really pretty informal, and there's not a whole lot of
structure.”
RN - My role is just answer any questions, if we were teaching the same subject, I said, ‘This is
what I use, you can do what you want with it.’ Books, you know, different resources, different
films that they could have used. I know like they came to me and, ‘Hey, where do,’… like the
first year, you know, papers, pencils, just the basics…or, ‘How would you handle it with this
parent, or how would you handle it with this kid?
RN - [We met] a couple times a week maybe. I mean, it could just be a quick question, but to sit
down and have an hour mentor meeting and reflect, that never happened.
RN - Not that I know of…I don't know of any resources besides, ‘Hey, go ask your colleagues.’
RN - You just fill out the sheet saying how many hours you met with the mentor…You fill it out
monthly, you're supposed to fill it out monthly, and I did that for the first one. I think the first
year for each I filled out monthly, but the last two years of each I just printed it out at the end of
the year and filled it out at the end of the year…No one's ever come to me and said anything, I
just turned it in, and then I was paid at the end of the year in June for it, but they’ve never
questioned it and never followed up on it, never verified it with…compared my notes, I don’t
think, with [Rich], they just sent me the check. I mean, last year they sent me the check without
me even turning in the form.
Note: G = Gina; RN = Ryan
Table 11 Mentoring Data

69

Table 12
Leadership Data Regarding the Formal Evaluation Process
Data suggesting a high level of consequence was associated with the induction component:
KN - I would describe them as being probably not as effective as they could be in terms of both
evaluating, but in terms of also supporting teachers. I think the way it is written in the contract
and the way it has been done historically, I think it's kind of artificial in the sense that the time
frames and the number of times and observations and so forth.
N - …formally, our association and bargaining contract is very specific on when and what I can
do for evaluation purposes that actually become part of the new teacher’s file.
N - The process looks like this: First of all, I have a meeting with the teacher and I explain to
the teacher what’s called a pre-evaluation process. So I sit down with them and say, ‘Here’s
what I want to do. I want you to tell me what day I can come in and give me an outline of the
lesson, and not only the lesson, where you’re at in the class, some of the strategies you’re going
to be using,’ stuff like that. So they write that up for me. Then I end up telling them what day I’ll
be coming in, what hour and what day, and I give them a list of the things that I’ll be evaluating
them on, which are specifically described in the contract, and then, I make that appointment that
day, then I go in, I do the evaluation. Normally it’s done…with a new teacher I spend the entire
class period from start to finish, and in that class period I sit in the back of class normally, take
notes, not participative. I do actually introduce myself, tell the students the reason for me being
there, and the teacher goes ahead and operates like I’m not there. Once that first observation is
done, I don’t normally say too much to the teacher at that point. I come back, in the next ten
class periods I have to come back again, so I tell them, ‘I’m just going to be dropping in another
day.’ Now, I often tell them what day, what hour, I mean, you don’t have to by contract, but I
usually do, so then my second observation is very similar. I just get there and see the entire
class period, and then from that…after that I have a post-observation discussion, and I tell the
teacher, ‘These are the things that I see you are doing well. These are the things I think you
need some improvement. That’s how I’m going to write up your evaluation.’ Basically we have
a discussion, and I tell them that’s how I’m going to write up the evaluation. I go back, I write
up the evaluation, and then within five days from the second observation, I need to actually have
a sit-down, so not only did I have a second observation, then I had a post-evaluation discussion,
then I actually have the overall written evaluation meeting, and then the teacher signs it, we
discuss it some more and then that’s it for that part of it.
MR - On a non-tenured teacher, I would give them all the information that they need before…we
have conversation, we have a pre-evaluation conference. Some administrators don’t take
advantage of that. I take advantage of that. I meet personally with all teachers, tenured and
non-tenured, but spend more time with non-tenured teachers in that pre-evaluation conference,
and I take a document that, and I give that document to them, that is broken up into categories of
Continued on next page
Note: KN = Kevin; N = Neil; MR = Martha

70

Table 12 (cont’d)
curriculum, classroom management, etc., etc. so they know what we’re looking for. I don’t think
that anybody, non-tenured or tenured teacher, the element of surprise serves no purpose, and so
particularly with those non-tenured teachers, you want them to know what you’re looking for.
You want them to know, you want them to feel confident that they are aware of what they’re
being evaluated on so that they can aspire to fulfill those requirements.
Data suggesting a mid level of consequence was associated with the induction component:
R - The one we have in place here is very, very limited, very old-school, very hard to…they all
give you either acceptable or needs improvement, and there is no continuum of, ‘Hey, you’re
okay in content knowledge, can you work on that?’ It’s either your telling them they’ve got to
improve, and it really gets them frustrated, angry, upset, union involvement, or you give them,
‘You’re good.’
R - I wish we had a more informal walk-through practice of evaluation instead of either sitting
down and getting the dog and pony, I wish I could drop in ten times in a semester and leave a
note each time, ‘Here’s a pro, here’s a con,’ and then do that twenty times over a period of a
year, and then get back together later on and go through the whole thing together. To me, that’s
evaluation. I mean, going there three times, and they dress up for you, and do something they
think is a blast doesn’t give you a good picture, and most union contracts disallow you to use
any informal evaluation as part of the real evaluation tool.
KN - I would like to see more of an emphasis on informal walk-throughs and those types of
things. I would like to see more of an emphasis on collaboration and working with that teacher. I
think the way it's set up now with the formal evaluations, I don't know that it always gives us a
realistic look if we are basing an evaluation just on that because I think people can come in and
when you know ahead of time that you are going to be observed, I think that isn't always a true
representation of what goes on in the class, so I would like to see it based more on multiple
factors and observations and visits than just on the formal visits.
Data suggesting a low level of consequence was associated with the induction component:
MR - …it’s a useless tool at this particular point…As it stands, it’s a useless document. It’s, I
won’t say poorly constructed. I would say the document itself was constructed and agreed upon
years ago and I don’t find it a useful tool in that it doesn’t address what the needs, necessarily
what the needs of education are today. It’s just plain and simply an old document and teachers
are not getting the feedback that they need to be successful…
O - [I see it] as a rubber-stamp. There's very little actual feedback. A) it's a contractual process
Continued on next page
Note: R = Ron; KN = Kevin; MR = Martha; O = Owen

71

Table 12 (cont’d)
and administration evaluates teachers, and it's a rubberstamp process in my opinion…Basically,
the evaluation process comes down to a satisfactory or unsatisfactory, and if you're in a
satisfactory range you rarely will get anything constructive in that evaluation piece. Even
though it's a narrative evaluation, it is usually a recitation of what happened in class and/or
flattery but not actual constructive criticism. No data is included in it, nothing is particularly
thoughtful about it. The only time things rise is if an unsatisfactory evaluation is done, and then
almost uniformly the union will be involved in determining whether that was done properly or
not, and again, it seems more of a discipline issue than a tool to improve education or
instruction.

Table 12 Evaluation Data

72

CHAPTER 5:
Analyzing the Data: Examining a Distributed Leadership Process’s
Influence on Novice Teacher Induction

Chapter Overview
The previous chapter presented data collected from the subjects regarding their
perceptions of the macro task of socializing new teachers into the professional cultures at East
and West High Schools. This chapter analyzes the data surrounding three induction micro tasks
that building leaders are likely to be involved with: induction into the school and department
settings, the mentoring program, and the formal evaluation process. In order to more thoroughly
examine the data and answer the research questions, Spillane and Diamond’s (2007) “distributed
perspective on leadership and management” (p. 146, emphasis in original) framework is used as
an analytic lens to describe how leadership is distributed and stretched across different formal
and informal leaders. Such an analysis isolates which leaders are involved with each aspect of
the induction process (Table 13 provides a break down of formal and informal leadership
responsibility), indicates how leadership positions are distributed, and describes how the leaders
contributed to the entire socialization process as well as to individual induction components.
Findings suggest leadership within the induction process is stretched across multiple formal and
informal leaders, yet much of this leadership is assumed rather then distributed by design. As
such, there is a lack of interdependency among these leaders, which results in many leaders
failing to fully understand or recognize their leadership responsibilities. This creates a culture
where leadership ineffectively participates in the induction process and leaves these leaders
having minimal influence on the novice teachers they work with.

73

Table 13
Induction Component Responsibility
Induction
Micro Task

Principals
F

I

Assistant
Principals
F
I

Department
Chairs
F
I

Mentors
F

Involvement
with school
and
X
X
X
departmental
induction
Involvement
with
X
X
X
X
mentoring
Involvement
with
X
X
Evaluation
Note: F = Formal Responsibility; I = Informal Responsibility

I
X

Department
Peers
F
I
X

X

Table 13 Induction Responsibility
________________________________________________________________________

Examining the Roles of Induction Participants
Multiple leaders, both formal and informal, take roles in the process of socializing new
teachers into a school’s professional culture. How formal and informal roles distribute appears
in Table 13. The following sections consider each role, and each specific contribution, in turn.

Head Principals
Induction into the School and Department Settings
The original intent for this study was to examine the direct and indirect influence a
principal has on a novice teacher’s comprehensive induction, or socialization, into the school.
To answer Research Question #1, How does the principal influence the formal induction

74

experiences of novice teachers? I asked both head principals about the induction programs for
novice teachers in their schools, as well as how they are personally involved in the induction
process. Based on the principals’ comments, however, it is clear that the direct influence a
principal has on how a novice is acclimated into his or her school is actually based on two
distinct processes (see Figure 3). First, the principal, as the formal leader of the school, has an
influence on the ways induction components are made available and presented to novice
teachers, including possibilities such as the mentoring program, the formal evaluation process,
and professional development opportunities. Such activities influence how the novice is
inducted the school and department as well as other aspects such as professional growth through
the improvement of instructional practices and curricular knowledge. How much attention the
principal directs towards the particular induction services that are offered to novices as well as
the effectiveness with which the services are implemented within the school makes a difference
to how deeply or how quickly the teacher begins to connect with the school.
Secondly, the principal’s influence stems from the direct actions a principal takes to
familiarize a novice with the school. One of the two assumptions underlying Spillane, Halverson
and Diamond’s (2004) distributed perspective is, “School leadership is best understood through
considering leadership tasks” (p. 11). With regard to induction, such tasks include familiarizing
a novice with the school’s culture, mission, goals, routines, norms, etc., as well as socially
acclimating the novice within the building. Specifically, this would be done by ensuring novices
know their way around the building, are familiar with other staff members, are provided with a
handbook that provides necessary procedural information as well as the school goals and
mission, and holding informal meetings with novices to discuss their questions and concerns.
Other staff members also contribute to a novice’s assimilation into the school, but the

75

Figure 3. The Principal’s Direct Influence on Novice Teacher Induction

Principal’s influence
on the ways formal
induction components
are made available and
presented to novice
teachers

The direct actions a
principal takes to
induct novices into the
school

Direct Influence the
Principal has on Novice
Teacher Induction
Experiences

______________________________________________________________________________
Chart
______________________________________________________________________________

principal can choose to have a significant role in the process by the way he or she personally
chooses to carry out these tasks. By paying attention to the induction components that are
offered to novices and by contributing to novices’ familiarization with the school the principal
has an influence on a novice’s induction experiences.
A good part of the formal responsibility of overseeing the novice teacher induction
program falls directly on the principal’s shoulders, as the formal leader of the building, termed

76

“distribution formally,” by MacBeath (2009, p. 45). However, looking at the data from the two
head principals participating in this study, the argument can be made that how novices were
inducted in the two schools’ cultures was not a priority for these two principals. Though both
principals acknowledged that they thought induction was important and they wished the
induction programs were given more attention, they took only minimal action when it came to
ensuring their novice teachers experienced an effective induction program or in scheduling more
18

individual time with novices to provide more direction.

Most of the information, policy, or

operational guidance given to novices during their first years came from the district office, and
principals did not involve themselves in distributing or explaining this material. Neither did the
principals complete tasks within their buildings in order to ensure novices were appropriately
familiarized with the school such as providing novices with a staff handbook or introducing
novices to all of the building’s administrators.
I also sought to understand whether and how principals have indirect influences on
novices’ induction experiences, primarily through the ways in which the principal encourages the
individual departments and their department leaders to deal with induction. The principals were
asked to discuss both the level of influence they perceived departments and department leaders to
have on the induction process as well as ways in which they worked with departments to ensure
that novices were being provided with appropriate departmental support.
Overall, the two head principals’ responses communicated their belief that departments
played a large role when it came to inducting novice teachers. Ron, the principal of East High
School, suggested that departments, possibly, play a larger role in the induction process than he
himself does. Comments by both principals indicate that they expected most consequential
18

Triangulation with the novice data supports this claim and will be discussed in further detail in
the novice section of this chapter.
77

induction activity to occur with the subject departments and that such activity was the
responsibility of the department chairs and the assistant principals assigned to work with the
departments. At least from principals’ perspectives, then, assistant principals and department
chairs also serve as formal leaders in the induction process; the umbrella of formal leadership
stretches to include assistant principals and department chairs (Spillane & Diamond, 2007).
These comments bring up the question of whether this extension of leadership was by design
(that is, through policy or traditional practice) or how much of it was based on each individual
19

principal’s distribution of responsibility?

For an answer, I looked at the ways the principals interacted with the assistant principals
and department chairs when it came to the induction process and found differences between the
schools. Kevin, the principal at West High School, stated he worked directly with his assistant
principals and department chairs when it came to induction even though his comments suggest
this was only to convey procedural and curricular information to novices. Kevin intentionally
discussed, albeit minimally, leadership responsibilities with the other formal leaders. In contrast,
Ron, the principal at East High School, stated induction was not a specific issue he discussed
with his department chairs and did not give any indication as to whether or not it was an issue he
discussed with his assistant principals. It appears that the department chairs in Ron’s school
were left to assume this leadership responsibility on their own. How leadership was intentionally
distributed at West High School could be described as pragmatic (MacBeath, 2009) because it
appears to have been distributed as a means to spread out the workload among the school’s
19

The beginnings of an answer to this question can be surmised from the head principal data, yet
confirmability, further analysis of how leadership was distributed among these formal leaders,
and an examination of how the formal leaders interacted with one another will have to wait until
later in this section when the assistant principal and department chair data can be triangulated
with the findings from the head principal data.
78

leaders. Such collective awareness, if it exists at East High School, was unstated and appeared to
be left for the department chairs to figure out on their own by default. Ron had stated that
departments play a larger role in induction than he himself did. Since he did not discuss the
induction program or the specific responsibilities he was expecting each leader to carry out,
taking on such responsibilities was obviously left to the department chairs’ own initiative.
As a result, how distributed leadership existed at the two schools creates the potential for
significant variation in the indirect influence the two head principals have on the induction
process. Even so, the data suggests distributing leadership pragmatically (MacBeath, 2009)
versus simply leaving it to other formal leaders to assume individually resulted in the same
outcome: neither head principal exerted much indirect influence on the induction process
through the other formal leaders. Specifically, Ron had no indirect influence through department
chairs because induction was not an issue he discussed with them, and Kevin had little to no
indirect influence through his assistant principals and department chairs because he simply talked
about procedural information with them when discussing the induction process. While the
potential exists for principals to have a large indirect influence on novice teacher induction
through the distribution of formal leadership, in this particular study, neither principal used the
opportunity to do so.
Additionally, the distributed perspective implies that principals could have an indirect
influence on induction through the subject department as an entity. This might occur when
leadership within schools is stretched over informal leaders. The data suggest that informal
leaders in the induction process are other department peers that novices turned to for help aside
from their mentors and department chairs. However, as the principals appeared to have minimal
interaction with the subject departments as a whole, one gets the sense that such leadership

79

distribution did not exist by design in either school. Instead, the claim can be made that the
subject departments carry the responsibility of inducting novices as a result of institutionalized
norms rather than intentional decision-making or activity. Although department members fall
under the induction leadership umbrella as informal leaders, there is no acknowledgement of
their informal leadership role by the principal and the expectations that departments carry out
this role are likely un-stated. This lack of recognition and communication, as well as a lack of
implementing a wider range of leadership tasks and practices, results in the principals
speculating about the roles others were assuming in the induction process and leaves them
without concrete knowledge of the range of services novice teachers are receiving, how novices
are receiving those services, and who is providing such services. Principals’ lack of action does
not contribute to making those who did take on a leadership role in the induction process more
effective leaders. I reach the same conclusion regarding possible influence on induction through
subject departments: the principals in these schools do not have an indirect influence on the
induction process due to working through informal leaders.
To summarize this section, principals report that their induction influence on novices
through direct or indirect means is minimal and that primary responsibility for induction falls to
the subject department, by default or, minimally, by pragmatic decision. Many of the induction
components described in the literature – such as professional development and novice teacher
orientation meetings – are organized by the school district without involvement by principals.
Additionally, these components are often dependent on context, that is, whether there are many
or few novice teachers. Finally, principals in this study had no policy to follow, nor did they have
any helpful tools to use. As a result, they had no resources to use in purposefully distributing

80

leadership responsibility to others. In sum, these circumstances, along with a lack of personal
action, saw the principals have no influence on novice teacher induction experiences.
Mentoring
The mentoring program was the second induction or socialization micro task I asked
principals about. Leadership is also distributed for this responsibility. Comments by the two
head principals varied, but in the end, neither school had a strong mentoring program by design
or implementation. Kevin, the principal of West High School, provided much more elaborative
responses to interview questions than Ron, the principal of East High School, but Kevin was not
nearly as straight forward as Ron in suggesting that his school had not actively been
implementing a mentoring program, thought it was required. Kevin said his school ensured that
mentors were assigned to novice teachers. Both head principals indicated that they only get
involved with mentoring when there is some sort of issue that needs to be resolved. Beyond
providing these general overviews of the mentoring programs, the two principals did not
articulate the specific design and goals of their school or district’s mentoring programs, did not
address how they worked with the situation’s other leaders and followers, and appeared to have
been directly involved in a minimal fashion. Instead, it would appear control of the mentoring
programs was left to other individuals such as assistant principals and mentor teachers. In these
schools, mentoring, like the larger induction umbrella, has multiple formal leaders, which is in
line with Spillane and Diamond’s (2007) distributed perspective. However, there does not
appear to be what Spillane and Diamond (2007) described as collaborative, collective, or
coordinated distribution taking place between the head principals, assistant principals, and
mentors. Instead of working together, the principals’ comments suggest these formal leaders

81

were simply working individually, had little to no interaction with one another, and were mostly
unaware of the roles others playing in the mentoring process.
As far as policy goes, each school (and district) is bound under state law to arrange
mentors for teachers in the first three years of their employment. One of the two principals
pointed to a very small reference in the teachers’ professional contract with the district that
mentions the compensation for mentors. Beyond this, principals received little guidance from
the district for how mentoring might best function. Principals did not reference any tools to
enable better distribution of this responsibility to teachers, such as a mentor handbook. Absent
any real direction or support, teacher-mentor pairs are left to interact with little more than good
intentions.

The Formal Evaluation Process
The formal evaluation process was the final induction and socialization micro task
identified in the design of this study in which the principal might have a potentially significant
role. Therefore, both head principals were asked to discuss the evaluation process in order to
better understand how their involvement in this specific induction component contributed to the
larger overall influence they had on helping novices acclimate to the school and expectations for
professional work.
Comments from the head principals confirmed that the evaluation process was the
induction component they were most directly involved with due to the fact that principals and
assistant principals conducted all formal teacher evaluations. Both principals also suggested that
the evaluation process in place in their schools at the time of their interviews was old and
outdated. Both head principals went on to explain that they were constrained by contracts with

82

the professional associations. Their expressed preferences were for evaluation processes more
effective in providing critical feedback to novice teachers and allowed for a wider variety of
options when evaluating ineffective teachers. These comments make it difficult to judge exactly
how much of an influence the principals’ involvement in the evaluation process contributed to
the larger influence they had on the overall induction process. Still, one can make the initial
suggestion the principals probably did not have much of an influence seeing as they perceived
the evaluation process to be a formality that had to be completed, nor did they provide any
specific anecdotal examples of evaluation experiences they had with individual teachers;
however, the novice data will have to be explored later in the section before a true claim can be
made.

Assistant Principals
Assistant principals were not included in the initial design of this study since the study’s
original purpose was to examine how head principals, as the primary leaders of their schools,
directly and indirectly influence novice teacher induction experiences. At the time the study’s
proposal was written, it was the perception of the primary researcher that assistant principals
were a non-influential factor when it came to the ways head principals were personally involved
in the induction process. Nor was there awareness that assistant principals were understood by
teachers as having a leadership role within departments. As a result, assistant principals were not
viewed as being associated with the direct and indirect influences head principals were
considered to have on the induction process. The minimal literature that existed on assistant high
school principals at the time the study proposal was written did nothing to alter this perception.
However, after interviewing principals and novice teachers, I requested a revision from IRB to

83

include assistant principals. Data collected from head principals and novice teachers made it
clear that assistant principals do play a role in novice teachers’ induction experiences.

20

Including assistant principals in the study enabled a broader understanding of the potential
influences distributive leadership within schools can have on a novice teacher’s induction
experiences.

Induction into the School and Department Settings
Like head principals, assistant principals were asked to discuss their perceptions of how
novice teachers are inducted into the building and department settings in order to better address
the research question: How does the principal influence the formal induction experiences of
novice teachers? Interview responses by principals, assistant principals, and novice teachers
indicated that assistant principals serve as formal leaders in the induction process. Formal
leadership responsibility within the induction process was apparently stretched to include
assistant principals because monitoring activity in all departments in the building was too much
for just the principal. Therefore, leadership was pragmatically distributed (MacBeath, 2009) to
assistant principals just as it had been to head principals because of their formal position.
It appears that assistant principals possibly play a larger role in inducting novices into the
school than the head principal. This possibility comes to light when examining the comments
made by the assistant principals at West High School, as well as Kevin, the head principal. All
20

As assistant principals were not included in the original design of this study, factors including
limited time and access to subjects prohibited the collection of extensive assistant principal data.
Such limitations resulted in data only being gathered from assistant principals at West High
School. Therefore, it is acknowledged that the assistant principal data included in this study is
minimal and only includes data from a limited perspective. As a result of such limited data,
further study is needed to gain a better understanding of how assistant principals view the issue
of novice teacher induction.

84

three individuals suggested assistant principals were more directly involved with the overall
induction process than Kevin,

21

and that they worked in similar fashion to the head principal –

that is to say that all of these leaders functioned individually rather than as part of a collaborative
team. There was little or no communication between the situational leaders about how they were
overseeing and carrying out the task of inducting novices in the school, what that leadership role
consisted of, or what the experiences of novice teachers were like. As a result, an
interdependency among the formal leaders never materialized, which forced Neil and Martha to
primarily rely on their own initiative and recognition of novice needs when it came to providing
novices with support.
Both West High School assistant principals claimed that induction was one of their main
priorities. However, beyond talking with novices about their needs, Neil and Martha did not
elaborate on any other specific leadership practices they implemented when helping novices
become acclimated with the school or their department(s). Neil’s comment, “Every assistant
principal handles [induction] a little bit differently,” suggested that at West High School it was
left to each assistant principal’s personal discretion as to how they worked with novice teachers.
What kind of influence did assistant principals have? Respondents indicated that the focus for
assistant principals was on traditional induction components (ex. evaluation, the mentoring
process) rather than with a broader aim of familiarizing novices with procedures of the school or
their departments. In fact, their responses, or lack there of, would suggest that the assistant
principals had not even considered that how novices are acclimated into their setting(s) would be
part of the formal induction experience.

21

Further credibility is lent to this claim when triangulating data collected from novice teachers
and will be examined in the novice section of this chapter.
85

Mentoring
Minimal data was collected from the assistant principals regarding the mentoring process.
Both assistant principals suggested mentoring was an important issue for them, yet they did not
provide any specific details about how they were involved in the mentoring process other than to
say they encouraged mentors and novices to come and talk with them when there were problems
or complications. This lack of detailed discussion suggests that, like the head principals, the
mentoring process was not a priority for the assistant principals and probably not an induction
component they were heavily involved with.

The Formal Evaluation Process
At both high schools, assistant principals play formal leadership roles in the evaluation
process, due to simple fact they are building administrators. This pragmatic distribution of
leadership (MacBeath, 2009) also resulted in the assistant principals having the same perception
of the evaluation process as the head principals in that they too saw the evaluation process as
outdated and minimally effective. However, there were some signs that changes were in the
offing, as Martha, at West, commented the school’s administrative team had been meeting of late
22

to discuss the evaluation process due to new state laws regarding teacher evaluation.

Neil, also

at West, additionally made comments about the future of the evaluation program. Although he
did not claim that building leaders were having conversations, at that time, about the process, he
did acknowledge that the way evaluations are conducted will change in the near future due to the
same state laws Martha referenced and suggested it is an issue that will be up for discussion in
the near future.
22

These laws had just been passed at the time the assistant principal interviews were conducted
and will be further explained later in this chapter.
86

Although the assistant principals acknowledged that the evaluation process was in the
midst of being overhauled, the same themes emerged from the assistant principal data as was
previously discussed in reference to the role the head principal plays in the induction process.
Specifically, the assistant principals felt union and contractual issues constrained how
evaluations were handled, thus reducing the likelihood of feedback that might improve teachers’
instructional practices. As asked about principals, I wonder how much of an influence assistant
principals’ involvement in the evaluation task actually has on novice teacher induction
experiences? The data suggest that their influence was most likely minimal; however, the more
specific answer to this question will be deferred until the novice data is examined later in this
chapter.

Department Chairs
This study intended to focus on the direct and indirect influences the principal has on the
induction process. Therefore, subject department chairs were interviewed in order to help
answer the research questions: 1) How does the principal’s interaction with department chairs
influence department culture, and 2) How does the principal’s influence on department culture
impact the induction experience of novice teachers? What became clear from initial data
analysis was that the leadership influence on novice teacher induction experiences was
distributed in nature. As a result, this section will not only analyze how department chairs view
the principal’s role in the induction process, but it will also examine the influence department
chairs themselves have on the induction process.

87

Induction into the School and Department Settings
To start, it has been discussed that principals perceive subject departments as playing a
large role in the induction of novices, suggesting that department chairs, as formal leaders of
their respective departments, also fill a formal role as regards induction (Spillane & Diamond,
2007). Therefore, the department chairs were asked about the induction programs their
departments have in place as well as how they were personally involved with novice induction.
Such issues were raised in order to gauge the department chairs’ level of involvement in the
induction process, how they viewed their role in the induction process, and measure their sense
of how much influence they had on a novice’s induction experiences.
What became obvious in the data analysis was that the department chairs did not see
themselves as formal leaders in the induction process; instead, they simply saw themselves as
another department member a novice could go to if the novice had questions. Looking at their
responses, at least one department chair had never even thought about a role in the induction
process before being interviewed for this study. She even thanked the interviewer for bringing
induction to her attention,
I'd like to say thank you for bringing up stuff that obviously I hadn't thought about. I
mean, I've done things, but I didn't think of it in terms of other people. I was thinking
selfishly of myself and what I had to go through, but for someone else, I hadn't even
thought about that, so thank you. I appreciate that very much.
Such a claim is surprising since many would probably expect the induction of new members into
the department to be one of the primary job responsibilities of the department leader. However,
it would appear that based on the department chairs’ overall comments, such was not the case.

88

When the department chairs did discuss the ways they support novices, it was mainly to
discuss how their departments provide curricular and procedural assistance to new department
members, indicating that action is seen more as fulfilling departmental responsibilities rather
than as providing actual induction support to novice teachers. The department chairs went on to
suggest such assistance was mainly carried out through informal conversations held with a
variety of department members. Thus, it would appear the department chairs unknowingly
entrusted the formal induction of their department’s novices to informal conversations had by a
variety of departmental peers and the mentoring programs they had no involvement with or
control over. Owen offered up a possibility as to why this was,
…we just assumed this cookie-cutter model fit, so the formal structure that was in place
was laughable in its implementation in my world, and then culturally, I think there is an
assumption that we hire good teachers, so there didn’t need to be a lot of separation of,
‘Let's support the new ones with things specially designed for them,’ and I think that was
sort of the concept then, ‘If we are hiring good ones then we don't need to worry about
setting up planning times that match or creating a situation where a stronger mentoring
relationship could happen,’ so yeah, I think it is definitely a building culture, I would
speculate a district culture just based on some of the other things I've heard and what
not, but I think building culture is definitely the new teachers are expected to hit the
ground running, and for the most part do, so there hasn't been seen a big need to have
special professional development or programs.
This data points, again, to a lack of intentionality and collaboration in designing a program for
novice teacher induction. Because induction has always been so informal, it appears that school

89

leaders do not see a need to change or are not aware that they might enhance their human
resources with a more deliberate induction program.
Indeed, the department leaders stated that they did not collaborate with the principals
when it came to induction and were unaware of any specific ways principals directly contribute
to novices having positive induction experiences. These claims contradict statements made by
23

some of the principals,

but the interviews did not yield sufficient data to resolve the

contradiction. Nevertheless, that there was a lack of interdependency among the building
principals and department chairs is clear, and it is quite possibly another reason the department
chairs were generally unaware of the idea of induction as something to be concerned about. If
department chairs are formal leaders in the induction process, which the principals stated they
are, one would expect some sort of collaboration or alignment between the two groups of leaders
as Spillane and Diamond’s (2007) distributed perspective suggests there should be. The lack of
communication with the principals, as well as their own general unawareness of induction,
created a situation where the department chairs were uninformed of effective induction practices
and primarily left novice induction to informal conversation held with departmental peers. As a
result, department chairs have little to no direct influence on how novices are inducted into their
departments.

Mentoring
Three of the four department chairs commented that novices are provided with a mentor
teacher from their department. However, the department chairs explained departments were not
23

The fact that the principals claimed induction was an issue they discussed with department
chairs was examined early in this chapter when discussing the roles principals play in the
induction process.
90

in charge of overseeing the mentoring program, as it was an induction component implemented
at the building level. This resulted in the department chairs not seeing themselves as a formal
leader of the task nor did they provide any specific details on ways in which they or their
departments as a whole are involved in the mentoring process. In fact, the firsthand knowledge
two department chairs did have of the mentoring program was due to their involvement in the
process as either a mentor or a mentee. As such, it can be deducted that subject departments as a
whole and their chairs had no formal or informal influence, per se, on the mentoring process.
Any influence, as reported in these two schools, is incidental to department members’
involvement in a mentoring relationship quite separated from departmental activity. Finally, as
the department chairs did not mention having ever discussed the mentoring process with a
principal, further credibility is lent to the claim made earlier that the principals did not have an
informal influence on the mentoring program through departments and department chairs.

The Formal Evaluation Process
The department chairs were in unanimous agreement that they were not involved with
formally evaluating the novices in their departments. Such comments initially suggest principals
are the only leaders involved in the evaluation process and will be explored in much more detail
when looking at the data collected from both mentors and novice teachers.

Mentors
Like department chairs, mentor teachers were also interviewed in order to help answer
the research questions: 1) How does the principal’s interaction with department chairs influence
department culture, and 2) How does the principal’s influence on department culture impact the

91

induction experience of novice teachers? However, as has been previously mentioned, the data
revealed that the distributed leadership that emerged in these schools suggested a greater
influence on novice teacher induction experiences than principals alone. As a result, this section
will analyze how mentors view the principal’s role in the induction process as well as look at the
role mentors play in the induction process.

Induction into the School and Department Settings
As it makes sense that part of a mentoring program’s initial focus would be to assist
novices in becoming acclimated within their school and department settings, any role mentor
teachers played in this process will be explored in the following mentoring section.

Mentoring
All of the mentor teachers participating in this study, when asked how they became
involved, said their principals or department chairs asked if anyone would like to be a mentor, so
they simply volunteered. Obviously, the recruitment process described by these mentors is an
initial sign that effective mentoring programs were not being implemented in these schools for a
couple of reasons. First, the building leaders simply asked for volunteers without attempting to
identify and then strategically distribute leadership (MacBeath, 2009) to teachers who had the
potential to make the mentoring program stronger and set it up for long-term success. Second,
the qualifications to be a mentor were minimal to nonexistent as one simply had to volunteer for
the position regardless of whether or not they had previous mentor experience or a
comprehensive understanding of the mentoring program. Since the mentor has the potential for
close work with the novice, it would make sense that administrators would ensure that novices

92

are working with the strongest mentor teachers available. Instead, the mentality of, “we simply
need volunteers,” is further suggestion the principals in these schools did not place much value
on mentoring or see it as a valuable induction component offered to novices.
Mentors had varying reasons for volunteering, yet no one stated a belief that he/she could
help move the mentoring program forward or could help a novice improve his or her
instructional practices. On the contrary, it seemed that a few mentors volunteered out of guilt
because no one else was willing to fill the position; another mentor volunteered for the money.
Given the lack of direction and support, one cannot help but wonder if the mentor has either the
commitment necessary to serve in this leadership capacity or the resources necessary to help the
novice improve his or her instructional practice.
The data suggest that the lack of a well-designed and structured mentoring program, as
well as the mentors’ lack of awareness of what an effective mentoring relationship looks like,
had a direct influence on the ways the mentors interacted with their novices. This can most
likely be attributed to the lack of interdependency mentors had with other induction leaders.
Such nonexistent relationships resulted in the mentors receiving no training or support regarding
how to be an effective mentor. This lack of relationship between principals and mentors gave
the mentors the perception that the principals were minimally involved in the mentoring
program. When asked how much time the principals devoted to the mentoring program, the
majority of mentors were in agreement that the principals did not devote much, if any, time to
the program. Ryan, a mentor from West High School, seemed to best summarize such responses
when he replied to a question asking how much principals were involved in the mentoring
process with a simple, “I would say zero.” If distributive leadership truly had existed
collaboratively, the principals and mentors would have ideally functioned separately yet worked

93

interdependently to ensure the successful implementation of an effective mentoring program.
One can see that the mentors did perform separately from the principals, yet there was no sense
of interdependency between the two groups of leaders; the mentors simply performed separately
because they had no other options. The fact mentors worked autonomously resulted in
procedural assistance being the majority of support the mentors provided to their novices. As a
mentoring program was not conceptualized for the mentors, they tended to simply answer
questions the novices had instead of pushing for discussions or experiments or experiences that
would improve practice. Although such findings might suggest the mentors most likely had little
influence on their novices’ induction experiences, confirmation of this claim will have to wait
until the novice data is examined later in this chapter.

The Formal Evaluation Process
Similar to the claims made by the department chairs, the mentors were all in unanimous
agreement that they had nothing to do with evaluating the novices they worked with. This lends
further credibility to the claim that principals were the only leaders involved with the evaluation
process.

Novices
As with the principals, assistant principals, department chairs, and mentor teachers, the
novices participating in this study were interviewed so that they might shed light on the direct
and indirect roles principals play in the induction experiences had by novice teachers. However,
the data collected from the novice teachers aligned with comments of other respondents
suggesting the broader idea that how leadership was distributed among all induction leaders was

94

more informative than just looking at the specific influence the principal had on the situation.
Therefore, the novice data will be used to better understand how novices perceive the different
roles building leadership plays in the induction process and the influence those roles have on
novice induction experiences. The data will also be used to corroborate claims and suggestions
made about subject data in early sections of this chapter.

Induction into the School and Department Settings
To begin, when looking at the novice data through Spillane and Diamond’s (2007)
distributive perspective, one can see that novices, as the followers, were under the impression
that the situation of induction was not an overall priority for building leaders. While principals
and department chairs made the novices feel welcome and were approachable when the novices
had questions or concerns, it was the novices’ perception the formal leaders did not take direct
action to ensure the novices were appropriately inducted into the culture of the school. As a
result, the data collected from the novices suggests neither the principals nor the department
chairs played a major role in their overall induction experience, whether into the building at large
or into their individual departments.
Novices did not, however, suggest that they were particularly influenced one way or the
other by this lack of involvement from their formal leaders. A closer look, however, reveals that
the lack of planned interaction might have influenced certain novices in a negative way though
they might not have pointed to it directly. For example, Rosie was a couple of months into her
first teaching job, yet she had not had any formal individual interaction with either the principals
or her department chair. Such a lack of interaction must have had some sort of negative
influence on Rosie’s experiences as she expressed several times that there was information or

95

assistance she wished would have been provided to her. As another example, both Sally and
Michelle commented that they could identify all of their principals yet did not feel like they
really knew who some of their administrators were as they had never had any personal
interaction with them. Although Michelle did have a positive relationship with one assistant
principal, the fact that she and Sally both mentioned they did not know the majority of their
principals suggests that the lack of personal contact did have a negative influence on them. In
sum, novices report minimal interaction with principals or with department chairs and, as a
result, little influence on the induction experiences had by novice teachers participating in this
study. This finding is in line with the claims drawn in earlier sections of this chapter and lends
further strength to the claim that formal leaders had little to no influence on how novices were
inducted into their schools or departments.
Along with formal leaders, Spillane and Diamond’s (2007) distributed perspective
suggests informal leaders often play a role in a given situation. In this particular case, and in
sharp contrast to their lack of interactions with their formal leaders, the novices were all in
agreement that they saw their departmental peers as informal leaders who could be used as
resources. In fact, looking at the data, it would appear that the novices went to other department
members for assistance quite frequently which is a viewpoint supported by Kevin, the head
principal of West High School, who stated,
And you know, the other real reality is that we may have an official mentor assigned but I
think a lot of our new teachers find that unofficial mentor, somebody they're comfortable
with, that they're happy with, and probably then in the long run they learn a lot more
from that person as well.

96

Furthermore, Rosie considered informal mentoring to be the most helpful induction component
she has experienced thus far as she stated,
I'd say just talking to the teachers, like the teachers that are around here, that's always
been my go to, and it makes me feel comfortable knowing like I'm not alone, but that's
usually where I would go to seek advice, so that's probably why I feel like I get the most
from them.
This idea that the novice teachers would primarily seek out their peers for support and assistance
is in line with Supovitz’s (2008) claim that those who are most likely able to provide teachers
with instructional support are other classroom teachers who do not have a formal leadership role
within the school. The kinds of interactions reported, however, tend to concern procedural,
behavioral, or curricular issues. Novices do not seek out advice from their departmental peers to
further develop instruction practices. One reason for this was suggested clearly by Emily, “…us
younger teachers, I guess, will talk a little bit more about instructional methods during lunch or
share worksheets we're using and stuff, but the older teachers tend to kind of close their door
and stick to their ways.”
One might argue there are a multitude of reasons that instructional improvement is not a
focus for veteran teachers when informally mentoring teachers: lack of time, lack of mentors
with requisite knowledge and skills. However, the results of this study suggest that the major
reason for this lack of informal mentoring lies in the fact that department members are unaware
they are informal leaders in the induction process and therefore do not see novice teacher
development as their responsibility. There are no explicit routines for induction that provide
direction for the kinds of interactions that might prove useful to novices. Quite opposite of
actions being taken by the formal leaders to purposely stretch informal leadership to veteran

97

teachers, any informal leadership role department peers played in the induction process seemed
to stem from them simply assuming the leadership responsibility themselves. Perhaps a novice
asked for assistance or the peer simply seeing a novice in need and thus extended support. Either
way, the formal leaders of the induction process failed to recognize that departmental peers play
informal leadership roles in this situation. No comments from the principals or department
chairs suggests these two groups of leaders have ever discussed novice teacher induction with
veteran department members even though both groups of leaders suggested an awareness that
novices turned to their departmental peers for support. This is just another example of a lack of
interdependency existing between the formal and informal leaders of the induction process which
lends further credibility to the claim that little to no attention is paid to a novice’s overall
induction experiences. The lack of deliberate attention also means that there are no routine
process in place, no tools for use with novices, and no allocation of any kind of resources to
promote development of new knowledge and skills.

Mentoring
Three out of the four novice teachers interviewed for this study did not see the overall
mentoring program as one of great benefit. Rich vocalized this sentiment when he stated, “I was
happy to have that mentor relationship [but] I didn't think it was particularly necessary for
me…” The only exception would be Emily who, when asked what was the most helpful
induction component offered to her thus far, vocalized that it was her mentor. Although most of
the of the help provided by the mentor tended to only be procedural and emotional support, one
has to wonder if Emily valued the mentoring process more than the other novice teachers
because, however minimal, she and her mentor spent some time discussing techniques to

98

improve her instructional practices. In contrast, the other novices and their mentors had simply
discussed procedural and classroom management type issues but had not directly worked
towards improving the novices’ teaching abilities. This potentially resulted in these novices
having less of an appreciation for the mentoring process since it did not appear they gained
substantial growth from the relationship.
The distributed perspective of leadership (Spillane & Diamond, 2007) points to flaws
with the way the mentoring programs were run that likely contributed to their ineffectiveness.
First, there was a disconnect between the formal leaders and informal leaders in that
interdependency did not exist between the two groups. Secondly, the formal leaders had
minimal interaction with the followers. The informal leaders did have frequent contact, but
being unsure of their purpose, failed to provide any substantial support to the followers. Finally,
the leaders did not place much importance on the situation thus contributing to the followers’
view that the situation was of little importance. As such, the mentoring programs experienced by
these novice teachers were mostly ineffective, as they tended to simply lend procedural and
emotional support and did not provide the novices with opportunities to further develop and
improve their instructional practices. The resulting effect of the mentoring programs being run
ineffectively was the novices failing to see any benefit to the programs. If the novices felt the
mentoring programs did not influence them, then building leadership did not have an influence
on the novices’ induction experiences through the mentoring programs.

The Formal Evaluation Process
When asked about the evaluation process, the novices were in agreement that no one else
was involved in the process except for themselves and the principal (or assistant principal) who

99

conducted their evaluations. Therefore, credibility is lent to the suggestion made earlier that the
situation does not have any informal leaders. Asked about the principals’ involvement with the
process, the majority of novices commented that being evaluated allowed them to get to know a
principal a little bit better due to the pre- and post-observation meetings that took place, but there
was little to suggest that either the process or the principal involved influenced their larger
induction experiences. In fact, several of the novices wished the process would actually provide
them with more critical feedback that would help them to improve their teaching practices.
Instead, the novices tended to feel that the observation process was simply a formality that had to
be completed, and that the principals were just going through the motions while conducting their
evaluations.
Michelle was the one novice who suggested the evaluation process contributed to her
growth as a teacher. Michelle reported the evaluating principal was straightforward and
provided her with critical feedback that helped her to improve her instructional practices. Since
Michelle’s comments make her a bit of an outlier when compared with the data collected from
the other novices, one has to wonder if such a favorable perception is a result of how the
assistant principal carried out the evaluation process or is more likely due to the fact that the
assistant principal helped Michelle obtain desired classroom materials and find professional
development opportunities. Because principals and assistant principals report little detailed
discussion about evaluation, it appears that this positive interaction was not something
intentionally designed and implemented by the formal leaders, but instead was simply the
assistant principal making Michelle and her evaluations a priority.
The majority of novices found the evaluation process to be lacking. Therefore, the
findings from this section are in line with the claims made in the earlier sections: the principals’

100

involvement with the evaluation process resulted in the principals having little influence on the
majority of the novices’ induction experiences. However, if a principal’s involvement in the
evaluation process does happen to influence a novice’s induction experience, that influence is
most likely due to that principal’s individual priorities rather than the result of a well-designed
induction component or the existence of interdependency among the situation’s leaders.

Examining the Induction Components
The School and Department Settings
As was discussed in the review of the literature, high school teachers are part of the larger
school community yet are also divided into subject departments. For that reason, the subjects
were asked to discuss 1) their perceptions of how novice teachers were inducted into both the
overall school and smaller department settings, and 2) the perceived role building leadership
played in those induction experiences. Such questions were designed to measure the extent
building leadership was involved with a novice’s induction into his or her school and department
in order to better understand the different influences building leadership has on the overall
induction process.
What became obvious from the data was that inducting novices into their schools and
departments carried was the induction component that had the lowest level of consequences
associated with it. This was the case for two reasons. First, there were not any formal State or
district requirements associated with how novices were inducted into their settings. Second,
many of the induction components described in the literature, such as professional development
and novice teacher orientation meetings, were organized by the school district without principal
involvement. Simply put, the principals were not held accountable for this induction component

101

by either the State or their district like they supposedly are for the mentoring and evaluation
processes. Yes, the data suggested the idea of inducting novices into the building and their
respective departments existed, especially among principals; however, there was no evidence
building leaders were provided with policies and routines to follow when inducting novices into
their building and department settings, which resulted in little to no building level consideration
given to the task’s design or implementation.
Due to the principals’ lack of involvement with how novices were inducted into their
various settings, this induction task was primarily left to the subject departments. However, like
the building leaders, department members were not provided with any policies or supports that
suggested how such a task should be carried out. This resulted in there being no coordination
between building and department leaders when it came to how leadership was distributed within
this induction task. As such, the different formal and informal leaders who helped induct the
novice teachers into their settings were not only unaware of how to best implement the task, but
they were completely unaware of any supports other leaders were providing to novices.
Therefore, novices primarily received informal support in the form of tools such as curriculum
binders and procedural assistance lent by a fellow department member.
Overall, formal support for this induction component did not exist within either school.
Instead, novices were informally inducted into their schools and departments by a variety of
leaders who were unfamiliar with how to effectively carry out the task. As a result, the claim can
be made that, in this particular study, building leaders had no influence on a novice’s induction
experiences through the novice’s induction into his or her building and department. Such a
finding is a bit ironic as the general idea of how novices are inducted into the building and
department settings was the topic that the subjects tended to comment about the most even

102

though it was the induction micro task that had the lowest level of consequences associated with
it and received the least amount of formal support from induction leaders.

The Mentoring Program
The State of Michigan requires that all new teachers be assigned a mentor teacher for
their first three years of teaching. Therefore, building leaders have the opportunity to positively
shape and influence a novice by ensuring he or she is assigned an appropriate mentor teacher and
that an effective mentoring program is implemented within the school. According to Spillane
and Diamond (2007), such an influence exists as, “Leaders influence followers by motivating
actions, enhancing knowledge, and potentially shaping the practice of followers” (p. 9).
Obviously, having the ability to be involved with a novice’s overall mentoring experiences, from
which mentor is assigned to what the mentoring program requirements look like, allows for
school administrators to shape the practices of novice teachers. As such, the subject of
mentoring was one that all of the study participants were asked to address. This was done in
order to gauge the level of influence school leaders had on the mentoring process as well as
examine the level of influence the mentoring process had on the novices, thereby measuring
whether or not building leadership had an influence on novice teacher induction through the
mentoring process.
When looking at the two mentoring programs, it appeared West High School had a
mentoring program in place, but in actuality, the program existed in name only. This was the
case as the formal position of “mentor” existed, but there was no formal job description to go
along with it nor did teachers sign a contract when they accepted the mentoring position. Once a
mentor was assigned to a novice, no formal program or training was implemented for either the

103

mentor or the novice. Instead, mentors and novices were left to figure out what the mentoring
process should look like on their own. This created a situation where the mentors and novices
did not have a formal relationship but rather collaborated informally to primarily discuss and
convey procedural information. Building administrators claimed to be aware of the mentoring
program and suggested they were available to assist if need be, but none of the administrators
provided a specific example of a time when they were directly involved with the mentoring
program. In fact, out of all of the study participants, a novice from West High School was the
only one to suggest that there had been any contact between herself and a formal leader of any
kind, and that was only at an informal lunch where one assistant principal asked the novices and
their mentors if anyone had any tips or suggestions about making the mentoring process more
productive.
In comparison, East High School was a bit more puzzling as Katie claimed the school had
not had a mentoring program in place for several years. One has to wonder if this claim is
accurate, and if it was, how the school was allowed to function without maintaining a mentoring
program seeing as the State of Michigan mandates all non-tenured teachers are assigned a formal
mentor for their first three years of teaching. When Ron, the head principal, was asked about the
mentoring program, he simply remarked several times that the school was getting back to a
mentoring program as it really had not existed at the school in several years. The mentor
teachers confirmed this information as they stated they could not remember a mentoring program
existing before the current school year. Based in these comments, the mentoring program at East
High School obviously existed in an even lesser state than it did at West High School.
Overall, it would appear a designed mentoring program did not exist at either school for
multiple reasons. First, central office administrators and building principals did not provide

104

mentors or novices with any guidance regarding the mentoring program. Second, there were not
any tools or routines used by induction leaders, whether mentors or administrators, when
supposedly leading the mentoring program. Finally, the only written mentoring policy that
existed at either school was a description of the compensations West School District mentors
received. Still, it must be acknowledge that even with no formal program in place, informal
distributed leadership norms still existed among induction leaders. This was the case as a rough
structure existed in which the participants knew one-on-one relationships would exist between
the mentor and the novice, that the mentor would lend help and advice, and that mentors at West
High School would be financially compensated. However, this structure lacked coordination as
interdependency did not exist among the induction leaders. Obviously, mentoring programs that
are lacking in design and implementation, such as the ones at East and West High Schools, are
going to be lacking in effectiveness. Additionally, if a novice teacher (the follower) perceives
that his or her principal (the leader) demonstrates minimal knowledge of, and devotes minimal
attention to, the implementation of the mentoring program (the situation), one can argue that the
novice’s own perceptions of the mentoring program will be negatively impacted leading to an
even greater level of program ineffectiveness. As such, it would appear the principals’
passiveness towards the mentoring program did not contribute to its productiveness and was
possibly even hindering its effectiveness as an induction component.

The Formal Evaluation Process
All of the subjects were asked to address the issue of formal evaluation in order to gauge
how much of an influence the principals’ direct involvement with the evaluation process had on
the novice teachers’ overall induction experiences. Therefore, this section will examine the

105

subjects’ responses regarding the evaluation process in order to better understand the overall
influence building leadership was perceived to have on the induction experiences had by the
novice teachers. However, before doing so, it must be acknowledged that at roughly the same
time interviews were being conducted for this study, the State of Michigan passed new laws
which included revised teacher evaluation standards (Public Acts 100 and 101 are also known as
House Bills 4625 and 4626 which amends the Revised School Code [MCL 38.71]; Public Act
102 also known as House Bill 4627; Public Act 103 also know as House Bill 4628). All
teachers, both veteran and novice, will now be evaluated every year with student achievement
data playing a significant role in the evaluation itself. Additionally, teachers receiving three
ineffective evaluations in a row can now be dismissed regardless of whether they have attained
tenure or not. Although it remains to be seen what actually becomes of the new teacher
evaluation process, it would appear that the principals have gotten their wish in the sense that
what was perceived as an old and outdated process has gotten a major overhaul.
Looking more closely at the individuals involved in the evaluation process through the
distributive perspective (Spillane & Diamond, 2007), one sees that the principals were the
leaders of the situation and the novice teachers were the followers. Additionally, the novices’
and principals’ lack of comments suggesting anyone other than themselves were involved in the
evaluation process, as well as the department chair and mentor comments that stated they were
not involved in the process, allows for a credible claim to be made that the situation lacked
informal leaders.
Gathered data suggests the evaluation process was the induction component with the
highest level of consequences associated with it, which resulted in evaluation being the only
induction component principals were directly involved with. First, this was the case as

106

distributed leadership was coordinated in that people were assigned specific tasks. Specifically,
the principals pre-determined which principal was going to evaluate which teachers. Second,
specific tools and routines existed to complete the task in that both districts had policies that
regulated how evaluations were conducted and the evaluation process followed a pre-determined
routine. Particularly, there was documentation to be completed with each evaluation, and the
task consisted of specific, pre-determined steps that the leaders followed while carrying out the
evaluation process (pre-observation meeting, formal observation, post-observation meeting).
Additionally, there was a routine associated with the process in that a novice was contractually
required to be evaluated two times per school year until being granted tenure at the end of his or
her fourth year of teaching. The fact that there was a routine in place for conducting evaluations
was in sharp contrast to what novices experienced when it came to their induction into the
building and department settings and the mentoring program as neither of these induction tasks
had required components or processes associated with them. For this reason, the formal
evaluation process was the induction component that had the highest consequences associated
with it out of the three different components examined in this study. Such consequences existed
for the formal leaders because they were expected to carry out the process in a certain way a
specific number of times each year. Further consequences also existed for the novice because
the formal evaluations would be placed in his or her permanent personnel file, the sum of which
would be used to determine whether or not the novice would be granted tenure at the end of his
or her fourth year.
As far as the communication that existed between the individuals involved in the
situation, the formal leaders (principal and assistant principals) did not give any indication that
there was much communication regarding their experiences carrying out the evaluation process.

107

However, some of the comments made by the principals at West High School suggest their
school is beginning to revisit how they conduct teacher evaluations. It can be assumed much of
this discussion is a result of the new laws regarding teacher evaluation that were being passed at
the time subjects were being interviewed for this study. Although, those laws are too new for
this study to examine their impact on the teacher evaluation process, one can make the
assumption that if one school is having to re-examine the issue of evaluation due to state
changes, other schools are also starting to have similar conversations.
In contrast to the lack of discussion that took place among the leaders about the
evaluation process as it had existed up to that point in time, there did seem to be a decent amount
of communication between the leaders and followers at the pre and post observation meetings
that took place. A couple of novices even commented that they thought the principals
conducting their evaluations did a good job of explaining the process to them. What is a bit
ironic about this point is it would appear the evaluation process it the induction component
principals are most directly involved and most likely to discuss with novices, yet the principals
and novices agreed that the evaluation process did not contribute to improved teaching practices.

108

CHAPTER 6:
Findings, Conclusions, and Implications

Chapter Overview
First this chapter summarizes the finding of this study. Second, the chapter provides
implications for practitioners, policy makers, and preparation programs. Finally, the chapter
describes the contributions this study makes to the literature.

Findings
A Distributed Leadership Process
Several findings emerged from this study. First, one can see the principal does not carry
the leadership responsibility I anticipated. Instead of the principal being the primary leader of
the induction process, the data suggests the principal is only one player among a larger group of
induction leaders. As a result of induction leadership being distributed and stretched across a
number of formal and informal leaders involved with a variety of induction tasks, the overall
influence leadership has on induction is better represented by a network or more distributed
picture of leadership (see Figure 4). The revised theoretical framework in Figure 4 is in contrast
to the theoretical framework (Figure 1) presented in chapter 1 of this study, which suggested the
principal was the most influential leader in the induction process. Although I first believed that
it was the principal’s leadership influence that would be most likely to influence a novice
teacher’s induction experiences seeing as he or she is the overall building leader, the principal’s
in this study actually had less influence on the overall situation than several other formal and
informal induction leaders. This is due to the fact that there are other induction leaders who are

109

Figure 4. Revised Theoretical Framework: Novice Teacher Induction as Influenced by a
A Distributed Leadership Process

Head Principal

Head Principal
Influence

Assistant
Principals

Head & Assistant
Principal Influence

Department
Chairs

Principals &
Department Chair
Influence

Mentor
Teachers

Principals &
Department Chair
Influence

Novice Teacher
Induction
Experiences

Department
Peers

______________________________________________________________________________
Diagram
______________________________________________________________________________

equally or more directly involved in a variety of induction components. Although it would
appear novice teachers believe the principal has the potential to have a greater influence on the
situation, the two head principals in this study did not as their interactions with the overall
induction program were minimal. Both principals were able to talk about a variety of induction

110

components but were only directly involved in the formal evaluation process, which was most
likely due to the fact that the evaluation process was the induction component that had any level
of accountability associated with it.
As the head principals appeared to be involved with the induction process in minimal
fashion, the roles other leaders played in the process began to emerge. At first, these other
subjects were included in the study because they were perceived to be able to comment on the
principal’s influence on induction; however, what emerged from the data was that these subjects
not only had perceptions about the principal’s role in the induction process, but they themselves
were also formal and informal leaders of the situation. Furthermore, these subjects were not only
formal and informal leaders, but had the potential to have a greater influence on novice teachers’
induction experiences than the head principals because they were more directly involved with
novice teachers a regular basis. Based on such a finding, the realization was made that if one
wants to truly examine the influence leadership has on the induction process, one cannot limit his
or her examination of the issue to the head principal but must instead look at the larger influence
distributed leadership has on the situation. This is especially true when it comes to assistant
principals, who, as it turns out, are heavily involved in the induction process. This is the case as
assistant principals tend to be the building administrators who are assigned to work with and
monitor subject departments, which means they are more likely to work with novice teachers on
a regular basis.
When looking at the level of influence these additional leaders had on the overall
situation, it was discovered they were like the head principals in that they also did not meet their
potential for positively influencing novice induction experiences; however, this is where the
similarities end. This is the case as the head principals chose not to be more heavily involved in

111

the induction process, while the other leaders appeared to be either unaware that they were
leaders of the situation or they did not have the leadership tools necessary to serve in such a
leadership capacity. Perhaps a lack of awareness or ability is also what prevented the head
principals from participating more directly, but the data suggests the head principals made the
conscious decision not to be more involved as they chose to leave induction leadership
responsibilities to other individuals. On the other hand, some of the other leaders chose to
participate in the induction process but were completely unaware of the expectations or
leadership requirements associated with their particular task. This was primarily true for the
mentor teachers since they seemed at a loss for what an effective mentoring program should look
like. Additionally, the assistant principals commented that they worked closely with departments
and made teacher induction a priority, yet aside from conducting formal evaluations, they could
not articulate other specific ways they assisted novice teachers. Finally, there were leaders, such
as the department chairs and veteran department members, who seemed completely unaware that
they were serving in a leadership capacity.
In conclusion, one can see that the leadership of the novice teacher induction program is
distributed or stretched across a number of individuals and situations. Some of the leaders, like
the principals, found themselves in a leadership position simply because of their position within
the school while other leaders, such as mentor teachers, assumed leadership responsibilities
primarily because they saw a need that was waiting to be filled; however, it appeared
interdependency did not exist between those who held such leadership positions. As a result, the
leaders were functioning under the umbrella of distributed leadership without a plan in place for
how to best manage the induction program or a complete awareness of exactly who was involved
in the program, what their responsibilities were, or how they were carrying out those tasks. This

112

lack of awareness and interaction created a culture in which interdependency did not exist and
produced induction leaders who failed to fully understand or recognize their leadership
responsibilities. As a result, the leaders participating in this study did not have a strong positive
influence on novice induction experiences.

Conclusions & Implications
Implications for Practitioners
A variety of leaders clearly play a role in implementing and influencing novice teacher
induction programs. However, few of those leaders appear aware of ideal induction leadership
practices or are able to effectively implement strategies that lead to positive induction
experiences. For example, simply telling a veteran teacher that he or she is a mentor does not
mean he or she is prepared to carry out the duties or requirements that accompany that role. It
can be argued that the responsibility of implementing effective induction strategies that avoid
such problems falls mainly to district and building administration. Specifically, such
responsibility lies with district administration because central office frequently oversees district
wide programs, such as the mentoring program, as it is more efficient than each school being
responsible for its own individual program. Additionally, when there are large numbers of
novice teachers within the district, implementing such programs at the district level most likely
creates and allows for the program to receive more visibility from staff members than a program
that is designed and implemented at the building level. Second, such responsibilities fall to the
principal simply because of the leadership position he or she holds within the school. As a
result, the principal needs to recognize the role others play, as both leaders and followers, in the
induction process within the building. Once induction leaders are aware of their position, district

113

and building leaders should be prepared to give participants the supports and tools they need to
successfully lead a variety of induction tasks. Based on the data gathered from this study, failure
to do so is likely to create a culture that lacks interdependency among induction leaders and
results in induction components that do not contribute to positive induction experiences.
In addition to recognizing and supporting induction participants, district and building
leaders need to show a personal interest in novice development. This includes acknowledging a
variety of general issues such as 1) classroom proximity influences induction experiences, 2)
novices need access to curriculum and veteran teachers, 3) novices hired in the middle of the
school year might not receive the same level of support offered to novices hired at the beginning
of the school year, and 4) hiring a novice teacher who student taught within the building might
create awkward situations if the former mentor teacher has a hard time seeing the novice as a
peer instead of as a student teacher or the novice is not provided with a new mentor teacher.
Furthermore, leaders should realize that leaving so much of a novice’s induction up to the
cultural norms of his or her department could be a misstep due to the fact that some novices will
find themselves in departments that are dysfunctional or not focused on novice development.
Instead, one would think having a systematic approach to induction for all novices within the
building would be a better choice than leaving so much of a novice’s experiences to the chance
that he or she lands in a supportive department. In sum, such issues might not be directly tied to
a specific induction component, but they still have an influence on novice teachers’ overall
induction experiences. Thus, if the goal is for novice teachers to have positive induction
experiences, leaders need to be aware of such issues.
Overall, the issue of induction is one that is not going away; however, it appears the
number of individuals who are prepared or willing to lead and help others become better leaders

114

is negligible. The main reason for this is most likely due to the fact that there is very little
accountability when it comes to induction other than the formal evaluation component of the
process. Additionally, the general perception exists among educators that teaching is a sink or
swim profession with the mentality that this is how induction has always existed. However, if
one wants to have an impact on novice teachers that will hopefully contribute to the likelihood
they remain in the teaching professional, practitioners need to recognize the importance of
induction and be willing to do something about making it a more effective program.

Implications for Policy Makers
If one of the main goals associated with the overall induction experience is to retain
novice teachers in the profession, then there are a variety of policy implications that could be
implemented at both the State and Intermediate School District (ISD) in order to hold schools
more accountable for the induction programs they provide to novice teachers. As has been
discussed, the only component of the induction program that the principals paid any real
attention to was the formal evaluation process. Such was the case because of the high level of
accountability that was associated with teacher evaluations, which resulted in the principals’
direct involvement with this induction component. Simply put, accountability ensured
evaluation was not an induction task principals could pass off to other induction leaders, as it
appeared they did with some of the other induction components such as mentoring and inducting
novices into their school and department.
Just as a high level of accountability led to building administrators’ direct involvement
with evaluation, the same type of attention should also be given to novice teacher development.
The only way this is going to happen is if policy makers hold school leaders accountable for their

115

overall induction programs like they have for the evaluation component of the induction process.
For example, teachers in Michigan are required to attend 30 hours of professional development
each school year. As part of their induction program, either the novice’s school or local ISD
could be required to provide a certain number of professional development hours that are geared
specifically towards novice teachers. Another example would mandate that schools hold
required orientation meetings for teachers new to the building. Some might argue more is
already being done as there is a law in place that requires novice teachers to have a mentor
teacher assigned to them for their first three years of teaching, but it would appear there is
nothing in place to hold schools accountable for how they run the mentoring program. West
High School simply assigned a mentor on paper while it appeared East High School did not have
a mentoring program in place for quite some time prior to the school year this study was
conducted.
Due to this overall lack of induction accountability, school administrators are not
implementing and overseeing programs that help novice teachers improve their practice. Instead,
school leaders are acknowledging induction programs exist, and then allowing a variety of staff
members to provide assistance without guidance or oversight. Such a situation leaves to chance
whether or not a novice has a positive induction experience. Instead, if policy makers truly want
to improve instructional practice and increase teacher retention rates, more attention should be
paid to how novice teachers are developed instead of simply how they are evaluated.

Implications for Preparation Programs
Preparation programs should recognize that many school administrators do not have the
tools necessary to lead or provide novice teachers with quality induction programs. Even if

116

administrators are able to articulate what the induction process looks like, too many school
leaders are leaving induction responsibilities to other staff members who do not have the training
or tools necessary to make the induction program successful. This lack of attention and
interaction not only fails to create a culture of interdependency among other induction leaders,
but it also sends a message, however unintentional, to novice teachers that their building leaders
do not care about their personal development as a teacher. As such, preparation programs need
ensure administrators are aware that induction is an issue that is going to influence, be it
positively or negatively, novice teachers working in their schools.
In order to prepare administrators to effectively lead and support a comprehensive
induction program, preparation programs need to provide students with a comprehensive
overview of induction and provide them with the knowledge and tools necessary to appropriately
participate in the induction process. This should also include acknowledging and preparing
students for the reality that assistant principals are heavily involved in the induction process.
Additionally, preparation programs need to recognize that a range of other formal and informal
leaders play a variety of roles in the induction process and prepare building leaders to inform,
work with, and lead these additional induction leaders. Finally, administrators should be
prepared to establish a culture of interdependency among this range of induction leaders so they
do not feel isolated and alone, but instead have an idea of how they are contributing to a larger
induction experience.

Contributions to the Literature
This study makes a contribution to the existing literature in three ways. First, this study
made a contribution to the literature by examining the induction process at the high school level.

117

In contrast, the literature that has previously examined induction has done so mainly at the
elementary and middle school levels. Additionally, the existing literature tended to look at how
individual induction tasks influence novice induction experiences rather than examine the ways
the involvement of a variety of induction leaders combines to influence induction. This study
begins to fill both gaps by look at the influence a variety of formal and informal induction
leaders have on novice teacher induction experiences at the high school level.
The second contribution to the literature stems from the finding that a novice’s induction
experiences are likely to be influenced by a distributed leadership process comprised of a variety
of formal and informal leaders rather than the principal alone. There are many pieces of
literature that already discuss distributed leadership in schools, but these discussions tend to
examine the general ideas associated with distributed leadership and frequently fail to examine
the roles a distributed leadership process plays in specific macro tasks that take place within
schools. As such, this study makes a contribution to the existing literature by studying the role a
distributed leadership process plays in the induction process.
Finally, there is minimal literature associated with assistant principals in general and even
24

less that discusses the role the assistant principal plays in the induction process.

As a result of

the data gathered for this study, it was discovered that assistant principals are heavily involved in
the induction process. Although the data collected regarding the role assistant principals is
limited, it gets the discussion started about the role these building leaders play in the induction
process. Therefore, this study makes a contribution to the literature by finding that assistant
principals are involved in the macro task of induction and have the potential to have an even
larger influence on novices’ induction experiences than the head principal.
24

Assistant principals could have been assimilated into the literature on principal leadership, but
I was not aware of it, so it surprised me.
118

APPENDICES

119

APPENDIX A:
Research Questions, Interview Protocols, and Target Question Matrixes

Research Questions
RQ1. What direct and indirect influence does a principal have on a novice teacher’s induction
experience?
RQ2. How does the principal influence the formal induction experiences of novice teachers?
RQ3. How does the principal’s interaction with department chairs influence department
culture?
RQ4. How does the principal’s influence on department culture impact the induction
experience of novice teachers?
RQ5. Does a novice teacher’s induction experience influence the decision to remain in or leave
the current teaching position?

120

High School Principal Interview Protocol
Interview Questions
PQ1. Could you describe your background in education? How long have you been
working at this school?
PQ2. Could you explain what your school’s new teacher induction program looks like? (Probe
for specific types of support offered to new teachers such as handbooks, orientation
meetings, etc.)
PQ3. How would you describe the school’s central mission and major goals? How do you help
new teachers move in that direction?
PQ4. Could you explain how novice teaching assignments and planning periods are
determined? (Probe to see if there is variation from 1st to 3rd year teachers)
PQ5. How would you describe teacher evaluation practices in this school? Do those
practices vary for tenured and novice teachers? (Probe for how often the principal talks
with teachers about their instructional practices, ways the principal works with novice
teachers who are having difficulty in the classroom)
PQ6. Could you describe the school’s mentoring program? How are you involved in the
mentoring program? (Probe to see how mentors are selected and assigned, strategies
mentors use in working with novice teachers, does the mentoring program vary from
the 1st to 2nd to 3rd year)
PQ7. Could you explain the types of professional development opportunities provided to the
building’s English and math teachers? (Probe to see who determines what professional
development opportunities are offered, if professional development opportunities vary for
veteran teachers and novice teachers, do teachers use professional development time to
talk with each other about curriculum, instruction, and assessment)
PQ8. Could you describe how you work with the English or social studies and math department
chairs? How often do you meet? (Probe for how the principal works with the department
chair when it comes to the induction process)
PQ9. Could you describe how you work with the English or social studies and math
departments as a whole? (Probe for differences when working with the two departments,
the influence the principal perceives the subject department having on novice teachers)
PQ10. Is there anything else you would like to add based on what we have talked about?

121

Table 14
Head Principal Target Question Matrix
PQ
1
X
X

PQ
2
X
X

PQ
3
X
X

PQ
4
X
X

PQ
5
X
X

PQ
6
X
X

PQ
7
X
X

RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
RQ4
RQ5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: PQ = Principal Interview Question; RQ = Research Question
Table 14 Head Principal Matrix

122

PQ
8
X
X
X
X

PQ
9
X
X

PQ
10
X
X

X
X

X

High School Assistant Principal Interview Protocol
Interview Questions
APQ1. Could you describe your background in education? How long have you been working at
this school?
APQ2. Could you explain what your school’s new teacher induction program looks like? (Probe
for specific types of support offered to new teachers such as handbooks, orientation
meetings, etc.)
APQ3. How would you describe the school’s central mission and major goals? How do you help
new teachers move in that direction?
APQ4. How would you describe teacher evaluation practices in this school? Do those practices
vary for tenured and novice teachers? (Probe for how often the principal talks with
teachers about their instructional practices, ways the principal works with novice teachers
who are having difficulty in the classroom)
APQ5. Could you describe the school’s mentoring program? How are you involved in the
mentoring program? (Probe to see how mentors are selected and assigned, strategies
mentors use in working with novice teachers, does the mentoring program vary from the
1st to 2nd to 3rd year)
APQ6. Could you describe how you work with the English or social studies and math department
chairs? How often do you meet? (Probe for how the principal works with the department
chair when it comes to the induction process)
APQ7. Could you describe how you work with the English or social studies and math
departments as a whole? (Probe for differences when working with the two departments,
the influence the principal perceives the subject department having on novice teachers)
APQ8. Is there anything else you would like to add based on what we have talked about?

123

Table 15
Assistant Principal Target Question Matrix
AP
Q1
X
X

AP
Q2
X
X

AP
Q3
X
X

AP
Q4
X
X

AP
Q5
X
X

AP
Q6
X
X
X

AP
Q7
X
X

RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
RQ4
X
RQ5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: APQ = Assistant principal Interview Question; RQ = Research Question
Table 15 Assistant Principal Matrix

124

AP
Q8
X
X
X

High School Department Chair Interview Protocol
Interview Questions
DC1. Could you describe your background in education? How long have you been working at
this school? (Probe for grades, subjects, and number of students taught; other work
responsibilities)
DC2. Could you describe your department? (Probe for size, teacher make-up, description of
department’s culture)
DC3. Could you explain how you and your department work with novice teachers? (Probe for
specific types of support offered to novices, who provides materials and resources to
novices, how much time and resources are devoted to the induction program compared
with other department programs)
DC4. How would you describe your department's central goals? How do you help new
teachers move in that direction?
DC5. Could you explain how novice teaching assignments and planning periods are
determined? (Probe to see if there is variation from 1st to 3rd year teachers)
DC6. How would you describe teacher evaluation practices in this school? Do those
practices vary for tenured and novice teachers? (Probe for how often the department chair
talks with teachers about their instructional practices, ways the department chair works
with novice teachers who are having difficulty in the classroom)
DC7. Could you describe the school’s mentoring program? How are you involved in the
mentoring program? (Probe to see how mentors are selected and assigned, strategies
mentors use in working with novice teachers, does the mentoring program vary from the
1st to 2nd to 3rd year)
DC8. Could you explain the types of professional development opportunities provided to the
teachers in your department? (Probe to see who determines what professional
development opportunities are offered, if professional development opportunities vary for
veteran teachers and novice teachers, do teachers use professional development time to
talk with each other about curriculum, instruction, and assessment)
DC9. Are novice teachers involved in decision-making about the operations of the department?
(Probe for any other leadership responsibilities novice teachers are given within the
department)
DC10. Could you describe how you work with the principal? How often do you meet? (Probe
for how the department chair works with the principal when it comes to the induction
process, how the principal interacts with the department as a whole)

125

DC11. Is there anything you would like to add based on what we have talked about?

Table 16
Department Chair Target Question Matrix
DC
Q1
X

DCQ2

DC
Q3
X

DC
Q4
X

DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
RQ1
X
X
X
X
X
X
RQ2
X
X
X
RQ3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RQ4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RQ5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: DCQ = Department Chair Interview Question; RQ = Research Question
Table 16 Department Chair Matrix

126

DC
Q10
X
X
X
X
X

DC
Q11
X
X
X
X
X

High School Mentor Teacher Interview Protocol
Interview Questions
MQ1. Could you describe your background in education? How long have you been working at
this school? (Probe for grades, subjects, and number of students taught; other work
responsibilities)
MQ2. How did you become a mentor? How long have you been a mentor? How are you
assigned to novice teachers you mentor? (Probe for whether they chose to become a
mentor on their own or whether they were asked to serve in this role)
MQ3. Could you describe the school’s overall mentoring program? (Probe for how much time
and resources are devoted to the mentoring program compared with other school
programs, who is in charge, and who supports the mentoring program)
MQ4. Could you describe your role as a mentor and how you work with new teachers? (Probe
for how often mentor-novice meetings take place and the types of things discussed in
these meetings, the different types of support the mentor offers to novice teachers, how
often the mentor talks with the novice about the novice’s instructional practices, does the
mentor model desirable forms of instruction for the novice, do the types of support vary
for 1st year versus 3rd year novices)
MQ5. Are you involved in formally evaluating the novice you mentor? (Probe for whether they
informally share information about the novice they mentor with their principal or other
administrators)
MQ6. Do you have a sense for the principal’s role with the mentoring program? (Probe for
ways in which the principal supports the mentor, how involved is the principal in the
mentoring process)
MQ7. Could you discuss the principal’s involvement with and focus on non-tenured teacher
development? (Probe for perceived involvement regarding specific induction activities
such as professional development, common planning time, orientation meetings,
evaluation, etc.).
MQ8. Is there anything you would like to add based on what we have talked about?

127

Table 17
Mentor Teacher Target Question Matrix
MQ1

MQ
MQ3
MQ4
MQ5
MQ6
2
RQ1
X
X
X
X
X
X
RQ2
X
X
X
X
X
X
RQ3
X
X
RQ4
X
X
X
X
X
RQ5
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: MT = Mentor Teacher Interview Question; RQ = Research Question
Table 17 Mentor Teacher Matrix

128

MQ7

MQ8

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

High School Novice Teacher Interview Protocol
Interview Questions
NQ1. Could you describe your background in education and prior professional experience?
(Probe for undergraduate institution, teacher preparation institution, degree(s),
certification areas, prior teaching experience (including substitute teaching), and other
professional experience)
NQ2. Could you describe your current responsibilities and how long you have been teaching at
this school? (Probe for grades, subjects, and number of students taught; other work
responsibilities)
NQ3. How have you learned about the English/social studies/math curriculum at this school?
(Probe for whether they have received support from their department chair, same subject
colleagues, mentor, principal, individuals outside their school)
NQ4. How often do you meet or talk with your mentor about work-related issues? (Probe for
whether the teacher and mentor have/had designated times to meet, what is discussed
when meeting with mentor)
NQ5. Could you describe the teacher evaluation process at this school? (Probe for number of
times teacher was observed, who conducted the observations, whether post-observation
meetings took place, what was addressed in post-conferences, what specific role the
principal plays)
NQ6. What do you discuss when you meet or talk with your principal? (Probe for whether the
teacher meets or talks with an assistant principal, instructional coach, central office
administrator; probe for whether the teacher talks with their principal/others about
managing student behavior, curriculum, instruction, assessment, student learning; probe
for whether principal helps new teacher negotiate norms and expectations at the schools)
NQ7. How much emphasis do leaders at this school place on the development and support of
beginning teachers? (Probe for whether this is a primary goal for the principal and
department chair)
NQ8. What professional development activities have you participated in as an English/social
studies/math teacher during the past year? (Probe for involvement in school improvement
teams; probe for continuing education courses/experiences)
NQ9. How often do you meet or talk with one or more colleagues? What do you discuss
when you meet or talk with one or more colleagues? (Probe for whether the teacher talks
with their colleague(s) about managing student behavior, curriculum, instruction,
assessment, student learning; probe for why the teacher talks with this colleague(s))
NQ10. What do you consider to be the most helpful induction components offered to you

129

thus far? Who is/was responsible for providing those components? (Be prepared to
define “induction” for the study participant; probe for whether they were told that they
would receive certain services that they have not received)
NQ11. Could you describe the overall culture of your school? Of the English/social
studies/math department? How do you perceive these cultures influencing you? (Probe to
see how the novice defines “culture”, what they mean by negative versus positive
culture, who establishes these cultures)
NQ12. Could you describe your plans for next year? (Probe for whether they plan to
continue teaching in the same school and district; probe for reasons why; probe for
whether their workload is manageable and whether they have sufficient time and energy;
probe for whether their induction experience will affect their decision whether to stay at
the school)
NQ13. Is there anything you would like to add based on what we’ve talked about?

Table 18
Novice Target Question Matrix
NQ1

NQ NQ NQ NQ NQ NQ NQ NQ NQ
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
RQ1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RQ2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RQ3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RQ4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RQ5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: NQ = Novice Teacher Interview Question; RQ = Research Question
Table 18 Novice Matrix

130

NQ
11
X
X
X
X
X

NQ
12
X
X
X
X
X

NQ
13
X
X
X
X
X

Appendix B:
Matrix of Findings and Sources for Data Triangulation
Table 19
Building & Department Induction Findings
Source of Data
AP
DC
M
X
X
X

Major finding

P
N
1. The principals did not make novice induction into the
X
X
school a priority.
2. The principals believed subjects departments played a
X
X
large role in inducting novice teachers into the school.
3. The formal responsibility of working with and leading
X
X
X
subject departments was delegated to assistant
principals and department chairs.
4. The principals’ interactions with subject departments
X
X
X
and their leaders had a minimal, if any, indirect
influence on the induction process.
5. The department chairs viewed providing curricular
X
X
and procedural assistance as the department’s only
induction responsibility, which was mainly carried out
through informal conversations held with a variety of
department members.
6. Neither the principals nor the department chairs
X
X
X
X
played a major role in how the novice teachers were
inducted into their buildings or their individual
departments.
7. Novices saw their departmental peers as informal
X
X
leaders who could be used as resources.
8. The principals and department chairs never discussed
X
X
novice teacher induction with veteran department
members even though both groups of leaders
suggested an awareness that novices turned to the
departmental peers for support.
Note: P = Principal; AP = Assistant Principal; DC = Department Chair; M = Mentor Teacher;
N = Novice Teacher
Table 19 Induction Findings

131

Table 20
Mentoring Findings
Major Finding

P
X

Source of Data
AP DC M
X
X
X

N
X

1. The mentoring programs at both schools were lacking
relative design and implementation.
2. The head principals only worked with program
X
X
X
participants when there was some sort of issue that needed
to be resolved.
3. The head principals relegated control of the mentoring
X
X
X
program to other individuals such as assistant principals
and mentor teachers.
4. The head principals, assistant principals, and mentors
X
X
X
worked individually, had little to no interaction with one
another, and were mostly unaware of the roles others
playing in the mentoring process.
Note: P = Principal; AP = Assistant Principal; DC = Department Chair; M = Mentor Teacher;
N = Novice Teacher
Table 20 Mentoring Findings

132

Table 21
Formal Evaluation Findings
Major Findings

P
X

Source of Data
AP DC M
X

N
X

1. The evaluation process was the induction component the
principals were most directly involved with.
2. The principals wanted an evaluation process that was
X
X
more effective in providing critical feedback to novices.
3. Department chairs and mentors were not involved with
X
X
X
X
X
the evaluation of novices in any way.
4. The evaluation process did not make much of a
X
X
X
contribution towards a novice’s growth as a teacher; thus
the principals’ involvement in the evaluation process had
little influence on the novices’ overall induction
experiences.
Note: P = Principal; AP = Assistant Principal; DC = Department Chair; M = Mentor Teacher;
N = Novice Teacher
Table 21 Formal Evaluation Findings

133

Table 22
The Principal’s Influence
Major Findings

P
X

1.

Source of Data
AP DC M
X
X
X

N
X

Principals influence which, and how, induction
components are offered to novice teachers.
2. The principal’s direct actions to familiarize a novice with
X
X
X
X
the school and its culture, mission, and goals influence the
induction experience.
3. The level of influence a principal has on a novice
X
X
teacher’s induction experiences is much more likely to be
due to the individual priorities of a principal rather than be
the result of designed implementation among all of a
building’s principals.
4. Assistant principals are not only involved, but possibly
X
X
X
X
play a larger role in inducting novices into the school than
the head principal.
Note: P = Principal; AP = Assistant Principal; DC = Department Chair; M = Mentor Teacher;
N = Novice Teacher
Table 22 The Principal’s Influence

134

REFERENCES

135

REFERENCES
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2004). Tapping the potential: Retaining and developing highquality teachers. Washington, DC: Author.
Andrews, S. P., Gilbert, L. S., & Martin, E. P. (2006). The first years of teaching: Disparities in
perceptions of support. Action in Teacher Education, 28(4), 4-13.
Angelle, P. S. (2006). Instructional leadership and monitoring: Increasing teacher intent to stay
through socialization. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin,
90(4), 318-334.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a
practice-based theory of professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes
(Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-32).
San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Blase, J. & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development:
Teachers’ perspectives. Education Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349-378.
Boone, E., Hartzman, M., & Mero, D. (2006). Influenced by instructional leadership, Principal
Leadership (Middle School Edition), 6(10), 10-14.
Brock, B. L. & Grady, M. L. (1998). Beginning teacher induction programs: The role of the
principal. The Clearing House, 71(3), 179-183.
Brown, K. M., & Wynn, S. R. (2007). Teacher retention issues: How some principals are
supporting and keeping new teachers. Journal of School Leadership, 17(6), 664-698.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2004). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation Publications.
Carver, C. L. (2002). Principals’ supporting roles in new teacher induction. (Doctoral
Dissertation, Michigan State University, 2002). Proquest Dissertations and Theses,
Document ID: 765123001.
Carver, C. L. (2003). The principal’s role in new teacher induction. In M. Scherer (Ed.), Keeping
good teachers (pp. 33-41). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Carver, C. L. (2007). More than what you know: What you need to learn. The New Teacher
Advocate. (pp. 4-5).
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

136

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.)
(pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Drago-Severson, E. (2007). Helping teachers learn: Principals as professional development
leaders. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 70-125.
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. J. (2009). High-leverage strategies for principal support. Educational
Leadership, 66(5), 62-68.
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. (2003). What new teachers need to learn. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 2529.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Carver, C. L. (2007). Creating conditions for serious mentoring:
Implications for induction policy. Unpublished manuscript.
Firestone, W. A. & Martinez, M. C. (2009) Districts, teachers, leaders, and distributed
leadership: Changing instructional practice. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall, & T. Strauss
(Eds.), Distributed leadership according to the evidence. (pp. 61-86). New York:
Routledge.
Gold, Y. (1996). Beginning teacher support: Attrition, mentoring and induction. In J. Sikula, T.
J. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp.
548-616). New York: Macmillan.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed school leadership: Developing tomorrow’s leaders. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Harris, A. (2009). Distributed leadership: What we know. In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed
leadership: Different perspectives. (pp. 11-21). United Kingdom: Springer.
Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development. In L.
Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of
policy and practice. (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Helman, L. (2006). What’s in a conversation? mentoring stances in coaching conferences and
how they matter. In B. Achinstein & S. Z. Athanases (Eds.), Mentors in the making:
Developing new leaders for new teachers. (pp. 69-82). New York: Teachers College
Press.

137

Huling-Austin, L. (1992). Research on learning to teach: Implications for teacher induction &
mentoring programs. Journal of Teacher Education. 43(3), 173-180.
Kardos, S. M., Johnson, S. M., Peske, H. G., Kauffman, D., & Liu, E. (2001) Counting on
colleagues: New teachers encounter the professional cultures of their schools. Education
Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 250-290.
Kelley, L. M. (2004). Why induction matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), 438-448.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences
student learning. Review of research. The Wallace Foundation. New York.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2009). New perspectives on an old idea: A short
History of the old idea. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall, & T. Strauss (Eds.), Distributed
leadership according to the evidence. (pp. 1-14). New York: Routledge.
Little, J. W. (1999). Organizing schools for teacher learning. In L. Darling-Hammond & G.
Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. (pp.
233-262). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Little, J. W., Gearhart, M., Curry, M., & Kafka, J. (2003). Looking at student work for teacher
learning, teacher community, and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(3), 185-192.
Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. K. (2006). Methods in educational research:
From theory to practice. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marks, H. M. & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
MacBeath, J. (2009). Distributed leadership: Paradigms, policy and paradox. In K. Leithwood, B.
Mascall, & T. Strauss (Eds.), Distributed leadership according to the evidence (pp. 4157). New York: Routledge.
McDonald, J. P. (2001). Students’ work and teachers’ learning. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller
(Eds.), Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters. (pp. 209235). New York: Teachers College Press.
McGraner, K. L. & Henrick, E. (2008). Effective principal leadership for teacher induction:
Developing a conception of the principal’s role in advancing new teacher development.
Working paper, Vanderbilt University.

138

McLaughlin, M. W. & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high
school teaching. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Moir, E. (1999). The stages of a teacher’s first year. In M. Scherer (Ed.), A better beginning:
Supporting and mentoring new teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Moir, E., & Gless, J. (2001). Quality induction: An investment in teachers. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 28(1), 109-114
National Association of Secondary School Principals [NASSP]. (2001). Breaking ranks in action.
Principal Leadership (High School Edition), 1(5), 60-65.
New Teacher Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz. (2007). New teacher support
pays off: A return on investment for educators and kids. Santa Cruz, CA.
Norman, P. J. & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2005). Mind activity in teaching and mentoring. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 21, 679-697.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Printy, S. M. (2008). Leadership for teacher learning: A community of practice perspective.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 187-226.
Putnam R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say
about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
Roberson, S., & Roberson, R. (2009). The role and practice of the principal in developing novice
first-year teachers. The Clearing House, 82(3), 113-118.
Siskin, L. S. (1991). Departments as different worlds; Subject subcultures in secondary schools.
Education Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 134-160.
Smith, T. M. & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on
beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681-714.
Spillane, J. P. & Diamond, J. B. (2007). A distributed perspective on and in practice. In J. P.
Spillane & J. B. Diamond (Eds.), Distributed leadership in practice (pp. 146-166). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Spillane, J. P. & Diamond, J. B. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective. In J. P. Spillane & J. B.
Diamond (Eds.), Distributed leadership in practice (pp. 1-15). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.

139

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R. & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice:
A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34.
Supovitz, J. A. (2008). Instructional influence in american high schools. In M. M. Mangin & S.
R. Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform
(pp.144-162). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Talbert, J. E. (1995). Boundaries of teachers' professional communities in U.S. high schools:
Power and precariousness of the subject department. In L. S. Siskin & J. W. Little (Eds.),
The subjects in question: Departmental organization and the high school (pp.68-94).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Wettersten, J. A. (1992). High school department chairs and instructional leaders: Four case
studies. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research
Association. San Francisco. Retrieved from Education Resources Information Center
[ERIC] (ED353207).
Wolcott, H. (1995). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wood, A. L. (2005). The importance of principals: Site administrators’ roles in novice teacher
induction. American Secondary Education, 33(2), 39-62.
Youngs, P. (2007). How elementary principals’ beliefs and actions influence new teachers’
experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 101-137.
Zepeda, S. J. & Kruskamp, B. (2007). High school department chairs – Perspectives on
instructional supervision. The High School Journal, 4, 44-54.

140