FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCES OF NOVICE URBAN EDUCATORS: A CASE STUDY OF BELIEF FORMATION, CHANGE, AND FACTORS OF INFLUENCE By Kate Rollert French A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Educational Policy - Doctor of Philosophy 2017 ABSTRACT FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCES OF NOVICE URBAN EDUCATORS: A CASE STUDY OF BELIEF FORMATION, CHANGE, AND FACTORS OF INFLUENCE By Kate Rollert French The beliefs of teachers can not only influence practice, but can also influence the more informal decisions teachers make on a daily bases—including how they treat and interact with students in their classrooms and the greater school community. Brand new teachers commonly begin their first year of teaching with idealistic and hopeful perspectives. During this time, they can hold beliefs that stem from their own upbringing, teacher training programs, or other possible sources. However, unlike teachers with more experience, new teachers are particularly vulnerable to changing their beliefs—including how they perceive students and their abilities— during their first year as teacher of record. New teachers are also more likely to undergo significant emotional turbulence as they navigate the challenging terrain of teaching in an urban school. During this time they will often turn to more experienced teachers for advice and insight. This study examined the experiences of five brand new teachers as they progressed through their first year of teaching in an urban school. Findings suggest that new teachers are more likely to change their beliefs when they undergo various stages of emotional conflict and will turn to more experienced colleagues at their school to gain a more accurate and deeper understanding of both the school community and effective teaching practices to use in this community. This can contribute to belief change. Teachers were more likely to change their beliefs during the middle of the school year—specifically during the survival and disillusionment phases of the Moir (1990) First Year Phases of Teaching model. Of the five teachers who participated in this study, one teacher experienced a more positive and empowering belief change, three teachers experienced more discouraging changes, and one teacher did not experience any significant changes in her beliefs. Implications for social equality—and inequality—and directions for future research are discussed. Copyright by KATE ROLLERT FRENCH 2017 To my students who have taught me more than I could ever teach them. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work would not have been possible without the generous support of the Michigan State University Educational Policy Department. I am especially grateful for the support and mentorship of my dissertation chair, Dr. Kristy Cooper Stein, who has pushed my thinking on so many issues and helped me grow in more ways than I can give her credit for here. I am also grateful for the collective support of my dissertation committee. Thank you for providing considerable insight and feedback on my research and career goals. No one has been more important in the pursuit of this degree than my family. I would like to thank my mother, father, and younger brother for their unwavering love, guidance, and support. Most importantly, I wish to thank my patient and supportive husband, Tom. Thank you for the many rounds of critical feedback on this work. You are the best thing to happen to me during the pursuit of this degree. I love you! Finally, I would like to thank all of my former students at A. Maceo Smith High School and L.G. Pinkston High School. Thank you for sharing your stories and welcoming me into your community. I am truly grateful for our time together. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................x LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................................3 Purpose and Significance of the Study .....................................................................................5 Research Questions ..................................................................................................................7 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW & THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...........................10 The Capacity of Beliefs in Education .....................................................................................11 Belief Formation & Change ...............................................................................................13 Teachers’ Beliefs in Early Career Years ............................................................................15 Research on Teachers’ Beliefs ...........................................................................................16 Belief Influence & Impact on Teaching Practice ...................................................................19 Expectations .......................................................................................................................21 New Teacher Vulnerability ................................................................................................23 Creating Constructivist Classrooms...................................................................................24 Historical Considerations .......................................................................................................27 Urban Schools in America Today ......................................................................................29 Social Reproduction in Schools..............................................................................................32 Social Reproduction Theory ..............................................................................................33 Critical Race Theory ..........................................................................................................34 Greater Effects for the Less Privileged ..............................................................................36 The Power of Teachers to Perpetuate Social Reproduction...............................................37 The Intersection of Culturally Competent Coursework & Belief Influence ......................40 Structuring Supportive Environments for New Teachers ......................................................42 Trusting Relationships .......................................................................................................43 Placement Considerations ..................................................................................................44 Teacher Turnover & Attrition ............................................................................................45 The Potential of Positive Social Influence .............................................................................47 Administrative Impact .......................................................................................................48 Understanding Shifting Beliefs ..........................................................................................49 Summary.................................................................................................................................49 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................52 Research Questions ................................................................................................................52 Study Design ..........................................................................................................................53 Research Setting .....................................................................................................................54 Research Site......................................................................................................................54 Case Study District ............................................................................................................55 vii Case Study Participants......................................................................................................57 Data Collection Procedures ....................................................................................................57 Surveys...............................................................................................................................58 Interviews...........................................................................................................................63 Observations ......................................................................................................................64 Data Organization ...................................................................................................................66 Interview Data ....................................................................................................................66 Observation Data ...............................................................................................................67 Survey Data........................................................................................................................67 Data Collection Summary ..................................................................................................67 Data Analysis..........................................................................................................................68 Role of the Researcher............................................................................................................73 Quality, Rigor, and Trustworthiness Checks ..........................................................................73 Potential Study Limitations ....................................................................................................75 Summary.................................................................................................................................76 CHAPTER 4: CASE-STUDY FINDINGS....................................................................................78 Beginning Beliefs of First-Year Teachers ..............................................................................79 Ms. Destinas.......................................................................................................................79 Beginning Beliefs on Teaching Practice ....................................................................80 Beginning Beliefs on Social Justice ...........................................................................80 Beginning Beliefs on the Purpose of Schools ............................................................81 Ms. Barley ...........................................................................................................................81 Beginning Beliefs on Teaching Practice ....................................................................81 Beginning Beliefs on Social Justice ...........................................................................82 Beginning Beliefs on the Purpose of Schools ............................................................82 Ms. List ..............................................................................................................................83 Beginning Beliefs on Teaching Practice ....................................................................83 Beginning Beliefs on Social Justice ...........................................................................84 Beginning Beliefs on the Purpose of Schools ............................................................84 Mr. Geoffrey ......................................................................................................................84 Beginning Beliefs on Teaching Practice ....................................................................85 Beginning Beliefs on Social Justice ...........................................................................85 Beginning Beliefs on the Purpose of Schools ............................................................86 Mr. Burtke ..........................................................................................................................87 Beginning Beliefs on Teaching Practice ....................................................................87 Beginning Beliefs on Social Justice ...........................................................................88 Beginning Beliefs on the Purpose of Schools ............................................................88 Cross-Case Analysis ..........................................................................................................89 Influences on Beliefs ..............................................................................................................90 Changing Beliefs of First-Year Teachers ...............................................................................92 Ms. Destinas.......................................................................................................................92 Ms. Barley ..........................................................................................................................97 Ms. List ..............................................................................................................................99 Mr. Geoffrey ....................................................................................................................101 Mr. Burtke ........................................................................................................................107 viii Significant Phases of Changing Beliefs ...............................................................................110 Survival Phase..................................................................................................................111 Disillusionment Phase......................................................................................................112 Rejuvenation and Reflection Phases ................................................................................114 Perceived Influences on Changing Beliefs ...........................................................................115 Influences During the Survival Phase ..................................................................................115 Ms. Destinas..................................................................................................................116 Ms. Barley .....................................................................................................................117 Ms. List .........................................................................................................................117 Mr. Geoffrey .................................................................................................................118 Mr. Burtke .....................................................................................................................119 Reflections on Beliefs and Belief Change during the Reflection Phase ..............................120 Summary of Findings ...........................................................................................................125 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE... 126 Susceptibility for Belief Change ..........................................................................................126 Influences on Beliefs of New Educators ..............................................................................134 Understanding what it Means to Teach for Social Justice ...................................................138 Contributions to the Literature .............................................................................................143 Implications for Policy and Practice.....................................................................................146 Case Study Summary and Conclusion .................................................................................150 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................153 APPENDIX A: IRB APPROVAL ........................................................................................154 APPENDIX B: TEACHER CONSENT FORM ...................................................................155 APPENDIX C: TEACHER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................156 APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ONE................................................................159 APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL TWO ...............................................................161 APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL THREE............................................................162 APPENDIX G: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOUR ............................................................163 APPENDIX H: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FIVE ..............................................................164 APPENDIX I: OBSERVATION FIELD NOTE TEMPLATE .............................................165 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................166 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1. Representing an overview of the five study participants in the sample........................57 Table 3.2 Survey items grouped by belief domain and belief construct........................................60 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Moir (1990) Timeline representing new teachers’ attitude progression over the first year as teacher of record..................................................................................................................4 Figure 1.2. Representing the implications of new teachers’ beliefs on social inequality in schools..............................................................................................................................................7 Figure 3.1. The data collection timeline for this case study as embedded in the Moir (1990) First Year Phases of Teaching Model....................................................................................................58 Figure 3.2. The data analysis process for this case study..............................................................68 Figure 3.3. Raw changes in survey scores for each teacher across the three belief domains and ten belief constructs (question five includes two constructs—in agreement or disagreement).................................................................................................................................70 Figure 5.1. Belief change patterns mapped onto Moir (1990) model.........................................129 xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Teachers play a powerful role in the development students and their perceptions of society as they oversee a microcosm of the world in their own classrooms. Teachers decide on— and enforce—rules for order, dictate norms for student behavior, and determine appropriate pedagogy to achieve various learning goals. This unique classroom environment—and on a greater scale school environment—brings students from various backgrounds, ethnicities, and racial identities together (Church & Sedlak, 1976). Historically public schooling in America was developed as a means to bring greater parts of society together in an era when division amongst social class, immigrant or native-born status, and religious affiliation caused great dissonance (Reese, 2005). Early public school advocates promised that schools would “restore social harmony” and create moral and law-abiding citizens as students learned to work together—and through their differences—in the common school classroom (Reese, p. 11). However, these early foundations also laid room for conventional Eurocentric values and practices—a tradition in American schooling that is still widely seen today. Continuous bouts of school reform have challenged Eurocentric school norms over the past decade in an effort to create learning environments that are fair and socially just (Hess, 2011). However, greater wide-scale reform movements that focus on equity and improving the educational outcomes for students from historically underserved populations, such as policy under No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, have experienced mediocre success and increasing criticism (Ravitch, 2010). One theory of why education policy fails to achieve its aim is because of problems with implementation. Weatherly and Lipsky (1977) discuss this of idea of poor implementation as street level bureaucracy, where people tend to cope with policy— 1 instead of fully accepting it—and prioritize their own personal incentives. In other words, implementation of policy is only as good as the last implementer. Mary Kennedy discusses this idea further in her book titled: Inside Teaching: How Classroom Life Undermines Reform. Kennedy (2005) argues that education policy fails because teachers only implement parts of the policy that they feel are important or has value. Findings such as these suggest that teachers act in their own perceived best interests and could have a greater effect on improving educational outcomes for students than educational policy alone. New teachers with a dedication to teaching for social justice and addressing educational debts between students from high and low socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic backgrounds, in particular, are entering the classroom more rapidly than ever before (Picower, 2012). However, research shows that this vigor—and belief in all students—exhibited during the early-career years of new teachers quickly dwindles as new teachers gain more years of experience— particularly in under-resourced urban schools (Ingersol, 2001). Understanding how new teachers experience their first year in the classroom and how these experiences play a role in their developing teaching practice is an area of research that needs further exploration (Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2002). This need is even more vital in urban areas where new teachers who are empowered with visions for reform “fall prey to the stereotypes and deficit thinking that is part of the air they breathe in urban public schools” (Picower, 2007, p.16). The beliefs of teachers could have serious implications for long-term student outcomes and growth (Gershenson, Holt, & Papageorge, 2016). Therefore, this study seeks to understand the experiences of new teachers working in an urban school and how their beliefs and practices are formed, influenced, and changed over the course of their first year. A case study approach reveals the unique individual experiences of 2 five new teachers as they embrace new influences and undergo emotional turbulence during their first year in the classroom as teacher of record. Statement of the Problem New teachers take on a vulnerable role when they embark on their first year as teacher of record (Trent, 2011). They often experience doubt and face many challenges navigating the new terrain of their own classroom, school, and community (Howard & Milner, 2014). New teachers also most likely to experience significant stages of emotional turbulence as the progress through what Ellen Moir (1990) describes as the six phases of first year teaching. According to Moir (1990), new teachers experience the six phases of teaching when they begin their first year as teacher of record. These phase are consecutive and coincide with the traditional academic calendar. Anticipation is the first phase new teachers face when they embark on their first year. During this phase new teachers tend to romanticize the position and have a sense of excitement that carries them through their first several weeks of school. The second phase, known as survival, begins during the early months of the year, typically around September and October, and is often a very overwhelming phase for new teachers. During this stage, new teachers tend to struggle to manage multiple responsibilities and feel overwhelmed with the many new duties on their plate. Often new teachers will work more than seventy hours a week on schoolwork during this phase (Moir, 1990). Disillusionment is the third phase new teachers face, and during this phase teachers often have low morale and feel defeated in their quest to be a good teacher. During this phase teachers can have lower self-esteem and experience more self-doubt. Classroom management is also a great concern during this phase, which can cause added stress because of formal evaluations that are also generally given during this time. This phase typically extends from the end of October to the middle of January. Rejuvenation is 3 the fourth phase and follows disillusionment. Generally teachers feel that they have a better understanding of the school system, their classroom, and experience a renewed confidence in their ability as a teacher. This phase continues until early spring, when teachers then enter the fifth phase of reflection. During this final phase new teachers feel that the end of the year is fast approaching and they start to reflect on what they could have done better over the year and how they will make these changes in the coming year. This phase typically lasts from the middle of April to the end of May. The cycle then repeats itself with a phase of anticipation as the new teachers envision the upcoming year. This phase will last until the end of the school year. Figure 1.1. Moir (1990) Timeline representing new teachers’ attitude progression over the first year as teacher of record. Figure 1.1 illustrates the various phases new teachers face during their first year as teachers of record. I used this timeline to guide data collection and also to examine how the 4 timing of an experience affected newly acquired beliefs. This timeline also made it possible to identify potential patterns amongst study participants—including when they were most likely to change their beliefs. I then compared these patterns to determine what experiences/ phases of the Moir (1990) model occurred during these belief changes. I also used this data to track potential patterns of occurrences in phases where teachers were more likely to change their beliefs, keep their beliefs, or return to a prior set of beliefs. Purpose and Significance of the Study Because each teacher holds a powerful position of influence within their own classroom, the ability for a teacher to influence student learning, student thinking, and student behavior is more pronounced. Therefore the perspective and beliefs of a teacher on how students from certain backgrounds should act, receive information, and influence greater society are important to consider. In addition to understanding new teachers’ beliefs and how they evolve during a teachers’ first year, this study also aims to identify some of the broader implications of belief impact on social inequity and the perpetuation or social inequity in schools. Schools that perpetuate social inequity may possess teachers who adopt authoritarian beliefs and oppress students into subordinate class statuses through no-excuse disciplinary policies or regimented curriculum that allows for little student input. Under this type of model students can be categorized into particular groups that are expected to act in certain ways—with expectations set by the superior teacher. Alternatively, schools that work towards ending this perpetuation of social inequality, may also possess teachers who have more progressive and empowering beliefs about their students and their abilities—which may lead to more student engagement and more student 5 success. However, if new teachers with progressive beliefs and ideals change their beliefs to reflect the status quo of the existing school culture—especially in cases when this culture limits student growth—then the school will likely continue to perpetuate social inequality from one generation to the next. This concept is best described as social reproduction theory, which argues that existing structures and behaviors—such as perpetual alienation from positive learning environments and empowering teachers—will transmit social inequality from one generation to the next. On the contrary, if new teachers’ beliefs are positive and empowering—or influenced by an existing set of perspectives that work to combat the status quo of discriminatory norms by class, race, or gender—then there is a greater chance for students to find value in school, their teachers, and adopt knowledge to prevail over the cycle of social inequality. The following framework models this concept and supports the underlying importance and significance of this study. 6 Figure 1.2. Representing the implications of new teachers’ beliefs on social inequality in schools. Research Questions Given the potential impact beliefs can have on teaching practice and greater social outcomes—such as the perpetuation of social inequality, this study holds an important role in investigating how novice urban teachers’ beliefs are influenced and changed. Very few studies explicitly examine how and what influences new teachers during their first few years of teaching (Hopkins & Spillane, 2014). Understanding these factors of influence, and how they can change new teachers’ perception and practice is one step in understanding how schools can work to better prepare their teachers for work in challenging environments. This study will focus on what new teachers in urban schools believe at the beginning of the year, how 7 this changes over the course of the year, what factors influence this change, and how new educators understand the ways in which their beliefs affect their teaching practice. An overarching, and broader consideration will examine how these influences can lead to the perpetuation of social inequality in urban schools. Specifically, I seek to address the following research questions: Research Question 1: What beliefs do novice teachers in an urban school hold in regards to teaching practice, social justice, and the purpose of schools as they begin their first year as teacher of record? Research Question 2: How do the beliefs of these novice teachers change over the course of their first year of teaching? When during the year do changes occur? Research Question 3: What and who do new novice teachers believe influence changes in their beliefs? How do they see their preparation program and/or new faculty colleagues influencing their beliefs and changes in beliefs? Research Question 4: How do these novice teachers understand the ways in which their beliefs impact their teaching practice? To answer the research questions in this study, I have used an embedded case study to examine five brand new teachers of record working in an urban school district. I chose an embedded case study model because it allowed me to generate data form a variety of sources in an effort to best understand the experiences of the new teachers in this study (Scholz, 2011). The goal of the study is to understand how and when new teachers beliefs’ are influenced during their first year, and why this change takes place. I begin by anchoring my study in the existing literature on teacher beliefs’ and their impact on practice and student learning in schools, and the experiences of novice teachers working in urban schools. 8 I should also note that for this study I chose to capitalize the words “White” and “Black” when they were applied in a racial context. I made this decision because I feel that the identity of “White” and “Black” is just as important to one’s identity as their geographical or ancestral origins. I feel that it is just as appropriate for someone to identify themselves as “Irish,” “Chicano,” or “African American” as they would “Black” or “White.” Because of this, I chose to capitalize “Black” and “White” when referring to one’s race. 9 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW & THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Many people think of their beliefs as uniquely independent and formed through an objective rationale where reason and logic are the primary deciding factors. Absolute truth is the culmination of careful thought and reason—and logic is the instrument of validity. People may even boast about their ability to form an independent opinion based on their superior intellect or pedigree of schooling. While this understanding may support actions and perspectives of the past, new research suggests that our beliefs are not the product of careful consideration and thought, but instead the product of our social environments (Mercer & Sperber, 2017). This insight is key in understanding recent political decisions and in understanding the power of influence from various social environments. Sociologist Arlie Hocshchild explores this phenomena further in her new book Strangers in their Own Land by investigating how people are influenced and swayed toward one belief over another based on their shared social belonging and emotional investment in a particular group. Schools are often referred to as microcosms of society because they harbor many different kinds of people with a wide range of beliefs. More so, they often mirror the society in which they come from and embrace societal customs that can oppress one social construction of a group and privilege another. Because of this, schools are sometimes labeled as potential vehicles that foster social reproduction and transmit inequality from one generation to the next (MacLeod, 2009; Langston, 2000; Ransford, 2000). Schools are also unique because of their isolation from society and ability to create practices and daily norms that can be very different from society at large. Having students walk in single-file lines down a hallway, transition to classrooms at the sound of a bell, raise a hand to ask questions, or have an assigned seat in the cafeteria, are such examples of school norms that 10 are different from society at large. While these norms are enforced to teach responsibility and self-discipline, they can also perpetuate discrimination if enforced unfairly across different groups (Sleeter & Grant,1996; Nieto, 2004). In an ideal world, all teachers believe that students are capable regardless of social class, race, gender, sexual orientation, or disability and make intentional decisions to include students from backgrounds that are historically underserved or oppressed by institutionalizing equitable norms and employing socially just teaching methods in their own classrooms. However, based on recent research findings of inequity and how teachers’ expectations can vary for certain students—and by teacher demographic—we know that this is not always the case (Gershenson, Holt, & Papageorge, 2016). Many new teachers begin their first year aware of the vast inequities that exist in today’s society and in its schools. They also often bring a fresh perspective and belief that they can work toward combatting this inequity in their own classrooms. Yet, as these new teachers embark on their new social terrains and emotionally invest in new relationships they may experience certain vulnerability in their teaching practice and turn to other resources for advice and input. The Capacity of Beliefs in Education Past educational research suggests that the beliefs of teachers—and beliefs in general— are very difficult to change (Roehler, Duffy, Herrmann, Conley, & Johnson, 1988). This unlikeliness of change led to a whole strain of research that suggested a limited effect on teacher beliefs from teacher preparation programs and an unlikeliness for pre-service teachers to change their beliefs as teachers of record (Gallagher, 1994). Today, new educational research suggests that teachers’ beliefs can and will change depending on their unique experiences, and that new teachers of record are impressionable and 11 vulnerable to the unique pre-existing social nuances in their new schools (Trent, 2011). Veteran teachers, on the other hand, are less likely to change their beliefs (Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2007). We know that teachers’ beliefs can affect classroom practice and that their perceptions of student ability, value, and motivation to learn can also affect the way in which teachers interact with, discipline, and praise their students (Anderman, Andrzejewski, & Allen, 2011). Based on this knowledge, one could argue that teachers’ beliefs are very important to study and examine. For example, if a teacher believes that students from poor or minority backgrounds are less capable of achieving than students from affluent or privileged backgrounds, then poor and minority students will not receive the same quality of instruction or care. The differences in interactions between these belief-constructed groups can be subtle—such as not calling on a student when her or his hand is raised, blatant—such as repeatedly targeting the same AfricanAmerican student for not following a classroom rule when other students break the rule but are not reprimanded, or overt—such as seating all of the English-language learners in the back of the classroom (Benokraitis & Feagin, 1995). Similarly, if teachers believe that their students are incapable of meeting certain behavioral or academic standards, they can settle for what is considered good enough for that particular group. This idea of low immediacy toward students from less privileged groups is in direct conflict with teaching for social justice (Mehranbian, 1981). 12 Belief Formation & Change In multiple fields of academic research, researchers have debated whether beliefs are static or if they can change. For example, in a study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, Australian psychologist Stephen Lewandowsky (2011) tested participants’ ability to make accurate judgments from their beliefs by recounting details of a liquor robbery they had read about in a local newspaper. One group was told that the robbers were of Caucasian descent, while the other group was told that the robbers were of Aboriginal descent. After reading about the robbery in the newspaper, participants were asked to recall details—this included any corrections made to the article (such as the acknowledgement that all robbers were of Caucasian descent). All participants were able to accurately report details of the crime, however many participants labeled the robbers as Aboriginals, even when they knew this description had been corrected. Therefore, even though all study participants were able to correctly answer factual questions, they relied on race to answer inferential questions. All study participants had read the truth about the robbers’ ancestry in the corrections section of the newspaper, but still turned toward their racially-based beliefs to answer inference questions. In another study published in Pediatrics, scientists Nyhan, Reifler, Richey, and Freed (2014) examined what it might take to get people to change their beliefs and attitudes toward vaccines. A group of over 2,000 parents were shown one of four pro-vaccine advertisements that relied on a type of persuasive strategy—emotions, using science, facts, or stories—to see which strategy was most effective in changing their beliefs about vaccines. Surprisingly, the results showed that none of the strategies had been effective in changing the beliefs of parents. Parents that believed vaccines were bad would not change their beliefs even when presented with compelling evidence that appealed to their emotional or intellectual understandings. 13 However, while some people do not change their beliefs, we know that some people do change their beliefs. In an article that examined how likely social media users are to change their minds on certain issues, researchers Tan, Niculae, Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Lee (2016) found that users could be persuaded to change their views if certain conditions were met. The researchers analyzed the discourse of a Reddit community known as ChangeMyView, which holds over 200,000 users, and invites members to challenge other’s opinions. If the opinion of a user is changed, the user shares this with the community—with a rationale as to why the user’s views had changed. Overall, the researchers found that not only can views be changed, but also identified strategies that were most useful in changings others’ opinions. Specifically, the researchers found that arguments were more persuasive when they contained the following criteria: 1) statements were framed objectively —and free from emotionally charged words, 2) statements had links to evidence or citations, 3) statements contained full sentences, sometimes paragraphs—and were free of rants, and 4) statements used softened tones such as “it is likely that” instead of dominant absolute tones such as, “We know this is true.” The researchers also found that online users were more likely to change their minds when more people challenged their originally posted opinion. Knowledge that beliefs change or have changed is well documented. However, understanding how and why beliefs change is relatively new. We have plenty of research on student beliefs and their relationship with student outcomes, but there is limited research in relation to teachers and teachers’ beliefs (Rubie‐Davies, Flint, & McDonald, 2012). Some psychologists such as Paul (2014) argue that beliefs are tied to one’s identity and will therefore change as one’s identity changes or evolves. However, some political scientists argue that individuals are psychologically motivated to maintain and support their own existing beliefs and 14 will not change nor consider change unless confronted with an increase in anxiety or stress (Redlawsk, Civettini, Emmerson, 2010). This idea is known as Affective Intelligence Theory and has been used widely in the political sciences arena to understand voting habits in elections (Marcus, MacKuen, Wolak, & Keele 2006). Teachers’ Beliefs in Early Career Years All teachers possess beliefs about students, professional responsibility, and daily classroom norms (Pajares, 1992), and for the purposes of this study will be defined as the implicit or unconsciously held assumptions about students, classrooms, and academic decisionmaking. There is limited research on how, why, and when teachers’ beliefs change or evolve over time (Kagen, 1992), partly because beliefs can also encompass both conscious and unconscious evaluative opinions (Borg, 2011). It was important to understand these limitations in designing this study and develop qualitative instruments that can encompass both dimensions of these evaluative opinions. The limited research on this topic is another reason why this area of research is so important—particularly for younger teachers who tend to leave the profession early in their career. We know that the first year of teaching is stressful and that this can be especially difficult for new teachers in urban schools (Howard & Milner, 2014; Kozol, 1992). Teaching can be closely tied to personal beliefs and political beliefs. These beliefs can also be negative, incorrect, and further enhanced by someone with a contrary attitude (Garrett & Weeks, 2013). Understanding how beliefs are formed and when these influential moments surface is important in preparing new teachers to teach for social justice—particularly in maintaining a resistance to status quo efforts that reinforce negative perceptions of students and their communities. 15 Research on Teachers’ Beliefs The research on teachers’ beliefs exploded during the 21st century with studies conducted across the globe (i.e. Blay & Ireson, 2009; Mattheoudakis, 2007; Fonseca, Costa, Lencastre, & Tavares, 2012; Zohar, Degani, & Vaaknin, 2001; Correa, Perry, Sims, Miller, & Fang, 2008; Underwoord, 2012), but studies on teachers’ beliefs is not a new field of research. Teachers’ beliefs and their impact on practice have remained a relevant topic for investigation since the publication of Pygmalion in the Classroom (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). In the famous study, Rosenthal and Jacobsen (1968) examined elementary students and elementary teachers in San Francisco to understand how student performance is affected by teacher belief. Essentially, the researchers wanted to see what would happen if teachers were told that particular students had greater potential than other students. They found that the teachers were more likely to give a student more attention if they believed that he or she had a greater ability or IQ—even when the actual IQ had not changed. This study is important because it shows that when teachers believe students have greater potential they are more likely to aid in the student’s development of this potential—and less likely to aid in this development when they believe the opposite. Today, some debate still exists about teachers’ expectations and abilities to influence IQ. Essentially one group of researchers argues that expectations do influence IQ (Raudenbush, 1984,1994; MacLeod, 2009), and another group argues that expectations do not influence IQ (Snow, 1969, 1995; Jussim & Harber, 2005). Fenstermacher (1979) first predicted that teachers’ beliefs would become a vital part in determining teacher effectiveness after the literature shifted from covering the attitudes of teachers to covering the beliefs of teachers (Richardson, 1996). Brown and Cooney (1982) led the field into understanding how teachers internalize information based on their beliefs by 16 researching the habits of pre-service mathematics teachers. These researchers found that mathematics teachers do not use the knowledge they garnered during their pre-service years in their own classrooms as teachers of record. They also suggested that understanding the nature of belief systems, in general, would help understand how teachers internalize messages and ultimately practice what they learn from teacher education courses. Fishbain and Ajzen (1985) argued that beliefs influence behavior through the theory of reasoned action, and Ernest (1989) found that teachers beliefs about mathematics and beliefs concerning the processes of teaching mathematics are more impactful on classroom outcomes than pedagogical or curricular knowledge alone. In the early nineties, Pintrich (1990) examined psychological literature to deduce implications for teacher education and urged for more researchers to investigate how beliefs influence learning in pre-service teacher coursework. He argued that these contributions from the psychological world of research would become exceptionally valuable to the field of teacher education. In a recent study, John Hattie from the University of Melbourne developed a way of ranking influences related to student achievement using meta-analysis. He examined over 65,000 research papers and found that of all the 195 measured influences, the effects were greatest for teacher estimates of achievement. In other words, Hattie (2015) found that what teachers believe about what their students can and cannot do has the greatest effect on student achievement and learning outcomes. This influence of what teachers believe about their students has a greater effect on student achievement than prior student achievement, socioeconomic status, early intervention, class size, and 190 other influences that contribute to learning. Hamre et al. (2012) examined the idea that beliefs foresee change in teaching practice by examining how teachers internalize various forms of professional development coursework. His 17 team of researchers randomly assigned 440 teachers to two types of professional development. The first experimental course promoted traditional teacher learning—teachers’ must identify their own beliefs before anything can be changed. The second experimental course focused on specific instructional strategies “in which teachers [imitated] effective behaviors learned in course videos” (Hamre et. al, p. 8). Teachers who participated it the second experimental course were more likely to report a change in their “intentional teaching beliefs and demonstrated greater knowledge and skills in detecting effective teacher child-interactions” (Hamre et. al, p. 16). Teachers in this imitation group also reported stronger beliefs about the importance of teaching early literacy and language skills. These findings suggest that teachers can change their beliefs and actions—sometimes unknowingly—by observing and then imitating effective teaching behaviors. This strategy of imitation and observation aligns with Bandura’s (1986) Social Learning Theory that suggests teachers learn how to behave, and ultimately believe, in a large part by observing others. It also corresponds with Schank’s (1982) Dynamic Memory Theory, which posits that people develop certain schemas and scripts by watching others. In contrast to the assisted, or mediated pathway that Hamre et. al (2012) used to affect teacher behavior through observation and imitation, the direct pathway suggests that changes in teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and skills happen before any changes in classroom practice (Weiss, 1998). Many studies provide evidence that teachers’ beliefs may be an important factor for interventions that aim to change teacher behavior (Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2004; Stipek & Byler, 1997). LaPero et al. (2009) found that teacher’ psychological variables, such as beliefs, are stronger predictors of classroom quality than teachers’ educational backgrounds or years of experience. In a study that examined early childhood teachers in the United States, China, 18 Taiwan, Korea, and Turkey, researchers also found that the beliefs of teachers influence practice and decision-making (McMullen et al., 2005). Understanding how teachers’ beliefs are formed, influenced, changed, or unchanged is an important prerequisite to many areas of educational research. In contrast to earlier research on beliefs—particularly on the inability for beliefs to change—recent research now illustrates how not only beliefs can change, but also when—and under what conditions—they are more likely to change. This is particularly useful in understanding the developing and evolving beliefs of new teachers as they develop their practices in early-career years and face new possible sources of influence. Belief Influence & Impact on Teaching Practice Today, there is good evidence to suggest that teachers’ beliefs and expectations can influence student behavior (Borg, 2011; Pajares, 1992). New research suggests that beliefs can and do influence classroom practice (Beswick, 2012; Prestridge, 2012), and that this practice is “likely to be the mechanism by which teachers affect students” (Grossman et. al, 2010, p.1). Beliefs are even often categorized in academic literature as second-order barriers that prevent the integration of various teaching and learning methods into the classroom (Ertmer, 2005). These barriers can be more insidious and difficult to overcome than first-order barriers, like issues of access to resources (Prestridge, 2012). While teachers can form their own beliefs and expectations from past experiences or personal background, other variables can also influence teachers’ beliefs. Teaching experience, teaching subject, and educational background are all examples of such variables (Isikoglu et al., 2009). Another variable of interest is a teacher’s social network (Frank & Yasumoto, 1998). In a review that covered over 35 years of research on teachers’ beliefs on student outcomes, 19 researchers Harber and Jussim (2005) found that “teacher expectations clearly do influence students—at least sometimes” (p. 131). The researchers also extend the findings of Rosenthal and Jacobsen’s (1968) study by discussing how both advocates and detractors make sense of the influence of teachers’ expectations on IQ score. Most recently, Sorhagen (2013) found that teachers’ expectations for students have a strong effect on student outcomes. The study investigated first grade teachers’ over- and underestimations of student math, reading, and language abilities and paid close attention to the confounding effects of student demographics. The study found that the teachers' inaccurate expectations in first grade actually predicted students' math, reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and verbal reasoning standardized test scores at age 15. The study also found significant interactions between students' family income and teachers' misperceptions of students' math and language skills. This suggests that teachers' over- or underestimation of ability has an even stronger impact on students from lower income families. In a study that examined the effects of beliefs on the use of new technologies in twelve K-12 classrooms, Ertmer and colleagues (2012) found that teachers who believed there was value in technology were more likely to implement new technology than teachers who did not believe there was value in technology. The researchers also found that the existing beliefs and attitudes of teachers acted as the primary obstacle in using and implementing the new technologies. In the same study, Ertmer and his colleagues found that teachers who possessed strong beliefs on the importance of student-oriented learning also possessed strong evidence of student-oriented practices in their classrooms. A similar study investigating teachers’ knowledge of mathematics and the effect of teachers’ beliefs on daily decisions found that teachers who possessed the same knowledge of 20 mathematics, but different beliefs on what is important, taught in substantially different ways (Ernest, 1989). These findings illustrate that teachers’ expectations, beliefs, and decision-making strongly influence both teacher and student behaviors. The impact of beliefs may also extend beyond student outcomes, as some evidence suggests that beliefs also impact a teacher’s motivation, attitude, job satisfaction (Schommer, 1990; Day et al., 2006), their self-efficacy in regards to teaching ability (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), and their response to reform efforts (Spillane & Hopkins, 2014). This impact is important to consider as new teachers often enter the profession in an impressionable state. (Alsup, 2006; Atkinson, 2004; Cohen, 2008; Day and Kington, 2008; Trent, 2011). Expectations Expectations play a role in how people perceive their own ability, establish certain attitudes, and form beliefs on various topics. As discussed earlier, the Pygmalion effect suggests that higher expectations lead to an increase in performance (Rosenthal & Jacobsen, 1966). This type of finding also occurs in fields such as medicine through a phenomenon known as the Placebo Effect. The Placebo Effect is one example of how expectations can affect actual outcomes—even when there is only the belief or expectation driving the outcome (Moerman & Jonas, 2002). From the Placebo Effect researchers have found that highly trained athletes can outdo their personal best when they believe that they have taken a performance-enhancing drug (Trojian & Beedie, 2008). Granted the effects of this phenomenon are subtle and based on preexisting conditions. The Placebo Effect cannot cure diseases or mend broken extremities, nor will it allow for athletes to break records if they have not put in the proper training. In schools and classrooms, there is little research on how phenomena like the Placebo Effect interfere with teaching and learning. However, educational research does show how leader 21 expectations can affect observer outcomes and also how observer expectations can affect leader outcomes. In an experiment done by Jenkins and Deno (1969) teachers’ beliefs about their own teaching ability were measured after they entered classrooms of students that were preconditioned to either act attentive or inattentive. The researchers found that teachers were more likely to believe that their own teaching skills were better in classrooms where students were instructed to act more attentive. In another study by Herrell (1971) teachers where told whether a classrooms would be welcoming or less welcoming and—like the Jenkins and Deno study findings—the teacher was more likely to believe the preconditioned belief for a class to be more welcoming or less welcoming even when the class was, in fact, the opposite. However, when setting one’s personal expectations, there is new research that suggests that the key to happiness—and a more positive outlook—is exceeding a low expectation. Rutledge, Skandali, Dayan, and Dolan (2014) tested more than 18,000 people and found that people’s day-to-day happiness does not reflect the actuality of how well things are going, but whether or not they are going better than expected. People in the study tended to be happier when their expectations are exceeded later on. However, the researchers also found that even though setting low expectations could make one happier when these expectations are exceeded later on, having high expectations (such as the thought of meeting with good friends for dinner) could also make people happy as soon as they create the expectation (Rutledge, et al., 2014). In the field of psychology, researcher Roy Baumesier argued that cheering for a team could actually backfire based on his research of athletes and gamers under pressure. He studied the performance of video-gamers as they performed with either a supportive or less-supportive audience and found that the performance of players actually suffered when they were playing for a supportive audience. This example represents the idea of ‘choking under pressure’ where the 22 performers—and often times athletes—feel the pressure of an expectation to not disappoint and spend a majority of their effort focused on not messing up instead of winning. In the classroom, teachers set all sorts of expectations for themselves and their students. Given the variety of literature on how expectations impact outcomes, it is important to consider how teachers’ expectations influence their beliefs and also a susceptible change in any beliefs. This is especially true for new teachers entering the profession who often posses expectations that are very different from more experienced teachers. New Teacher Vulnerability New teachers generally enter the profession with a set ideology on teaching acquired through various life experiences. These experiences can stem from pre-service training programs, field opportunities, and personal or familial upbringings (Levin & He, 2008). This “starting point” of beliefs is often the result of countless hours of practice through university coursework and can be more persistent and powerful than recently acquired beliefs (Alger, 2009). At this entry point, teachers’ visions of good teaching strongly influence their willingness to adopt or reject new information and beliefs (Horn, et al., 2008). During this early phase, new teachers are more optimistic and believe that they will not face the common problems faced by others. They also view themselves as superior teachers (Pajares, 1992). Yet, even with a strong foundation in confidence and ability, new teachers are more likely than any other group of teachers to question themselves and their ability during their first year (Brock & Grady, 2007). This vulnerability makes new teachers especially susceptible to influence and change. In a study examining how teachers learn from one another, Schubert and Ayers (1992) found that, as new teachers progress, they are more likely to mold their beliefs based on their interactions with other teachers. Pajares (1992) described this exchange of one set of beliefs for 23 another as happening subtly, whereas Anderson and Holt-Reynolds (1995) described the exchange of beliefs as an “overhaul” of research-based methods acquired during training for more traditional practices witnessed on a regular basis. New teachers are susceptible to changing their beliefs, professional practices, and visions of good teaching (Anderman, Andrzejewski, & Allen, 2011). Teachers’ beliefs and attitudes can also affect their own morale and enthusiasm for teaching (Ischinger, 2009). However, simply watching other teachers in action does not necessarily translate into good teaching or an adoption of good teaching practices. Star and Strickland (2008) examined the idea of ‘teacher noticing’ as a way to determine if pre-service teachers were able to observe and identify classroom behaviors. The study found that pre-service teachers are generally unable to observe other teachers’ classrooms with appropriate lenses for growth. Because of this, the researchers argue that pre-service teachers should receive training on how to constructively view other classroom teaching before they embark on classroom observations independently (Star & Strickland, 2009). If pre-service teachers do not master observation skills before graduating from their teacher preparation programs, this may influence their abilities to change instructional strategies and classroom practice through imitation methods alone. In this case, the influence of trusted colleagues and actors in a new teachers’ social network could affect teaching practices and instructional strategies more significantly. Creating Constructivist Classrooms Researchers today often categorize teachers’ beliefs on teaching into one of the following two groups (Kim, 2005). Firstly, direct transmission beliefs are beliefs held by teachers who think that effective teachers demonstrate the correct way to solve a problem and that instruction should be very clear, with correct answers that students grasp quickly. Under this classification, 24 teaching facts is necessary because students learn based on background knowledge. Secondly, constructivist beliefs about teaching are used to describe the beliefs of teachers who view their role as more of a facilitator to students’ own inquiry and believe that students learn best by finding solutions on their own, such as by working through practical problems themselves before the teacher shows them how the problem is solved. Under this classification, the reasoning process is more important than a specific curriculum (Ischinger, 2009). Constructivist beliefs on teaching generally lead to better learning (Fostnot, 2013). Constructivist learning empowers students by teaching them to construct their own understanding, and teachers who adopt constructivist beliefs on teaching encourage student initiative (Sawyer, 2005). Constructivist beliefs on teaching legitimize students’ value and contributions within the classroom and have potential to set a precedent for a student’s value in greater society. Ideologies and beliefs on teaching can also impact student-learning behavior. Teachers who adopt constructivist beliefs on teaching see value in student input, and facilitate student inquiry. They encourage students to find solutions independently and creatively. Teachers who employ constructivist beliefs value thinking and reasoning over curriculum content and encourage students to think about how to solve a problem, instead of seeking one right answer (Banks, 2015). On the contrary, teachers who employ direct transmission beliefs on teaching see students as subordinate to the teacher’s authority and ability to demonstrate right answers and ways of solving problems. Instruction is done in quiet environments and around problems that are easy to solve. These beliefs value background knowledge and facts as existing knowledge to build new knowledge (Schcolnik, Kol, & Abarbanel, 2016). 25 Combined with personal perceptions and understanding for how subjectivities and identities contribute to oppression and privilege, and historic institutional pre-conditions that have influenced the demographics of schools, these ideologies and beliefs on teaching could act as mechanisms for reinforcing or discouraging student learning behavior that perpetuates or deconstructs social reproduction in schools. The conceptualization of novice teacher beliefs to affect greater social norms in regards to marginalizing some groups while privileging others is best explained by examining their constructivist or direct transmission beliefs on teaching. Teachers with constructivist beliefs about teaching see students as participatory learners in their own learning. Under this domain, the teachers’ role is more to facilitate a student’s own inquiry and aid in the development of a student’s thinking and reasoning process. Through this set of beliefs, teachers would assert that the student possesses complete agency over his or her learning process. In contrast, direct transmission beliefs about teaching employ the teacher as the ultimate authority, and students are subordinate to the teachers’ expertise and knowledge. Under this domain of beliefs, students are expected to solve a problem in the fashion that the teacher commands and there is an emphasis on getting the one and only right answer. New teachers enter the profession with a certain impressionability that leaves them susceptible to influence from a variety of sources. These new sources can influence new teachers’ ways of thinking and also impact their ways of teaching and learning. Many new teachers enter the profession with empowering mindsets on how to leverage their teaching in ways the combat the status quo of learning at their school. However, if teachers are vulnerable to adopting new sets of beliefs—and new teaching practices—then this empowering way of teaching can be lost. 26 Historical Considerations The transmission of social inequality from one generation to the next can occur through various structures and activities, and schools are one such structure where social reproduction can occur. Schools today look and operate the way they do based on many institutional preconditions or historic tendencies for segregation. The segregation of neighborhoods, particularly in older cities where there is a large disproportion of minorities living in certain areas, is one such example that illustrates historical pre-conditions. These isolated neighborhoods are not isolated simply because people with common interests and backgrounds chose to live in the same area. They are instead the result of decades of racists housing policies that bared certain races and ethnicities from living in the same area as Whites. Legal actions even blocked families from buying property or living in certain areas on the basis of race alone (Anyon, 1997; Massey & Denton, 1993). In 1934, the Federal Housing Authority made guaranteed loans accessible to the White masses, but refused to offer loans to African Americans. This association even labeled certain areas with large proportions of African American inhabitants as a risk for property owners— subsequently lowering the property value and overall worth of the area. This idea of “redlining” made it incredibly difficult for the majority of African American families and other minority families to emerge from poverty and live in better neighborhoods with better schools and resources (Massey & Denton, 1993). While illegal today, one can still witness vestiges of this act in most American cities, as many areas still exist in a highly segregated state—something that is easily recognized when comparing neighborhood school demographics. Dominant social groups, such as Whites, greatly benefited from these historic advantages and were able to accrue wealth much quicker through home ownership. On the contrary, minority families were forced into 27 limited options of renting with limited potential for building equity and wealth—and typically in the worst areas. Blockbusting was another technique White real estate agents incorporated to exploit poor minority groups in order to gain a greater profit share from White families. Through blockbusting, White real-estate agents would let African American families rent homes in traditionally White neighborhoods, as a means to scare White families into moving into a neighborhood that had higher property values. Agents would tell White families about the unruly new neighbors and encourage them to leave the neighborhood, opening more space to continue blockbusting efforts. If the family chose to stay, they risked losing their housing value since the number of African Americans in the neighborhood also affected the retail value of the home. Once White families moved out, real-estate agents would divide one-family homes into multiple apartments and then rent to African American families at much higher rates. (Massey & Denton, 1993; Wilson, 1996). This exploitation gave minority families limited opportunities to not only accrue wealth and exhibit agency, but also disallowed families to send their kids to the best neighborhood schools. Even after the passing of Brown v. Board of Education, schools continued to stay segregated and remain just as segregated, if not more segregated, today (Orfield, Ee, Frankenberg, & Siegel-Hawley, 2016). The above examples and many other pieces of history— such as slavery, Jim Crow laws, and other oppressive policies – can largely account for why student demographics are so disproportionate in urban schools today. 28 Urban Schools in America Today For the past twenty years, researchers have documented the challenges of working in and attending urban schools in America. Combinations of poverty, poor infrastructure, and other unfavorable circumstances have lead to student disenfranchisement and teacher burnout (Weiner, & Jerome, 2016). Issues such as absenteeism, classroom discipline, student pregnancy, and limited control over the curriculum also make it difficult for urban schools to recruit new teachers (Lippman, Burns, & McArthur, 1996). McIntyre (2009) found that teachers cited confusion, poor communication, and problems with the hiring process as reason for exiting the profession after their first year. However, when new teachers ultimately decide to leave teaching, they do so not because of any one factor but instead due to a complex system that Hg and Peter (2010) describe as “simultaneous and sometimes contradictory forces generated by prior expectations and immediate realities” (p. 123). In a study examining the sources of stress and symptoms of burnout for new teachers in rural and urban schools, Abel and Sewell (1999) found that urban schoolteachers experience significantly more stress from poor working conditions and poor staff relationships than their rural counterparts. Kozol (1992) cites such stress as one of the many forces that encourages new teachers to avoid urban schools. Hunter-Quartz (2003) further claims that stress scares the most promising candidates away from the profession in the first place. For teachers who do work in urban schools, their first years are often tumultuous and challenging. Researchers assert that this trend accounts for the rapid attrition in urban schools (Ingersol, 2001) and accounts for about fifty percent of new teachers exiting the profession within the first four years (Fantilli & McDougall, 2009; Ingersoll, 2003). This high attrition rate has negative effects on student 29 performance (Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2013) and is costly in terms of human and financial capital (Barnes, Crowe, & Schaefer, 2007). Urban schools have a history of severe teacher shortage and questionable teacher quality (Darling-Hammond, 1999). Urban schools are also the likeliest to hire emergency certified teachers or teachers on a probationary teaching certificate (Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002). Less-qualified teachers can have lower value-added scores, as defined by teachers’ impact on students’ test scores, and spend less time on instruction (Chetty, Friedman, & Rockoff, 2011; Desimone & Long, 2010). Research has also shown that this limited instructional time leaves students less likely to attend college, earn high salaries, and live in higher socioeconomic neighborhoods (Chetty, Friedman, & Rockoff, 2011). Students in urban schools suffer when they lack quality teaching. In recent work that examines the achievement gap between Whites and Blacks in American schools through changes in teacher assignment, economists Andrew Bacher-Hicks, Thomas Kane, and Douglas Staiger found that not only are African American students in large urban districts taught by less effective teachers, but that if these teachers were replaced with the top 25% of teachers, the achievement gap between White and African American students would close within a decade (Bacher-Hicks, Kane, & Staiger, 2014). Eric Hanushek, another economist that studies the educational achievement gap in America, has also found that students with high quality teachers experience the greatest gains in student achievement when accounting for race and socioeconomic status (Hanushek, 2014). The state of urban schools today is not much different than it was sixty years ago, as many schools still hold vestiges of early oppression and racist housing policy. Urban schools are still likely to have fewer resources with less qualified teachers and disproportionally serve 30 students from minority and lower socioeconomic backgrounds. While recent efforts and policies have worked to improve the student achievement in urban schools, very few efforts have led to transformational change. Based on my prior exploratory study of how veteran teachers influence new teachers in urban schools, I contend that teachers are influenced by more experienced teachers whom they trust and are more likely to engage with on a regular basis. In a pilot study I conducted during the summer of 2015, I observed novice teachers working in an urban school close to the school site of this study. Each teacher had completed a teacher preparation program that was specially designed to prepare new educators for work in urban schools. All of the teachers had completed coursework that linked culturally competent pedagogy with the knowledge and understanding of the vestiges of historic oppression. The teachers in this study all shared that they even though they appreciated the coursework of their program, they felt that they had to forgo these socially just—and research-based—teaching methods for methods that were more realistic—which they saw on a regular basis from the veteran teachers at their new schools. One teacher in particular shared that her belief change stemmed from one class she taught which had students with various abilities and needs. Initially, she believed it was important to reach all of her students, but after getting to know her mentor teacher, she started to believe that it was better to pick just one level of students and teach to that group because she would never be able to fully reach them all. This same teacher shared that her veteran mentor teacher had told her this during her early career years and that she might as well stop wasting her time and just pick one group of students to teach to—whether that be the high achievers or low achievers did not really matter. The new teacher shared that she adopted this veteran teacher’s set of beliefs because she thought it was helpful and actually made her classroom much easier to manage. The new teacher 31 continued to develop her own teaching practice around this belief, and subsequently excluded students in future courses from better opportunities to learn. Many other teachers shared that their beliefs about teaching and what they had once thought about kids from their new communities changed based on the beliefs and messages they received from more experienced— and trusted—teachers. Social Reproduction in Schools In today’s schools and world of public policy, there is a notion that any child can grow up to be whatever he or she wants to be; it is simply a matter of how hard he or she is willing to work. This achievement ideology—or belief in meritocracy—posits that all individuals are given the same set of opportunities and that success is based on merit, and social and economic inequality are due to difference in ability and ambition alone (MacLoed, 2009). Simply put, this idea suggests that individuals do not inherit social status, but instead attain it through their own hard work. Many Americans believe in this system and can provide examples of how it well works (MacLoed, 2009; Ladd, 1994). This achievement ideology—and even language of achievement—can also harbor oppressive tendencies because it assumes that the only barrier to success is a student’s own effort, courage, or skill. This ideology ignores the deep-seeded issues of poor education compounded overtime as underserved groups often received the most limited and under-resourced form of education for many years. It is therefore more appropriate to refer to the achievement gap instead as an educational debt that was never truly full nor has fully been restored. While this thought is encouraging to those who have thrived in the world of meritocracy, aggregate statistics suggest a more discouraging reality for less privileged groups. Social activists argue that greater inequalities continue to exist between White middle-class students 32 and poor African American or Latino students (Kozol, 2012; Lewis & Diamond, 2015; LadsonBillings & Tate, 1995;). In examining income inequality and educational outcomes, Douthat (2005) discussed compelling findings related to this inequity between social classes from the National Education Longitudinal Study: If you hope to obtain a bachelor's degree by age twenty-four, your chances are roughly one in two if you come from a family with an annual income over $90,000; roughly one in four if your family's income falls between $61,000 and $90,000; and slightly better than one in ten if it is between $35,000 and $61,000. For high schoolers whose families make less than $35,000 a year the chances are around one in seventeen. (p. 2) This quote illustrates that students from lower income families are less likely to graduate from college—or succeed under the idea of meritocracy—than students who come from families with higher incomes. If individual outcomes were truly based on ability and talent alone, then these statistics would reflect more equal numbers for students from all types of socioeconomic backgrounds. Social Reproduction Theory Social reproduction theory asserts that certain activities and structures transmit social inequality from one generation to the next (Doob, 2013). One such structure that perpetuates this agenda is school. Reproduction theorists have found that “schools actually reinforce social inequality while pretending to do the opposite” (MacLeod, 2009, p.11). Bowles, Gintis, and Groves (2009) argue that different standards exist for students from different socially constructed class groups and suggest that lesser-class citizens endure a more regimented curriculum that emphasizes obedience and conformity to rules while their more privileged counterparts are 33 taught critical thinking skills and have less supervision. Through this lens, schooling is a place for reinforcing the fragmentation and dominance of one group over another. Bourdieu (1986) extends this theory to include the idea of cultural capital and how schools privilege a higher-class form of social capital through linguistic and cultural preferences that surface in classrooms. The perpetuation of a dominant culture in schools advantages students who posses these ways of knowing, and disadvantages students who do not. Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is loosely defined as the attitudes, beliefs, dispositions, and experiences of those inhabiting one’s social world and suggests that this preference for one culture over another negatively affects aspirations and attainment for students who identify with non-dominant cultures. If schools have institutionalized a preference for dominant culture and indirectly marginalized non-dominant groups, both academically and socially, then teachers can play a powerful role in reinforcing or challenging these norms in their own classrooms, based on their beliefs. Schools can train the wealthy and dominant groups to take up places at the top of the economy while conditioning the poor and subordinate groups to accept their lowly status in class structure (MacLeod, 2009). They can also harbor teachers who operate under a set of beliefs that employ direct transmission style or constructivist practices. These beliefs and actions may subsequently perpetuate a dominant culture or challenge existing routines and push a more equity-focused agenda. Critical Race Theory Similar to Social Reproduction Theory, which suggests that certain institutions foster tendencies that transmit social inequality from one generation to the next, Critical Race Theory (CRT) posits that White supremacy is maintained over time by existing regimes and traditions— 34 despite legal action to rescind certain traditions (Harris, Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, & Thomas, 2012). CRT emerged as a framework during the post civil rights era and has deep origins in legal scholarship (Delgado & Stefancic, 1993). Like Critical Theory, CRT examines the social construction of phenomena and challenges how knowledge is created and whose stories are shared (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). CRT builds on Critical Theory by considering how racial domination contributes to the lack of racial equity (Harris, et al., 2013). In other words, CRT challenges the work of early civil rights movements by addressing how legal actions and terminology like ‘color blindness’ inadvertently contribute to the suppression of racial minorities by allowing Whites to ignore the disadvantages associated with non-White people. Doob (2013) suggests that today many White people believe that "racial privilege no longer exists” even when “their behavior supports radicalized structures and practices” (p. 4). Critical Race Theory identifies both explicit and implicit examples of racism that are embedded within our society and challenges the legal notion that all men and women are equal. CRT posits that even though the constitution promises equal protection of the law for all people, existing regimes of White supremacy and privilege disallow for this promise for non-White people. Gloria Ladson-Billings and William Tate introduced the idea of CRT into educational research in the mid-nineties after earlier research suggested that non-White populations were receiving inferior educational experiences despite new legal requirements for equity (Kozol, 1967). Ladson-Billings and Tate applied the framework of CRT to argue that, “these inequalities are a logical and predictable result of a racialized society in which discussions of race and racism continue to be muted and marginalized” (p. 47). Since this seminal study many educational researchers have applied the lens of CRT as a tool to study issues 35 of equity, equality, and policy reform in education (Solorzano, 1997; DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Milner, 2013). Greater Effects for the Less Privileged Poor minority students disproportionately comprise the demographics of urban schools, and substantial gaps in academic measures remain for less privileged groups such as African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans (Kao & Thompson, 2003). Researchers Neild and Balfanz (2006) found that even with greater alternative offerings, students still prefer to attend large comprehensive high schools that serve their particular residential area. This suggests that while we have many new progressive policies that allow for more school choice, many families still want to send their children to public neighborhood schools—and expect these schools to best serve their children. Unfortunately, students that fall into less privileged groups are also disproportionately disadvantaged by school sanctions. For example, according to data from the US Department of Education, even though African American students make up only 18 percent of the student population, they account for 35 percent of all one-time suspensions, and 46 percent of morethan-one-time suspensions. These students also account for 39 percent of all school expulsions (Civil Rights Data Collection, 2010) These statistics show that African American students are three and a half times more likely to be suspended or expelled than their Caucasian peers (Civil Rights Data Collection, 2010). In a study that surveyed 561 elementary school children to determine if a student’s race or ethnicity played a role in the formation of teacher expectations, researchers found that African American children were more likely than Caucasian children to have teachers that underestimated their ability (McKown & Weinstein, 2002). These statistics suggest that while 36 we may assert that all students have a chance to succeed in the modern educational arena, there is actually an implicit bias based on which socially constructed class group one identifies—that is deeply tied to one’s beliefs. In a book that examines privilege, oppression, and difference, Johnson (2002) argues that we all identify by our socially constructed view of age, race, ethnicity, gender, physical ability, and sexual orientation. We also identify based on background, socioeconomic status, marital status, military experience, religious beliefs, geographic location, parental status, and education. Johnson (2002) suggests that the trouble around diversity is not that we just identify with different groups, but instead how society uses these differences amongst these groups “to include or exclude, reward or punish, credit or discredit, elevate or oppress, value or devalue, leave alone or harm” (p. 16). Some groups are privileged and others are oppressed according to this model. Schools are supposed to serve as the great leveler of these differences amongst students, but if teachers are reinforcing the marginalization of some groups and privileging others, there could be serious implications for students subject to this behavior. The Power of Teachers to Perpetuate Social Reproduction Bowles and Gintis (1976) argue that standards and socialization mechanisms are different for students from underprivileged backgrounds, and even suggest that students from lower class backgrounds are victim to a more regimented curriculum that emphasizes conformity and obedience. The opposite is true for higher class, privileged groups. Here, students are encouraged to think critically and often have less supervision (Bowels & Gintis, 1976). If schools are working to deconstruct the social reproduction of socially constructed class groups, one would likely see teachers using constructivist teaching approaches that encourage student input and value students’ thinking and critical reasoning processes over obedience and docility. Social 37 reproduction in schools is not only influenced by teacher expectation and actions. It could also be influenced by counseling services, course scheduling policies, discipline policies, peer dynamics, etc. However, many researchers argue that student performance is mostly a result of teacher quality (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Stronge, Ward, & Grant, 2011). Therefore, if teachers possess the greatest ability to affect student performance, and ultimately offer the chance to achieve above past familial outcomes, then we should investigate the mechanisms of how teachers’ beliefs on teaching could perpetuate or deconstruct social reproduction in their classrooms. In explaining how difficult it can be to teach for social justice through a certain belief mindset, author of Others People’s Children, Lisa Delpit says, “We do not really see through our eyes or hear through our ears, but through our beliefs” (p. 46). She stresses the importance of beliefs derived from their position of power. Teachers are in an ideal position to affect student outcomes, perceptions, and self-assessment. By addressing teachers’ beliefs, we address teachers’ power that, as Delpit writes, “stems from merely being the majority, by being unafraid to answer or raise questions about discrimination and voicelessness of people of color, and to listen to, not hear, what they say” (p. 47). Teachers possess a certain power in the classroom, and that power reflects a certain socially constructed group. This power is portrayed through teachers’ beliefs and can have the power to affirm and sustain students' cultural backgrounds or further marginalize their identity. Jean Anyon (1997) spent much of her life’s work investigating schooling distinctions amongst social classes. In one seminal study, Anyon (1981) investigated the habits of teachers in five elementary schools over the course of a full school year. She found that students from different economic backgrounds were already “being prepared to occupy particular rungs on the social ladder,” (Anyon, 1981, p. 170). In the working class schools, for example, students were 38 given academic tasks that required them to follow steps or procedures, which were typically very mechanical and allowed for very little decision-making or choice. In middle class schools, student success was about getting the right answer. These “right” answers were typically found in books and from listening to the teacher. This type of work, in addition to the working class school behaviors, required very little independent-thinking activity. In the most affluent schools, however, work was about being creative and working independently. Here, students were encouraged to express themselves and apply concepts and ideas to their own independent projects. These ways of teaching varied by the degree to which a student group (or in this case school) fell into a socially constructed category. Some groups were marginalized, as the case of the working class and middle class schools who were excluded from the more the advantageous ways of learning that were reserved for the privileged upper class. This way of teaching to different socially constructed class groups can be divided into two general indices for teachers’ beliefs on teaching that either marginalize or oppresses student groups. Direct transmission beliefs about teaching encourage teachers to treat students as the less privileged students in Anyon’s (1981) study. Here teachers structure classroom activities around rote procedures and hold students accountable for right answers. There is also an emphasis on teaching facts and for students to remain quietly subordinate to the teacher when learning (Ischinger, 2009). Constructivist beliefs about teaching envision student input and agency as equally valuable to the teacher’s expertise. The affluent students in Anyon’s (1981) study were taught by teachers who employed constructivist-teaching strategies. Here students get to facilitate their own inquiry and find multiple solutions—instead of just one right answer—to problems they solve independently. Teachers also prioritize students’ growth in reasoning and critical thinking over the mastery of specific curriculum content (Ischinger, 2009) 39 Many beginning teachers enter the profession with culturally competent knowledge and years of justice-oriented coursework. Many new teachers also display this through the constructivist-teaching strategies exhibited in their new classrooms. However, there is a chance that new teachers may adopt a more direct-transmission teaching style approach if it widely used within their social network (Selley, 2013). If new teachers form relationships with existing groups of teachers that perpetuate the marginalization of some groups of students and privileging of others—as identified in their beliefs on teaching and learning – then they may also forgo their constructivist beliefs about teaching for direct transmission beliefs. This switch could perpetuate social reproduction in schools. Schools that perpetuate social reproduction may possess teachers who possess direct transmission beliefs and oppress students into their subordinate class status through a regimented curriculum that allows for little student input. Through this model a student is locked into a set group with certain procedural or transactional skills that he or she can later exchange for positions in society that reinforce their status as subordinate to other dominate influencers. Schools that deconstruct social reproduction may possess teachers who possess constructivist beliefs and empower students to achieve through creative and collaborative means (MacLeod, 2009; Freire, 1993). The Intersection of Culturally Competent Coursework & Belief Influence Culturally competent pre-service coursework is of no use if it gets discharged at the schoolhouse gate. Understanding how new teachers form their social networks and how these network dynamics affect new teachers’ beliefs may have bold implications for understanding the mechanisms by which social reproduction continues in schools today. Many researchers have elaborated on Anyon’s (1981) work and discussed this deficit between social classes, including 40 its pervasiveness in schools (Brantlinter, 2003) and ideologies that govern classroom management (Casey, Lozenski & McManimon, 2013). There is a good deal of research that asserts how the role of education is used as a means to reproduce an unequal system of social classes; however, there is also a limited empirical understanding of the ways in which teaching beliefs and the influences on beliefs of new teachers “contribute to the reproduction of distinction and relations of social class” (Anyon, p. 118). Analyzing the behaviors of new teachers in regards to what influences their beliefs across multiple phases of vulnerability during their first year may shed light on this process of reproduction. The interactions of new teachers with their teacher colleagues (including new and veteran teachers) depend on the school infrastructure and can thus vary by school, district, or subject (Spillane & Hopkins, 2013). We know that social networks tend to have more influence on teachers’ beliefs than school experiences alone (Aston & Hyle, 1997), but exactly with whom, where, when, and how frequently these interactions occur is still uncertain. Studies examining teacher beliefs are not uncommon (Ertmer, 2005; Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2007), and in recent years many scholars have shown interest in examining how teacher beliefs affect student behavior (Hamre, et al., 2012; Hamre et al. 2013). However, how these beliefs develop around teaching and learning, and ultimately manifest into classroom practice, has yet to be fully explored (Tsangaridou, 2006; Basturkmen, 2012). Some scholars argue that the difficulty in studying teachers’ belief formation stems from poor conceptualizations, definition problems, and competing understandings of beliefs and belief structure (Pajares, 1992). Current studies lack the depth to fully understand how beliefs are reinforced or deconstructed in novice teacher development through their immediate surroundings (Anderon & Stillman, 2013). If we can better understand how new teachers adopt new beliefs and who or 41 what influences the acquisition of beliefs, then we can attempt to intentionally modify the institutional and structural conditions that accept the status quo and allow for tendencies that foster social reproduction. Structuring Supportive Environments for New Teachers These challenges make teaching in urban schools difficult and detrimental to novice teachers wanting to make an impact on the lives of students in under-resourced, urban settings. During their first year, teachers are likely to form their permanent styles of teaching (Bullough, 1987), and new teachers in search of belonging will often turn to veteran teachers for advice and support (Mastropieri, 2001). This advice and support often comes in the form of both formal and informal support groups. Schein (1992) defines these support groups as a professional culture where: A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (p. 12). Once a new member, or new teacher, enters the group, they embark on understanding and deciphering the group’s norms, social behaviors, and assumptions about teaching and learning. To further examine new teacher experiences with colleagues, researchers Kardos and Johnson (2007) surveyed 486 first- and second-year teachers in Michigan, California, Florida, and Texas. The researchers found that many new teachers work without supportive and integrated professional cultures, and that these cultures may support new teachers in different ways. In an earlier study, Kardos et al. (2001) generated the idea that three types of professional cultures or subcultures exist within schools. These subcultures include: novice-oriented professional 42 cultures, integrated professional cultures, and veteran- oriented professional cultures. The study highlighted the definitions of the three professional cultures but offered little insight on how new teachers join a given subculture. These findings are insightful because they categorize groups based on years of experiences. Teachers are likely to form subgroups based on identity, familial or personal background, and proximity of classroom to other classrooms, among other possibilities. One intentional way of structuring supportive environments for new and early-career teachers is through teacher induction programs. Teacher induction programs are often a partnership between the school and a local university where both parties work to help connect the worlds of theory and practice as teachers gain more real-world experience but consistently reflect back on their theoretical knowledge of teaching and learning (Stanulis, Ames, Stanulis, Burrill, & Ames, 2007). As part of a teacher induction programs, new teachers embark on their daily activities—and influences—as new teachers of record, but then also have time reflect, decompress, and receive feedback from their teacher preparation programs. This partnership allows new teachers to get real-world experience while also having access to supportive—and often familiar—influences. Trusting Relationships Relational trust is an important part of forming relationships with new colleagues. New teachers in a new situation are more likely to form relationships with other teachers through regular interactions and observations (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). This trust is established when both parties have mutual confidence and respect in one another and can aid in the adoption of existing school norms and in the collective responsibility for student learning (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk, 2000). While this trust is generally a positive attribute, and can function as a resource 43 for school improvement for parties in agreement, these shared norms and beliefs can also push out or hinder efforts to do things differently. As new teachers enter the profession to combat the status quo and teach for social justice, it can be challenging to go against a prevailing perspective and act contrary to the majority of others—especially in a state of newness and vulnerability. New teachers work to build relational trust with new friends and faculty and could risk shared mutual respect and confidence when they disagree with a popularly held opinion. New teachers may find it challenging to find balance and belonging in their new schools with a commitment to their former beliefs— especially when these beliefs are challenged by newly trusted sources. Placement Considerations Hopkins and Spillane (2014) found that new teachers are more inclined to seek advice from veteran teachers than teachers with less experience, and that the physical proximity of a new teacher’s classroom to another teacher’s classroom influences the likelihood that they will regularly communicate with that nearby teacher. In a study that examined thirty elementary schools in an urban setting, Paris and Spillane (2010) found that new teachers adopt new advice, knowledge, and information from on-the-job interactions with their colleagues. The researchers argue that these collegial interactions are just as significant to the changes in teachers’ instructional practice as formal professional development. In a study investigating social tie formation, Spillane, Kim, and Frank (2012) found that new teachers interact with other teachers and form social ties based on their personal identities, such as race or gender, and through formal organizations, such as grade-level assignments and formal positions. Diamond, Randolph, and Spillane (2000) investigated teachers’ expectations in a low-income urban elementary school that served mostly African American students and found 44 that low expectations for students became embedded within the organizational habitus of the school, suggesting that beliefs amongst teachers can shape a group narrative and way of being and understanding. Collectively, these studies suggest that new teachers will likely seek advice from newly trusted—and more experienced colleagues—whom they interact with most regularly. Because these relationships develop informally, and there is no certainty on how empowering or cynical this advice transfer may be, it is important that new teachers are placed in environments where they interact most frequently with teachers who possess empowering beliefs about teaching and learning in urban schools. It is important to note here that the word choice of empower is being used to best portray a succinct way of describing socially just beliefs. Because empower means to give someone—or something—power or authority, the phrase ‘empowering beliefs’ suggests beliefs that make someone more confident in controlling and claiming their rights. The word empowerment can carry negative connotations and can reinforce dehumanizing practices as someone—or teacher— allows for others to claim their rights. Therefore, given the constraints of the English language, the term ‘empower’ is not a perfect adjective to use to describe socially just beliefs, but is more appropriate that any other considered terminology. Teacher Turnover & Attrition Under-resourced, urban schools struggle to retain high-quality teachers. In a study that investigated teacher quality in under-resourced, urban schools in Illinois, researchers Peske and Haycock (2006) found that teacher quality decreases when there are more minority students enrolled in the school. They also found a similar trend for schools with increasing enrollments of students from high-poverty backgrounds (Peske & Haycock, 2006). Schools that are 45 disproportionately serving less privileged groups are also retaining the lowest-quality teachers. This crisis of how to best recruit, train, and retain teachers for urban schools and mitigate the effects of teacher attrition and burnout became an epidemic at the turn of the 21st century (Darling-Hammond, 1999). By and large, urban schools still lack the ability to retain highquality teachers in present day (Whipp & Geronime, 2015). We also now know that constant teacher turnover and burnout can affect children’s social and academic success. In a study that examined teacher burnout, and the effects of teacher burnout on students in high-needs elementary schools, researchers Hoglund and colleagues (2015) found that teacher burnout can actually predict a child’s social adjustment and academic adjustment, suggesting that students who are subject to regular teacher attrition have a harder time forming relationships with peers and in acquiring skills and knowledge. This turnover of teachers in schools could not only limit the educational experience of under-privileged students, but it could also impact students’ social development. Cooper (2016) suggests that student motivation is affected by teacher turnover as students fail to form relationships and connect with teachers in schools where teachers exit so rapidly. Further investigating the early career experiences of novice teachers’ could shed light on the current factors affecting teacher attrition and burnout. Understanding this phenomenon better could also help interpret the messages teachers receive regarding their beliefs toward students and how this affects their own beliefs, behaviors, and ability to reinforce or deconstruct social reproduction norms in under-resourced, urban schools. This could inform how urban schools can best structure their environments to allow for positive interactions amongst teachers who teach for social justice, emphasize student assets, proactively responds to student challenges, and mitigate stressors that contribute to early burnout and attrition. 46 Structuring supportive environments for new teachers is one way to help new teachers not only continue teaching in urban schools, but also continue teaching with empowering and optimistic beliefs about their students, their own teaching, and the urban community they now serve. If new teachers are in a place to build relationships with colleagues who can help them positively develop and navigate the many challenges that come along with teaching in underresourced schools, then the school—and overall learning environment for students—may drastically improve. The Potential of Positive Social Influence Teachers’ social relationships are increasingly researched to understand policy implementation (Coburn & Russell, 2008) and how teacher interaction can contribute to student learning (Moolenaar, 2012). Research has found that well-connected teacher networks have supported greater levels of student achievement (Moolenaar, Sleegers, & Daly, 2011), and schools that encourage interactions amongst teachers are best situated to reform instruction (Hopkins & Spillane, 2014). This suggests that social relationships can help facilitate the best methods of teaching and learning within classrooms. While this model is advantageous for schools that encourage constructivist beliefs on teaching, it may be disadvantageous for schools whose social network structures possess direct transmission beliefs on teaching and learning— particularly in schools that serve high numbers of marginalized students. Like Anyon (1981) found in her work on the constitution of teachers and their teaching style, when students are exposed the compounding effects of a certain style of teaching and learning, they also become habituated into a more permanent social position and view of themselves in society. If students are marginalized to believe they are inferior to the authority of their teachers practicing directtransmission style teaching, they will likely assume this position in greater society. However, if 47 students are empowered to believe in their own ability, autonomy, and ability to create by teachers practicing more constructivist-based learning, then they will likely assume a more advantageous position in society. Therefore, it is important that new teachers are exposed to more positive and empowering viewpoints—and not indoctrinated with doubt—in their newly formed relationships with existing faculty. Administrative Impact Research suggests that school leaders can influence interactions amongst staff and the distribution of resources by appropriating leadership positions and grade-level assignments based on anticipated relationships (Spillane, Kim, & Frank, 2012). Given the impact of social relationships on teaching practice, teachers’ beliefs, and schools’ abilities to reinforce or deconstruct social reproduction, it is worth investigating how novice urban teachers develop relationships and how these relationships influence their beliefs on teaching. Early-career teachers could be using constructivist principles and culturally competent teaching strategies in their classrooms initially, and then abdicating their socially just beliefs and abilities for the dominant beliefs that reflect their new social group. Understanding how novice teachers form new relationships with existing staff and what factors influence these new relationships is important to consider in examining this belief shift. If teachers and other school staff shape the structural characteristics of their environment, they possess the capacity to reinforce or challenge the social reproduction process (Diamond, Randolf, & Spillaine, 2004). We know that many schools play a role in the social reproduction of students in marginalized groups, but research is limited in its knowledge on how mechanisms within schools ultimately perpetuate this outcome (Anyon, 1997; Darling-Hammond, 2010). 48 Understanding how and by what factors new teachers’ beliefs are influenced during the first year, and how this affects their classroom practice, may help to better explain this mechanism. Understanding Shifting Beliefs Social theorists challenge the power of schools to change outcomes for under-privileged groups and argue that social reproduction in schools is inevitable (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Bourdieu, 2011; Giroux, 1983). Yet, many new teachers entering the teaching profession have confidence in their beliefs that they can make a difference for less privileged groups (Haberman, 1995). There’s something unique that happens during urban teachers’ early-career years that causes a shift from this idealistic outlook to a feeling of disillusionment, powerlessness, and inability to fight the status quo (Byrne, 1998; Rushton, 2001). How and when this shift occurs and why it occurs for some novice urban teachers and not others is one idea explained through this embedded case study. Novice teachers seek advice from their social relationships when they encounter challenge (Mastropieri, 2001) and the beliefs of novice teachers are open to influence and change based on interactions with others (Carter & Doyle, 1996). Some evidence even suggests that novice teachers change their beliefs and identities based on dialogues and experiences within their social relationships (Beijaard, et al., 2004). This prompts further research to investigate whether these new relationships influence novice teachers’ beliefs and whether these new beliefs affect classroom practices that reinforce or deconstruct tendencies for the social Summary Understanding new teachers’ beliefs—including how they are formed, influenced, and changed—is an important first step in improving the early career experiences of teachers and also teacher preparation programs. New research has challenged the widely held idea that beliefs 49 are static and cannot change (Lewandowsky, 2011), and provided certain variables that can contribute to belief changes (Tan, et al., 2016). While many teachers—and people in general— are unaware of how their beliefs are influenced and ultimately impact their practice, new research suggests that what teachers believe about their students significantly affects a student’s outcome and overall achievement (Hattie, 2015). In places such as under-resourced urban schools there are even greater implications for teachers’ beliefs and their effect on students as these schools have often been labeled as places to transmit social inequality from one generation to the next—an idea most commonly known as social reproduction theory (Bowles, Gintis, & Groves, 2009). If new teachers’ enter the classroom with a set of empowering beliefs, but then become disenchanted with new beliefs on students and their abilities they may resort to more antiquated methods of teaching that focus on discipline and order instead of creativity and empowerment. Because new teachers are exceptionally vulnerable (Trent, 2011) and often seek advice from newly trusted colleagues (Brock & Grady, 2007; Anderman, Andrzejewski, & Allen, 2011), it is imperative that educational researchers understand how the beliefs of new teachers change and when these changes take place. It is also important that educational researchers understand the experiences new teachers face during their first year as they undergo new emotional turbulence and work to cope with the many demands of teaching as teacher of record (Moir, 1990). If researchers, school districts, and administrators can better understand the unique experiences new teachers face during their first year and how they succumb or overcome influences or perspective changes in their beliefs, then we can better prepare teachers to navigate the challenging first year with empowering beliefs and teaching strategies. 50 Because there is a great need for more teachers to work in urban schools—particularly teachers who are qualified and excited about teaching in urban schools—this study offers insight into how urban schools are perceived by incoming new teachers and how new teachers can best prepare for work in these schools in ways that respect the existing culture and build on strong community principles and values. There is a great deal of research that examines how beliefs are formed, influenced, and ultimately impact actions. However, there is very little research that examines how the beliefs of new teachers are formed and influenced, and sustained—particularly in urban schools. This study will contribute to this existing gap and by examining what new teachers believe when they enter the classroom as teacher of record, how they experience their first year, and what influences their beliefs as they make sense of their new school culture, community, and students. 51 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY The ongoing experiences of brand new teachers in urban schools and how their beliefs and actions evolve over time is important to consider in reforming urban schools and overcoming systems of oppression. I conducted this study to examine these issues and specifically address if or how new teachers’ beliefs sustain, morph, or change during the various phases of the first year (Moir, 1990). To best investigate these phenomena, I used an embedded case study (Gerrig, 2004) to examine brand new teachers of record working in an urban school district. In case study research, the case can be a university, business, company, city, or even a human being. The case is unique among others and is “considered from a specified perspective and with a special interest” (Scholz, 2011, p. 1). The integration of knowledge and data stemming from various sources allows the researcher to investigate multiple dimensions of phenomena through various perspectives. Case studies examine a current phenomenon in a realworld context, where the boundaries between the phenomenon and the context are hard to define (Yin, 2003). Case studies go beyond isolated variables and allow the researcher to examine “context and other complex conditions” that are related to the case (Yin, 2009, p. 4). To this end, a case study was the most appropriate method to investigate the phenomena of new teachers’ beliefs and influence as identified in the following research questions. Research Questions I used case study methods to investigative new teachers’ beliefs sustainment, change, and evolution over the first year as teacher of record. I also aimed to understand how changes in novice teachers’ beliefs could contribute to social reproduction tendencies in urban schools. The following research questions are investigated in this study: 52 Research Question 1: What beliefs do novice teachers in an urban school hold in regards to teaching practice, social justice, and the purpose of schools as they begin their first year as teachers of record? Research Question 2: How do the beliefs of these novice teachers change over the course of their first year of teaching? When during the year do changes occur? Research Question 3: What and who do new novice teachers believe influence changes in their beliefs? How do they see their preparation program and/or new faculty colleagues influencing their beliefs and changes in beliefs? Research Question 4: How do these novice teachers understand the ways in which their beliefs impact their teaching practice? Study Design I drew from multiple sources of evidence for this study. In an embedded case study, different perspectives of inquiry, or several subunits, compile the case. These diverse methods generate data, and allow for the integration of diverse viewpoints from various sources (Scholz, 2011). Specifically, I utilized interviews, classroom observations, and surveys as sources of evidence to address my questions. A case study design allowed for “an intensive study of a single unit for the purpose of understanding a larger class of (similar) units” (Gerrig, p. 342). In this study, the single unit, or case, was classified as each of the five brand new teachers in one urban school, while the larger classes of similar units were classified as brand new teachers in urban schools across the United States. This case study followed Moir’s (1990) timeline for the six phases of teaching. This timeline theorizes what teachers are feeling during various points of their first academic year in the classroom. Following Moir’s (1990) six phases ensured that data was collected during 53 specified intervals that accurately reflected certain levels of vulnerability and strength throughout the new teachers’ first year. Research Setting Data collection took place over the course of the 2015 – 2016 academic year (beginning August 2015 and ending November 2016), with thirteen data collection points that aligned with each of Moir’s (1990) six phases. The data was collected in September (anticipation), October (survival), December (disillusionment), February (rejuvenation), May (reflection), and July (anticipation) with a final data point collected the following November. The final data collection in November was added as a follow-up interview after data revealed that all of the teachers’ beliefs had changed—even though only one teacher was aware that this change had taken place. The November interview allowed for teachers to explain what factors might have contributed to changes in their beliefs and possible reasons for why they were unaware of these changes taking place. The embedded case study drew from interviews, surveys, and classroom observations as sources of evidence. Interviews were conducted during the anticipation, survival, disillusionment, rejuvenation, and reflection phases—with a final interview conducted during the anticipation phase of the following year. The survey was given during the anticipation, disillusionment, and reflection phases. Classroom observations were conducted during the end of survival/beginning of the disillusionment phase, and in the rejuvenation and reflection phases. Research Site There is a lack of clarity around definitions of urban schools and urban education in the literature and among researchers, policy makers, and the general public (Whipp & Geromine, 2017). In the world of educational research urban is often used interchangeably with diverse and high-needs (Anderson & Stillman, 2013). Urban is also sometimes used as a code word to mask 54 deficit views of people in racial groups (Milner, 2012). Because of this, I borrowed the definition of urban from a college of education that has similar interests in preparing teachers for work in urban schools. I considered other definitions of urban from other institutions such as Michigan State University (2017), which defines urban education as: Teaching and learning in urban contexts that serve students who have been historically disenfranchised and traditionally marginalized by systems of inequality based primarily on race, ethnicity, culture, gender, social class, language, and disability. However, because this definition more accurately defines urban education—as opposed to an exclusively urban area—it was more appropriate to choose a definition that defined urban in a way that I could also use this definition to locate a research site. Therefore, I chose to define an urban school as one that consisted of the following important attributes that were determined by the SUNY Owego School of Education—an institution that has a recent interest in placing pre-service teachers in authentically urban environments during their internship years. First, the school must be located in an urban area rather than a rural, small town, or suburban area. Secondly, the school must have a relatively high rate of students on free or reduced-price lunch status.. Thirdly, the school must have a relatively high proportion of students of color. Lastly, the school must have a large number of students who are also considered “highneeds” —which are students that are in need of special assistance/ support and at a high risk for educational failure. I used these attributes to locate and identify an appropriate district for this study. Case Study District For this study, I chose a district in the state of Michigan that today serves a population of roughly 5,500 students—which I will refer to as Willowbrook Independent School District. 55 Willowbrook is facing a declining enrollment and about seventy percent of students attending Willowbrook schools qualify for free or reduced price lunch. Nearly fourteen percent of students at Willowbrook are enrolled in special education services. Willowbrook’s graduation rate is roughly sixty-eight percent, and Willowbook has consistently scored below state proficiency standards in math, science, reading, writing and social studies since 2006. Thirty-five percent of the students at Willobrook identify as African American and nearly ten percent identify as Hispanic or Latino. Ten percent identify as belonging to more than one race and forty-eight percent of the students identify as Caucasian. Willobrook is situated in a city that has almost 34,000 people and was an early home to the auto industry. The city has faced a steady population decline since 2010. To outside –and more affluent—communities, Willowbrook is seen through a deficit lens. Outsiders perceive Willowbrook schools as less safe and located in undesirable areas where inhabitants lack good judgment and often fall victim to immoral pursuits. Many families who live within the district’s city limits send their children to private school. Within this district, I selected a middle school as the most appropriate site for study. The middle school not only encompassed the characteristics of an urban school, but it also recruited fourteen new teachers for the 2015 – 2016 academic year. Of these new teachers, eight had no years of experience teaching and three had between one and four years of teaching experience Of the eight qualified new teacher participants, five teachers agreed to participate in the study. Within the middle school, forty-seven percent of the students identify as White, fortythree percent of the students identify as African American, five percent identify as Hispanic, two percent identify as belonging to more than one race, two percent identify as Asian, and one percent of students identify as Native Hawaiian. More than sixty-eight percent of the students at the middle school qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. 56 Case Study Participants The five study participants were graduates of teacher preparation programs in the state of Michigan. Three of the participants identified as female and two of the participants identified as male. All of the teachers were between the ages of twenty-two and twenty-eight. All teachers identified as White or Caucasian. The teachers were given no incentive to participate in the study, but simply asked if they wanted to participate in a study investigating new teachers on a voluntary basis. The participants taught different subjects. Mr. Geoffrey taught history, Mr. Burke taught sixth and seventh grade science, Ms. Barley taught in the special education resource room, Ms. List taught German studies, and Ms. Destinas taught French studies. All study participants signed a consent form that outlined the study. This document also provided further information on the survey, interview, and observation protocols, identified the participant’s rights, and provided contact information for the university’s institutional review board in the event of concerns or further questions. See Appendix A for a copy of the teacher consent form. Particpant Professional Role Mr. Geoffrey History Teacher Ms. Barley Special Education Teacher Ms. List Foreign Language Teacher Ms. Destinas Foreign Language Teacher Mr. Burtke Science Teacher *Particpant names have been changed to protect privacy Percent of Teach Table 3.1. Representing an overview of the five study participants in the sample. Data Collection Procedures As described previously, I collected data for this study during thirteen distinct data collection points that spanned the Moir (1990) First Year Phases of Teaching model. All study participants participated in one hundred percent of these data collection points that included three 57 surveys, six interviews, and three classroom observations. The study participants used e-mail as the primary form of communication to schedule each of the thirteen data collection points with the researcher. Figure 3.1. The data collection timeline for this case study as embedded in the Moir (1990) First Year Phases of Teaching Model Surveys I administered surveys to all study participants three times during the study timeframe. Each survey had forty-three questions in total. The questions were randomly distributed and redistributed for each survey so teachers would not recognize patterns or question order. The survey assessed each teacher’s beliefs in the three domains of teaching practice, social justice, and the purpose of schooling and also assessed ten belief constructs. These constructs included: belief that students learn in different ways, belief that learning is the same for all students, belief 58 in constructivist teaching practices, belief in direct-transmission teaching practices, belief that students possess strengths from home, belief that students do not posses strengths from home, belief in high academic and behavioral expectations, belief in basic expectations for disadvantaged students, belief that schools should prepare students for college, and the belief that school should prepare students for jobs. These constructs and beliefs are intersectional, but were identified and defined independently to best showcase and isolate any changes in beliefs as they progressed over time. Survey questions for each construct are presented in Table 3.2. All five study participants took the survey during the anticipation phase, the disillusionment phase, and the reflection phase. The survey drew questions from three existing and reputable surveys that assess teachers’ beliefs and attitudes in regards to constructivist or direct transmission beliefs on teaching. 59 Items Beliefs on teaching practice Belief that students learn in different ways I invite students to create many of my bulletin boards. I base student grades primarily on homework, quizzes, and tests. I prefer to assess students informally through observations and conferences. I often create thematic units based on the students’ interests and ideas. Belief that learning is the same for all students A quiet classroom is generally needed for effective learning. I believe students learn best when there is a fixed schedule. I generally use the teacher’s guide to lead class discussions of a story or text. I find that textbooks and other published materials are the best sources for creating my curriculum. Belief in constructivist teaching practices (student should construct his or her own knowledge) I believe that expanding on students’ ideas is an effective way to build my curriculum. I prefer to cluster students’ desks or use tables so they can work together. I involve students in evaluating their own work and setting their own goals. My primary role as a teacher is to help students become learners, not to teach particular content knowledge. During discussions I ask many open-ended questions and encourage students to ask questions of each other My role as a teacher is to facilitate students’ own inquiry. Students should be allowed to think of solutions to practical problems themselves before the teacher shows them how they are solved. Thinking and reasoning processes are more important than specific curriculum content. Belief in direct-transmission teaching practices (central role in learning is assigned to to the teacher) It is better when the teacher-not the students decides what activities should be done. I like to make curriculum choices for students because they can’t know what they need to learn. To be sure that I teach students all necessary content and skills, I follow a textbook or workbook. If I am not directing classroom events, the most likely result is chaos. My students spend the majority of their seatwork time working individually. If students are interested in a topic I try to help them, but I don’t use class time because I have a lot of curriculum to cover. Effective good teachers demonstrate the correct way to solve a problem. It is better when the teacher – not the student – decides what activities are to be done. Instruction should be built around problems with clear, correct answers, and around ideas that most students can grasp quickly. It is important that I establish classroom control before I become too friendly with students. If I am not directing classroom events, the most likely result is chaos. It is better when the teacher – not the student – decides what activities are to be done. Beliefs on social justice Belief that students possess strengths from home An essential part of my teacher role is supporting a student’s family when problems are interfering with a student’s learning. I invite parents to volunteer in or visit my classroom almost any time. Belief that students do not possess strengths from home I communicate with parents mainly through report cards and parent-teacher conferences. Schools have generally failed to educate most students from lower class backgrounds enough for them to escape the poverty of their origins. Belief in high academic and rigorous curriculum A good academic education, through college, will provide students the most important skills and knowledge they will need to succeed in work. If a student from this school needs extra assistance, the school provides it. When there is a dispute between students in my classroom, I try to intervene immediately to resolve the problem. Students need to learn that there are consequences for inappropriate behavior. Belief in “what works for this group” or “status-quo” curriculum Good basic reading, mathematics skills, science, and learning the important facts of history will enable most students from immigrant and poor families to succeed in school and later life. The phrase “poor performance” refers to a performance that lies below the previous achievement level of the student. When referring to a “good performance” I mean a performance that lies above the previous achievement level of the student. Beliefs on purpose of schooling Schools should prepare students for college In the 21st century world economy, there won’t be nearly enough “blue-collar” and service jobs for the numbers of people who typically graduate from high-school and don’t go on to college. School should prepare students for jobs The American economy will need to be sufficiently strong during the next two or three decades to provide a place in the working world for people of all skill levels. Good basic reading, mathematics skills, science, and learning the important facts of history will enable most students from immigrant and poor families to succeed in school and later life. Table 3.2. Survey items grouped by belief domain and belief construct The Teaching, Learning, and Computing Survey (1998) was one source of questions for the survey in this study. The Teaching, Learning, and Computing Survey (1998) was developed by the Center for Research on Information Technology for Organizations (CRITO) and used to assess the beliefs of over 5,000 teachers in 1998. The survey asks teachers to describe their best 60 practices, and teaching philosophies by having teachers answer to what extent they agree with statements such as, “I mainly see my role as a facilitator. I try to provide opportunities and resources for my students to discover or construct concepts for themselves.” The survey is commonly referred to as the TLC and was first used to identify differences in teachers’ willingness to implement new technologies based on their constructivist or direct transmission beliefs on teaching. The Teacher Beliefs Survey (TBS) is another instrument used to design the survey in this study. The TBS assesses the beliefs of teachers related to traditional or constructivist approaches in teaching and learning. This survey utilizes hypothetical situations to assess beliefs. The TLC and TBS surveys compliment each other well because they both investigate beliefs about teaching and student learning through different approaches. The TLC survey relies on questions that assess teachers’ broad perspectives. Conversely, the TBS relies on questions that assess a teacher practices by asking whether they agree with statements such as, “I involve students in evaluating their own work and setting their own goals.” Combined, the two surveys assess beliefs on teaching and the purposes of teaching—and school in general—through self report. The final survey used to design the survey used in this study is The 2013 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) Teacher Questionnaire. This survey has a section on teaching practices, beliefs, and attitudes. This survey was used for an international consortium presented by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to conduct a cross-country analysis on teaching and learning in schools. The survey for this study utilized questions from the section on teaching practices, beliefs, and attitudes. This portion of the survey was most useful for the design of this study’s survey because it assessed teachers’ beliefs on teaching and teachers’ beliefs on student ability and familial involvement, which is important to 61 understand when assessing a teacher’s belief about a specific group or community that is different from their own. The TALIS also included broad questions that assessed job satisfaction, school climate and culture, and community support. I analyzed all survey questions from the three existing survey questions for their ability to assess each of the ten constructs and broad overarching domains that are examined in this study. I then group questions conceptually by construct. These questions were then used to produce one final survey with thirty-five multiple-choice questions. These questions that asked the extent to which a teacher agreed or disagreed with each question. The answer for each question could range from the following six options: strongly agree, moderately agree, slightly agree, slightly disagree, moderately disagree, or strongly disagree. In the first survey there were also an additional seven free-response questions that probed for each teacher’s identity. Specifically, these free-response questions asked about a teacher’s race, ethnicity, gender, teaching experience, subjects taught, university background, and hometown. Three new teachers working in a local district piloted the survey for this study. Revisions were made to accommodate concerns such as wording and survey length. The piloted survey was sixty-five multiple-choice questions and cut to thirty-five multiple-choice questions because of the shared concerns on survey length. The final surveys—which contained the same questions, in varying order—was distributed to study participants during the anticipation, rejuvenation, and reflection phases of the Moir (1990) model. The surveys were administered online and one hundred percent of the participant teachers completed the survey. The survey is available in Appendix C. 62 Interviews Study participants engaged in five interviews over the course of the academic year and one final interview during November of the following year. The first five interviews followed the Moir (1990) model and were conducted during the survival, disillusionment, rejuvenation, and reflection phases of a first year teacher. The interviews were semi-structured and approximately thirty to forty minutes long depending on the descriptiveness of the participant’s responses. The questions in each interview included questions on personal background, beliefs regarding teaching practice, student achievement, teaching for social justice, the purpose of schools, and responses to reform efforts. All interviews were audio-recorded using the software SuperNote. In the first interview protocol, teachers were asked which factors they perceived to have an influence on their beliefs. These influences were open to both in-school and out-ofschool sources. In this interview, teachers were also asked to identify their closest professional colleagues and to whom they reached out to for advice. This question was also open to both inschool and outside-of-school sources. In the second interview, teachers were asked the same questions as in the first interview to measure change. Teachers were also asked how these selfreported influences might have changed their response. In the third interview, teachers were asked similar questions to the first and second interviews and how they perceived their beliefs to affect classroom practices, teaching methods, and attitudes toward students and families. In the fourth interview, teachers were asked the same questions about their beliefs and about factors they perceived influenced their beliefs. They were also asked to explain how specific examples of classroom activity (observed during classroom observations) reflected their beliefs and how they understood this process. In the follow-up interview (given in November), teachers were asked if they believed any of their responses had changed since their last interview and if they 63 still believed what they had perceived to believe during the initial interview questions. The semi-structured nature of the interview protocol allowed time for interviewees to contribute any other information that they felt was valuable to share during the duration of the study. This semistructured nature also accounted for the variability in length of each teacher’s interviews. Some teachers expanded thoroughly on questions and contributed related information, while some teachers shared only what was asked from them during the interviews. The protocol for the first interview was piloted with two new teachers working in a local district. This piloting led to revisions, including the addition of questions on teacher background and job satisfaction. Small wording revisions were also made to affect the clarity and cohesiveness of questions. The full protocols for the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and final interview are available in Appendix D through Appendix H. Observations Because traditional means of assessing teachers’ beliefs (such as self-reports, questionnaires, and surveys) can lead to decontextualized beliefs that do not authentically relate to practice (Kane, Sandretto, & Heath, 2002), it was necessary that I observe new teachers’ beliefs in action. My own perspective was important to include in the measurement of teachers’ beliefs because it allowed me to assess if perceived beliefs matched exhibited beliefs. Conducting classroom observations also allowed me to identify any inconsistencies in beliefs reported and beliefs observed. This technique has been successfully used in the past as a way to identify teachers’ beliefs and to enhance the reliability and validity of self-reports (RimmKaufman, Storm, Sawyer, Pianta, & LaParo, 2006). These observational techniques have also illustrated how professed beliefs can differ from actual beliefs (Speer, 2005). 64 By observing study participants, I was also able to infer whether their beliefs on teaching and other domains authentically matched the literature’s definition of a belief or belief domain. For example, if a teacher self-reported through survey and interview data that she held exceptionally high expectations for her students, but then had students copying definitions from a book during classroom observations, I would note this as an inconsistency. Similarly, if a teacher thought that she held high expectations for all students, but then only enforced these expectations for some students during classroom observations, I would also mark this as an inconsistency. Because of these possible discrepancies, it was vital to include my perspective in measuring beliefs during classroom observations over the course of study. I conducted classroom observations during the survival, rejuvenation, and reflection phases of the Moir (1990) model for all five-study participants. I took field notes during each classroom observation and loosely categorized them by classroom activities and teacher/student interactions into the three domains of teaching practice, social justice, and the purpose of school. I then examined these notes for culturally responsive teaching and traits that fit the justiceoriented teaching framework (Whipp, 2013). Traits of this justice-oriented teacher framework include: holding students to high academic and behavioral expectations, creating a classroom that is warm and demanding, drawing off of student’s cultural background to create classroom experiences, connecting with students’ families and communities, advocating for policy and/or curricular change that promotes equitable education outcomes, helping students critique historical and contemporary examples of injustice, and empowering students to work toward social change. I also conducted memos after each observation to organize my thoughts and preliminary findings. 65 The classroom observations allowed me to witness classroom actions and teacher/ student interactions in an authentic environment and gather data that was different from the self-reported data collected during interviews and survey responses. I compared data from classroom observations to interview and survey data—during each phase—as a way to better understand if perceived beliefs were also authentically demonstrated in classroom practice. The goal of the classroom observations was to document how study participants were teaching and interacting with their students. The observation protocol provided space to document specific examples of constructivist or direct-transmission style teaching and learning, examples of socially just behaviors, and examples that support a certain purpose of schooling. For each classroom observation, I observed study participants in their own classrooms. The observations ranged from approximately thirty to sixty minutes. Each teacher was aware of when each classroom observation would take place. Data Organization All data was saved to my private laptop and secured storage websites such as Dropbox, Google, NVIVO, and SuperNote during the course of the study. Data was saved methodically according to the first name of each teacher and then changed to reflect the pseudonym of each teacher during the dissemination of information process. A procedure for each source of data was followed to ensure the confidentiality of each participant and study site location. Interview Data For each interview, verbatim data was recorded using the software, SuperNote, and then transcribed using Microsoft Word. Each interview transcript was saved to my laptop. I also recorded brief notes in Microsoft Word during each interview. The transcribed data was then uploaded into NVIVO and classified by each study participant. Each study participant’s folder 66 was then sectioned by each phase of the data collection process. This technique allowed for NVIVO NODE consistency across all study participants during the coding process. Observation Data For each observation, I recorded detailed notes on the observation protocol for everything that occurred while I was present. I paid particular attention to teaching practices and teacher/student interactions and also identified instances of social justice in the protocol section for justice-oriented teacher habits. The observation protocols were saved to my laptop and uploaded to NVIVO. Each observation protocol was organized by study participant and by phase of data collection as it was organized for the interview data. Survey Data The surveys for this study were completed online using the application platform Survey Monkey. All survey data was exported into PDF copies for each survey study participant and then imported into an excel sheet. The excel sheet was then sectioned by survey question and organized by each of the three domains and ten constructs. Each study participant’s entry was mapped on the excel sheet and grouped by question for each domain and construct. This data was then assigned numeric values based on the Likert scale to show differences and similarities and compared across study participant phases, and across study participant changes. Data Collection Summary All data was collected, recorded, and saved on one laptop over the course of the study. As a way to document the data collection process and to recognize any abnormalities, I also used ongoing memo writing as a tool to make sense of the data collection process. 67 Data Analysis The data was coded using domain and taxonomic coding methods and categorized into ten belief constructs and three belief domains. The belief domains included: teaching practice, social justice, and the purpose of schooling. The belief constructs included: belief that students learn in different ways, belief that students learn best through traditional practices, belief in constructivist teaching practices, belief in direct-transmission teaching practices, belief that students possess strengths from home, belief in high academic and behavioral expectations, belief in basic expectations for disadvantaged students, belief that schools should prepare students for college, and belief that school should prepare students for jobs. Perceived influences on beliefs were also coded for using the same analytic terms. Figure 3.2. The data analysis process for this case study. 68 Data collection from surveys, interviews, and classroom observations occurred simultaneously. The coding and analysis of all data sources occurred after all data were collected. Memo writing occurred as an ongoing process through data collection and data analysis. Taxonomic and domain coding methods were appropriate for this data because of the nature of the surveys, extensive interviews, and classroom observations. Taxonomic coding methods are defined as “the systematic search for and categorization of cultural terms…it is appropriate for constructing a detailed topics list or index of major categories or themes in the data” (Saldana, p. 26). In the case of this study, I utilized the belief constructs and domains as a way to separate and organize teachers’ beliefs with taxonomic coding strategies. Taxonomic coding allowed me to identify and categorize specific examples of beliefs, self-perceptions of beliefs, and understandings of beliefs affect on practice for each belief domain and belief construct. As McCurdy and colleagues (2005) note, “Taxonomies are simply [hierarchical] lists of different things that are classified together under a domain word by members of a microculture on the basis of some shared certain attitudes” (p. 45). For the first cycle of coding, I used taxonomic coding methods to pull out basic themes and/or predominate beliefs (as classified by the three domains) that occurred for participants. I used the same technique to code for the perceived influences on each teacher’s beliefs.. For the second cycle coding, I used taxonomic coding to code for each of the ten constructs. This secondary method was also used to finalize first cycle coding choices for each of the three domains. During this phase, I also placed coded data into the appropriate phase of the Moir (1990) model based on the phase of data collection. For example, data collected on September 16th were included in the survival phase. To organize this process in NVIVO, 69 descriptive themes (or nodes) were created for each study participant. Sub-themes (or sub-nodes) were also created for each belief domain and perceived influence on beliefs. Within each of these sub-themes, data was organized by each of the phases within Moir’s (1990) model. I examined data by each teacher and by each phase of the Moir (1990) model to answer the first research question—“What beliefs do novice teachers in an urban school hold in regards to teaching practice, social justice, and the purpose of schools as they begin their first year as teachers of record?” I also used data from the first teacher survey to determine to what degree each teacher identified with each of the ten constructs—and cumulatively three domains. This was calculated by assigning a baseline score of zero and then adding one-point increments for every answer below or above zero. This scaling is known as a Likert scale. For the surveys in this study, participants’ responses were assigned quantitative values. Specifically, strongly agree = 3, moderately agree = 2, slightly agree =1, slightly disagree = -1, moderately disagree = -2, and strongly disagree = -3. Figure 3.4 identifies belief changes and are illustrated for each belief construct and belief domain. A green dot indicates a positive change. A red dot indicates a negative change. A yellow dot indicates significant change. Figure 3.3. Raw changes in survey scores for each teacher across the three belief domains and ten belief constructs (question five includes two constructs—in agreement or disagreement). 70 I then used the responses from the interview and survey data to create taxonomic tree diagrams (Saldana, 2013) to illustrate the initial beliefs of each study participant by each of the overarching three domains and ten belief constructs. Finally, I assessed the data for patterns and differences across the ten belief constructs for each of the five study participants. To analyze my second research question – “How do the beliefs of these novice teachers change over the course of their first year of teaching, and when during the year do changes occur?” – I organized the coded data by each phase of Moir’s (1990) model. I analyzed this data for changes, revisions, and repetition in each of the ten belief constructs as teachers progressed through each phase of the Moir (1990) model. I then analyzed data from the first, second, and final teacher surveys by the degree to which each teacher upheld or opposed each of the ten constructs, and broadly across the three domains. Specifically, I analyzed data for survey response changes over the course of the first year. To compute these changes, I recorded differences in each study participant’s responses between the first survey and the second survey, the second survey and the final survey, and the first survey and the final survey. I then identified patterns across all of the data sources To analyze my third research question—“What and who do new novice teachers believe influence changes in their beliefs? How do they see their preparation program and/or new faculty colleagues influencing their beliefs and changes in beliefs?”—I examined coded data from each of the phases that elicited responses about the self-perceived influences on beliefs. These phases included the anticipation phase, the survival phase, and the reflection phase. I then used an emergent coding scheme to identify patterns of influence on each teacher (Saldana, 2015). I used emergent coding here because the ideas that emerged were different from the pre-set taxonomic codes and, unlike the set belief constructs, were not coded for before the study began. 71 Some emergent codes that transpired to explain factors of influence on beliefs were: “FAMILY,” “FORMER TEACHER,””STUDENTS,” and “COLLEGE PREP.” I then looked for patterns across all study participants. From taxonomic coding, I developed case-summary maps for each participant to organize their story as it developed over the course of the Moir (1990) model. These maps were useful to answer the first three research questions because they allowed me to quickly identify belief changes, inconsistencies, and reversions back to prior beliefs for each study participant. I also used these maps to identify differences, similarities, and patterns across all participants for each unique phase of the Moir (1990) model. For the final research question – “How do these novice teachers understand the ways in which their beliefs impact their teaching practice?” – I coded interview responses and classroom observations for how a teacher understood the way in which his or her beliefs affected classroom practice in regards to each of the three teaching domains and nine constructs using codes such as, “REPORT TEACH PRACTICE,” “REPORT SOCIAL JUST,” and “REPORT SCHOOL PURP.” I then coded for evidence to support each belief as defined by the literature during classroom observations for the three teaching domains and nine constructs using codes such as “WITNESS TEACH PRACTICE,” “WITNESS SOCIAL JUST,” WITNESS SCHOOL PURP.” Finally, I identified conflicts of understandings between the literature’s definition of a belief or construct and a teacher’s understanding of a belief or construct and coded these conflicts to showcase any inconsistencies. For example, if a teacher said she or he was demonstrating their beliefs about social justice by stifling controversial conversation, I coded this as “CONFLICT” because it did not align with the literature’s definition of what it means to teach for social justice. Similarly, if a teacher’s understanding of their beliefs and actions aligned with the literature’s 72 definition, I coded this as “RESOLUTION.” I then looked for patterns of conflict or resolution across each of the three domains and nine constructs and for each teacher and across all study participants. Role of the Researcher In qualitative research, the research assumes the role of study participant because of their direct relationships with data collection (Creswell, 2009) As a qualitative researcher, I could not distance myself from the study as one can do through quantitative research. My background as a former urban school teacher and past experience observing teachers in urban schools all led to my initial interest in this phenomena of teacher beliefs and ultimately grew greater during my literature review. Given these parameters, I was careful to immerse myself as a research participant while also attempting to remain as unbiased, fair, and as truthful as possible. Being a research participant does not mean that one is unsystematic about data collection or unreliably adding evidence to support a personal prejudice. Instead it considers personal insights and feelings as strengths to understand the data more fully (Creswall, 2009). The data and the process of analysis for this study are all outlined in detail in the following to section as my best attempt to deliver accurate and reliable findings. Quality, Rigor, and Trustworthiness Checks Reliability and validity must be addressed in all research (Simon, 2011). Since there was no expectation to replicate the work done in this case study, the terminologies of “reliability” and “validity” were substituted with “quality,” “rigor,” and “trustworthiness.” Because of the nature of qualitative work, this exchange best allowed for the evaluation of case study data. Two primary methods were used to enhance quality, rigor, and trustworthiness; triangulation of data sources and member checking. 73 I used the process of triangulation to enrich the data and enhance developing patterns amongst participants. In triangulation, the researcher takes multiple samplings of the same phenomena to better understand, see all parts, and improve the overall accuracy of formed conclusions (Crewswell, 2003). For this case study, I used data triangulation to evaluate data from multiple perspectives. These perspectives included data from participant interviews, data from classroom observations, and data from survey questions. I then looked for consistencies or inconsistencies in ideas across all sets of interview, observation, and survey data. All sources of data inquired about teachers’ beliefs, the ease of belief change, influences on beliefs, and how beliefs impact practice from different perspectives. The use of ongoing memo writing during each phase of data collection was one way to identify inconsistencies across data sources. When inconsistencies were identified, I asked study participants to clarify their response. All five of the new teacher participants also held different identities and backgrounds. The uniqueness of each study participant also increased the confidence of trustworthiness of the case study data because the teachers had different perspectives and different backgrounds—even though they were all teaching in the same school. Member checking was a second method used to ensure trustworthiness of the data. In member checking, the researcher receives feedback from study participants to validate the correctness of recorded data (Simon, 2011). During this case study, member checking occurred during the classroom observation phases of the study as participants were asked to clarify their behavior during classroom observations and clarify whether that behavior accurately reflected what they had stated in earlier interviews. Member checking was also used after the final stage of data collection during follow-up interview in November. This interview presented each participant with the preliminary study findings based on interview, observation, and survey data 74 from all of the participants. Each participant then identified consistencies or inconsistencies of their opinions with data and speculated why some findings might be different than they expected going into the case study during the beginning of the year. This reflective process allowed me to triangulate the data with another perspective to ensure the utmost quality, credibility, and trustworthiness of the case study’s findings. Potential Study Limitations The small number of new teachers who participated in this research is one limitation of this study. The intensive data collection that spanned an entire year and allowed for multiple sources of data collection was used intentionally to mitigate the effects of a small sample size. Commutatively, I spent nearly 50 hours with these teachers to develop a rich understanding of their unique experiences, perspectives, beliefs, and perceived influences as they transitioned through each phase of the Moir (1999) model. This intensive data collection helped to offset the limited sample size. The second greatest limitation of this study is fully capturing the true beliefs of teachers because beliefs are difficult to conceptualize and even more difficult to define and verbalize. To best address this concern, I relied on pre-defined belief domains and constructs to record and map any changes in beliefs that occurred over the course of the first year. I also utilized the Moir (1999) model to strategically track changes in beliefs at appropriate checkpoints. These belief changes were self-reported in interview and survey data, but I also used classroom observations to consider how and if the self-professed beliefs of new teachers matched their exhibited beliefs. I should also add that I am not a licensed psychologist and therefore cannot define the emotional states of the study participants as accurately as a licensed psychologist could. Because of this, I 75 relied primarily on the expected emotions for each phase of the Moir (1990) model and let study participants share descriptions of their own emotions. A third limitation of this study—as with all qualitative research—is the idea of a social desirability bias. As participants responded to interview questions they did so with their own agency, but as the social desirability bias posits they could have also answered interview and survey questions in a manner that produced answers that would be viewed more favorably by others or the researcher (Grimm, 2010). Because of this, it was important that I assure participants of their anonymity in this study and that their answers would not be shared with any school staff administrators (for risk of retribution). I also relied on classroom observations and survey data as a way to elicit the most accurate responses and to help lesson the social desirability bias. Because all of the teachers attended traditional teacher preparation institutions that were based in an accredited university, there was not evidence for belief change, influence, or firstyear experience from teachers who graduated from alternative teacher preparation programs such as Texas Teaching Fellows or Teach for America. Another limitation of this study, is that there is no variation in teacher preparation background as all of the study participants completed their preparation through university programs. All of the teachers in this study were also relatively young in their twenties or early thirties. Because of this there was limited variation in age and background. Summary This chapter described the case-study methods I used to conduct this study. I chose methodology to investigate the five new teachers of record because it allowed me to develop a rich understand of their unique and comprehensive experiences as they underwent the Moir 76 (1990) model. All data interview and observational data analyzed using NVIVO software. Survey data was analyzed using Microsoft excel software. I checked for quality and trustworthiness of the data by using triangulation methods, and used on ongoing memo writing to organize developing themes in the data. Chapter four presents the findings of this study based of the analytical methods of this chapter. The study findings are presented as portraits for each of the five new teachers and crosscase analyses is used to illustrate themes across cases. All teacher portraits cross-cases findings are described in reference to the study’s research questions. 77 CHAPTER 4: CASE-STUDY FINDINGS Findings from these five case studies reveal that the new teachers in this study began their first year as teachers of record sharing many of the same, and idealized, beliefs about teaching, what it means to teach for justice, and the purpose of schooling. Because the findings of this chapter are strongly rooted in an understanding of these belief terms, it is important to clarify these belief domains and their meanings before delving into the study findings. The domain of teaching practice encompassed any beliefs associated with teaching pedagogy, the learning sciences, classroom management, teacher identity, or other beliefs associated with teaching and learning in the classroom. The domains of teaching for social justice encompassed any beliefs associated with connecting with students’ lives, valuing students’ cultures and identities, recognizing systems of oppression and injustice, working to make positive changes that disrupt oppressive structures, and any other beliefs associated with empowering students and their communities. The domain of purpose of schools encompassed any beliefs associated with the greater function of schools and their objective in the world and society. As teachers progressed in this study throughout their first year—and experienced the authentic struggles associated with teaching in an urban environment—many of their beliefs were challenged, revised, or in some cases abandoned entirely. Case study findings illustrate how the emotional turbulence of an urban teacher’s first year (Moir, 1990) aligned with many of the critical moments in these new teachers’ belief formations and reformations. Findings also revealed a limited perception of belief changes and influences of these changes as they took place and after they occurred. 78 In this chapter, I will answer each of my research questions with comprehensive portraits of the five new teachers who participated in this study. The research questions that address the beliefs of these new teachers—including how they are formed, changed, and influenced—are explicitly addressed, while the final research question of how beliefs affect practice are embedded within each unique story. Beginning Beliefs of First-Year Teachers All five new teachers held certain beliefs on teaching practice, teaching for social justice, the purpose of schools, and what influenced these existing beliefs. All of the beginning belief data was pulled from the first interviews and surveys conducted during the anticipation phase of the Moir (1990) model—which spanned the months of August and early September. Here, I examine each teacher’s exclusive story at the outset of the year in an effort to better understand each teacher’s unique progression throughout the academic year. Establishing these separate initial beliefs for each teacher is important for understanding the many idiosyncratic experiences and personal stories that then inform the cross-case analyses. These springboards of initial beliefs provide a more holistic understanding of each teacher’s unique background as they journey through the Moir (1990) phases. Ms. Destinas Ms. Destinas is a young White woman in her early twenties. She recently moved from her university town to Willowbrook for this teaching position as a middle school French teacher. She teaches multiple sections of French to all grade levels. The average class size for Ms. Destinas is roughly 15-25 students. She takes pride her originality and knowledge of the French language. She began her year with high expectations for herself and her students. 79 Beginning Beliefs on Teaching Practice Ms. Destinas began her first year of teaching with enthusiasm and optimism. She shared during her first interview how great teaching is exemplified when “somebody does anything for the students – not an easy teacher or easy class – but how willing [he or she] is to help the students.” She went on to say that an ideal teacher “would stay after school a lot and give extra practice and explain things more.” Ms. Destinas envisioned good teaching as something akin to what she had experienced as a student of her favorite high school teacher—an effort that went beyond classroom time constraints and a willingness to do whatever it took to help students meet their goals. She described good teaching as student centered, differentiated, and focused on positive studentteacher relationships. Ms. Destinas believed that her students were capable of meeting her high expectations, and was confident in her ability to develop the skills and dispositions necessary to become this idealized teacher over time. Beginning Beliefs on Social Justice Ms. Destinas began her year believing that the community acted as a rich partner in learning for her students. She felt that it was important for families to partner with the school and for teachers to partner with parents to ensure a collaboration that would provide students with the best possible education. She believed not only in setting high behavioral and academic expectations, but also that her students could meet these high expectations. She also believed that her students would treat her with respect as taught to them from their parents. She shared, “ [my students] will do everything I say because I’m the teacher and parents teach their kids to, like, respect teachers.” She also felt that it was important to create and nurture a supportive and safe classroom environment. 80 Beginning Beliefs on the Purpose of Schools When it came to defining the purpose of schooling, Ms. Destinas was very opinionated in sharing her position: I thought [school] should teach them necessary life skills so like you learn subjects, and you learn like math and English and French, but you also learn study skills, critical thinking, and how to be responsible for you as a person and function in society and when you graduate from high school and you vote for the president of the country-- that’s a really important task to be prepared for so you have to be well informed and wellrounded and be able to make decisions like that and not just pick someone because of their name, but to weigh the positives and negatives and compare and contrast. In saying this, Ms. Destinas illustrated that she began her year believing that school is a place to teach not only academic skills, but also a place for students to learn how to think for themselves and develop good judgment for their adult lives. Ms. Barley Ms. Barley is a White woman in her mid-twenties. She grew up in a small town and has a close-knit family with whom she spends a lot of her free time. Ms. Barley is very matter-of-fact in her tone of voice and conversation. Ms. Barley is certified in special education and teaches smaller classes to special education students in a resource room. The average class size for Ms. Barley is five to ten students. She began her year with high expectations for herself and her students. Beginning Beliefs on Teaching Practice Ms. Barley shared similar beginning beliefs to Ms. Destinas. Like Ms. Destinas, Ms. Barley asserted that learning should be student centered and that teachers should be in the 81 profession for the right reasons—which she described as a commitment to helping students develop the skills and knowledge needed to function well in society. She shared that an ideal teacher is “a team player, in it for the kids, and puts kids first.” However, unlike Ms. Destinas, Ms. Barley began her first year with a cool confidence in her ability to teach well from day one. She responded to initial interview questions with a laidback and laissez-faire demeanor and came across as a bit of an expert in her tone. Ms. Barley’s mother was also a special education teacher, and she felt that she had learned a great deal from a lifetime of observing and working in her mother’s classroom. Beginning Beliefs on Social Justice Ms. Barley also believed in holding high academic and behavioral expectations for her students. She felt that classroom management was very important and shared her confidence in managing her classroom. She shared “[Classroom management] is really something that is important in teaching, because if you can’t manage your classroom, well you can’t teach.” She also shared that as a special education teacher she was not sure what to expect regarding the ability levels of her students who fell on the autism spectrum. However, she was sure to clarify that she did not expect less of students because of their disability, but more that she wanted to make sure she could modify and accommodate lessons appropriately. Beginning Beliefs on the Purpose of Schools Ms. Barley did not hold the same assertive convictions for the purpose of schooling as Ms. Destinas, but did share, “[Schools] should just help prepare [students] for society – just working on those social skills and helping them to attain their highest potential.” Ms. Barley felt this was especially important for the population of students she served in her special education classroom. 82 Ms. List The final female teacher, Ms. List, is best described as a go-getter. She is well organized, articulate in her speech, and was educated at a private university in Michigan. She has traveled abroad and completed a good portion of her pre-service teaching experience teaching German students the English language in Germany. She teaches multiple sections of German to all grade levels. The average class size for Ms. List is roughly 20-30 students. Ms. List is an extremely dedicated teacher. I once even observed her teaching a class after she had been in a car accident. She shared that she had no major injuries—just a bad headache. She didn’t want to lose a day of instruction, so she kept the lights off during instruction and made do with her circumstances. Ms. List identifies as Caucasian. She began her year with high expectations for herself and her students. Beginning Beliefs on Teaching Practice Ms. List began her year very thoughtful in her practice, how she described her methods, and how she responded to all of my interview questions. Ms. List began her year with very specific beliefs about teaching. Like the other teachers, she believed that learning should be student-centered, but she went one step further to define and describe what this actually looked like in action, sharing that, “An ideal teacher is engaged with the students and would want them to take ownership in their own learning.” She went on to share that this teacher “is not standing at the board the whole time talking at the kids but wants to get them involved in doing activities, learning at their own pace, and wanting to learn more.” She described how students should selfinitiate learning, but also learn at their own pace. She also believed that her students would value her course, sharing: “I figure they will be engaged in the language because they have the choice [to choose this class], so that they should really want to be here and want to learn.” She 83 understood her own limitations as a teacher due to her lack of experience but felt confident that she would master the art of teaching with the right support systems and appropriate professional developments—which she had already mapped out for the year. Beginning Beliefs on Social Justice List vocalized her appreciation for having a diverse classroom and teaching in a school that served a diverse community. She also found value in teaching and learning in this type of environment. Having recently lived in another culture, she really appreciated learning and working in cultures that were different from her own and she tried to bring this value into her own classroom. Ms. List shared, “I really try and make my classroom as well rounded as I can.” Beginning Beliefs on Purpose of Schools Ms. List shared that she believed school was most important in helping prepare people for society. She shared, “As a teacher I’m preparing students to become adults to function in society [or] if they continue on through college or trade school or whatever profession they might enter. So [I’m] not just teaching my subject, but also skills that will allow them to function in society.” Ms. List believed it was most important to make sure schools prepared students for a variety of pathways, so they could choose what pathways were best for their own career dreams and desires. Mr. Geoffrey Mr. Geoffrey is a white man in his early twenties. He attended a prestigious public university that has a strong reputation for training future educators. He even participated in coursework that focuses on addressing social inequality. He felt this background was instrumental in preparing him for work in an urban environment. Mr. Geoffrey teaches multiple sections of middle school social studies to sixth and seventh graders. The average class size for 84 Mr. Geoffrey is roughly 18-28 students. He began his year with high expectations for himself and his students. Beginning Beliefs on Teaching Practice Mr. Geoffrey began his first year sharing similar beliefs about teaching to that of the other teachers. He believed that good teaching engaged students, was student-centered, and built on student/teacher relationships—a hallmark lesson from his university preparation program. He also believed that lessons should be interactive, interesting, and engaging for students. He believed that “an ideal teacher is someone who gets the kids engaged and is not going to be repetitive [with activities].” Mr. Geoffrey completed his internship year teaching in a high-school honors class and believed that this experience had really influenced his perception of good teaching and how students should interact with their teacher and one another. Beginning Beliefs on Social Justice Mr. Geoffrey believed in holding high academic and behavioral expectations, and believed that the majority of kids come to school wanting to learn. He also believed that forming positive relationships was important to teaching all students, and felt confident in his ability to connect with students. He shared, “I’ve been a basketball coach since I finished high school so I’ve been around kids for a long time, and I know how to talk to them.” Mr. Geoffrey felt confident that he could lead his students, form relationships, and manage his classroom with a lot of the skills he possessed from both his university preparation program and his coaching responsibilities. Mr. Geoffrey shared that his beliefs about his students stemmed from his experiences during his internship year and experiences as a basketball coach. He went on the share more about his internship year and how he managed his classroom as a pre-service teacher. 85 [My students] did all the work every time. I was like okay kids let’s start studying, it is time to be quiet, and they got quiet. It was like whatever you would say they were going to do [and] they were going to do it quickly. So I just thought in my head this is how it is going to be. I said hey we’re taking a quiz tomorrow so study, and they would study and I thought this is how it is. Mr. Geoffrey stated that his university had prepared him well for managing his classroom during this internship year and felt particularly confident in dealing with any future outbursts from students. Mr. Geoffrey also shared that he cared greatly for his students and wanted to make an impact on their lives. He shared, “I want to have an impact on student lives. Like maybe it doesn’t happen today or tomorrow, but maybe they’ll come back someday and share things from my class that stuck with them.” Beginning Beliefs on the Purpose of Schools Mr. Geoffrey shared similar beliefs to those of Ms. List during the anticipataion phase. He shared a detailed account on his belief about the the purpose of schooling: The purpose of school [is] to help [students] be educated so they can make informed decisions in the world or if they want to go to college to help them prepare for it. I guess [the purpose of schools] is to prepare [students] for their lives afterschool and not just to grow education wise, but also grow with like citizens and people and help them with maturity and growing up as people. This quote illustrates that Geoffrey believes in school as a place to prepared students for adulthood and, like Ms. Destinas and Ms. List, in the development of good judgment. 86 Mr. Burtke Mr. Burtke is the final teacher in this study. Mr. Burtke is a while male in his late twenties. Mr. Burtke is a bit older than the rest of the participants. Unlike the other teachers, Mr. Burtke took a job straight out of high school (selling cellular phones) before he ultimately decided to go back to college and become a teacher. He speaks with confidence and has a very commanding voice. He teaches science and also coaches football. Mr. Burtke teaches multiple sections of middle school science to all grade levels. His average class size is roughly 20 – 30 students. As a football coach, he is the only teacher in this study to have a very active roll outside of the classroom. He began his year with low expectations for himself and his students. Beginning Beliefs on Teaching Practice Mr. Burtke began his first year of teaching with much less optimism than the preceding four novice teachers. While he held a clear definition of what good teaching looked like in action—engaging, hands-on, and visually stimulating—he lacked confidence in his new students’ ability to engage in any type of meaningful learning because of their backgrounds growing up in an urban setting. He shared that he was doubtful in his new students’ abilities, their conduct, and overall achievement potential. As a science teacher, he feared that his students would be so far behind that he would need to cover elementary content and curriculum instead of middle-school standards. Mr. Burtke emphasized the limitations of his students sharing, “I expect it to be very low and much different than any of the rural schools that were in the county—including the one I attended for high school.” He went on to share, “I’m almost like expecting the worst and preparing for the worst,” because “I don’t have the highest expectation walking into this job.” 87 Mr. Burtke felt that he understood what it meant to teach well sharing that an ideal teacher “was somebody that could really relate to things that [students] were learning in the classroom to things they came into contact with on the outside of school.” But given his beliefs about the limitations of his students, he felt that he would be unable to teach well to this population. At the very least, Mr. Burtke felt that his experience at Willowbrook would not be a waste of his time sharing, “if I can make it here, I can make it anywhere.” Beginning Beliefs on Social Justice As noted in the previous section on beginning beliefs on teaching practice, Mr. Burtke’s beginning beliefs did not align with the other four new teachers. Mr. Burtke approached his first days of school with a different perspective and provided a detailed explanation of his wariness toward his new students during his first interview: I do not have the highest expectation walking into this job. I am almost like expecting the worst and preparing for the worst and not knowing if I am going to have 6th graders that are three or four levels behind. I am going to have students that don’t know how to conduct themselves in a social setting very well. Mr. Burtke went on to share how his opinions of his new students were shaped as a pre-service candidate, “I went to a rural school [growing up] so coming in I was understanding what everyone tells you, ‘Oh watch out –it’s gonna be bad.’ He approached his first day “prepared for the worst.” Beginning Beliefs on the Purpose of Schools Mr. Burtke felt that the schooling should be more comprehensive, but not necessarily prepare students for college. He stressed the importance of students learning lifelong skills and felt that these skills were more important than academic content. He shared, “Yes content is 88 good, but if we can equip [students] with tools that allow them to problem solve or react in certain situations or pull background knowledge to solve other problems. I feel like I wouldn’t have failed them.” Like Ms. Destinas and Ms. Barley, Mr. Burtke believed that it was most important for schools to prepare students to function well in society. Cross-Case Analysis Cross-case findings from the beginning belief data reveal that most teachers believed in differentiated, student-centered, and engaging teaching practice—with the exception of Mr. Burtke who could define good teaching practice in a similar fashion, but who could not envision this for his students because of his deficit lens toward their urban upbringing. All teachers did not believe in a direct-transmission style teaching as something to use in their own classroom, and showed a preference for constructivist-style teaching practices. In regards to teaching for social justice, all teachers, with the exception of Mr. Burtke, began their first year of teaching with a positive mindset surrounding the community in which the middle school was situated. Ms. Destinas, Ms. Barley, Ms. List, and Mr. Geoffrey believed that their students wanted to be at school and that their students possessed strengths from home. These four new teachers also believed that students in this community and school were capable of meeting high academic and behavioral expectations. These same four teachers held very positive and optimistic beliefs about students and families from less privileged backgrounds and believed that less privileged students were capable of achieving at high levels. On the other end of the spectrum, Mr. Burtke was the one teacher who did not believe that his students possessed strengths from their home environments and instead suffered academically and behaviorally because of their urban upbringing. As noted in his portrait above, Mr. Burtke did not believe that his students could perform or meet the same academic and behavioral 89 expectations as their more affluent counterparts in non-urban settings. Unlike the other four teachers, Mr. Burtke grew up in a community near the Willowbrook school district, and although he did not attend Willowbrook schools, he was able to observe and hear about the reputation of the school district from his nearby community. The other four teachers grew up in middle-class midwestern communities that were unaffiliated with and more geographically distant from Willowbrook School District. Most of the new teachers also saw strengths and potential instead of deficits for the new community they now served. They espoused beleifs that students from less privileged and urban backgrounds were capable of meeting high academic and behavioral expectations and achieving at the same level of excellence as their affluent counterparts. For the most part, the new teachers agreed on the primary purpose of schools at the beginning of the year—to provide not only academic skills, but also skills for society Influences on Beliefs While it was difficult to identify the one most significant factor in shaping each new teacher’s beliefs, each teacher shared what he or she perceived as the greatest influence on his or her teaching. Ms. Destinas believed that she had formed most of her opinions on teaching from her teacher preparation program and was mostly influenced by experiences during her internship year. Ms. Barley felt that her beliefs on teaching were mostly influenced by her own mother and the internship component of her university preparation program. Ms. Barley shared, “My mom’s a teacher, so I learned a lot from her and then through my student teaching experiences as well.” Ms. List shared that her beliefs on teaching were influenced mostly by other teachers, but also, in part, by her university preparation program. She shared a detailed explanation. I think [my teacher preparation program] prepared me pretty well in dealing with long meetings after and before school and more of the paperwork side of teaching… the 90 professional responsibilities. But I would say it did not prepare me fully to be the teacher I wanted to be. Ms. List felt that she learned more about the teacher she wanted to be from her own experiences teaching in Germany and from observing teachers she respected. She even shared that this experience “helped [her] to step outside of [her] comfort zone” and “build confidence.” Mr. Geoffrey felt that his student teaching experience and former teachers were most significant in shaping his beliefs on teaching at the beginning of the year. Mr. Burtke felt that his initial beliefs before he began his time at Willowbrook were most influenced by his personal background and “preconceived notions” of the district. The stories from each new teacher reveal that the beginning beliefs of these educators were more common than unique. All teachers believed in using student-centered teaching practices and that teaching should be engaging and differentiated for students. Most teachers, with the exception of Mr. Burtke, believed that the community in which the school was situated possessed much strength. While acknowledging that their students were from less privileged backgrounds, the other four teachers believed that their students could meet high behavioral and academic expectations to excel in school—and future careers. In the domain of school purpose, the new teachers shared more differences than commonalities around beginning beliefs. Some teachers thought schools should prepare students to act as responsible citizens; others thought schools should prepare students for college or to function in society. Each teacher had a unique perspective that housed both similarities and differences in comparison to other teachers in the sample. In terms of belief influence, many new teachers believed at the outset of the year that their university teacher preparation programs—including internships and field experiences – influenced their beliefs most significantly. Teachers also shared additional perceived influences 91 of family, respected former teachers, and personal experiences acting as a teacher abroad as potential influences on their beliefs at the beginning of the year. Changing Beliefs of First-Year Teachers I found that the beliefs of each participant did change throughout the course of the study and at multiple points of interest. All new teachers exhibited changes in their beliefs on both selfreported data (survey and interview questions) and also in their classroom behavior that I observed. The extent and degree to which the beliefs changed varied by teacher and by belief domain. Data revealed that new teachers were more likely to change their beliefs surrounding the domains of teaching practice and social justice than they were for the purpose of schools. Survey data, along with data from interviews and classroom observations, illustrated how the individual changes in beliefs for each teacher were more unique than similar. However, there were patterns and similarities in the changing of some beliefs amongst the new educators. There were also differences in how new teachers experienced changes in their beliefs. Because of this, it is important to consider the personal journey of each study participant. Ms. Destinas Ms. Destinas began her year with very optimistic and idealized beliefs on teaching and what it means to teach for social justice. She found value in her students and the surrounding school community, and believed that they all needed to partner for success, and felt that her students would respect her and meet the high academic and behavioral expectations she set. As the year progressed, Ms. Destinas started to believe that she had little control over student achievement, mainly because of her students’ troubling backgrounds and unfortunate home lives. She went from describing the value she saw in her school community as partners in learning, to describing a broken community that was poor and uninvolved. 92 During the survival phase, from the end of September to the end of November, Ms. Destinas started to believe that it was okay for some but not all kids to achieve and that students from diverse backgrounds did not now how to respect teachers – partially due to an upbringing of poor parenting. She shared, “well part of me thought they would do everything I said because I’m the teacher and like parents teach their kids to like respect teachers. But a lot of populationslike the demographics and the low socioeconomic status students—they aren’t taught those things.” Because of this, she felt that as a teacher she had very little control over student achievement and started to believe that schools were more of a daycare than a place to enhance intellectual growth. Ms. Destinas shared, “I would say in general, [their home background] is not overwhelmingly positive. I wouldn’t group them all stereotypically, but I know that a lot of them have low SES status and stuff like that.” Ms. Destinas also echoed similar changes in her beliefs on teaching for social justice when she shared her new beliefs during the survival phase. I have extremely high expectations, but lately they’ve been getting um lower and lower (laughs) like just behave on a regular basis, sit in your seat when you’re supposed to, know when it’s appropriate to sharpen your pencil because the sharpener is incredibly loud, know to raise your hand and not talk out of turn….I used to expect them to [turn in] their missing work, but now I realize that with their level, I am more responsible for that than they are. Unlike Destinas’ initial beliefs about meeting high expectations during the anticipation phase, this quote indicates that she no longer believes that her students are capable of meeting high expectations – neither behavioral nor academic. Instead, she believes that her students now 93 need more guidance and supervision and less autonomy. Her tone also indicates that she is getting complacent with her teaching and doubting her students’ abilities. During the disillusionment phase, from the end November to the end of January, Ms. Destinas found even less value in the community—and her students’ parents—as she felt that they had abdicated the entire responsibility of parenting to teachers. She now felt that it was now her responsibility as a teacher to save students from their home lives by acting as a mentor and surrogate parent. This meant that any learning was good learning, and this could occur within a chaotic or well-organized classroom. During the survival phase, Ms. Destinas enforced quiet assignment work to be done in one’s seat. To me as an observer, it looked as if students were copying words out of a textbook, but Ms. Destinas explained this was an assignment where students wrote a story in French and if they didn’t know a word they had to look it up in the dictionary. During this phase, Ms. Destinas also started to exhibit a new disciplinary approach, in which she seemed to target her African American students more severely for disruptions that were similar to those of the other students—and in a more demeaning tone. During one classroom observation, many of her students were off task but she only reprimanded two African American students. To one student she shouted, “Do I need to hold onto these so you pay attention, I’m not going to ask you to put that away before I take it,” referring to some technology device the student was attempting to share with another student. To another student, who shrugged her shoulders in response to Ms. Destinas question about the location of classroom materials she shouted, “don’t shrug your shoulders, you know where they go.” She also asked another one of her African American students to put her food away and said, “don’t give me attitude.” 94 Destinas also put one of her African American male students in the hallway to complete a small half-sheet quiz. She left him there for the entire class period—not leaving the room to check on him once. These examples illustrate how Ms. Destinas’ beliefs are changing to incorporate a racist perspective toward her African American students. By acting as a White female and treating her African American students with less respect—and more severe discipline—Ms. Destinas is reinforcing a culture of White supremacy in her own classroom. On the contrary, many of her White and Hispanic students were also off task, but never reprimanded. During the observation, a White student shared that she hadn’t finished her homework yet, so Ms. Destinas gave her a second chance and politely said that she could finish it by later that evening. The difference between how she treated her African American students and how she treated her students from other racial backgrounds was more apparent in the survival phase than any other phase. When I asked Ms. Destinas if she was teaching for social justice in her classroom during the survival phase, she responded: “I would say [that I am] teaching for social justice because I think I’m doing it correctly.” However, she then went on to share that, “until you really sit down and see, [you] have no idea of what a student is going through or the things they bring with them from home. But then you meet with their parents and think oh my gosh I wasn’t even right, or this is so much worse than I thought, or oh crap I need to call DPS—I had that happen last year and it was terrifying.” This quote illustrates that Ms. Destinas believes that she is teaching for social justice, but has a limited (and in some cases inaccurate) perception of what this teaching pedagogy truly means. In a later interview during the disillusionment phase, I asked Ms. Destinas if she affirms and sustains her students’ cultural backgrounds. She stated, “Yes, definitely. I don’t ignore [their 95 cultures] at all or say anything like negative or anything. I embrace wherever they come from.” She went on to provide an example of how she incorporates social justice teaching strategies into her classroom: So for example, [in] one of my classes I do a unit on like family and stuff. So for their projects they had to bring in artifacts or a picture of their family…because in today’s world it’s a DNA thing, because their family may not look like my family. So I bring in pictures and show them what my family looks like. But then I show them a picture of my brother’s girlfriend’s family-- because her parents are divorced, so she technically has two families. My family [is] more like traditional, while some of [my students] have uncles and grandmas and all that stuff. So we kind of go through that and we embrace [difference]. These quotes from Ms. Destinas illustrate that although she perceives herself as affirming students cultural backgrounds, she may be generalizing the value of different cultures by suggesting that there is value in everyone’s differences—like those structural differences in her own family. Ms. Destinas continued to build on her new beliefs from the disillusionment phase during the final phases of rejuvenation and reflection. During the rejuvenation phase she shared the importance of keeping her students orderly and organized. She shared, “Having [students] be organized with their notebooks is important. I’m specific about where everything goes. They have certain speaking notes that go in certain places.” During the reflection phase, she reemphasized her role as that of both a teacher and a mentor sharing, “because students are with teachers for eight hours a day, [teachers] are not just teaching material or a content area… [but 96 instead] you’re another version of like a parent somehow.” She continued to feel that her purpose to her students was much greater than it would be for a a typical teacher at a typical school. Ms. Barley Ms. Barley also began her year with many of the same idealized beliefs as those shared by Ms. Destinas. She felt that it was important to prioritize student learning and set high expectations. During the survival phase, Ms. Destinas still believed that it was important to put kids first, but also felt that her teaching would vary depending on the uniqueness of each student. She shared, “I’d say my role as a teacher is to present the material to the students in the best way that they can learn it – so I try and adapt however I can to teach the individual student” During this phase Ms. Barley also started to believe that it was important to enforce neutrality in her classroom, and that school was not a place to discuss differences in one’s beliefs. She shut down most conversations that did not contribute to behavioral or academic goals. Ms. Barley also believed during this time that a quiet classroom was important to learning. During a classroom observation, I observed one student attempt a conversation with his classmates and Ms. Barley. The student was sharing his opinions on homosexuality, gender identity, abortion, and many other politically relevant issues. (He even voiced his concern for politicians who threatened to limit the access of transgendered people to use the bathroom of their choice). However, despite the students’ knowledge of the topics, Ms. Barley paid little attention to his commentary and did her best to ignore most of the words the child said—even when they were posed as a question. After a minute or so, she finally silenced the child saying, “We are tabling this conversation.” These actions illustrate Ms. Barley’s new beliefs and also lend themselves toward the stunted progress of social justice and the perpetuation of the status quo. If Ms. Barley believes that school is a place to prepare students for society, she is 97 inadvertently teaching her students that society is not accepting of the beliefs that are silenced in her classroom. This is critical to address when educating for social justice. During the disillusionment phase, Ms. Barley continued to believe that it was her responsibility to enforce neutrality and to keep controversial topics outside of her classroom She shared: Surprisingly students actually bring up the topic of strong beliefs such as religion and very controversial topics quite often, so I often find myself having those conversations where it’s okay to have different beliefs and that’s okay, but schools not a good place to talk about them because everyone has such strong beliefs. I’ve even had to have the social worker come in and help me with these conversations with the students as well to try and help keep that kind of neutral tone with my kids. So I defiantly have some very strong minded students—that is something that has been a challenge for me this year is to still keep that neutral tone to my classroom and while still being accepting, if that makes sense. This quote illustrates that while Ms. Barley is trying to keep her classroom open to different beliefs and ways of living and thinking, she is also inadvertently silencing conversations that are necessary for students to learn and grow in their understanding of people, society, and the world. Ms. Barley continued to uphold her beliefs on teaching during the final two phases, believing that students were responsible for their own learning. During the rejuvenation phase she shared, “I kind of give the students the tools, and my job is to kind of help them wean off of me. My goal is to help them take ownership themselves.” She also shared that it was also very important to “go with the flow” as things would come up to interfere with lessons and it was 98 important that teachers be flexible. She continued to feel that trying was more important than meeting high expectations, describing her classroom as following “a very loose schedule.” During the reflection phase, Ms. Barley continued to believe in basic expectations and shared, “I expect my students to try. That’s probably one of the biggest things for me is at least they’re attempting the work and putting effort into it. Then the rest of it can come later.” She felt flexibility was vital to her student’s success and while she continued to censor what she considered inappropriate conversation, she did find value in her students’ families. During the rejuvenation phase she shared, “I’m fortunate that most of my students have good supportive home environments and I’m in frequent contact with several parents… They posses strengths from home.” This quote illustrates that Ms. Barley sees much of the Willowbrook community as disadvantaged, but feels lucky that parents that are involved. Ms. List Unlike the other new educators, Ms. List experienced the fewest belief changes over the course of the year. She began the year with an appreciation for diversity and the community. She believed that students learn best when they are engaged. She also believed that learning should be an active process and differentiated by student. During the survival phase, she shared, “I really like to try to give [students] good feedback. Like this is where you are, this is where I would like you to be to push yourself to that next level.” She also now used a seating chart strategically to integrate students by different genders, races, and backgrounds. During one classroom observation, she even stood up and defended a student to the class who did not identify with the mainstream identity by saying that he was “entitled to [his] own opinion and that we need to be respectful of all classmates.” This quote illustrates that Ms. List is intentionally intervening to disrupt the power dynamic that exists between those with privilege 99 and those without privilege in an effort to make her classroom a more equitable and socially just place. Like many of the other teachers, Ms. List also now believed that it was important to mentor certain students. She shared: I see myself as a mentor to quite a few of my students. They come to me telling me they didn’t sleep all night because the step dad was fighting with them and they just need a support in their lives. That’s one of my biggest roles I can be as a teacher is a constant support and also to go back to teaching responsibility and respect to students and to teachers as well. In making these observations, List illustrates how her beliefs have evolved from solely providing academic instruction to students to more fully providing more comprehensive accommodations to meet the wellbeing of her students. This growth over time demonstrates how her teaching practice moved from one that was strictly academic to one that considers the barriers to learning that she must address as part of her teaching practice. During the disillusionment phase, Ms. List changed her beliefs from seeing school as a place to prepare students for college to believing that school should not necessarily prepare students for college because all students should not go to college. She shared: I do think that our system is quite broken in the fact that we push everyone to go on to university, and they really might not be ready. We need people that do different jobs in order for our society to function. So it doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone needs a college education In this quote, List illustrates a new belief that she has acquired—not everyone needs a college education. She also becomes critical of the American education model as she finds it 100 pushing students towards college when that may not be what her students’ desire—or even what is most appropriate for their skills and talents. Ms. List continued to uphold her high expectations and beliefs during the rejuvenation and reflection phases, although she did acknowledge that her students’ home lives could vary. She continued to set high expectations for her students. During the reflection phase, she did her best to differentiate, but shared that it was sometimes a struggle. She also felt that her classroom was a place for “more than just teaching” and was proud to call it a “safe place” for students to share their views and differences. She knew that some students came to school with many privileges while others possessed significant disadvantages. Her classroom emphasized respect and the sharing of new ideas and critical feedback. She also intentionally made efforts to seat students so they were integrated by race, socioeconomic status, gender, and background. Mr. Geoffrey Mr. Geoffrey experienced the most changes among these five new teachers over the course of the year. Mr. Geoffrey began the year like most teachers with idealized beliefs on engaging teaching, positive student/teacher relationships, and appreciation for all kids who, despite their backgrounds, wanted to learn and could learn. However, as Geoffrey transitioned through the survival and disillusionment phases his beliefs and classroom environment changed to reflect new perspectives. During the survival phase, Mr. Geoffrey still believed in the importance of positive student/teacher relationships, but now he felt that his role as a mentor or father figure to his students was even more important that his role as a teacher. He shared an example of his new mindset in detail. 101 I would describe my role as making sure I have a safe environment for kids to come when they’re in my classroom, that they feel very comfortable there. And also to some of them, I feel like kind of like a father figure, like someone they can look up to. I don’t know what their home lives are [like], but a lot of them want to come in and tell me what they did the night before and about their weekend and if they’re having a bad day and why. So I think it is part of my job to be a counselor as well, help them with their problems and be someone they can talk to… I assume I might be the only male figure they have as a teacher or even in their life at times so [I see it as] whatever I have to do. And I try to be someone they can talk to if they need to. In this quote, Geoffrey demonstrates a newfound belief in his relationships with his students. While at the beginning of the year, Mr. Geoffrey felt that it was important to form positive student/teacher relationships, he now sees his role as much more important—and involved—than that of a teacher. He feels that he is responsible for saving his students from their home environments and providing them with ways out. His role is no longer purely academic. During the survival phase, Mr. Geoffrey also believed that students in urban schools learn differently than students in non-urban schools, suggesting that urban students do not care to learn and are unmotivated. Mr. Geoffrey shared his new beliefs. I really want them to just focus on the task at hand and know that it’s not social hour, but achievement to them is like whatever, most of them simply don’t care. In terms of achievement, like the standards I want them to reach, it is much harder because first I’ve got to get them to care before they reach the level of understanding.... I’m sure what I deal with on a daily basis doesn’t happen everywhere, and that I guess it’s also hard to say too because I’m in an urban school. In a more suburban school, where if I say 102 something you know the kids do it on the first time. You ask them once instead a bunch of times... And also I feel like there’s a lot of disrespect [here], like students don’t respect each other enough. They can’t sit there without having to say something to one another at times. It’s not [even] interesting. It’s kind of sad at times. This change for Geoffrey reflects his evolving beliefs from seeing his students as capable of meeting high academic and behavioral expectations to now seeing his students as unable to meet these standards because of their urban backgrounds. This new belief of inferiority gives Geoffrey a reason to believe that his frustration has little to do with his own ability in teaching and more to do with his students’ inability to learn. His comparison of his new students to students in more suburban areas suggests that he now sees his new students as inferior to nonurban counterparts. Here we can sense Mr. Geoffrey’s frustration—not in himself as a teacher, but in his student’s capacity to achieve. During the survival phase, Mr. Geoffrey also started to believe that as a teacher, he should be more strict. He also started treating his African American students differently During a classroom observation, I observed one African American student doodle through an entire class period while wearing his headphones. When I asked Mr. Geoffrey why this student was not participating, he shared that “I kind of let him just do his own thing” with the hope that he will not disrupt the entire class. He felt that this student’s missed opportunity to learn was better for the entire class’s wellbeing and, therefore, justified. Mr. Geoffrey also tended to target a group of African American students in the back of the room for disciplinary issues more often than the other students. 103 During the disillusionment phase, Mr. Geoffrey also began to question the ability for his students’ parents to act as good parents. He shared his new perspective on the community compared to his own community. I mean, I would say I guess my community was pretty White you know, a pretty White privileged school and it’s different here. Part of it is, you can tell that a lot of these kids I wouldn’t call them bad kids, but the way they act out for attention is because they don’t get it at home. There are some parents that probably don’t even care about them and just want them to come to school. That’s why they want to be at school is to see teachers that really care about them, is my guess. When I asked Geoffrey if he advocates for his students on curricular and policy changes that promote more equitable opportunities during this phase, he shared, “No, I have not done that.” When I followed-up to ask if he would ever advocated for polices that promote more equitable opportunities he shared, “Umm I don’t know. I guess that’s hard for me to look down the line. I don’t know maybe. I’d give a lukewarm chance I guess.” When I asked Mr. Geoffrey about his decision to group African American students in the back of the classroom, he said that this seating arrangement was unintentional. When I probed about his new strict classroom management style, and Mr. Geoffrey explained his new perspective. He shared: I expect them to [work] without hemming and hawing about it. Like this is what you’re expected to do, this is what you’re going to do. So one example from today [is when] we worked in groups and one of the kids was like, “Aww I don’t want work with this group.” And I was like, ‘NO! You are going to work with the group I assigned you to work [with] and that is not going to happen.’ So like no one gets a choice. 104 Hearing these statements was startling as Mr. Geoffrey began his year believing that all students had value and wanted to learn. Mr. Geoffrey’s pre-service teacher training program even included a semester-long course that focused on systems of oppression, privilege, and power in social institutions like public school—and even equipped teachers to combat these norms in their teaching careers. He once felt this background was instrumental in preparing him for work in an urban environment. However, during the disillusionment phase, Mr. Geoffrey’s thoughts, responses, and actions suggest that his beliefs were very different than those he held before teaching at Willowbrook. During the disillusionment phase, Mr. Geoffrey also tried to talk more about famous African-Americans in his history lessons in hopes of inspiring his students from diverse backgrounds. He shared: We looked at like inventors, and kids didn’t know it at the time, because I didn’t tell them, but they were all Black inventors. When I asked ‘Can someone tell me what all [these inventors] have in common?’ and then when I told them they were all Black inventors, [the students], on a subconscious level were like ‘Oh this is way more interesting now’ and the next day they were really focused and really interested in learning more. This quote illustrates how Mr. Geoffrey believes is his ability to be a good teacher and connect with students from diverse backgrounds by using teaching strategies like talking about more famous African Americans in history lessons. Mr. Geoffrey extended his beliefs from the two previous phases of survival and disillusionment into the rejuvenation and reflection phases, sharing that learning and 105 expectations would vary depending on the student. Mr. Geoffrey shared a detailed response during the rejuvenation phase: I have like my very high achievers [mixed with] my lowest and have to sometimes find that middle ground. I’m sure sometimes it can be too easy for those higher achieving students—and very challenging for those lower ones—but I’m trying to raise things up for those lower ones so they can catch up to them. It’s just harder because of that range. This quote from Geoffrey illustrates that he believes it is impossible to differentiate his instruction to meet the needs of various students’ abilities and interests and instead tries to target his instruction to reach most instead of all. During the reflection phase, Mr. Geoffrey also continued to envision his duty and purpose to act as more of a parent than a teacher sharing, “Part of my goal is to foster a relationship with the students [and] be more than someone who just stands at the board. “[I am] someone they can relate to and come to when they need personal things.” Mr. Geoffrey felt that he served a greater purpose than simply instructing students and it was therefore okay if he did not cover academic goals. He shared, “You want them to understand the curriculum still at a high level, but I don’t think it’s as important.” Mr. Geoffrey also continued to leave students alone if they were unengaged, but not disruptive—which were overwhelmingly his African America students. He shared that it was “easier” and “so we don’t have blow-ups” to leave disruptive students unengaged than actively try to engage them in the lesson and risk a disruption for the rest of the class. These examples of seating all of his African American students in the back of the classroom, enforcing an authoritarian discipline policy where ‘no one gets a choice,’ and haphazardly adding a list of African American figures to a lesson—assuming that this makes the 106 curriculum more interesting for African American students—illustrates Mr. Geoffrey’s evolving racists tendencies toward his African American students and racial insensitivity. By acting as an authoritarian and White male, Mr. Geoffrey also reinforces a culture of White supremacy. Mr. Burtke Mr. Burtke began his year different than all of the other new educators. While he believed that good teaching was engaging and hands-on, he did not believe that his new students would be able to conduct themselves properly or meet high academic and behavioral expectations because of their backgrounds and upbringings in the Willowbrook community. These beliefs changed as her underwent the phases of the Moir (1990) model. During the survival phase, Mr. Burtke started to see a new ability that he did not expect in his students and was really impressed in how his students worked together and really supported each other like a family. He still did not think they possessed any strengths from their home environments, but he did see that his students were able to meet—and exceed—his expectations. He also started to believe that teaching and learning skills were more important than learning content—even though he relied on lecture and teacher-dominated learning strategies during this phase. During the survival phase, Mr. Burke shared that his beliefs about the community had changed from the idea of “being prepared for the worst” to viewing his students and community as “no different than anyone else.” He went on to share that his students “might not have the support at home that other students get, but that they’re still kids. They still laugh, and cry, and can be disruptive.” Data from the first and second survey also showed that Mr. Burtke doubled his composite score in the beliefs on social justice section. In particular, his score doubled for 107 questions regarding a belief that students possess strengths from home, and his score more than doubled for questions regarding a belief that students are capable of meeting high expectations. This demonstrates that Mr. Burtke began the year with serious doubts about the community’s ability to positively contribute—in any way— to the student success at Willowbrook. He then significantly changed his mind to view the community as really no different than his own community, with students and parents who wanted the same things for their families as what families want in any community. During the disillusionment phase, Mr. Burtke saw himself as more of a facilitator in the classroom and believed that it was important for students to construct their own knowledge. This shift toward constructivist beliefs illustrates a change in the disillusionment phase. Instead of sitting and listening to Mr. Burtke lecture from the front of the classroom, as students did in the previous phase, during the disillusionment phase Mr. Burke’s shared that his students actively worked in groups. Mr. Burtke shared, “I have a lot of different learning, based on different students… [and I am] learning how to be effective in being accommodating to all learning styles.” He also went on to state, “It is the students’ responsibility to construct knowledge, and it’s my responsibility to give them the tools they need.” These beliefs are very different than Mr. Burke’s beliefs during the survival phase when he believed his job was to teach his students how to be “proper human beings” and sit quietly in their seats. These new beliefs are also very different from his initial beliefs during the anticipation phase where he expected his students to all be “grade levels behind” and dependent on him for instruction and learning. During the disillusionment phase, Mr. Burtke also continued to believe that the purpose of schools was to teach and equip students with the problem-solving and decision-making skills to help them best function in society. However, he gained a new perspective on the profession of 108 teaching sharing, “I believe in my opinion that teaching has become a job that you need to be able to confidently fly under the radar and be very internally motivated because you’re not going to get the extrinsic stuff.” This meant that Mr. Burkte now believed that teaching was a very demanding job and one in which he would not get much public recognition for being a great teacher. He felt that many teachers just did the bare minimum to get by or “fly under the radar,” but that the teachers who really cared were motivated for reasons other than money, prestige, or status. He now viewed good teachers as those who were committed to the profession because they felt that they made a difference in the lives of their students. During this phase, Mr. Burtke also continued to view his department as supportive and his job as vital to the advancement of his students in society. As the year drew to an end, and during the rejuvenation and reflection phases, Mr. Burtke continued to uphold many of his new beliefs that he acquired during the survival and disillusionment phases. During the rejuvenation phase, he felt that high expectations were vital to student success and shared, “My expectations are for them to achieve the best that they can. Holding them to a higher expectation just kind of gives them a target or goal to shoot for.” He also now felt that it was important for learning to be student-centered and felt that it was important to partner with the community of Willowbrook in learning. He shared, “The purpose of schooling is essentially to create productive citizens in society that can contribute to democratic structure and may be able to work through problems together.” Mr. Burtke felt that it was important to work collaboratively. He also shared that it was important to maintain a drive and sense of purpose in his classroom and not dwell on the disadvantages perceived by others. In talking about his students he shared, “They really don’t want you to feel sorry for them, so when they come to school they know what the expectations are and what they’re there to do.” He felt 109 that it was important “not be too sympathetic, but understanding that you’ve got to get to know them and build that trusting relationship with them.” He felt that “it would all pay off in the end.” During the final phase of reflection, Mr. Burtke continued to believe in constructiviststyle teaching practices sharing, “I really want [students] to own the learning and discuss it themselves and work it out and [then] we can discuss it after they work it through. But I have to set those expectations to make sure they’re on the right path.” He also shared that he had to vary his teaching style depending on the needs of his students and what time of day they took his class. He shared: So early in the morning I have to be a little more enthusiastic, because they’re still super tired and then in the afternoon I can kind of go into more higher level thinking quicker. I guess [in the] afternoon [students] handle some of the deeper knowledge a lot better than my classes in the morning, they move at kind of a different speed. This quote illustrates that Mr. Burtke is adjusting his teaching to meet the needs of his students and instead of viewing one class’s ability as superior or inferior to another, he views other variables—like the time of day—as a more likely cause of student interest or disinterest. Mr. Burtke recognizes how changes to his teaching approach will best leverage student learning capacity. Significant Phases of Changing Beliefs While changes were documented during all phases of the Moir (1990) model, the most frequent and significant changes in beliefs occurred for the new teachers occured during the survival and disillusionment phases, which spanned the months from early September to late October. Four of the five new teachers, with the exception of Ms. List, changed their beliefs in all three domains (teaching practice, social justice, and the purpose of schools) during the 110 survival and disillusionment phases. Ms. List only changed her beliefs for the two belief domains of teaching practice and social justice during the survival phases and in comparison to the other teachers in this study experienced the least change overall in her beliefs. Survival Phase During the survival phase all five-new teachers changed their beliefs in the domain of teaching practice. During this phase teachers shared new beliefs about their teaching practice. All five teachers shared that they now felt that their teaching practice should include a mentor-type mindset in which they acted as positive role models to juxtapose the poor role models students saw in their community. This idea of acting as a mentor was not reported by any of the teachers during the anticipation phase. During the survival phase, all five teachers also changed their beliefs in the domain of social justice. During this phase, Ms.Destinas and Mr. Geoffrey started to view their students— and the community—through a deficit lens citing examples of how students lived in rough areas or how students had hard times at home.. During the survival phase, Ms. List, Ms. Barley and Mr. Burtke adopted an even more positive mindset about the surrounding the community of Willowbrook schools During this survival phase, three of the five new teachers also changed their beliefs on the purpose of schools. Ms. Destinas went from believing during the anticipation phase that schools should prepare students for successful roles in society and should teach critical thinking skills to believing that schools are more like a daycare. Mr. Geoffrey thought schools should prepare students to be good citizens, but also now felt that schools in this country rely too much on grade inflation and passing students to the next grade level even when they are not ready. Ms. List changed her beliefs from seeing school as a place to prepare students for college to believing that 111 school should now necessarily prepare students for college because all students should not go to college. Ms. Barley and Mr. Burtke did not experience a change in their beliefs in on the purpose of schools during the survival phase, both believing that schools should prepare students to function well in society. Disillusionment Phase During the disillusionment phase between late October and early January, all four teachers—Ms. Destinas, Ms. Barley, Mr. Geoffrey, and Mr. Burtke—changed, modified, or adopted a new set of beliefs about their teaching practice. The changes of the four new teachers’ beliefs around teaching practice reflected during the disillusionment phase were different for each teacher, but still reflected a change overall. For Mr. Burtke, this change enhanced his teaching practices and aligned with a more empowering mindset for teaching. For Ms. Destinas and Mr. Geoffrey, this change was more detrimental— and in cases outright racist. Beliefs surrounding social justice also underwent changes for these four participant teachers during the disillusionment phase. Ms. Destinas and Mr. Geoffrey moved from their evolving beliefs about the entire student population to changing these positive beliefs toward a particular racial group of students in their school. Ms. Destinas and Mr. Geoffrey also tried to celebrate cultural differences by incorporating key African American historical figures into lessons—or in the case of Ms. Destinas—discussing differences within their own familial structure, but provided no example of how to sustain and affirm the cultural identities of their students and their students families 112 Ms. Destinas and Mr. Geoffrey also moved from valuing and striving for high expectations from their students to no longer holding high academic or behavioral expectations and no longer believing that their students were capable of attaining these high expectations. Ms. Barley experienced similar setbacks in her beliefs during the disillusionment phase as she continued to censor diverse conversations surrounding beliefs and conversational topics that were deemed unacceptable by mainstream society because she felt that the classroom was not a place to discuss controversial topics. On the other end of the spectrum, Mr. Burtke experienced empowering changes in his beliefs during this phase, as he found more ways to value and relate to students’ lives outside of school. He also found more value in partnering the community in student learning. Lastly, during the disillusionment phase Mr. Geoffrey, and Ms. Barley kept their new beliefs acquired during the survival phase, but Ms. Destinas and Mr. Burtke altered their beliefs slightly regarding the purpose of schools. Ms. Destinas built on her newly acquired belief that the purpose of schools was more akin to a daycare than academic instruction and built on these beliefs during the disillusionment phase to now incorporate a narrative that schools should teach kids order and how to be responsible and respect authority. At the other end of the spectrum, Mr. Burtke continued to believe that the purpose of schools was to teach and equip students with the problem-solving and decision-making skills to help them best function in society. However, he gained a new perspective on teaching sharing his concern for the profession of teaching and the need to be intrinsically motivated as a teacher. Overall, study participants experienced their most significant changes in their beliefs across the three domains of teaching practice, social justice, and the purpose of schooling during 113 the survival and disillusionment phases. The changes in beliefs during the rejuvenation and reflection phases varied for each teacher. Rejuvenation and Reflection Phases The new teachers experienced the least amount of change during the phases of rejuvenation and reflection, which is why I have grouped them together for this part of the findings section. In comparison to the dramatic changes and emotions new teachers experienced during the survival and disillusionment phases, the rejuvenation and reflection phases saw little change in beliefs and much less emotional turbulence. There were no patterns or trends in belief changes during these two phases amongst teachers, and the beliefs of each teacher were mostly an extension of their beliefs form the previous phase of disillusionment. Ms. Destinas continued to build on her new beliefs from the disillusionment phase during these final phases as she became further convinced that her students should be orderly and expected to meet expectations that were most appropriate for their backgrounds. She also felt that her students were victims of poor parenting and that it was her responsibility to help fill this void by acting as a mentor. Ms. Barley continued to uphold her beliefs on teaching, believing that students were responsible for their own learning and that showing effort and willingness to learn was more important than meeting high expectations. She also continued to find more value in the parents of her students as they partnered with her in learning. Ms. List continued to hold her beliefs from the disillusionment phase doing her best to differentiate, create an inviting classroom, and act as a mentor to many of her students. Mr. Geoffrey also further developed his beliefs from the disillusionment phase sharing that learning and expectations would vary depending on the student. He also continued to envision his duty 114 and purpose to act as more of a parent than a teacher and stressed the importance of being a good mentor in spite of a student’s upbringing. Mr. Burtke retained his beliefs from the disillusionment phase and felt that high expectations were vital to student success. He ended the year confident in his teaching and his ability to connect with his students. Overall, the new teachers were a lot more confident in their ability to manage their classrooms and reach their students than they had exhibited in any other of the previous phases. As expected from the Moir (1990) model, it appeared that teachers had a renewed sense of hope in their ability to teach next year—with the newfound insight, perspective, and set of beliefs they had developed over their first year as teacher of record. Perceived Influences on Changing Beliefs The perceived influences on teachers’ beliefs were measured over three of the five Moir (1990) model phases. These phases included the anticipation phase—which begins in August and the ends mid-September, the survival phase—which begins mid-September and ends around the end of October, and the reflection phase—which spans April, May, and the beginning of June. Like the other self-reported beliefs, influences on beliefs were self-reported by the the new teachers during formal interview questions during the anticipation, survival, and reflection phases. At the very beginning of the year all teachers shared a set of similar influences on their beliefs. With the exception of Ms. List, the new teachers reported new influences on their beliefs during the survival phase. Ironically, during the refection phase, only one teacher believed that his beliefs had changed or were influenced at all over the course of the study. Influences During the Survival Phase All teachers believed that their university preparation programs, including internships and field experiences, had influenced their beliefs during the anticipation phase. Ms. Barley shared 115 an additional influence of family and respected former teachers as other influences during this phase. As the new teachers entered the survival phase, none of them believed that their beliefs were influenced by anything affiliated with their university or teacher preparation program. Teachers now felt that beliefs were influenced—if at all—by factors within their new school community—like mentor teachers, administrators, and student/teacher relationships. Ms. Destinas During the survival phase, Ms. Destinas believed that her foreign language department, including the department chair and school impact coach, had the greatest impact on her beliefs about teaching, teaching for social justice, and the purpose of schools. She shared why her beliefs aligned with these teachers in her interview during the survival phase: “I think it’s that they know more about the kids at school because they’ve been there. Like I know somewhat about the population because I live [near] the area. But at the same time they know the specific kids better. Where they come from...like what elementary school they came from, and what these kids have learned before. So I think that they may have an even better understanding than I do.” Destinas also shared during this phase that these same teachers also help her improve her teaching. She shared, “They give me tips and we bounce ideas off each other for how we can make things work. For example, we all have sixth graders who can be really immature so we all think of ways we can combat that in our teaching.” These quotes indicate not only the beginning shift in Ms. Destinas’ beliefs, but also a new possible source of influence—in her new teacher network—on her beliefs and the outcomes of her teaching practice. 116 Ms. Barley During the survival phase, Ms. Barley believed that her mom was still the most influential person affecting her beliefs around teaching, school, and schooling. She shared that her mom was most influential “because she’s also a teacher.” She also shared that her mom was the “the one who’s inspired [her] to this point” and her mom is always her “go to person.” She shared that her mom and former school is “actually where [she is] getting the most help.” However, during the survival phase she also shared that there were other new influences that could affect her beliefs as well. When asked about who/what influences her day-to-day teaching, Ms. Barley shared: “I mean I would say I do get a lot of influences – I would say it’s hard for me because unfortunately my classroom is very far away from the rest of the special education teachers. But with this day and age in technology I can still communicate with them. But it would be a little nicer if I could be closer to them…. Our special education [department] chair is [also] very helpful. I also have teacher assistants that I communicate with on a regular basis.” These quotes show how Ms. Barley is being influenced by both outside and within-school sources, but that feels she is less influenced by within-school factors because of the isolating nature of her classroom. This isolation and being removed from the greater special education department could be a reason why she continues to seek her mom’s advice for decision-making and ultimately new belief formation. Ms. List Ms. List began the survival phase perceiving that her beliefs on teaching were likely influenced by other teachers she respected as a student, but also felt that non-educators had less 117 influence on her beliefs than educators. She shared that, “I defiantly think that I would take another educator’s opinion” because “it would have more weight just because they know the conditions that we are in [as teachers].” She shared that “non-educators can have valid points and that [she’d] love to hear those as well,” but didn’t think she would “hold them as heavily as I would another teacher.” While List found the advice of other educators as influential and important, she also felt that it she was in a unique place as a new teacher who was still impressionable and figuring out what to believe. She shared, “I think a lot of teachers are kind of stuck in their own way of what is right or wrong of how to teach and I don’t think they’re as open to change and new ideas.” These quotes illustrate that while Ms. List values advice from educators—including trusted colleges at her own school—she feels that as teachers progress they become less open to different ways of thinking and doing, and more resistant to change. Mr. Geoffrey Like Ms. Destinas, Mr. Geoffrey believed that his beliefs and decision-making were influenced by new teachers at his school: “I think what has influenced [my beliefs] is really the people that I work with because they are good people. I can bounce ideas off them. So I’m not just sitting there by myself thinking of things to do. I can go to them or [present] any problem. It’s about having colleagues who are willing to help you and a good student body helps.” Specifically, Geoffrey also felt that two teachers were particularly influential in influencing his perceptions about teaching and the school. Ms. Dionard, another social studies teacher, clicked with Geoffrey from the beginning. He shared that their connection “started the first day” and “was kind of natural because [they] were teaching the exact same thing.” He also 118 shared that their relationship “worked out well because [they] get along really well.” It seemed like Mr. Geoffrey and Ms. Dionard had a lot of common interests and similar backgrounds. When I asked Mr. Geoffrey about what influenced his beliefs about students and their families, Geoffrey shared that the teachers in his school, including Ms. Dionard, influenced this perception and also his principal. He shared, “Really when I talk to [my principal], he really just lets me know what kind of student body it’s going to be and you know when I talk to them about certain students he tells me a little bit more about their home life. I hear some of the things they have to go through.” These findings illustrate that Geoffrey was turning to his new colleagues for advice and in decision-making for his classroom. Mr. Burtke Mr. Burtke entered the survival phase perceiving that the teachers in his department influenced his beliefs on teaching and perception of the community the most. When I asked Mr. Burtke whom he was going to for advice during this phase, he shared, “Right now I am going to my department. We have six science teachers.” He also shared that he was “pretty localized in this section of the school with the science department,” meaning that he got to interact with his department on a very regular basis. He had a unique sense of belonging with his department and shared: I’m fortunate that our department is really like a pretty close family…We literally have a saying ‘You can’t control what you can’t control’ – so we roll with the punches and make sure we’re doing everything we can to make sure that each and everyday we are making a difference in a student’s life. Burtke also believed that this unique environment of such a supportive department had strongly influenced his beliefs. He shared a thoughtful perspective: 119 I think once again it does come down to a product of your environment. If [the science department] is hesitant about something, I am going to question it because technically they have more experience than me. I am brand new. This is my first go around on my own—and in my own classroom—I try to be as open as possible. This quote suggests that Mr. Burtke felt his department of teachers offered a wise perspective that he himself did not posses based on his limited experience as a teacher of record. Lastly, when I asked Mr. Burtke how his department felt about working in urban schools, he shared, “They absolutely love it!” and went on to share that one of the teachers that he now works with is actually his former eighth grade science teacher. He shared that “now that I’m working with him – he tells you it’s a totally different experience, but that he wouldn’t trade it for the world.” Similarly, Mr. Burtke also felt compelled to work in his new urban and really seemed to enjoy it. Reflections on Beliefs and Belief Change during the Reflection Phase At the end of the year, and during the reflection phase, even though all of the teacher participants had changed their beliefs and cited different sources of influence on their beliefs throughout the year, only one teacher—Mr. Burtke—believed that his beliefs were actually influenced and changed by others. The other four remaining teacher participants did not think that their beliefs in any of the three domains had changed throughout the entire year. For example, Mr. Geoffrey, underwent the most change in his beliefs over the course of the year. He once held high expectations and saw promise in his students during the anticipation phase. This gradually changed as he entered each phase seeing his students through more of a deficit lens. His own persona also changed as he started seeing himself as an idealized teacher during the anticipation phase, transitioned to a father figure/ savior to his students in the survival 120 and disillusionment phases, and ultimately adopted more of an authoritarian role as he exited the disillusionment phase and entered the final two phases of the Moir (1990) model. However, despite all of these changes, when I asked Geoffrey at the end of the year (during the reflection phase in June) whether or not his beliefs had changed over the course of the year, he shared, “Probably not too much, I mean maybe a little but I wouldn’t say a ton.” Similarly, Ms. Destinas underwent significant changes in her beliefs over the year but also shared that no changes had occurred, stating, “I think they’ve stayed the same.” To better understand why four of the five teachers believed that their beliefs had not changed or were not influenced over the course of the year, even though a preliminary data analysis had revealed otherwise, I conducted a final interview with all of the new teachers during the following academic year. During this November interview, all of educators were asked again if they believed that their beliefs had changed or were influenced over the course of the study. Again, all but one teacher—Mr. Burtke—shared that their beliefs had not changed nor been influenced. The teachers were also asked whether or not it was possible for beliefs, in general, to change at all. Four of the five teachers believed that it was possible for beliefs to undergo change. Ms. Destinas shared, “I think experiences can change beliefs based on those experiences. You may have beliefs on a student but until you learn about their home life and things you don’t know. Like you can have preconceived notions and those can change after you meet them.” Ms. Barley shared, “People can change their beliefs because they’re constantly learning. Younger people are more likely to change their beliefs than older people.” Ms. List shared, “Yes, I think it is possible once you look at both sides of an argument – and then as things happen to you throughout life – you might see another side and go at a problem in a different way.” Similarly, 121 Mr. Geoffrey, who did not think his own beliefs had changed over the course of the year, shared, “I think that people will change their beliefs, based on the experiences they have that show them new ways of thinking. I think younger people are more likely to change their beliefs. You know, the older you get, you get more stuck in your ways.” Ironically, the one teacher—Mr. Burtke—who believed that his beliefs had changed over the course of the year was also the one teacher to believe that beliefs cannot change, in general. He stated during this final interview, “I think beliefs are pretty much concrete. I don’t know if people change their beliefs.” All but one participant believed it was possible for beliefs to change; yet all of these same participants believed that a person’s beliefs could change in general, even if it did not happen for them. When I notified each of the four participants that the preliminary data analysis of their interview, survey, and classroom observation data had revealed that their beliefs had actually changed over the course of the year and study, and more significantly during the survival and anticipation phases of the Moir (1990) model, all participants responded very similarly. They were all surprised that their beliefs had changed and that they had not noticed this change on their own. The four participants were then asked what might have caused these changes over the course of the year and why they might not have noticed these changes. Overwhelming, the participants shared that the reason their beliefs had changed was likely due to stress. Ms. List shared, “So many more things were dumped on me and the administration, and I had other responsibilities outside of teaching that just kept piling up on my plate. I think this could have affected my beliefs and what I was doing in the classroom.” Ms. Destinas also shared her thoughts on why this change could have occurred:We all have this idea of teaching in our minds from student teaching, and it’s a great idea of what teaching is going to be like. But I didn’t have 122 my own classroom, I didn’t make all the rules, I didn’t have a principal to report to, not all the initiatives and demands are just on you…So it’s all of those things that you have to do… this club, start this initiative…you didn’t really understand how stressful it is. You think it’s going to be so easy because student teaching was so easy, bull crap. So that’s why my beliefs changed. Like my graduate program was incredibly stressful but not nearly as stressful as my first year of teaching. Mr. Geoffrey elaborated on the stress of his first year and shared some insight on why he might not have noticed the change in beliefs. It’s possible because this was my first year teaching and I experienced a wide range of emotions at the time and many different feelings and things just in that first month until about Christmas break. I guess I didn’t know what I was doing so I probably went through different stages during that time period that could have contributed to the change. I would say it was more collective. So many things happening at once… I would say, we, probably as first-year teachers just have this view and think that it’s just kind of the same for the whole year and we think it doesn’t change and some type of experience changes us without us even realizing that our beliefs had changed… I think it’s going through all the highs and lows of being a teacher and figuring out how to manage time and deal with students and be in certain situations, dealing with parents and students and then things from the administration. It can be overwhelming at times and that can add to the stress. These comments from Destinas and Geoffrey reveal that they experienced both stress and emotional turbulence over this first year at Willowbrook as they felt overwhelmed with new responsibilities and trying to find balance in fulfilling numerous demands. 123 Mr. Burtke was the one teacher participant who was aware that that his beliefs had changed over the course of the year. He offered some insight during the final interview as to why he thinks his beliefs changed over the course of year. Well I think a lot of it has to do with being a first year teacher. You kind of go in with like a sort of ignorance of what is going to happen. Not in bad way. You just have certain ideas of how things will be, so I guess your beliefs can become more realistic. A lot of it can be because of stress too. You have to make choices and be more realistic about how things are done or should be done and what things take precedence over certain things. For example, one of my beliefs at the beginning of the year related to rigor, and it was a huge thing for [my classroom]… [but then] I was told by an administrator that you know rigor is good but you need to do more multiple-choice stuff because that’s what [students] do for their M-STEP [exam]. It just becomes more realistic in my opinion of what other people want. This interpretation documents how Burtke perceived beliefs change for new teachers. He felt that new teachers are inexperienced and will defer to the status quo of expertise because they simply do not have a realistic understanding of what their new students need. Abandoning rigor for test-prep curriculum without challenging his administrator’s directive/ opinion is one such example of how new teachers can abdicate their original beliefs and practices for those beliefs and practices that mirror a trusted new source—that is often superior in status. All of the teachers were surprised to hear that their beliefs had changed over the course of the study, but after some careful reflection, understood how this could occur and shared that the many responsibilities, extra duties, and overall stress of the job could have played a big role in shaping their beliefs. 124 Summary of Findings Most of the teachers—with the exception of Mr. Burtke—began their year with empowering and idealistic beliefs about their teaching, their students, and the community. All of the teachers in this study experienced some sort of change in their beliefs over the course of the year. In some cases, this change was more pronounced—such as in the case of Mr. Geoffrey and Mr. Burtke. In other cases—the change was small and barely noticeable—such as in the case of Ms. List. The most significant changes in teachers’ beliefs took place during survival and disillusionment phases of the Moir (1990) model. All of the teachers’ teaching practices reflected what the believed during the phases in which they were both interviewed and observed (survival, rejuvenation, and reflection phases). The teachers were able to identify influences on their beliefs during the early phases of the year (sharing examples such as more experienced teachers in their departments) but when questioned during the final phase of reflection, all but one teacher—Mr. Burtke—felt that their beliefs had not changed nor been influenced over the course of the year. When teachers were asked to reflect on this finding after they had seen the preliminary data that illustrated how their beliefs had in fact changed, teachers shared that this change could have occurred without their noticing because of the stressful situations and many new demands they faced throughout their first year. Implications for study findings are discussion in the next chapter. 125 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE As new teachers begin their first year in the classroom, they do so not as blank canvases but with a certain set of beliefs (Gallagher, 1994; Pajares, 1992). What new teachers believe about their students, the surrounding community, teaching pedagogy, and their own self-efficacy, amongst other things, impacts their daily classroom practice (Borg, 2011). However, as teachers navigate the new world of teaching and experience the emotional turbulence of teaching for the very first time, they may fall victim to a new set of influences that, in turn, alter their beginning beliefs. Because teachers play a powerful role in student development, as daily experiences and interactions compound into a year’s worth of impact, it is important to examine the beliefs of new teachers, how they effect the actions of new teachers, and the multiple sources of influence they encounter as they begin their early careers. This case-study research explored the beliefs of five new teachers as they journeyed through their first year as teachers of record in an urban school. While the journeys of each new educator were unique, similarities in the timing of belief changes, and the perceived influences on beliefs existed amongst many of the new educators. Many new teachers also misunderstood the concept of teaching for social justice, but continued to execute their perceived understanding of social justice in their classroom anyway. Implications for future research and practice are discussed. Susceptibility for Belief Change As the new educators progressed through the phases of the Moir (1999) model, they experienced not only changes in their emotions but also changes in their beliefs. Towards the beginning of the year, and during the anticipation phase, Ms. Destinas, Ms. Barely, and Mr. Geoffrey began their year with empowering and idealized beliefs about teaching. These teachers 126 believed that teaching should be student-centered and that teachers should hold high academic and behavioral expectations. During these phases, these three teachers also felt confident in their ability to execute these idealized beliefs in their classrooms and form rich and meaningful relationships with their students. They all possessed empowering thoughts about their new urban community—including the ability for students to thrive in the classroom with positive parental support. However, as these three new teachers transitioned into the second phase of survival, and into the third phase of disillusionment, they began to hold very different beliefs about their students’ abilities, backgrounds, and their own ability to impact change as a teacher. These new beliefs were overall less empowering and drastically different than the novice educators’ beliefs from the previous phase. On the opposite end of the equation, Mr. Burtke began his first year with a less empowering set of beliefs, believing that his students were incapable of meeting high academic and behavioral expectations, and also that they suffered from difficult homes lives and therefore possessed no strengths from home. However, as Mr. Burtke transitioned through the survival and disillusionment phases of the Moir (1990) model, he encountered significant belief change as he adopted drastically different beliefs about his students, the community, and his ability to impact his students for the greater good. Specifically, he moved from believing that his students were less capable of achieving than their non-urban student counterparts because or their backgrounds to believing that they had the same potential as any kid. While all of these teachers underwent significant changes in their beliefs during the survival and disillusionment phases, albeit on different ends of the spectrum, they all shared one commonality as they progressed through the rest of the Moir (1990) model: their beliefs did not incur any further drastic change past the disillusionment phase. As Mr. Burtke, Mr. Geoffrey, 127 Ms. Destinas, and Ms. Barley continued through the final—and similar—phase of rejuvenation and reflection, they all experienced the emotion of renewed hope and reflected on how they were going to embark on their next year differently, but they did so from the perspective of their newest beliefs that were adopted during the disillusionment phase. During the final phase of rejuvenation and reflection, these teachers became more unwavering in their newest beliefs, firming up their newly acquired and more empowering (or less empowering) beliefs about teaching, their students, and the community. These newly formed mindsets continued on for the rest of the year. When compared with the Moir (1990) emotional changes, the changes in teachers’ beliefs for these four teachers directly or inversely mirrored the changes in the Moir (1990) model as portrayed in Figure 5.1. In this figure, “Belief Changes A” denotes teachers who changed their beliefs from doubtful to more empowered, where teaching was based in constructivism, the teacher saw value—and potential—in students and their community, and school was a place for preparing caring and responsible citizens with skills to contribute in society. Conversely, “Belief Changes B” denotes a more disenchanting path, that summarizes a digress from beliefs that were hopeful and almost sanguine to beliefs that were less empowering—and in some cases oppressive—towards students and their community. Teachers who followed this curve were also more likely to use a more authoritative approach to instruction as the year progressed. In contrast to the two pathways of belief change, the final path on this figure illustrates to unique trajectory for one of the teachers—Ms. List—who experienced little to no change in her beliefs over the course of the year. Therefore, “No Change in Beliefs” illustrates how the beliefs of one teacher remained constant—and more empowering—for the duration of the year. 128 These four teachers experienced similar changes in their beliefs as they experienced changes in their emotions throughout the Moir (1990) model. However, unlike in the Moir (1990) model where teachers experienced a renewed hope during the rejuvenation phase—and similar emotions to those experienced during the anticipation phase—during the final reflection phase, the beliefs of Mr. Burtke, Mr. Geoffrey, Ms. Destinas, and Ms. Barley did not revert back to the initial and idealized beliefs they possessed during the anticipation phase. Instead, these four teachers finished out the remaining phases of the Moir (1990) model operating under the mindset of the new beliefs they had acquired during the disillusionment phase. Figure 5.1. Belief change patterns mapped onto Moir (1990) model. One exception to this finding is Ms. List. Ms. List experienced the fewest number of changes in her beliefs as she progressed throughout the year and never underwent any significantly different or drastic changes in her beliefs as the other teachers experienced. Instead, 129 Ms. List made gradual changes in her beliefs that largely built on her existing beliefs, which stemmed from the beginning of the year. For example, Ms. List began her year believing in the importance of diversity and inclusion and then became even more intentional about executing this belief in her classroom during the middle of the year when she intentionally created seating charts to incorporate students from different backgrounds. Similarly, Ms. List started her year believing in a constructivist-based approach to teaching and built on this belief as she incorporated more student-led and student-initiated projects and activities into her classroom. Unlike the other teachers in this study, Ms. List remained calm and collected as she progressed throughout the year and transitioned through each phase of the Moir (1999) model. Also unlike the other teachers, Ms. List never felt overwhelmed or frazzled when she participated in the interviews and classroom observations. Even after her car accident, she seemed to have everything in order, making small modifications to her lesson plan to reflect her needs as a recently injured person and practice self-care. Oddly enough, Ms. List asked the most questions before agreeing to participate in this study and was also often the last person to respond to my interview and classroom observation requests. Ms. List seemed to have a really good system for prioritizing her professional duties and important aspects of her life. She also seemed to have a distinct confidence in her ability and collectiveness that the other teachers did not seem to possess. Given these observations, I wonder if Ms. List truly experienced the phases of the Moir (1999) model as each of the other teachers had experienced them. Sure she followed the timeline for teaching and progressed through the seasons of the year like all of the other new educators, but I do wonder if Ms. List experienced the same emotional turbulence that aligns with the 130 anticipation, survival, disillusionment, rejuvenation, and reflection phases and therefore experienced the true emotional turbulence of teaching during the first year. During the survival phase, the other teachers seemed overwhelmed with everything they had going on in their new school. During interviews, Mr. Burtke would talk about the difficultly he experienced in balancing the demands of teaching with coaching football. Ms. Destinas shared how her new duties were taking over her personal life. Ms. Barely found it challenging to navigate and connect with her new department, given her isolation from the special education wing. Lastly, Mr. Geoffrey just experienced an overall difficulty in connecting with his students, managing his classroom, and meeting the many demands that he felt weighing on his back. As expected during the survival phase, the emotions that these teachers experienced were not abnormal. Similarly, the feelings of incompetence and decreased self-esteem experienced by the four new educators during the disillusionment phases were also common and expected. What is abnormal for the Moir (1990) model, and specifically the survival and disillusionment phases, is Ms. List’s collected confidence and unwavering ability to meet the daily demands of her students and her school without feeling any of the expected emotions. Ms. List’s uniquely different emotions, and overall lack of emotional change during each of the phases of the Moir (1990) model, suggests that Ms. List may not have experienced the Moir (1990) first year teaching phases in the same fashion as that of her peers and fellow new teachers in this study. As Ms. List did not experience a change in her emotional state as she progressed throughout the Moir (1990) model, she also did not drastically change her beliefs. She mostly kept her beliefs from the beginning of the year to the end of the year, and also self-professed and exhibited these same beliefs throughout each of the Moir (1990) phases. Like the other teachers, Ms. List completed her education preparation at a university in Michigan—albeit private—and 131 is also a native to the state. However, unlike the other new teachers who spent the entirety of their teacher preparation and internship experiences in the state of Michigan, Ms. List spent her internship year teaching English—under the supervision of a more experienced teacher—abroad in a small school in Germany. Ms. List shared that this experience was truly transformative and that the time she had spent abroad during her internship year really helped her step outside of her comfort zone and build a new sense of confidence in herself and her future career as an educator. Conversely, the other teachers described their internship years as more or less of a no brainer and much easier than their first year as teacher of record. These four teachers did not feel that they had to step out of their comfort zones, like Ms. List had experienced, and instead felt that because they never really struggled during their internship year, it was much more challenging to navigate their classrooms during their first year at Willowbrook. Given these different experiences during the internship year, it is possible that Ms. List’s experiences better prepared her to manage difficult situations and experience less emotional turbulence than the other four teachers. Ms. List also had an intense interest for learning more about other cultures and spending time in these foreign communities that were very different from her own. She loved to travel, and after her first year at Willowbrook she spent her summer in Europe—the only teacher who mentioned future plans for any sort of vacation or immersion into a culture different than his or her own. None of the other teachers shared this affinity for exploring new cultures or had any experience teaching in a different country. The unique experiences of Ms. List suggest that not all first-year teachers experience the phases of the Moir (1990) model in the same way. While the other four educators transitioned through each phase as was expected, Ms. List did not encounter the same emotional turbulence. 132 Nor did she encounter any instances of drastically changing her beliefs, despite working in a new environment with regular new influences. Considering the differences between Ms. List’s first year and the other four educators’ first year suggests that a drastic change in new teachers’ beliefs are more likely to occur when new teachers authentically experience Moir’s (1990) firstyear phases of teaching—and transcend through each consecutive phase. From the Affective Intelligence Theory, we know that people are prone to changing their beliefs when the encounter anxiety or stress— two emotions that are common during the survival and disillusionment phases of the Moir (1990) model. We also know that emotion plays a role in the ability for social influence to affect beliefs and attitudes (Breckler & Wiggins, 1989). Given the unique differences between the emotional states of Mr. Geoffrey, Ms. Destinas, Ms. Barley, and Mr. Burke and the emotional state of Ms. List, it is clear that the four new educators who authentically experienced the Moir (1990) phases of a first-year teacher, including the stress and anxiety during the survival and disillusionment phases, could have been more prone to belief changes than Ms. List. Another theory from Laurie Paul (2014), who is a philosopher at the University of North Carolina and author of Transformative Experience, suggests that people change their beliefs as they also change their identities. According to Paul’s theory, as teachers embark on their first year they are defining their new identities and changing this to fit their perception of this new identity’s truth. Considering the story of Ms. List, she retained a strong sense of self and executed this self in her classroom as a teacher, while the other four educators struggled to consistently exhibit this same strong sense of self as they progressed through the first year. These four teachers were also more likely to change their dispositions (i.e. some days they were more with more confident in their tone of voice and on other days this confidence seemed to fade). 133 Unlike the other teachers, Ms. List retained her disposition and the same confident repertoire with students during every classroom observation and interview. Yet, when I observed and interviewed the other four teachers, they all exhibited different and wavering levels of confidence that transgressed through each phase. The factors that played a role in Ms. List’s unique experience during her first year are worth examining in greater detail. Her exceptional experience suggests that some first-year teachers may not undergo the emotional turbulence of the Moir (1999) model nor experience belief changes. Understanding how Ms. List defied these common experiences during her first year is worth investigating further and could contribute to the design of teacher preparation programs that work to prepare graduates who will act as change agents in historically underserved communities and urban schools. Influences on Beliefs of New Educators Over the course of the year, the five new educators shared what they perceived to be the sources of influences on their beliefs. As mentioned, during the anticipation phase all of the novice teachers shared that their beliefs associated with teaching and working in urban schools were mostly influenced by their experiences in their teacher education preparation program—or in the case of Ms. Barely, her own teacher mother. During the survival phases, these perceived influences changed as a majority of the new teachers identified different sources of influence on their beliefs, such as the more seasoned teachers at Wilowbrook. Ms. Destinas, Ms. Barley, Mr. Geoffrey, and Mr. Burtke all felt that the veteran teachers they interacted with most regularly, such as teachers in their departments, affected their beliefs about teaching, their students, and the community of Willowbrook—whether positively or negatively – most significantly during this phase. Ms. List was again the exception of the group sharing that she felt other educators she 134 respected influenced her beliefs most significantly, but did not name anyone specifically in her department like the other new teachers had named. Ms. Destinas felt that her French department was very influential in shaping her beliefs, and Ms. Barely felt that same way about her special education department—even though they were geographically distant from her classroom. Mr. Burtke even gave credit to his science department for changing his perception of his students whom he had held a negative opinion of from day one. Burtke felt that because of the science department’s empowering views and positive work ethic, he had changed his beliefs about his students to now believe that they were capable of achieving far greater endeavors than he had even imagined during the previous phase. Mr. Geoffrey felt strongly that the other social studies teacher who was stationed immediately next door to his classroom was most influential in his new and emerging beliefs about this students and his teaching pedagogy. He also felt that his principal was another source of influence. As the five new educators progressed into the final phase of reflection, I asked what influenced their beliefs. Surprisingly, during this final phase of reflection four of the five new educators shared that their beliefs were not really influenced by anything else and that they had formed their opinions on matters based on their own thought processing and reasoning ability. More so, these same four teachers did not think that their beliefs about their students, the community, or that their teaching practice had changed over the course of the first year. With the exception of Ms. List, these new educators all had changed their beliefs significantly over the year and it was surprising as the researcher to hear that they had not noticed this change— especially when they felt that their beliefs had been influenced three phases earlier. When I informed Mr. Geoffrey, Ms. Barley, and Ms. Destinas that their beliefs had changed based on my preliminary data analysis from interview, classroom observation, and survey data, they were not 135 exceptionally surprised and felt that it was possible for these changes to occur unknowingly— and especially during the months up to Winter break—because of the many demands that weighed on them as first year teachers. All of the teachers felt that it was possible for an individual to change their beliefs on all sorts of issues and also in a new school as they had experienced. Ms. List even shared that it was possible for people to change their beliefs and that her own beliefs could have changed without her even noticing because of the many demands and additional responsibilities outside of teaching that she faced as a new teacher. However, this response was the first time Ms. List had ever mentioned the many demands on her plate as a new teacher. During the earlier parts of the year she seemed to manage every responsibility with poise. Interestingly, Mr. Burtke, who felt that his beliefs had changed over the course of the year, shared at the end of the year that beliefs in general do not change and are “more concrete.” This was an interesting remark given Mr. Burtke’s belief changes that he experienced over the course of the year and his willingness to admit that they had changed and were greatly influenced by the teachers in his science department. Mr. Burtke’s emotional experiences also mirrored those of Mr. Geoffrey, Ms. Destinas, and Ms. Barely as he progressed through the Moir (1999) model. Therefore, it is interesting that Mr. Burtke did not experience the same unawareness of belief change as Mr. Geoffrey, Ms. Barley, and Ms. Destinas had experienced. Mr. Burtke experienced a belief change curve that inversely mirrored the belief change curve of Mr. Geoffrey, Ms. Barely, and Ms. Destinas. Specifically, Mr. Burtke began his year with less empowering beliefs about teaching and teaching for social justice and then changed his beliefs into drastically more empowering beliefs by the end of the disillusionment phase. Mr. Geoffrey, Ms. Barely, and Ms. Destinas experienced the opposite effect, beginning their year with more 136 empowering beliefs and ending the disillusionment phase with drastically less empowering beliefs than they possessed at the beginning of the year. The recent literature on expectations argues that what Mr. Burtke experienced during his first year—a mostly positive and joyful experience that led to a more empowering mindset about his students —is partially due to his low expectations coming into his new position. At the beginning of the year, Mr. Burtke had incredibly low expectations for his students and his own ability to excel as a teacher given the context of teaching in an urban school. Because Mr. Burtke exceeded his expectations over the course of the year, it is likely that this is why he is ending his year with a more positive mindset around his students’ capabilities, his own capabilities as a teacher, and his positive experiences that occurred over the year. Conversely, the other teachers in this study began their year with high expectations—and in some cases were expected to excel in this type of environment because of their specialized coursework—and ended the year with beliefs and mindsets that were very different from their starting perspectives. With the exception of Ms. List, these three teachers ended the year not meeting or exceeding their expectations and felt that their year had not gone as well as they had expected. The negatively bias posits that people are more likely to remember things that have a negative association than those that have a positive association—and that there is a biological justification for this phenomenon. According to Kensinger, Garoff-Eaton, and Schacter (2006) human brains are wired to keep a person safe from harm and repeating past experiences that have caused harm. For example, putting a hand on a hot frying pan typically only happens once because one remembers the experience of the burning hand and therefore does not put his or her hand on the hot pan again. In the case of Mr. Burtke, he began his time at Willowbrook feeling very negative about his first year experience and even shared that he was essentially “prepared 137 for the worst.” This expectation was very different for Mr. Geoffrey, Ms. Barely, and Ms. Destinas who were more idealistic about their first year experiences and in contrast to Mr. Burtke were really looking forward to their first year in the classroom. Ms. Barely, Ms. Destinas, and Mr. Geoffrey all experienced an overall positive mindset during the anticipation phase, while Mr. Burtke experienced more negativity. Given the potential for a negativity bias, it is more likely that Mr. Burtke would remember how different his negative beliefs were at the beginning of the year in contrast to his new and more empowering beliefs. Conversely, and under this same premise, it is possible that the lack of negativity associated with Ms. Barely, Ms. Destinas, and Mr. Burtke’s initial beliefs made it difficult for them to remember their beginning beliefs and therefore negated an ability to distinguish any difference between their beginning beliefs and their beliefs at the end of the year. Understanding what it Means to Teach for Social Justice While teachers routinely executed their professed beliefs regarding teaching pedagogy, their students, the community, and the purpose of schooling during classroom observations, there was some confusion of what it truly means to teach for social justice, as many teachers both reported and executed misunderstandings of this concept in interviews and in classroom observations. In teaching for social justice, teachers must first recognize that certain socially constructed groups are privileged, while others are disadvantaged (Johnson, 2006). This procurement of privilege is the result of unearned or undeserving efforts. For example, a person who identifies as a White heterosexual male does not face the same toils and implicit biases as a person who identifies as an African American homosexual male. These various forms of identity (i.e. race, class, gender, sexuality, etc.) are socially constructed, and privilege—although undeserving—is awarded to those who identify with the majority. Illuminated by the lens of 138 Critical Race Theory, teachers must understand how a law or school policy may aim to address issues of equity and fairness, but ultimately fail—even when perceived as successful—because they do not address the underlying existing issues of White supremacy and racial domination. Understanding how this complex system of injustice exists is a foundational principle in teaching for social justice. The next step is for teachers to actively engage as change agents in their classrooms and communities to combat patterns of oppression by intentionally disrupting behavior, activity, and decisions that perpetuate the oppression of marginalized groups—or in the case of this study, students who identify with the less privileged minority (Ayvazian, 2004; Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 1997). When teachers are acting as change agents and disrupting this cycle of oppression, they are teaching for social justice. In teaching for social justice, teachers must challenging or interrupt the cycle of oppression and intentionally counter oppressive forces that marginalize certain socially constructed class groups (Banks & Banks, 2001). Understanding educational experiences through the lens of Critical Race Theory is also paramount to teaching for social justice. Ms. List was the only teacher in this study to accurately understand what it means to teach for social justice and also execute this accurate understanding in her classroom practice. Ms. List understood privilege and oppression and how it played a role in the power dynamics in her school and also on a global scale. In her own classroom, she worked to counter cycles of oppression by publicly speaking out about negative comments students made to target certain groups and endorsing opinions from students who identified with non-mainstream groups. She also made intentional efforts to integrate students in seating arrangements and affirm the opinions of students from less privileged groups as a way to illuminate the injustice that exists between those with unearned privilege and those with undeserved oppression. 139 In contrast to Ms. List, Ms. Destinas, Ms. Barley, and even Mr. Burtke did not fully understand what it means to teach for social justice and execute daily teaching pedagogy from this perspective. For example, Ms. Barely believed that she was teaching for social justice by not allowing students to talk about what she considered controversial topics such as sexual orientations, political movements, and gender identities. She felt this censorship was important because she believed school was not a place to be political and was instead a place to respect everyone’s beliefs. However, by suppressing conversations and opinions that she felt were inappropriate based on her own perspective, she inadvertently continued to silence and oppress marginalized groups that do not identify with her mainstream perceptions of identity. From a CRT perspective, Ms. Barely is enforcing a rule intended to perpetuate equality and freedom of voice for all, but actually acting in opposition of freedoms for those who do not identify with dominant group. For example, when Ms. Barley disallowed one of her students to openly discuss homosexuality and different forms of gender identity, she reinforced a culture of heteronormativity, further contributing to the oppression of groups who do not identify as heterosexual. These overt decisions have significant consequences for students who witness these interactions as they learn that their identity is subordinate to those with identities that are allowed in daily discussion. Ms. Barely’s belief that she was teaching for social justice by having an open classroom and not discussing different opinions in an effort to make everyone feel comfortable, instead was more likely to make students with privilege feel comfortable and further oppresses her students from non-mainstream backgrounds and with non-mainstream identities. In another example of misunderstanding what it means to teach for social justice—and example of where CRT could be applied—Mr. Geoffrey deliberately ignored some of his African 140 American students (who he had deemed as troublemakers) in an effort to not disrupt the entire class. Instead of helping these African American students meet his expectations for participation—and illustrate the value of their opinions to the greater class discussion—he let theses students remove themselves from instruction and tune out the entire lesson. There are very strong racialized outcomes for Mr. Geoffrey’s decision to ignore certain students who identify with a particular racial group. First, as the authority figure in the classroom—and White male—Mr. Geoffrey is reinforcing a culture of White supremacy where his own beliefs and actions as a White man hold more value than those beliefs and actions of non-White people. Secondly, Mr. Geoffrey is also showing that his African American students are less important than his White students because he chooses to exclude his African American students and prioritize his other students instead of prioritizing his African American students and excluding his White students. These decisions illustrate that Mr. Geoffrey likely believes that his African American students have less value than his other students and that they are less important to reach from a teaching perspective—amongst many other possible perspectives. Students in Mr. Geoffrey’s class witness this power dynamic and it is likely that they will internalize this interaction, and different treatment of African American people as normal, illustrating that students from a certain group need greater discipline than students who do not identify as African American. This portrait perpetuates the racial domination of White people in their assertion of dominance over non-White groups. Ms. Destinas enacted a similar scenario in her own classroom sending an African American student into the hallway when he was misbehaving, but allowing other students with different identities to continue misbehaving without suffering any consequence. This disproportionally distributed discipline toward African American students is in direct conflict 141 with what it means to teach for social justice (Ladson-Billings, 2014). From a CRT perspective, Ms. Destinas—a White female—is reinforcing a culture of White supremacy by treating her nonWhite students differently than her White students. This is especially concerning because Ms. Destinas believes that she is reinforcing equitable and just classroom norms that combat a broken system of equity but her actions reflect a different perception of racial dominance over nonWhite groups. Not only are Mr. Geoffrey and Ms. Destines inconsistent with their discipline, but they are also perpetuating a narrative that African American students need more discipline—and sharing this message with the rest of the students in their classrooms. In an effort to truly combat the systems of oppression and end this cycle, teachers should think carefully about how they exhibit their authority and whom they target for regular discipline (Johnson, 2006). Truly teaching for social justice would mean circumventing less appealing behavior in ways that did not publically or personally oppress a student, but instead redirecting the task at hand in more fruitful and productive ways. Considering the ramifications of disciplinary choices and how these choices affect students from marginalized class groups is one step toward understanding what it means to teach for social justice. Mr. Burtke, Ms. Destinas, Mr. Geoffrey, and Ms. Barely have a lot to learn about power, privilege, and oppression before they can truly teach for social justice and act as change agents in their school. Because all of the teachers in this study were White, it is important to consider how their perspectives all reflect that lens of a person who was born White in a society that allows certain advantages for White people (LaFrance & Mayo, 1976). Many white Americans believe that they are viewing the world simply by the way that it exists and do not question how this view is actually just one view—one often told by white people for white people. The problem with 142 White gaze is that it does not allow for other perspectives—especially perspectives that challenge what White gaze argues as truth. Therefore, standards on how to act, be, and live in society are set through a standard of White gaze and those who do appease these standards are viewed as wrong, disorderly, or with another deficit lens (Paris & Alim, 2014). It is important to consider this perspective of White gaze for all of the White teachers in this study. A challenging part of White gaze is that most people are unaware of its existence. This is problematic because when people believe that White gaze should not be there, they also think that it must not be there, and believe that their opinions are formed based on solid judgment that incorporates many perspectives. This is a dangerous limitation to not consider any limitation—in this case White gaze—of one’s perspective in society and also classroom. Therefore, it is paramount to consider how the White gaze of the teachers in this study contributes to certain externalities of study findings—that may or may not have influenced certain beliefs and behaviors. Contributions to the Literature This study contributes to existing literature on teacher beliefs and extends this research to understand—specifically—the beliefs of brand new teachers, including how they are formed, influenced, and changed over the course of their first year. This study shares not only when new teachers are likely to experience belief change, but also the various factors that contribute to belief change. New teachers are more susceptible to changing their beliefs—and ways of teaching—when they experience significant stress and feel overwhelmed with multiple demands. This study found that new educators are more likely to experience these emotions during the survival and disillusionment phases of the Moir (1990) model, which occur during the first half of school year (roughly the end of August to the beginning of January for schools that follow a 143 traditional academic calendar). New teachers are also more likely to turn to nearby and trusted sources for advice and insight during these phases. New educators undergoing these phases perceive these informal mentors as much more knowledgeable about teaching and often defer to their expertise. This is one possible source that may change new teachers beliefs and ways of teaching. This study also closely examined the trajectory of belief changes for first-year teachers and found that not all first-year teachers change their beliefs in the same way. As illustrated by the portraits of Mr. Burtke, Mr. Geoffrey, Ms. Barley, and Ms. Destinas, teachers may begin their year with very similar or different beliefs and then experience a drastic change, or—such as in the case of Ms. List—experience very little change or no change at all. This study suggests that the difference in these experiences stem from whether or not new teachers truly experience emotional turbulence and undergo each phase of the Moir (1990) model. Given the different experiences teachers faced during their internship year with some being not so challenging—such as in the case of Ms. Destinas, Mr. Geoffrey, Mr. Burtke, and Ms. Barely, and others being quite challenging—such as in the case of Ms. List, it is possible that truly challenging internship experiences could hold a lot of value for new teacher development. If new teachers learn how to manage new challenges and stressful situations well during their internship year, they may also be able to better navigate the phases of the Moir (1990) model without experiencing significant emotional turbulence—and potential vulnerability. Future research on the impact of internship programs—that may vary by intensity—is needed to fully understand this phenomena in greater depth. It would also be interesting to examine how the first-year experienes of new teachers vary based on the background of their teacher preparation program. All of the teachers in this study attended 144 institutionally-based teacher preparation programs, but not all teachers attend this type of teacher preparation program. Therefore, it is worth investigating how teacher graduates from more nontraditional teacher preparation programs—like New York City Teaching Fellowss or Teach for American—experience their first year and undergo the Moir (1990) model. It would also be interesting to see if teachers from alternative teacher preparation programs cite other sources of influence on their beliefs or teaching practices. Given that all teachers in this study were in their early twenties or thirties, it would also be interesting consider the experiences of new teachers who begin their career later in life—and with a lot more life experience. Findings from this study also reveal that more work must be done around teaching for social justice in urban schools. Many of the new teachers were familiar with the term of teaching for social justice, but did not know how to accurately implement this teaching into their classrooms. While many of the new teachers were aware of the disadvantages their students faced, and deeply cared to help their students do better, they were less aware of how the power dynamic between those with privilege and those without privilege perpetuated a disadvantaged culture for their students. They also did little to address their own privilege or show any accountability for the many advantages they benefited from in their own college and career pursuits because of this privilege. Instead of directly addressing how power and oppression play a significant role in the advantages and disadvantages students—and all people—have today, teachers in this study opted to act more as mentors and showed students how and where they should direct their lives for betterment. Future research that examines this lack of accurately understanding and implementing true teaching for social justice is vital to improving urban schools and breaking the vehicle for social reproduction in urban schools. 145 Implications for Policy and Practice This study calls for future research that examines the beliefs of novice educators as they embark on their pre-service training, first year in the classroom, and continued experience over the course of their career. This study specifically illuminated the experiences of first-year teachers and how their beliefs changed (or did not change) over the course of their first year as teachers of record. There is a need for future research that examines factors of influence on new teachers during their early-career years and how decision-making at the institutional training level, the school administrative level, and the district policy level can influence this susceptibility for belief change. From the perspective of teacher preparation, this study suggests that pre-service teaching programs should provide students with broad experiences— including working and in urban environments and communities that are historically underserved. All of the teachers in this study had an idea of what it meant to teach for social justice; however, understanding power, privilege, and oppression based on historic and current context varied for all of the new educators in this study. The new educators’ execution of teaching for social justice in the classroom also varied. Therefore, teacher preparation programs need to consider how students are understanding both the theoretical and practical applications of teaching for social justice and allow students to develop this technique early in their pre-service classroom experiences. Mr. Geoffrey was one of the teachers who had perhaps the most misinformed understanding of what it means to teach for social justice, but had taken an entire course at his university that focused on human power, diversity, and oppression—with an emphasis on how these phenomena manifests in public schooling. While Mr. Geoffrey was exposed to coursework and service learning experiences that were centered on teaching for social justice, the actual execution of this skill was not carried over 146 into Mr. Geoffrey’s classroom. Therefore, even if pre-service programs are offering progressive coursework for teachers, they need to do a better job of assessing to what extent pre-service teachers actually understand course objectives, retain this understanding, and ultimately execute the practical application of this understanding in their classrooms. Pre-service programs also need to consider how they can stay involved in the ongoing experiences of teachers when they transition from pre-service candidates to teachers of record— particularly during the first year when they are most susceptible to emotional turbulence and belief change. By acting as a continual resource, teacher preparation programs could act as a guiding influence during the challenging first-year phases and help novice educators develop empowering practices and perspectives about their new their students, their own teaching, and their new communities. From an administrative perspective, school principals should work to first understand the existing beliefs, perspectives, and practices of staff in their current faculty and then intentionally and appropriately place teachers with mentors who empower students, understand why it is important to teach for social justice, and actively teach with these beliefs in their own classrooms. Mr. Geoffrey and Ms. Barely felt that some of their greatest influences during the year were from teachers who were relatively close to their classroom or with whom they “just clicked,” while Mr. Burtke and Ms. Destinas channeled new perspectives from their new departments. If administrators are careful with not only where geographically they place new teachers during their first year, but also in structuring initial mentoring networks to reflect a positive and empowering mindset they can help to mitigate the negative influences that new teachers encounter during challenging first-year phases. 147 Administrators can also work to combat the emotional turbulence and feelings of hopelessness during the first year by developing regular support groups for new teachers to discuss their current challenges, reflect on decision-making, and also share and learn from other new teachers who are experiencing similar situations. In combination with positive and empowering mentoring, regular support groups could offer new educators a chance to share their emotional upsets and feel a sense of camaraderie amongst the other new teachers in their school. These groups can also help to combat the feeling of isolation and give new teachers a chance to grow and create their own culture that reflects empowering ideals and views on teaching. From a school and district policy perspective, schools should consider the demands placed on first-year teachers and work to deter less meaningful initiatives, mandates, and trainings that interfere with empowering teacher development. All of the teachers in this study felt that there were many demands, unaffiliated with teaching, that were placed on them during their first year. These demands pulled them away from their own teaching, lesson planning, and fruitful development. These demands may also contribute to more emotional turbulence and susceptibility to belief change. Given these parameters, schools and districts should structure first-year teaching policy that is amenable to first-year experiences and builds gradually in a consecutive and manageable fashion instead of piling new demands on new educators all at once. Schools may also consider partnering with local universities to create teacher induction programs, which aim to connect theory with practice. As new teachers embark on their challenging first year, teacher induction programs provide teachers with both the real-world experience of acting as teacher of record, but also provide the support of academic experts who can help teachers troubleshoot issues and continually foster the development of an empowering 148 mindset. Compelling research also suggests that teacher induction programs make the transition from pre-service teacher to teacher of record more manageable (Stanulis, et al., 2007). Lastly, from a state-level policy perspective this study suggests a need changes in policy surrounding teacher licensure—including their required pre-service and internship experiences. One of the most exceptional teachers in this study was Ms. List. Ms. List experienced limited changes in her beliefs, met her own expectations –even thought they were high—and spent her entire first year teaching for social justice more accurately than any of the other teachers in this study. Also unlike the other teachers in this study, Ms. List completed the most rigorous form of training through an internship abroad that challenged her more than she had ever been challenged before and put her out of her comfort zone on numerous occasions. Because of this experience, Ms. List had less of a challenge managing her classroom and meeting her early-year expectations. She was also consistent with student discipline and praise and also underwent the least amount of emotional turbulence as she progressed through the Moir (1990) model. On the other hand, Mr. Geoffrey is an example of a teacher who completed specialized coursework for teaching in urban schools, but failed to have an internship experience that was truly challenging—and authentically representative of an urban school climate. He cites his experiences teaching in schools that were more suburban where students would do exactly what he wanted them to do and when he asked them to it. He shared that this internship was really quite easy in comparison to his first year at Willowbrook. Mr. Geoffrey also underwent significant emotional turbulence as he progressed through the Moir (1990) model and experienced various forms of stress from the many demands on his plate as a first-year teacher. These contrasting examples suggest that states should require their teachers to teach in areas that are more similar to the schools in which they will teach during their career as an effort 149 to present a more authentic experience. This experience will also give pre-service teachers a chance to progress through the Moir (1990) model under the guidance of an appropriate experienced teacher who can help them process and manage the demands of teaching in a way that is constructive to both the teacher’s development and also their students. This type of rigorous pre-service training is not uncommon in other professional fields such as medicine or law where the pre-service requirements and experiences are much more demanding than the actual job. For example, future physicians are expected to not only complete at least four years of additional schooling, but also to complete at least a two-year residency with even more training if they choose toe specialize in a particular area of medicine. Similarly, teachers who are seeking a specialization to teach in an urban school—such as now offered at many universities—may also need to spend additional time and training to best prepare them for work in an environment that is more challenging and often different than their own k-12 learning experiences. Case Study Summary and Conclusion This case study explored the beliefs of new teachers as they embarked on their first year of teaching in an urban school. Specifically, I explored the beginning beliefs of novice educators and if these beliefs changed as they underwent the emotional turbulence of the Moir (1990) First Year Phases of Teaching model. I also explored factors of perceived influence on belief changes and how new teachers understand the ways in which their beliefs impact their own practice. I identified three broad belief domains to capture these belief changes as the new teachers progressed throughout their first year and found that while all teachers began their year with similar and idealistic beliefs about teaching, their students, and the community, four of the new educators experienced changes in their beliefs in multiple phases of the Moir (1990) model. 150 These four teachers also felt that teacher colleagues and veteran faculty in their new school largely influenced their beliefs as they progressed through the first-year phases. One new teacher, Ms. List, did not experience belief changes like the other four teachers and also did not experience the same emotional upset that the other four teachers had faced as they progressed through each of the Moir (1990) phases. Ms. List also uniquely felt that her beliefs were largely influenced by past examples of exemplary teaching, instead of teaching at her current school. On the contrary, the new educators that experienced the most changes in their beliefs also exhibited the expected emotions for each phase of the Moir (1999) model. While all of the new teachers felt that their beliefs were influenced by some outside factor at some point during the year (even in the case of Ms. List who felt that former educators played the greatest influence on her beliefs), this perception of influence was not consistent through the final phase of the Moir (1990) model as many of the new educators reported no influence on their beliefs during the final phase of reflection. When confronted with this finding at the end of they study, many teachers shared that it was likely that their beliefs could have change without them realizing this change (or influences on this change), because of the many demands and factors of stress that peaked during the tumultuous phases. In terms of understanding how beliefs impact practice, all of the new teachers’ reported beliefs matched their behaviors in the classroom. However, four of the new teachers did not accurately understand what it means to teach for social justice and subsequently inaccurately enacted their perception of this belief into their own classroom practice. As discussed, this misconception prompted behaviors that were detrimental to students from historically underserved and marginalized groups and, if not addressed, could manifest structures and activities that transmit social inequality from one generation to the next. Therefore, future 151 studies should explore this misunderstanding of what it means to teach for social justice in greater detail—including how to remedy this misconception in rapid order. Based on study findings, future research should also examine the developing social ties of incoming novice educators with existing faculty in an effort to better understand how novice teachers’ beliefs are influenced and changed by existing social networks. Future study findings, and findings from this study, may help guide policymakers and school administrators to carefully transition new teachers into an existing school culture that is more empowering. This is even more important in instances where new teachers are working to change the status quo. Equipped with specialized training and experience for work in urban schools, novice educators may better execute their duties as change agents if they feel empowered and supported. These study findings call for research that critically examines how schools and teacher preparation programs can work together to create supportive and empowering environments for early-career teachers in an effort to preserve a commitment to the teaching profession and high-quality teaching practices. 152 APPENDICES 153 APPENDIX A: IRB APPROVAL 154 APPENDIX B: TEACHER CONSENT FORM New Teachers in Urban Schools: Belief Formation, Change, and Influences on Teaching for Social Justice October 12th, 2015 TEACHER CONSENT FORM TO ANSWER A SURVEY AND TO PARTICIPATE IN INTERVIEWS Dear < teacher>, The survey and the interviews we are asking you to answer are part of an effort to better understand how new teacher collaborate, and build support networks. Your participation will help us to better understand what new teachers experience, how new teachers communicate, and suggest strategies for the future betterment of the professional development, and teacher preparation program We are particularly interested in any comments you may have about your experience as a new teacher in an urban school. ! We will ask you to answer a survey before or after we interview you. The questionnaire should not take longer than 15 - 20 minutes to answer. ! The interview should not last longer than an hour and a half but this depends on the length of your responses. ! We want to clearly state that your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You can refuse to answer any question as well as stop participating in the study at any time. If at any point during the study you wish to discontinue, the information collected will not be used in the analysis and results of this project. ! To ensure confidentiality, your name will not be collected and any identifying information about you will not be exposed in any way. Data will only be reported in the aggregate so no individual information will be singled out. Every effort will also be made to protect the confidentiality of the information provided. All materials will be kept in a secure and locked location. In case individual data is needed pseudonyms will be used to disguise personal identifiers in any written reports, publications, and presentations. ! You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing the questionnaire and by participating in the interviews and videotaping of the lesson. If you have questions about your participation in this research project, you may contact Kate Rollert, +1-616-5503452, rollertk@msu.edu. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) at: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email: irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824. Thank you for taking the time to collaborate in this study. Sincerely, Kate Michelle Rollert [Doctoral Student, Michigan State University 155 APPENDIX C: TEACHER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Name: _______________________________________________________________________ Years of experience teaching: ____________________________________________________ Race: _______________________________________________________________________ Teacher Training: _____________________________________________________________ Location(s): of years teaching: ___________________________________________________ Subject & grades taught: ________________________________________________________ The following statements are about schooling and social issues. Indicate your agreement or disagreement with each by place the following abbreviations next to each sentence: Strongly Disagree-SD, Moderately Disagree-MD, Slightly Disagree-SD, Slightly Agree–SA, Moderately Agree–MA, Strongly Agree-SA 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Teachers know a lot more about than students: they shouldn’t let students muddle around when they can just explain the answer directly. A quiet classroom is generally needed for effective learning. Students are not ready for “meaningful” learning until they have acquired basic reading and math skills. It is better when the teacher-not the students decides what activities should be done. Students will take more initiative to learn when they feel free to move around the room during class. How much students learn depends on how much background knowledge they have—that is why teaching facts is so necessary. The following statements are about schooling and social issues. Indicate your agreement or disagreement with each by place the following abbreviations next to each sentence: Strongly Disagree-SD, Moderately Disagree-MD, Slightly Disagree-SD, Slightly Agree–SA, Moderately Agree – MA, Strongly Agree-SA 1. The American economy will be sufficiently strong during the next two or three decades to provide a place in the working world for people of all skill levels_______ 2. In the 21st century world economy, there won’t be nearly enough “blue-collar” and service jobs for the numbers of people who typically graduate from high-school and don’t go on to college________ 3. A good academic education, through college, will provide students the most important skills and knowledge they will need to succeed in work________ 4. Most high school and college education does not provide what students now need—a capacity to take initiative, to organize work with others, to deal with novel problems, and to use technologies______ 5. Schools have generally failed to educate most students from lower class backgrounds enough for them to escape the poverty of their origins______ 6. Good basic reading and mathematics skills and learning the important facts of history and science will enable most students from immigrant and poor families to succeed in school and later life________ Imagine how you will set up your own future classroom as you read each of the following survey statements. As you think about your classroom (not your cooperating teachers’ classrooms), write a number on the line beside each statement to indicate how much you disagree or agree with the statement on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) 1. 2. It is important that I establish classroom control before I become too friendly with students_______ I believe that expanding on students’ ideas is an effective way to build my curriculum______ 156 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. I prefer to cluster students’ desks or use tables so they can work together. I invite students to create many of my bulletin boards_____ I like to make curriculum choices for students because they can’t know what they need to learn____ I base student grades primarily on homework, quizzes, and tests______ An essential part of my teacher role is supporting a student’s family when problems are interfering with a student’s learning_____ To be sure that I teach students all necessary content and skills, I follow a textbook or workbook____ I involve students in evaluating their own work and setting their own goals_____ My primary role as a teacher is to help students become learners, not to teach particular content knowledge_____ When there is a dispute between students in my classroom, I try to intervene immediately to resolve the problem____ I believe students learn best when there is a fixed schedule____ I communicate with parents mainly through report cards and parent-teacher conferences____ During discussions I ask many open-ended questions and encourage students to ask questions of each other____ If I am not directing classroom events, the most likely result is chaos___ My students spend the majority of their seatwork time working individually___ For assessment purposes, I am interested in what students can do independently____ I invite parents to volunteer in or visit my classroom almost any time____ I generally use the teacher’s guide to lead class discussions of a story or text. I prefer to assess students informally through observations and conferences. I find that textbooks and other published materials are the best sources for creating my curriculum____ If students are interested in a topic I try to help them, but I don’t use class time because I have a lot of curriculum to cover____ I often create thematic units based on the students’ interests and ideas____ Students need to learn that there are consequences for inappropriate behavior____ Please indicate how much you disagree or agree with each of the following statements ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). …your personal beliefs on teaching and learning 1. 2. Effective good teachers demonstrate the correct way to solve a problem____ When referring to a “poor performance”, I mean a performance that lies below the previous achievement level of the student_____ 3. It is better when the teacher – not the student – decides what activities are to be done____ 4. My role as a teacher is to facilitate students’ own inquiry____ 5. Teachers know a lot more than students; they shouldn’t let students develop answers that may be incorrect when they can just explain the answers directly____ 6. Students learn best by finding solutions to problems on their own____ 7. Instruction should be built around problems with clear, correct answers, and around ideas that most students can grasp quickly____ 8. How much students learn depends on how much background knowledge they have – that is why teaching facts is so necessary____ 9. Students should be allowed to think of solutions to practical problems themselves before the teacher shows them how they are solved____ 10. When referring to a “good performance”, I mean a performance that lies above the previous achievement level of the student____ 11. A quiet classroom is generally needed for effective learning____ 12. Thinking and reasoning processes are more important than specific curriculum content_____ … about yourself as a teacher in this school? 1. 2. All in all, I am satisfied with my job___ I feel that I am making a significant educational difference in the lives of my students___ 157 3. 4. 5. 6. If I try really hard, I can make progress with even the most difficult and unmotivated students___ I am successful with the students in my class____ I usually know how to get through to students____ Teachers in this local community are well respected_____ ... about what happens in this school? 1. In this school, teachers and students usually get on well with each other____ 2. Most teachers in this school believe that student well-being is important___ 3. Most teachers in this school are interested in what students have to say____ 4. If a student from this school needs extra assistance, the school provides it_______ Which THREE of the following do you believe are the most important objectives that middle and high school education should have? Please ✓ next to the 3 most important objectives. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Mastery of content in science, history, algebra, and literature. Developing talent in the performing arts or athletics. Competence in writing and in oral communication. Learning to reason carefully and use evidence well. Being able to work well in groups, and understand different views. Being interested and able to learn independently. Wanting to help others and contribute to the general community. Developing skills in using computers to analyze and present ideas. How useful are each of the following kinds of assessments for you in judging how well students are learning: Indicate your answer by place the following abbreviations next to each sentence: Not useful-NU, Slightly useful-SU, Moderately useful-MU, Very useful-VU, Essential-E 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Short-answer and multiple-choice tests_____ Essay tests______ Open-ended problems ____ Individual and group projects_____ Standardized test results_____ Student presentations/performances____ 158 APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ONE TO BE READ AT THE START OF THE INTERVIEW Thank you for agreeing to participate in my research. The interview today will last 45-60 minutes depending upon how much you would like to share, START OF INTERVIEW To begin, I’d like to start by asking you about your beliefs on teaching practice. THEME 1: Teaching Practice 1. 2. 3. 4. How would you describe your role as a teacher? What does it mean to be an effective teacher to you? How did you learn to teach? Who influences your teaching practice in your new school? a. For each person i. When did this person start influencing your practice? ii. How does this person influence your practice? Next, I’d like to ask you a few questions about your students THEME 2: Student Achievement 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. How would you describe your students? How do you measure student achievement? What influences student achievement? Have you always held these beliefs? a. If yes, next question b. If no, ask: How did your beliefs on student achievement change? Do your beliefs on student achievement align with other teachers in your school? a. Which ones? b. How frequently do you talk with them? Do your beliefs on student achievement misalign with other teachers in your school? a. Which ones? b. How frequently do you talk with them? THEME 3: Response to reform efforts 1. 2. 3. 4. How do you feel about implementing new reforms into your school and/or classroom? a. What influences your decision to accept a new reform with enthusiasm? b. What influences your decision to accept a new reform because it is mandatory? How do other teachers in your school feel about implementing new reforms into your school and/or classroom? a. Do you feel you share the same feelings about reform with teachers you talk interact with most frequently? i. How so? Are you more willing to accept a new reform enthusiastically if teachers you are close with accept it enthusiastically as well? Are you less accepting to accept a new reform enthusiastically if teachers you are close with do not accept it enthusiastically? THEME 4: Job Satisfaction 159 1. 2. 3. 4. Do you enjoy teaching? Why? a. Have you always felt this way? b. What was your initial outlook on being a teacher? What is your long-term career plan? a. Have you always felt this way? What has influenced your job satisfaction as teacher of record? What has influenced your motivation and attitude toward teaching in urban schools? a. Do the teachers you are close with share these motivations and attitudes toward teaching? 160 APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL TWO Teaching Practice 1. How would you describe your role as a teacher today? 2. What are your expectations for students? a. Ability b. Achievement 3. What are your goals for teaching long-term? 4. How would you describe your classroom practice? a. Is learning the same for all students? b. Is learning different for all students? 5. Who is responsible for constructing knowledge? a. Students, and teacher serves as a facilitator? b. Teacher should make all decisions? 6. What is most important in student learning to you? a. Mastering content? b. Develop skills to learn? 7. What or who do you believe influences your beliefs on how you teach? a. Teacher prep program? b. New colleagues? i. Which ones? c. Other Social Justice 1. How would you describe your students’ home environment? a. Do students possess strengths from home? 2. How would you describe your current students? 3. How would you describe satisfactory student performance for your students? a. Is it when students do better than they did before? b. Is it when they are on grade-level or showing that they are college ready? 4. What or whom do you believe influences your beliefs on your students and their families? a. Teacher prep program? b. New colleagues? i. Which ones? c. Other School Purpose & Reform 1. How would you describe the purpose and state of America schools today? a. Kids to college? b. Skills for work? c. Not meeting their potential? 2. How do you feel about implementing new school initiatives into your school and/or classroom?* 3. What or whom do you believe influences your beliefs on schooling purpose and reform? a. Teacher prep program? b. New colleagues? c. Which ones? d. Other Impact on classroom behavior 1. How do you think your beliefs influence your activities and interactions with students in the classroom? 2. Can you provide an example of your beliefs influence your classroom activities and interactions with students? 161 APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL THREE Teaching Practice 1. How would you define your teaching practice? Social Justice 2. Can you provide an example of you using culturally responsive or justice-oriented teaching methods in your classroom? For the following question provide an example as well 4. Do you think you hold high academic and behavioral expectations for all in a rigorous curriculum? 5. Do you think your classroom climate is warm and demanding? How so? 6. Do you affirm and sustain their students' cultural backgrounds by drawing from their "funds of knowledge" (languages, histories, cultural practices) 7. Do you connect with their students' families and communities? 8. Do you advocate for curricular and policy changes that promote more equitable educational opportunities? 9. Do you help students identify and critique historical and contemporary examples of injustice? 10. Do you empower students to actively work toward social change? 11. How do you think your beliefs about teaching and your students’ abilities are reflected in your classroom practice? 12. Now I’m going to ask you some specific questions about my visit to your classroom… (Will vary for each teacher based on previously recorded data) 162 APPENDIX G: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOUR (Will vary by each teacher based on classroom observation) 1. When I visited the students were {INSERT OBSERVATION i.e. copying definitions form the overhead and generating discussion}. You said in an earlier interview that {INSERT DATA i.e. that you see your role for teaching as not just someone who is there to teach but more of a mentor, or a father-figure for students to look up to}, can you explain how these beliefs of yours came into play during this lesson? 2. You also said that you {INSERT DATA i.e. you believe students should take ownership of their learning, but that it is more of the teacher’s responsibility to construct knowledge}. Can you explain how this belief came into play during this lesson? 3. You mentioned in our last interview that you {INSERT DATA i.e. hold incredibly high academic and behavioral expectations for your students} – can you explain how this came to play in the lesson I visited? 4. You mentioned that {INSERT DATA i.e. skills are more important that retaining content}, can you explain how this belief came into play in this lesson? 5. You mentioned in our last interview that you {INSERT DATA i.e. try to incorporate social justice teaching by intentionally showcasing prominent African American inventors or leaders in your lessons}. Can you explain how this came to play or how you connected with your African American students in 6. You mentioned that you see are {INSERT DATA i.e. usually supportive of new reforms if other teachers in your school are supportive}. Can you explain how this belief came into play during the lesson I observed? 7. You mentioned that you see schools as {INSERT DATA i.e. a space to prepare kids for jobs} can you explain how this came into play in your classroom when I visited? 8. Now I want to hear about your teacher preparation program. How did they prepare you to teach? What did they tell you to anticipate regarding the culture you would encounter at your school? Do you think this preparation was realistic for your current teaching environment? 9. How was your current work environment changed that way you teach, compared to how you expected to teach at day 1? Who or what has affected this change? 163 APPENDIX H: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FIVE Teaching Practice How would you describe the role and responsibilities you hold as a teacher? Teaching curriculum, safe environment, foster relationships What do you believe is the purpose of schooling? What are your expectations for students? What is your long-term career plan today? What influences your job satisfaction? How would you describe your classroom practice? Is learning the same for all students? Is learning different for all students? Students, and teacher serves as a facilitator? Teacher should make all decisions? What is most important in student learning to you? More about the skills Mastering content? Develop skills to learn? What or who do you believe influences your beliefs on teaching and your students most? Social Justice How would you describe your current students? Do your beliefs on student achievement (ability) align with what any other teachers believe at your school? How would you describe your students’ home environment? How would you describe satisfactory student performance for your students? each kid is different Is it when students do better than they did before? Is it when they are on grade-level or showing that they are college ready? What or whom do you believe influences your beliefs on your students and their families? School Purpose & Reform How do you feel about implementing new school initiatives into your school and/or classroom? What or whom do you believe influences your beliefs on new school initiatives? Do you think your beliefs about teaching, student achievement, teaching for social justice, and school reform changed over the course of the year? What do you think influenced this change most? 164 APPENDIX I: OBSERVATION FIELD NOTE TEMPLATE Domain: Beliefs on Teaching Practice Construct: Belief that students learn in different ways Construct: Belief that students learn best through traditional practices Construct: Belief in constructivist teaching practices Construct: Belief in direct-transmission teaching practices Domain: Beliefs on Social Justice Construct: Belief that students possess strengths from home Construct: Belief in high academic & behavioral expectations Construct: Belief in basic expectations for disadvantaged students DOMAIN: Purpose of Schools Construct: Schools should prepare students for college 165 REFERENCES 166 REFERENCES Abel, M.H., & Sewell, J. (1999). Stress and burnout in rural and urban secondary school teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(5), 287-293. Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (1997). Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook. New York: Routledge. Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453-474. Alger, C. L. (2009). Secondary teachers' conceptual metaphors of teaching and learning: Changes over the career span. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 743-751. Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional spaces. Routledge. Anderman, L. H., Andrzejewski, C. E., & Allen, J. (2011). How do teachers support students’ motivation and learning in their classrooms. Teachers College Record, 113(5), 969-1003. Anderson, L. M., & Holt-Reynolds, D. (1995). Prospective Teachers' Beliefs and Teacher Education Pedagogy: Research Based on a Teacher Educator's Practical Theory. Office of Educational Research and Improvement Anderson, L. M., & Stillman, J. A. (2013). Student teaching’s contribution to pre-service teacher development: A review of research focused on the preparation of teachers for urban and high-needs contexts. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 3-69. Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. Teachers College Press. Aston, M., & Hyle, A. E. (1997). Social Networks, Teacher Beliefs, and Educational Change. Paper presented at the annual convention of the University Council of Education Administration. Atkinson, D. (2004). Theorising how student teachers form their identities in initial teacher education. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 379-394. Ayers, W., & Schubert, W. (1992). Do the right thing: Ethical issues and problems in the conduct of qualitative research in the classroom. Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 19-24. Ayvazian, A. (2004). Interrupting the cycle of oppression: The role of alliew as agents of change. Pp. 598-604 in Rothenberg, P. S. (Ed.) Race, class, and gender in the United States, Sixth Edition. New York: Worth Publishers. 167 Bacher-Hicks, A., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2014). Validating teacher effect estimates using changes in teacher assignments in Los Angeles (No. w20657). National Bureau of Economic Research. Banks, J. A. & McGee Banks, C. A. (Eds.) (2001). Multicultural education: Issues & perspectives. Fourth Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Barnes, G., Crowe, E., & Schaefer, B. (2007). The Cost of Teacher Turnover in Five School Districts: A Pilot Study. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers' stated beliefs and practices. System, 40(2), 282-295. Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107-128. Berry, B. (2010). The Teachers of 2030: Creating a Student-Centered Profession for the 21st Century. Center for Teaching Quality. Beswick, K. (2012). Teachers' beliefs about school mathematics and mathematicians' mathematics and their relationship to practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 127-147. Billingsley, B. S. (2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition a critical analysis of the research literature. The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 39-55. Blay, J. A., & Ireson, J. (2009). Pedagogical beliefs, activity choice and structure, and adult– child interaction in nursery classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 11051116. Bourdieu, P. (2011). The forms of capital. (1986). Cultural theory: An anthology, 81-93. Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs. System, 39(3), 370-380. Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991-1013. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America (Vol. 57). New York: Basic Books. Bowles, S., Gintis, H., & Groves, M. O. (Eds.). (2009). Unequal chances: Family background and economic success. Princeton University Press. 168 Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Rockoff, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). The narrowing gap in New York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in highpoverty schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 793-818. Breckler & Wiggins, (1989). On defining attitude and attitude theory: Once more with feeling. Attitude structure and function, 407-427. Brock, B. L., & Grady, M. L. (2007). From first-year to first-rate: Principals guiding beginning teachers. Corwin Press. Brown, C. A., & Cooney, T. J. (1982). Research on teacher education: A philosophical orientation. Journal of research and Development in Education, 15(4), 13-18. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198-213. Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation. Bullough, R. V. (1989). Teacher education and teacher reflectivity. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 15-21. Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345-423. Byrne, J. J. (1998). Teacher as hunger artist: Burnout: Its causes, effects, and remedies. Contemporary Education, 69(2), 86. Carrasco, J. A., Hogan, B., Wellman, B., & Miller, E. J. (2008). Collecting social network data to study social activity-travel behavior: an egocentric approach. Environment and Planning Design, 35(6), 961. Carter, K., & Doyle, W. (1996). Personal narrative and life history in learning to teach. Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 2, 120-142. Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). The long-term impacts of teachers: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood (No. w17699). National Bureau of Economic Research. Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2007). The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. New England Journal of Medicine, 357(4), 370-379. Church, R. L., & Sedlak, M. W. (1976). Education in the United States: An interpretive history. Free Pr. 169 Civil Rights Data Collection, U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Retrieved November 15, 2015, from the Civil Rights Data Collection Web site: https://ocrdata.ed.gov. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170. Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203-235. Cohen, J. L. (2008). ‘That's not treating you as a professional’: teachers constructing complex professional identities through talk. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(2), 79-93. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, S95-S120. Cooper, K. S. (2016). Using affective data in urban high schools: can we equalize the graduation rate?. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1-18. Correa, C. A., Perry, M., Sims, L. M., Miller, K. F., & Fang, G. (2008). Connected and culturally embedded beliefs: Chinese and US teachers talk about how their students best learn mathematics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 140-153. Daly, A. J. (2012). Data, dyads, and dynamics: Exploring data use and social networks in educational improvement. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1-38. Daly, A. J., & Finnigan, K. S. (2010). A bridge between worlds: Understanding network structure to understand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change, 11(2), 111-138. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Target Time Toward Teachers. Journal of Staff Development, 20(2), 31-36. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education policy analysis archives, 8, 1. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314. Day, C., & Kington, A. (2008). Identity, well-being and effectiveness: The emotional contexts of teaching. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 16(1), 7-23. Day, C., Kington, A., Stobart, G., & Sammons, P. (2006). The personal and professional selves of teachers: stable and unstable identities. British Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 601-616. 170 DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). “So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it is there”: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education. Educational researcher, 33(5), 26-31. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction. NYU Press. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (1993). Critical race theory: An annotated bibliography. Virginia Law Review, 461-516. Desimone, L., & Long, D. A. (2010). Teacher effects and the achievement gap: Do teacher and teaching quality influence the achievement gap between Black and White and high-and low-SES students in the early grades. Teachers College Record, 112(12), 3024-3073. Diamond, J. B., Randolph, A., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). Teachers' expectations and sense of responsibility for student learning: The importance of race, class, and organizational habitus. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(1), 75-98. Doob, Christopher B. 2013. Social Inequality and Social Stratification in US Society. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Doyle, W., & Carter, K. (2003). Narrative and learning to teach: Implications for teachereducation curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(2), 129-137. Douthat, R. (2005, November 1). Does Meritocracy Work? The Atlantic. Retrieved November 3, 2015. Ernest, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of the mathematics teacher: A model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15(1), 13-33. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423-435. Fantilli, R. D., & McDougall, D. E. (2009). A study of novice teachers: Challenges and supports in the first years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 814-825. Fenstermacher, G.D. (1979). A philosophical consideration of recent research on teacher effectiveness. In L.S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, 6, 157-185. Itasca, IL: Peacock. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. 171 Fonseca, M. J., Costa, P., Lencastre, L., & Tavares, F. (2012). Disclosing biology teachers’ beliefs about biotechnology and biotechnology education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 368-381. Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press. Frank, K. A., & Zhao, Y. (2005). Subgroups as meso-level entities in the social organization of schools. Social organization of schooling. New York, NY: Sage Publications. Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., Penuel, W. R., Ellefson, N., & Porter, S. (2011). Focus, fiddle, and friends experiences that transform knowledge for the implementation of innovations. Sociology of Education, 84(2), 137-156. Frank, K. A., & Yasumoto, J. Y. (1998). Linking action to social structure within a system: Social capital within and between subgroups 1. American Journal of Sociology, 104(3), 642-686. Freeman, L. (2004). The development of social network analysis. A Study in the Sociology of Science. Freire, P. (1993). Chapter 2. Pedagogy of the oppressed, 30th anniversary edition. (pp. 79-98). New York: Continuum Friedman, S. R., & Aral, S. (2001). Social networks, risk-potential networks, health, and disease. Journal of Urban Health, 78(3), 411-418. Geertz, C. (1963). Peddlers and princes: Social development and economic change in two Indonesian towns (Vol. 318). University of Chicago Press. Gerber, E. R., Henry, A. D., & Lubell, M. (2013). Political homophily and collaboration in regional planning networks. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 598-610. Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for?. American Political Science Review, 98(02), 341-354. Gershenson, S., Holt, S. B., & Papageorge, N. W. (2016). Who believes in me? The effect of student–teacher demographic match on teacher expectations. Economics of Education Review, 52, 209-224. Glaeser, E. L. (2001). The formation of social capital. In J. F. Helliwell (Ed.), The contribution of human and social capital to sustained economic growth and well-being: International symposium report (pp. 381-393). Quebec: Human Resources Development Center. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507. 172 Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 13601380. Grimm, P. (2010). Social desirability bias. Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing. Grossman, P., Loeb, S., Cohen, J., Hammerness, K., Wyckoff, J., Boyd, D., & Lankford, H. (2010). Measure for measure: The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers' value-added scores (No. w16015). National Bureau of Economic Research. Haberman, M. (1995). Selecting star teachers for children and youth in urban poverty. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 777-777. Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., DeCoster, J., Mashburn, A. J., Jones, S. M., ... & Hamagami, A. (2013). Teaching through interactions. The Elementary School Journal, 113(4), 461-487. Hanushek, E. A. (2014). Boosting teacher effectiveness. What lies ahead for America's children and their schools, 23-35. Harris, A. P., Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., & Thomas, K. (2012). Critical race theory. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Herrell, J. M. (1971). Galatea in the Classroom: Student Expectations Affect Teacher Behavior. Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of Visible Learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79. Henry, A. D. (2011). Ideology, power, and the structure of policy networks. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 361-383. Hertog, J. K., & Fan, D. P. (1995). The Impact of Press Coverage on Social Beliefs The Case of HIV Transmission. Communication Research, 22(5), 545-574. Hess, F. M. (2011). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform. Brookings Institution Press. Hodkinson, P., & Hodkinson, H. (2001, December). The strengths and limitations of case study research. In Learning and Skills Development Agency Conference at Cambridge (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 5-7). Hopkins, M., & Spillane, J. P. (2014). Schoolhouse Teacher Educators Structuring Beginning Teachers’ Opportunities to Learn About Instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 0022487114534483. 173 Horn, I. S., Nolen, S. B., Ward, C., & Campbell, S. S. (2008). Developing practices in multiple worlds: The role of identity in learning to teach. Teacher Education Quarterly, 61-72. Hoglund, W. L., Klingle, K. E., & Hosan, N. E. (2015). Classroom risks and resources: Teacher burnout, classroom quality and children's adjustment in high needs elementary schools. Journal of School Psychology, 53(5), 337-357. Hu, B., & Tian, L. (2012). Do teachers and students share similar beliefs about teaching and learning strategies?. System, 40(2), 237-254. Hudley, C. (in press). Adolescent identity and schooling: Diverse perspectives. New York: Routledge. Ingersoll, R. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage?. GSE Publications, 133. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534. Isikoglu, N., Basturk, R., & Karaca, F. (2009). Assessing in-service teachers' instructional beliefs about student-centered education: A Turkish perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 350-356. Ischinger, B. (2009). Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS-ISBN 978-92-64-05605-3. Jenkins, J. R., & Deno, S. L. (1969). Influence of student behavior on teacher's selfevaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 439-442 Johnson, A. G. (2006). Privilege, power, and difference. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages. Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: New teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581-617. Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(2), 131-155. Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 177-228. Kao, G., & Thompson, J. S. (2003). Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 417-442. 174 Kardos, S., & Moore Johnson, S. (2007). On their own and presumed expert: New teachers' experience with their colleagues. The Teachers College Record, 109(9), 2083-2106. 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. Educational administration quarterly, 37(2), 250-290. Kensinger, E. A., Garoff-Eaton, R. J., & Schacter, D. L. (2006). Memory for specific visual details can be enhanced by negative arousing content. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(1), 99-112. Kennedy, M. M. (2005). Inside teaching. Harvard University Press. Kozol, J. (1992). I dislike the idea of choice, and I want to tell you why. Educational Leadership, 50(3), 90-92. Kozol, J. (1967). Death at an Early Age: The Destruction of the Hearts and Minds of Negro Children in the Boston Public Schools. Kozol, J. (2012). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. Broadway Books. Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: aka the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84. Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers college record, 97(1), 47. Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what's it doing in a nice field like education?. International journal of qualitative studies in education, 11(1), 7-24. LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1976). Racial differences in gaze behavior during conversations: Two systematic observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(5), 547. Langston, D. (2000). Tired of playing Monopoly? In M. Adams et al. (Eds) Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, antisemitism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism and classism (pp. 397-402). New York: Routledge. Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37-62. Levin, B., & He, Y. (2008). Investigating the content and sources of teacher candidates' personal practical theories (PPTs). Journal of Teacher Education, 59(1), 55-68. 175 Levine, T. H., & Marcus, A. S. (2010). How the structure and focus of teachers' collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 389-398. Lewis, H. (1990). A question of values. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Lippman, L., Burns, S., & McArthur, E. K. (1996). Urban schools: The challenge of location and poverty (NCES 96–184). Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. MacLeod, J. (2009). Ain't no makin'it: Aspirations and attainment in a low-income neighborhood. Westview Press. Marsden, P. V. (2005). Recent developments in network measurement. Models and methods in social network analysis, 8, 30. Massey, D. & Denton, N. (1993). The Construction of the Ghetto. In D. Massey and N. Denton (Eds). American Apartheid. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). Is the glass half full or half empty? Challenges encountered by firstyear special education teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 35(2), 66. Mattheoudakis, M. (2007). Tracking changes in pre-service EFL teacher beliefs in Greece: A longitudinal study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(8), 1272-1288. McIntyre, D. (2009). The difficulties of inclusive pedagogy for initial teacher education and some thoughts on the way forward. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 602-608. McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. University of Chicago Press. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 415-444. Milner IV, H. R. (2013). Analyzing poverty, learning, and teaching through a critical race theory lens. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 1-53. Moerman, D. E., & Jonas, W. B. (2002). Deconstructing the placebo effect and finding the meaning response. Annals of internal medicine, 136(6), 471-476. Moir, E. (1990). Phases of first-year teaching. Originally published in California New Teacher Project Newsletter. 176 Moolenaar, N. M. (2012). A social network perspective on teacher collaboration in schools: Theory, methodology, and applications. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 7-39. Moolenaar, N., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. (2011). Ties with potential: Social network structure and innovation in Dutch schools. Teachers College Record, 113(9), 1983–2017. Ng, J. C., & Peter, L. (2010). Should I stay or should I go? Examining the career choices of alternatively licensed teachers in urban schools. The Urban Review, 42(2), 123-142. Neild, R. C., & Balfanz, R. (2006). An extreme degree of difficulty: The educational demographics of urban neighborhood high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 11(2), 123-141. Nieto, S. (2004). Toward an understanding of school achievement. Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (pp. 255-275). New York, NY: Longman. Orfield, G., Ee, J., Frankenberg, E., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2016). " Brown" at 62: School Segregation by Race, Poverty and State. Civil Rights Project-Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85-100. Parise, L. M., & Spillane, J. P. (2010). Teacher learning and instructional change: How formal and on-the-job learning opportunities predict change in elementary school teachers' practice. The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 323-346. Park, S. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2008). Examining barriers in technology-enhanced problem-based learning: Using a performance support systems approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 631-643. Paul, (2014). Transformative experience. OUP Oxford. Penuel, W., Riel, M., Krause, A., & Frank, K. (2009). Analyzing teachers' professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. The Teachers College Record, 111(1), 124-163. Peske, H. G., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching Inequality: How Poor and Minority Students Are Shortchanged on Teacher Quality: A Report and Recommendations by the Education Trust. Education Trust. Picower, B. (2007). Supporting new educators to teach for social justice: The critical inquiry project model. Penn GSE Perspectives on urban education, 5(1), n1. 177 Picower, B. (2012). Practice what you teach: Social justice education in the classroom and the streets (Vol. 13). Routledge. Prestridge, Sarah. "The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices." Computers & Education 58, no. 1 (2012): 449-458. Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher-child relationships and children's success in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33, 444-458. Pintrich, P. R. (1990). Implications of psychological research on student learning and college teaching for teacher education. Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 826-857. Portes, A., & Sensenbrenner, J. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, 1320-1350. Quartz, K. H., & TEP Research Group. (2003). " Too Angry To Leave" Supporting New Teachers' Commitment to Transform Urban Schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2), 99-111. Quartz, K. H., & TEP Research Group. (2003). " Too Angry To Leave" Supporting New Teachers' Commitment to Transform Urban Schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2), 99-111. Ransford, M. (2000). Two Hierarchies. In M. Adams et al. (Eds) Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, antisemitism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism and classism (pp. 412-418). New York: Routledge. Ravitch, D. (2010). The billionaire boys' Club. The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education, 195-222. Ravitch, Diane (March 14, 2010). "The Big Idea -- it's bad education policy". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 23, 2010. Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Storm, M. D., Sawyer, B. E., Pianta, R. C., & LaParo, K. M. (2006). The Teacher Belief Q-Sort: A measure of teachers' priorities in relation to disciplinary practices, teaching practices, and beliefs about children. Journal of School Psychology, 44(2), 141-165. Roehler, L. R., Duffy, G. G., Herrmann, B. A., Conley, M., & Johnson, J. (1988). Knowledge structures as evidence of the ‘personal’: Bridging the gap from thought to practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20(2), 159-165. Rogers, C. R., & Freiberg, H. J. (1994). Freedom to Learn, Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1, 969. 178 Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4-36. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review, 3(1), 1620. Rushton, S. P. (2001). Cultural assimilation: A narrative case study of student-teaching in an inner-city school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(2), 147-160. Russo, P. (2004). What makes any school an urban school. Center for Urban Education. Rutledge, R. B., Skandali, N., Dayan, P., & Dolan, R. J. (2014). A computational and neural model of momentary subjective well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(33), 12252-12257 Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press. Schein, E. H. (1992). How can organizations learn faster?: the problem of entering the Green Room. Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498. Schcolnik, M., Kol, S., & Abarbanel, J. (2016). Constructivism in theory and in practice. In English Teaching Forum (Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 12-20). US Department of State. Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Office of English Language Programs, SA-5, 2200 C Street NW 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20037. Selley, N. (2013). Art of Constructivist Teaching in the Primary School: A Guide for Students and Teachers. Routledge. Scott, J. (2012). Social network analysis. Sage. Sleeter, C. & Grant, C. (1996). Race, class, gender, and abandoned dreams. In C. Sleeter Multicultural Education as Social Activism (pp. 155-180). SUNY Press. Small, M. L. (2010). Human resources. RSA Journal, 18-21. Solorzano, D. G. (1997). Images and words that wound: Critical race theory, racial stereotyping, and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 5-19. Speer, S. A. (2005). Gender talk: Feminism, discourse and conversation analysis. Psychology Press. 179 Spillane, J. P. (2005, June). Distributed leadership In The Educational Forum (Vol. 69, No. 2, pp. 143-150). Taylor & Francis Group. Spillane, J. P., & Hopkins, M. (2013). Organizing for instruction in education systems and school organizations: How the subject matters. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(6), 721747. 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. Spillane, J. P., Hopkins, M., & Sweet, T. M. (2015). Intra-and interschool interactions about instruction: Exploring the conditions for social capital development. American Journal of Education, 122(1), 71-110. Spillane, J. P., Hunt, B., & Healey, K. (2009). Managing and leading elementary schools: Attending to the formal and informal organization. International Studies in Educational Administration, 37(1), 5-28. Spillane, J. P., Kim, C. M., & Frank, K. A. (2012). Instructional advice and information providing and receiving behavior in elementary schools exploring tie formation as a building block in social capital development. American Educational Research Journal. Stanulis, R. V., Ames, K. T., Stanulis, R. N., Burrill, G., & Ames, K. T. (2007). Fitting in and learning to teach: Tensions in developing a vision for a university-based induction program for beginning teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(3), 135-147. Star, J. R., & Strickland, S. K. (2008). Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 107-125. Stenberg, K. (2011). Working with Identities Promoting Student Teachers Professional Development. Stenberg, K., Karlsson, L., Pitkaniemi, H., & Maaranen, K. (2014). Beginning student teachers’ teacher identities based on their practical theories. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 204-219. Tan, C., Niculae, V., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., & Lee, L. (2016, April). Winning arguments: Interaction dynamics and persuasion strategies in good-faith online discussions. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 613-624). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. Tatto, M. T. (1999). The socializing influence of normative cohesive teacher education on teachers’ beliefs about instructional choice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 5(1), 95-118. 180 Trent, J. (2011). ‘Four years on, I’m ready to teach’: teacher education and the construction of teacher identities. Teachers and Teaching, 17(5), 529-543. Trojian, T. H., & Beedie, C. J. (2008). Placebo effect and athletes. Current sports medicine reports, 7(4), 214-217. Tsangaridou, N. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs. The Handbook of Physical Education, 486-501. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and teacher education, 17(7), 783-805. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and teacher Education, 23(6), 944-956. Underwood, P. R. (2012). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the instruction of English grammar under national curriculum reforms: A Theory of Planned Behaviour perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 911-925. Waldinger R (1995) The ‘other side’ of embeddedness: A case study of the interplay between economy and ethnicity. Ethnic Racial Study 18(3):555–580. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge university press. Weatherley, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special-education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171-197. Weiner, L., & Jerome, D. (2016). Urban teaching: The essentials. Teachers College Press. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage. Weiss, C. H. (1998). Methods for studying programs and policies (pp. 229-233). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Whipp, J. L., & Geronime, L. (2015). Experiences That Predict Early Career Teacher Commitment to and Retention in High-Poverty Urban Schools. Urban Education, 0042085915574531. Wilson, W.J. (1996). Ghetto related behavior and the structure of opportunity. When work disappears (pp. 51-86). Knopf. Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher Preparation Research: Current Knowledge, Gaps, and Recommendations: a Research Report Prepared for the US Department of Education and the Office for Educational Research and Improvement, February 2001. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. 181 Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation research: An insider’s view from the outside. Journal of teacher education, 53(3), 190-204. Zohar, A., Degani, A., & Vaaknin, E. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about low-achieving students and higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(4), 469-485. 182