lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 174e186

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

The use of teacher leader roles in an online induction support system

Samuel J. Polizzi a, Michelle Head a, Donna Barrett-Williams b, Joshua Ellis c,Gillian H. Roehrig d, Gregory T. Rushton e, *

a Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, 30144, United Statesb Metropolitan Regional Educational Service Agency, Smyrna, GA, 30080, United Statesc Department of Cognitive and Learning Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, 49931, United Statesd Department of Curriculum and Instruction and STEM Education Center, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, United Statese Department of Chemistry and Institute for STEM Education (I-STEM), Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, United States

h i g h l i g h t s

� Teacher leadership principles can be used to scaffold induction support.� Early-career teachers can use distinct teacher leader roles to discuss obstacles.� Symbolic interactionism is a useful lens for group-based professional development.� Teacher leader roles promote overall deeper levels of reflection.� Social interactions moved problem-solving toward that of more experienced teachers.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 14 November 2017Received in revised form31 May 2018Accepted 13 June 2018

Keywords:Teacher inductionSTEM teacher educationTeacher leadershipOnline teacher learningSymbolic interactionismReflection

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: gregory.rushton@stonybrook.edu

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.06.0100742-051X/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Induction training is a leading model for supporting teachers in today's challenging profession. Wedescribe an online induction support scaffold designed around teacher leadership, and investigate hownovice US teachers use leadership roles to address real-world teaching obstacles. We use symbolicinteractionism as a lens to understand how teachers develop through the interplay between roles, socialinteractions and identity. Results indicate novice teachers can operationalize distinct teacher leader rolesas early as induction, but may instinctively position their identity outside the role. Through social in-teractions with leadership roles, teachers moved problem-solving discourse toward a level moreconsistent with experienced teachers.

© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the United States (US), reform documents from the NationalAcademies (NRC, 2005, 2010), the President's Council of Advisorson Science and Technology (Lander& Gates Jr, 2010), and theWhiteHouse (2012) have raised concerns about the nature of the Science,Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) workforce. Inthe interest of keeping the US globally competitive, federal initia-tives have emerged to support the training of that workforce byhighly qualified K-12 STEM teachers (e.g. NSF Noyce scholarship

(G.T. Rushton).

programs). Between 2000 and 2010, major private educationalfoundations have also rapidly increased funding toward programsthat emphasize quality teacher training and preparation (Reckhow& Snyder, 2014).

Induction programs in the US and abroad transition pre-serviceteachers, who have focused on basic classroom processes, into theirfulltime teaching assignments, where they need context specificsupport as classroom teachers and members of the school organi-zation (Luft, Roehrig, & Patterson, 2003; Hangül, 2017). Inductionprograms are also generally accepted to promote the personal andprofessional well-being of new teachers, while increasing theirretention in the profession (Ingersoll, 2012; Smith & Ingersoll,2004; Strong, 2009). Effective induction programs approach thesegoals using activities coordinated around mentoring, collaboration

S.J. Polizzi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 174e186 175

and professional development in content and/or pedagogy (Wang,Odell, & Schwille, 2008). Teacher mentoring has become a routinecomponent of teacher induction (Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, &Tomlinson, 2009; Strong, 2009), to the extent that mentoring andinduction are often used interchangeably in the literature (Ingersoll& Strong, 2011). Mentoring is often designed to pair novice teacherswith more experienced teachers (Hobson et al., 2009), howeverlongitudinal demographic shifts towards a novice-dominatedworkforce may limit access to veteran teachers (Rushton et al.,2014; Polizzi, Jaggernauth, Ray, Callahan, & Rushton, 2015;Ingersoll & Merrill, 2010). Under these conditions, teacher educa-tors have employed peer-mentoring as one strategy for creatingsupportive learning communities for novices (Cornu, 2005).

Effective induction programs also include activities coordinatedaround reflection (Wang et al., 2008). Sch€on (1983) contrastedreflection-in-action, which occurs in the moment of action, andreflection-on-action, which occurs after the fact and allowslearning from experience. Reflection-on-action may be moreattainable for the novice than reflection-in-action, since reflectioncompetes with the other actions and objectives of the moment.While attainable, teacher reflection can be difficult to promote andthenmove beyond a descriptive level without “powerful facilitationand mediation within an emotionally supportive learning climate”(p. 345) (Larrivee, 2008). Romano and Schwartz (2005) found thattechnology could help provide a climate for reflection among first-year teachers participating in induction activities.

Technology platforms have been used to facilitate teacherreflection in group settings (Hou, 2015), and across inexperiencedand experienced teacher categories, using video annotation activ-ities (Rich & Hannafin, 2009) and web blogging for “e-flection”(Boulton & Hramiak, 2012). The point on experience levels isimportant to note, given that reflective discourse is not intendedsolely for the induction phase teacher; developing higher-orderreflection skills is thought to parallel growth from pre-service toinduction to master teacher (Larrivee, 2008). Maclean and White(2007) found that reflective discourse, in turn, can aid the co-construction of professional teacher identities across pre-serviceand experienced teachers. More recently, Boulton and Hramiak(2012) reported that when compared to individual reflection ac-tivities, the community component of “e-flection” promoted teacherreflection on their professional practice and the development ofprofessional identity.

Implications of teacher induction support have been discussedthrough the lens of teacher identity (Rushton & Criswell, 2015) byexamining how teachers navigate the interactions between theirpersonal and professional identities. Chang and coworkers contendthat separately, neither personal nor professional conditions arepredictive of whether a teacher will feel successful in the profession(Chang & Davis, 2009; Chang, 2009). Instead, disparities betweenpersonal expectations for the position and lived experiences of theprofession can lead to negative emotions that influence effectiveness.Lazarus (1991, 2000) explains suchnegative emotions in terms of twocognitive appraisals that determine the magnitude and degree ofdiscomfort, respectively, perceived in a given context. In a teachingcontext, the primary appraisal is a consideration of the importance ofthe actual event and its alignment to the expectations and goals forthe event. The secondary appraisal is an examination of agency andthe likelihood of being able to copewith similar events in the future.Rushton and Criswell (2015) posit that if teachers experience in-congruences between their personal and professional identities, theyare likely to perceive low self-agency, high likelihood of recurringobstacles, and negative emotional responses. Conversely, developingidentities that are consistent with both personal goals and profes-sional realitiesmay lowernegativeemotionsand leadto success in theprofession, both of which are goals of induction programs.

We have previously described an induction support structurethat uses teacher leader roles to address aspects of the peer-mentoring, reflection and professional identity development con-cepts outlined above (Polizzi, Dean, Barrett, & Rushton, 2014). Anaim of the support structure was for teachers to experienceteaching obstacles from different perspectives so that negativeemotions were not reinforced, and an a more productive outlookwas achieved. Toward evaluating that aim, we have recently re-ported a positive effect on diversifying discourse patterns andoverall levels of reflective discourse when using this scaffold (Ellis,Polizzi, Roehrig, & Rushton, 2017). Here, we perform a finer grainanalysis to determine how novice teachers engage with the teacherleader roles and one another during professional development. Ourstudy is guided by the following research questions:

1) How do teacher leader roles provide a scaffold for teachersengaging in online discussions of professional issues?

2) To what extent are teacher leader roles useful to novice teacherswith limited experience in the profession?

3) How do the different teacher leader roles allow teachers toreflect on and discuss the teaching profession?

1.1. A framework for examining teacher leader roles

Based on the incorporation of personal reflection, peer-mentoring, and professional identity into our induction scaffold,we desired a framework for evaluating the intervention that wouldhighlight the interplay between these components. Therefore, weselected symbolic interactionism (SI) (Blumer, 1969; Mead &Morris, 1967), which emphasizes the tripartite relationship be-tween symbols/roles, social interactions, and identity (Fig. 1).Within this framework, reality is subjective and humans areactively involved in social interactions that create meaning forsymbols, ideas or roles. Meaning is modified and reinterpretedthrough internal reflection and external conversations, which maylead to new responses and changes in identity as one sees his/herrole(s) change. While symbols have been the focus of SI consumerscience studies (e.g. social implications of smoking or holding aname brand soda), roles have been a focus of SI education research.Smit and Fritz (2008) highlighted internalized role expectation(Vryan, Adler, & Adler, 2003) when using SI to interpret the con-texts and outcomes of two teachers in Africa, one of whom feltgroomed to leave the classroom for supervisory roles, and the otherwho reflected on teaching as an enduring family affair. In thisjournal, Allen (2009) also emphasized role taking, or “the selfengaging in a reflective dialogue with itself in order to act in role”(pg 648), in an SI analysis of teachers who did (or did not) fulfilltheir role in implementing progressive practices once they beganteaching. More recently, Pellegrino and Weiss (2017) used SI as alens to examine how chosen or constrained roles in the studentteacherementor teacher pairing led to actions and identities as afunctioning teacher, or as simply a teaching aid, at a critical time inpre-service teacher development. Together, these example studiesare aligned to Potts (2015) contemporary vision of SI for educa-tional research and emphasis on roles:

By taking the role of the other, individuals work out themeanings and intentions of others. Using this reflexive self, in-dividuals are able to modify or change their definition of thesituation, try out alternative courses of action and consider theirpossible consequences. (p 650e651)

Roles. We proposed four teacher leader roles as a starting pointfor the study participants to work out meanings and try alternative

Fig. 1. Tripartite relationship of symbolic interactionism (SI) framework linking roles/symbols, social interactions, and identity, organized around teacher leader concepts in thisstudy. Roles are teacher as a fully functioning person (FF), reflective practitioner (RP), scholar (Sc) and learning partner (LP). For all three interaction axes, the guiding question(normal font), analysis (italics), and main finding (underlined) are depicted to summarize the study.

S.J. Polizzi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 174e186176

courses of action related to classroom teaching. The four roles arebased on the work of Dempsey (1992) who described the roles of a(i) fully functioning person, (ii) reflective practitioner, (iii) scholar,and (iv) learning partner. These four roles are also reflected inKatzenmeyer and Moller's (2009) more contemporary view ofteacher leaders who “lead within and beyond the classroom;identify with and contribute to a community of learners andleaders; influence others toward improved educational practice;and accept responsibility for achieving outcomes of their leader-ship” (p. 6). Criswell, Rushton, McDonald, & Gul (2017) restated thefour teacher leader roles after considering this view and Goodwin's(1994) construct of professional vision, or ways in which to sociallyand cognitively organize a profession. For our analysis we startedwith the role descriptions previously proposed by Criswell et al.(2017): a teacher as fully functioning person is someone who canmove past a focus on her/his own actions and be able to ‘look out’and attend to the entire context of the classroom; a teacher asreflective practitioner is someone who can not only look back ontheir teaching and analyze it effectively, but also look ahead andimagine ways of changing their practice based on this analysis; ateacher as scholar is someone who cannot only pick out relevantpieces of information which might influence practice, but can alsoenvision how to translate these into strategies appropriate to thecontext in which s/he operates; and a teacher as learning partner issomeone who is able to help others develop the skills of high-lighting, coding, and articulating their craft. From the SI perspec-tive, the roles may start as a defined ideal, but are realized onlythrough internal reflection and social interactions with others.Most importantly for our induction efforts, the teacher leader rolescan be viewed as support structures that can be worked through todevelop teacher leadership identities, and are not simply charac-teristics that existing teacher leaders possess or embody.

Social Interactions and Identity. The SI framework provided thatmeaning-making and reinterpretation proceeds through socialinteraction within and across functional roles. These interactionscan then impact changes in identity. Within the online platform,teachers were able to interact with each role (i.e. scholar, learningpartner, etc.) and each other through discussion boards at their ownmonthly pace (i.e. asynchronously), and reflect on previous poststhat remained visible to all teachers. The use of an asynchronousonline learning environment was an important feature of our

design. Online learners are more anonymous and free to adopt newpersonas (Palloff & Pratt, 1999), such as the teacher leader roles.Further, the online environment is quiet and allows more time tocraft thoughtful responses that might otherwise be stifled in face-to-face, group settings (Palloff & Pratt, 2002; Vonderwell, 2003).With additional time for reflection and reinterpretation, we hy-pothesized teachers would have the opportunity to formulate moremeaning related to the roles and emerging teacher identities.Palloff and Pratt (2002) also suggest that the interactions learnedonline by shy or quiet individuals can translate to face-to-faceencounters.

1.2. The study

Social interactions and teacher leader roles were embedded inthe Teacher Induction Network (TIN), an online induction programfor beginning secondary science and mathematics teachers. TINwas designed and developed prior to our study to help beginningteachers complete their first two years in the classroom whileadvancing their growth in implementing reform-based classroompractices. TIN provides a focus on reform-based practices to over-come socialization in school, as science teachers may tend to revertto traditional practices as they experience the reality of the class-room (Simmons et al., 1999).

The TIN online platform is housed at a large Midwestern insti-tution and has previously been described by Roehrig, Donna,Billington, and Hoelscher (2015). The four primary components ofTIN are Reflective Journals, Topical Response Forums, ProfessionalDevelopment Inquiries and Venture/Vexation (VV) Discussions. VVwas chosen by the authors as the appropriate TIN activity forintroducing teacher leader roles. VV was adapted from the Cross-roads professional development framework (Johnston & Settlage,2008; Settlage, Johnston, Meadows, Harkins, & Kittleson, 2007) toaccount for the asynchronous (i.e. self-paced) nature of TIN and theadditional teacher leader roles. Briefly, a presenter provided eithera Venture (i.e. a desire or plan to try something new) or a Vexation(i.e. an obstacle or constraint in need of resolution) related to theirteaching. All four responders to the VV first asked a round of clar-ifying questions, and after a round of answers from the presenter,the responders reflected individually and provided feedback.Although responder feedback was requested to speak from the

S.J. Polizzi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 174e186 177

teacher leader role being rotated through by each responder, nobackground training or grading rubric was shared with participantsto enforce the role. Instead, responders chose when and how toportray the teacher leader role (if at all) when providing the feed-back they constructed. The presenter then considered and imple-mented useful feedback before providing an update on anyprogress that had been made. The responder phase of VV wascompleted in the first three weeks of the month, allowing forprogress to be reported in week four or five. An external facilitatormonitored the interactions to ensure the timetable was maintainedand interactions were respectful of all those involved. Guidelinesand timetables provided to the TIN participants are included in theSupplemental Methods (available on the journal website).

2. Method

In order to investigate how teachers interacted with the teacherleader roles, we analyzed discussion board posts from 20 middle orsecondary school teachers over three consecutive months, asdetailed below.

2.1. Participants

In this study, a cohort of 20 in-service, early-career science andmathematics teachers in the Midwest US participated in TIN andserved as our study sample. Completion of TIN was an electivecomponent of their Master of Education degree program from alocal university. As listed above, components of TIN and the mas-ter's program have previously been described in detail by Roehriget al. (2015). Participants in our study all completed the initialteaching licensure program at the local university, which includeddiscipline-specific (science or mathematics) methods, relatedcoursework, and a full year of practicum and student teaching.Approximately 9 additional credits were required for the Master ofEducation degree, and enrolling in the TIN course counted towardthe credit requirements. Participants were employed as classroomteachers and varied in gender (60% female), grade level (grades7e12), teaching experience (0e3 years completed (n¼ 18); over 3years (n¼ 2), and school setting (including urban/suburban/ruraland public/private/magnet/charter). All reported having taken anonline course before the study.

2.2. Data collection

Following the SI framework, reflective discourse and social in-teractions between participants served as evidence for meaningmaking. Therefore, we collected the first 3 months of all VV postsfrom the online TIN environment into a metadocument. Posts fromthis period of time were treated as an unbiased sample, as partic-ipants did not receive feedback from the facilitator regarding theirperformance or ways to improve the discussions. Each participantassumed three unique VV roles in the 3-month sample period,yielding 60 unique combinations of participant and role (e.g. pre-senter/scholar/learning partner or scholar/learning partner/reflec-tive practitioner), 150 total posts, and 260 distinct comments, all ofwhich were analyzed.

2.3. Data analysis

Artifacts were qualitatively analyzed using a discourse analysisapproach aligned to the tripartite foundations of symbolic inter-actionism (Fig.1): (i) social interactiondrole, (ii) roledidentity, and(iii) identitydsocial interaction. Rubric design, deductive coding,and analysis of each feature will be addressed in turn.

2.3.1. Identifying teacher leader role usageWe began our analysis with the relationship between social

interactions and roles (Fig. 1, right). We examined the teacherleader roles used to prompt the participants (Table 1) to determinehow accessible they were to novice teachers in discussions. Eachprompt included three parts or descriptors: a definition, a function,and an example. We used the three descriptors to create a rubric fordeductively coding the teacher leader roles (Table 2 and Supple-mental Methods). We then placed each of descriptor on a scale of0e3, to determine the extent to which it was enacted (Table 2). Forexample, if a participant did not comment at all (score of 0) orcommented only outside of a descriptor all month long (score of 1),we interpreted the teacher leader role to be less accessible to theteacher. The presenter of the VV was not prompted to act within ateacher leader role and was therefore excluded from this firstanalysis. Two independent researchers used the rubric to sepa-rately code a responder's role based on the entirety of a partici-pant's comments for the month. The researchers conducted asecond review of the VV activity together in order to reach agree-ment of 1 point difference or less for each participant. Unlessotherwise stated, data reported are averages of the final consensusscores from each coder. We also compiled statements that mostclearly represented each descriptor.

2.3.2. Identifying position relative to the teacher leader roleNext, we examined the relationship between roles and teacher

identity (Fig. 1, bottom). During coding, we observed that someindividuals verbalized or restated their purpose during meaningmaking with the roles (e.g., “As the fully functioning teacher aspect,I wonder …”). In order to further analyze this trend, we added adescriptor for ‘verbalizing roles’ to the code book and examined itsprevalence. Consensus was reached as to whether or not a partic-ipant made a statement that verbalized his/her role during themonth-long activity. We also compiled statements that mostclearly represented role-verbalizing statements.

2.3.3. Identifying changes toward teacher growthFinally, we examined the relationship between social in-

teractions and teacher identity progression (Fig. 1, left). As ametric for changes in teacher identity, we examined differences inreflective discourse. Reflection has been theorized as successivestages (van Manen, 1977) thought to parallel growth from noviceto master teacher (Larrivee, 2008), and has been related tochanges in teacher professional identity. Maclean and White(2007) found that reflective discourse in a team containing pre-service and experienced teachers helped to promote individualand social identities more consistent with the experiencedteachers and best professional practices. Therefore, we analyzedthe reflective discourse present in each participant role. Althoughdifferent levels of reflection were not explicitly included in eitherour scaffold or the VV instructions, we recognized that internalreflection and external social interaction are essential to the SImeaning-making process. Further, we recognized that the quiet,asynchronous online environment (contrasting an on the spot,face-to-face interaction), allowed responders to reflect on a VVbefore crafting feedback.

We adapted Larrivee (2008) tool for assessing teacher reflec-tive practices to describe the reflective discourse occurring in VV.Depth of reflection was placed on a scale of increasing levels afterLarrivee (2008), which for our purposes were assigned values: (1)surface, (2) technical, (3) pedagogical, and (4) critical (a.k.a. pre-reflection, surface, pedagogical and critical levels, respectively,as Larrivee noted in review of diverse literature). We interpretedthe surface and technical levels of reflection to be less represen-tative of experienced teacher or teacher leader identities, as they

Table 2Rubric for responder use of the teacher leader roles.

Teacher Leader Role Descriptora

Fully FunctioningPerson

1. Considered needs of classroom and students2. Spoke to student-centered solution3. Differentiated to different student types

Reflective Practitioner 4. Reflected on own/other's practice5. Proposed ways to modify previous practice6. Provided a metric for measuring successful change

Scholar 7. Identified scholarly or community approvedliterature8. Related or re-interpreted literature to a new context9. Provided access to literature via link, citation, etc.

Learning Partner 10. Deconstructed the situation into components11. Outlined an action plan to address components12. Spoke to teacher-centered solution

a Each of 12 descriptors scored on a four-point scale. 0-no answer; 1-someanswer, inadequate or misdirected; 2-acceptable answer, most answers thataddress the descriptor; 3-exemplary answer.

Table 1Venture or Vexation prompts given to Responders.

Role Purpose Full Prompt

Fully Functioning Person Definition Someone who can move past a focus on her/his own actions and be able to ‘look out’ and attend to the entire context of theclassroom.

Role In this role, the responder takes a step back from the situation and considers the needs of the classroom and studentsExample For instance, if a venture to introduce a progressive lesson plan (e.g. inquiry) is presented, the responder might consider the

students' need to be introduced to the new instructional strategy (e.g. answer “why isn't the teacher giving me the answer thistime?”), as well as the new lesson (e.g. calculating density is hard enough by itself)

Reflective Practitioner Definition Someone who can not only look back on their teaching and analyze it effectively, but also look ahead and imagine ways of changingtheir practice based on this analysis.

Role In this role, the responder reflects on their own experiences of what works (and doesn't) and forecasts ways to assess if the venture/vexation will be successful in achieving the goal.

Example For instance, if a vexation over student discourse in the classroom (e.g. no one is raising their hand to participate in the classdiscussion) is presented, the responder might first consider similar situations in their own classroom or school and how he/sheaddressed the issue (e.g. ask students to talk to their neighbor before opening up the class discussion again). The responder alsofollows upwith ametric for analyzing success, whichmight include increasing the number of student responses in each class by two.

Scholar Definition Someone who cannot only pick out relevant pieces of information which might influence practice, but can also envision how totranslate these into strategies appropriate to the context in which s/he operates.

Role In this role, the responder moves beyond ‘intuition’ and suggests scholarly or research-based interventions using practices approvedby the teaching community and disseminated in books and journal articles.

Example For instance, if a venture to increase student connections between the observable (e.g. volume of gas in a balloon) and particulatenature (e.g. individual gas molecules) of matter is presented, the responder may suggest how “increased student performance whenmacroscopic depictions are followed by particulate models” (Williamson et al., 2012; Journal of Chemical Education, Vol 89, pgs 979e987) might be utilized in the classroom. (Note: Many books and articles are searchable via Google Scholar and your universitylibrary. Full text materials that are not publically available may be available to the course instructor for educational purposes orrequested from the corresponding author via email.)

Learning Partner Definition Someone who is able to help other teachers develop the skills of highlighting, coding, and articulating their craft.Role In this role, the responder focuses on the presenter as a professional colleague and helps to deconstruct the problem before outlining

a solution.Example For example, if a vexation about students turning in assignments is presented (i.e. highlighting problem), the responder might help

determine whether completion is related to a certain type of assignment or subset of students (i.e. coding problem), beforereviewing reward/consequence systems that might be instituted (i.e. articulating solution).

S.J. Polizzi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 174e186178

were more instinctive and invoked less contemplation on teach-ing as a profession. Conversely, we interpreted the higher order,pedagogical and critical reflections to be more aligned withexperienced or evolved teacher identities, since novices typicallydo not reflect deeply without scaffolding, and critical reflectioncan be facilitated through interactions with experienced or masterteachers (Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000). These levels,along with descriptors embodying each level, were incorporatedinto a depth of reflection rubric (Table 3) for deductive coding. Theresearchers used this 4-point rubric to separately code all 260comments. Researchers then conducted a second review of the VVactivities together in order to reach 100% agreement on eachcomment. Consensus values are reported throughout the manu-script unless otherwise indicated. The conversion of VV posts tonumerical depth of reflection levels allowed us to examine cor-relations between depth of reflection and leadership roles. We

also compiled statements that most clearly represented each levelof reflection.

3. Results

Our deductive coding based on the teacher leader and depth ofreflection rubrics allowed us to investigate the utility of usingteacher leader roles in online VV activities. In this section, wepresent our findings regarding the 20 participants' ability to (1) usethe teacher leader roles, (2) verbalize their position relative to theirroles, and (3) develop through deeply reflective discourse.

3.1. Teacher leader roles

Each month, the assigned presenters posted a VV topic forconsideration and received feedback from responders assigned toone of the teacher leader roles. In this first results section, wehighlight how the teacher leader roles provide a scaffold forshaping online discussions using a common VV topic. The followingquotes exemplify the posting of a vexation on classroom manage-ment by the presenter, followed by responder comments from allfour teacher leader roles.

Tanya, an itinerant teacher, had recently been observed by herschool administration and received either satisfactory or unsatis-factory ratings on classroom management at the two schools shetraveled between. Negative administrative feedback suggested thatit was her fault students were not learning and she needed to workon her relationships with students. Tanya concluded her vexation:

I am really at a loss for how to help my students. I don't feel as ifthere are any consequences for these students, and when I try to bestrict in order to help them, I just end upwith students arguing withme. I am really struggling to continue to want to teach there. I liketo teach, and I really want to help my students but I do not knowhow anymore.

Table 3Rubric for presenter and responder depth of reflection.

Levela Descriptorb

Surface Operates in survival mode, reacting automatically without consideration of alternative responsesEnforces preset standards without adapting or restructuring based on responsesDoes not support beliefs and assertions with evidence from experience, theory or researchIs willing to take things for granted without questioningIs preoccupied with management, control, and student complianceFails to recognize interdependence between teacher and studentViews student and classroom circumstances as beyond the teacher's controlAttributes ownership of problems to students and others and see themselves as the victim

Technical Limits analysis of teaching practices to technical questions and teaching techniquesModifies teaching strategies without challenging underlying assumptions about teaching and learningFails to connect specific strategies to underlying theoryMakes adjustments based on past experiencesReacts to student responses differentially, but fails to recognize patternsAdjusts teaching practices only to current situation without developing a long term planImplements solutions to problems to problems that focus only on short term resultsQuestions the utility of specific teaching practices but not general policies of practicesAnalyzes the relationship between teaching practices and student learning

Pedagogical Strives to enhance student learning for allSeeks ways to connect new concepts to students' prior knowledgeHas genuine curiosity about the effectiveness of teaching practice, leading to experimentation and risk-takingEngages in constructive criticism of one's own teachingAdjusts methods and strategies based on students' relative performanceAnalyzes the impact of task structures (cooperative learning groups, partners, peer groupings) on student learningSearches for patterns, relationships and connections to deepen understandingIdentifies alternative ways of representing ideas and concepts to studentsRecognizes the complexity of classroom dynamicsAcknowledges what a student brings to the learning processSees teaching practices as remaining open to further investigationViews practice within the broader sociological, cultural, historical and political contexts

Critical Considers ethical ramifications of classroom policies and practicesAddresses issues of equity and social justice that arise inside and outside the classroomChallenges the status quo norms and practices, especially with respect to power and controlIs aware of incongruence between beliefs and actions and takes action to rectifyIs an active inquirer, both critiquing current conclusions and generating new hypothesesChallenges assumptions and expectations of studentsSuspends judgments to consider all optionsAcknowledges that teaching practices and policies can contribute to, or hinder, the realization of a more just and human societyEncourages socially responsible actions in their students

a participants were assigned to the highest level they exhibited in each reflection.b adapted from Larrivee (2008).

S.J. Polizzi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 174e186 179

Responders in the online community then provided four per-spectives that were aligned to the teacher leader roles. As the fullyfunctioning person, Tony first addressed the needs of Tanya'sclassroom and students (i.e. rubric descriptor 1; scored 2) by stat-ing, “Your idea that you don't want to send kids into the hallwaybecause they will miss content is noble. However, think of the studentswho are not learning because of the distracting student.” Tony thenspoke to a student-centered solution (i.e. rubric descriptor 2;scored 2.5) by proposing, “But before [office referrals], you may wantto try some techniques like a new seating chart and redirection tech-niques to get distracted students back on task.” Tony did notadequately address differentiating to different student types (i.e.rubric descriptor 3; scored 1) during this VV, yielding an overallmonthly score of 5.5 points.

Perspectives from the reflective practitioner addressed Tanya'sclassroom management issues by looking back to previous prac-tices. Amy began by reflecting on her own experiences (i.e. rubricdescriptor 4; coded 2) in documenting student learning, respond-ing, “One thing I have found very helpful is exit tickets … They alsoprovide me with an excellent way to start the next class … I knowwhere students are at in terms of learning what I want them to.” Amythen proposed ways to modify previous practices (i.e. descriptor 5;coded 2) to address current issues. She advised that documentationcan also address professional student-teacher relationships by

suggesting, “Perhaps at the beginning of second semester, have thestudents complete a ‘get-to-know-you’ questionnaire. This is usually afun activity for them, and it will allow you to get to know them a littlebetter.” Serving a second purpose, the questionnaire results canhelp Tanya to “continue keeping track of all of your evidence to showadministration what you have been doing and trying.” Amyconcluded with a limited metric (i.e. descriptor 6; scored 1) formeasuring whether successful changes are moving Tanya toward aresolution of her VV. “Perhaps, make it your own goal to determinewhat at least 6 students are doing over the weekend… Over time, youwill become better at making small talk with students, and you willknow so much about your students.”

As the scholar in the group, Fred was tasked with identifyingscholarly or community (e.g. periodical, teacher association, etc.)approved literature (i.e. rubric descriptor 7; coded 2) that couldinform Tanya's situation. Initially Fred quoted scholarly findings,posting, “When teacher-student relationships improve, concurrentimprovements in classroom behavior such as reductions in aggressionand increases in compliance with rules can be expected” and the fullcitation “Murray, C., & Pianta, R. (2007). The importance of teacher-student relationship for adolescents with high incidence disabilities.Theory Into Practice, 46, 105e112.” Fred re-interpreted this report(i.e. descriptor 8; coded 2) on students with disabilities to accountfor the emotional states of Tanya's students, asserting, “the ramp upto winter break is one of the hardest times of the year. Families are

Fig. 2. Participant use of the teacher leader roles. Scatter plots of participant scoresshowing average ability to adhere to the teacher leader prompts (horizontal bar) whendisaggregated by (A) the teacher leader roles of Fully Functioning Person (FFP;average± standard deviation; 4.3± 1.5 points), Reflective Practitioner (RP; 4.8± 1.6),Scholar (Sch; 4.7± 1.8), and Learning Partner (LP; 4.4± 1.4) or by (B) the 8 participantswho were assigned responder roles in three consecutive months. Sample sizes forteacher leader roles or participant months are n¼ 12 or n¼ 3, respectively, yieldingacross sample standard deviations of 1.6 or 1.2 points. 12 additional participants pre-sented a VV but were only assigned responder roles in two months, displayed a loweracross sample standard deviation (0.7 points) confounded by the smaller sample size,and were therefore excluded from this analysis. The possible scoring range on the y-axis is 0 (lowest) to 9 points (highest). Participant pseudonyms are depicted on the x-axis and arranged by decreasing rubric score.

S.J. Polizzi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 174e186180

stress[ed] with holiday stuff - especially students living in poverty.” Heprovided Tanya with access to articles via full citations (i.e.descriptor 9; coded 3), and even confirmed their availability, stat-ing, “Here are some items from the literature I could find, bothavailable full-text through the [university name] library website.”

Advice from the learning partner, Sharon, included decon-structing the presenter's situation (i.e. rubric descriptor 10; coded2), which could often be multifaceted and overwhelming, intomanageable components. Sharon identified three distinct compo-nents that needed Tanya's attention, including visibility, support,and documentation. Sharon then provided an action plan for eachcomponent (i.e. descriptor 11; coded 2). For example, regardingvisibility when traveling between schools, she advised, “Since youare only at that school for 2 h a day … make yourself seen. Wave toyour students, tell them to have a nice day, show the administrationthat you are trying and… are a valuable part of the school.” Related todepartmental support, Sharon suggested, “not being able to meetwith your department is a huge disadvantage… Even if [your meeting]is only one other teacher, I think having a set time each week to debrief,vent, and work on curriculum will help wonders.” Sharon proposedthat Tanya document her progress, urging, “Start a PARENTCOMMUNICATION LOG. Every time you connect with a parent, log itinto your notebook to show that you are following through with stu-dent behavior.” Each of Sharon's plans was centered on steps thatcould be taken as a teacher (i.e. descriptor 12; scored 2) to improveone's practice and professional standing.

3.1.1. Teacher leader roles e Aggregate analysisNext, we examined the extent to which novice teachers could

utilize the teacher leader roles. After coding all individual VV ac-tivities like the one discussed above, we analyzed VV comments inaggregate (Fig. 2) using the teacher leader rubric. Examining scoresfor each teacher leader role indicated average scores of 4e5 points(Fig. 2A), consistent with answers coded “acceptable” (i.e. worth 2points) in one or more of the 3 rubric descriptors. While no in-dividuals provided answers coded “exemplary” (i.e. worth 3 points)for all three teacher leader descriptors, all scores above 6 points didinclude “exemplary” answers. We observed similar mean scoresand wide data ranges across the teacher leader roles, suggestingeach role was similarly challenging, or similarly accessible, to thesenovice teachers to personify and enact.

In order to be thorough, we examined additional trends in theuse of teacher leader roles. A closer look at rubric performance byindividual participant, rather than teacher leader role, shows thatscores across the three months of VV activities were associatedwith a participant's personal performance level (Fig. 2B). Forexample, Tony provided acceptable or exemplary answers worth2e3 points in all three months, while Steve and Jim consistentlycontributed acceptable or inadequate answers, respectively, worth2 or 1 points. This trend can also be characterized in terms of thespread in the data. The standard deviation in scores for individualswas 1.2 points (Fig. 2B). We calculated a higher average standarddeviation of 1.6 points for the teacher leader roles. Despite differ-ences in the sample sizes, our finding that scores were more tightlycentered on individual teachers than the teacher leader rolesthemselves suggests that the spread in Fig. 2A was more related topersonal performance or ability than how participants were able tointeract with distinct teacher leader constructs. This finding high-lights the human component of the SI framework, namely, thatsymbols/roles do not exist on their own, but are constructed andinterpreted by individuals with different experiences and abilities.Therefore, facilitators using this scaffold may benefit from strate-gies to engage participants in the overall VV activity, or basic re-sponsibilities of the responder, rather than targeting onemisunderstood teacher leader role.

3.2. Position relative to teacher leader roles

In this second results section, we describe the tendency forsome participants to verbalize their teacher leader role. During theanalysis of VV interactions, we observed 50% (i.e. 24/48) of partic-ipants stating or restating which role they had been assigned in agiven month and how that would influence their contributions tothe group. We hypothesized that verbalizing the role was amechanism for interacting with the leadership role and makingadditional meaning. For instance, Elise stated, “As the learningpartner I am here to help code this problem before engaging in dis-cussion about what solutions may look like, which is why I asked if younoticed the same students turning in/not turning in their assign-ments.” By using the words “code” and “solution” from the activityprompt (Supplemental Information), Elise is rephrasing andpossibly internalizing the role of the learning partner. Further, shepositions herself inside the role, which serves as a lens for hercomments and subsequent interpretation by other participants. In adifferent VV activity, Robert verbalized his role by stating, “As thereflective practitioner this month, I can relate to your efforts on effi-ciency. It has been a big part of my second year as a math teacher.” Inthis post, Robert is able to place himself within the role, andempathize as someone who can reflect on personal teachingexperience, and also appreciate the difficulties of teaching as anovice. Robert then continued with two additional paragraphs ofinformation for the presenter.

In contrast to the examples above where teachers positionedthemselves within the teacher leader role, roughly 42% (i.e. 10/24)

S.J. Polizzi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 174e186 181

of the role-verbalizing statements created a positional distancebetween the individual and role. For example, Sue began her firstpost of one VV by stating, “I want to share a lot and research a lot aspart of the scholar role this month, but first I want to gather a fewmoredetails …” In this post, Sue acknowledges her role, but does notapply it. Instead, she distances herself from the role beforeparticipating, as though she cannot pose clarifying questionsthrough a scholarly lens. In a different VV activity, Robin com-mented, “My role in this response is the "scholar" so here goes …”

Robin highlights that her comments are limited to “this response”alone, as though the role can be easily donned and removed.Further, her use of quotation marks may separate the “scholar” roleas something distinct from herself. Eight additional role-verbalizing statements used quotation marks to position the indi-vidual more distal to the teacher leader role.

3.3. Depth of teacher reflective discourse

In this third results section, we turn our attention to how theteacher leader roles facilitated reflective discourse. We examinedall 260 presenter and responder comments in order to determinethe degree to which participants were engaged in deep reflection.Here we analyze several quotes that were coded as representativeof each level of reflection using our rubric (Table 3) and refer thereader to the Supplemental Results (available on the journal web-site) for additional examples. Fig. 3 shows sample participantquotes and highlights the general functions of the commentswithin a given level of reflection. For instance, surface level com-ments such as, “I am looking forward to hearing about your plan …

How is it going?” served the function of keeping participants onschedule with the VV timetable but did not reflect on solutions tothe VV. In general, comments assigned to a surface depth ofreflection were reactionary statements that did not appear to havebeen consciously processed and weighed for alternatives. Onerepresentative surface reflection included the view that studentand classroom circumstances were beyond the teacher's control(see Table 3 for a full list of surface level codes). From thisperspective, Sharon presented a VV about lunch duty:

The ‘Throwing away trash’ rule- I agree with this rule 500% butwhat vexes me is how disrespectful students can be! … We have agreat relationship but yet they never want to clean up afterthemselves … The ‘cool’ kids just sit there and act like fools. THISANNOYS ME SO MUCH.

Sharon's strong emotional connection with her vexation wasevident in her exaggeration of “500%” and syntax. Her perspectiveshowed that she wanted help from the group in resolving an issueshe saw as beyond her current abilities. Her freedom of expressionalso implied a feeling that any subsequent dialogue would occur ina safe online environment.

Statements coded at the technical level provided personal ex-periences as evidence. In some cases, a responder's reliance on hisor her own experiences prevented the adaptation of technicaladvice to the context of the presenter (Fig. 3). Sarah, a scienceteacher, failed to connect her advocated methods back to a VVregarding math:

I've attached a document I stole from our language arts teacher. Shewas using [it] to discuss articles they were reading. I wanted myscience kids to be more thoughtful about their science readings so Idecided to use the same discussion format but modified it to fitscience. It's called "Accountable Talk" and there are different levelsof questioning and responses. It may or may not be useful to youbut I figured I would slap it on here! [Smiley face emoticon]

Sarah's comments indicate an understanding that the documentneeded to be modified when crossing disciplines, yet she did notmake any math-based suggestions beyond the binary possibilitythat “it may or may not be useful” to the presenter.

Statements coded at the pedagogical level reflected on the ori-gins of student motivation in order to create more lasting solutions(Fig. 3). Elise reflected on strategies to engage students using theirinterests over the course of an academic year:

I also found the following article in the Guardian. [provided link] Ittalks about how a teacher used intervention time as a creativespace for students. It seems that home base is a pretty structuredtime at your school. However, you said Mondays are relationshipbuilding. Maybe you could incorporate the arts, or other thingsstudents are interested in during this time, and maybe even talk tothe administration about show casing their work to parents everysemester. I know that would create more work for you, but it'ssomething to think about. I hope your plan works in re-engagingthis student!

Elise cited educational theory and community-approved (i.e. theonline Guardian Teacher Network) practices as evidence to sub-stantiate her claims. Not only did she invite the presenter to accessthe relevant article, but she also summarized and adapted thefindings to reflect the “home base” class format that was presented.In the process, Elise reflected more deeply than simply providingmaterials or quotes that were designed for a different context.

Finally, we examined posts representing the critical level ofreflection. At this level, presenters and responders viewed practiceswithin broader sociological, cultural, historical and political con-texts (Fig. 3). Harry addressed a VV on differentiating to variouslearning styles from a workforce context:

I realize this won't necessarily make the problem better, or excuseus from doing anything about it, but I really think this is an issuethat teachers 25 years ago didn't have to deal with nearly as much.It wasn't too long ago that there were plenty of fine-paying, low-skilled manufacturing jobs out there that would siphon off a lot ofthe students that struggled to keep up. With many of these jobsoverseas now, we have the huge task of catering to an even broaderrange of ability in the classroom.

Harry is initially clear to indicate he is not looking for an “excuse… from doing anything about” differentiation. He then considersthe relationship between teaching and career paths, and how thathas changed over time. By accepting the “huge task” of teaching todiverse talents, Harry is acknowledging the social and politicalconsequences of his teaching.

3.3.1. Depth of teacher reflective discourse e Aggregate analysisAlthough we only provided four examples above, we coded all

260 presenter and responder statements into one of the four levelsof reflection. Our first finding was that the topics of the VV did notresult in a static level of reflection. Instead, all 12 of the VV activitiesproduced 3 or more different levels of reflection (Table 4). Criticalreflectionwas most likely to be absent in a VV, and wasmissing in 4activities. Although it was tempting to speculate that proceduraltopics might preclude critical reflection, we did not observe a clearpattern relating VV topics and critical reflection. “Lunch Duty,” forexample, might appear a mundane VV topic, but produced fourcritical reflections in one of the activities. Further, topics on“Finding a Balance” and “Becoming More Efficient” produced fiveand zero critical reflections, respectively, despite appearing to be

Fig. 3. Representative reflections observed across all VV activities. Presenter and responder reflections are first sorted into the four depth of reflection levels (i.e. Surface, Technical,Pedagogical and Critical) with example functions (italics; e.g. reaction to issue) of how statements at each level contributed to VV activities. Reflections are then presented inseparate text boxes. Phrases most related to the example functions are depicted in bold font.

S.J. Polizzi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 174e186182

Table 4Venture or Vexation topics and resulting comments' depths of reflection.

Topic of the VV According to Presenter Depth of Reflection Category and Frequency

Surface Technical Pedagogical Critical

1st Hour Student 2 1 8 2Improving Mathematical Discourse 9 5 10 0Revolving Late Homework Debate 5 6 15 5Big Classroom Behavior Issues 5 10 9 0Lunch Duty 3 4 3 4Finding a Balance 6 9 6 5Toeing the Behavior/Academic Line 2 2 13 0Differentiated Classroom 3 6 7 1Administration 4 4 10 21:1 Technology 1 9 10 1Differentiation 0 12 15 1Becoming More Efficient 6 16 4 0

Fig. 4. Frequency of presenter and responder comments occurring at each level ofreflection. (A) The reflection levels of all comments (n¼ 260) and (B) the deepest levelexhibited by any participant (n¼ 60) or (C) Learning Partner (n¼ 12) in a given VVactivity are ordered from the superficial surface level to the deepest critical level.Panels are set in different scales but report proportions to allow the comparisons of allreflections and the deepest levels of reflection (A vs B) or the deepest levels of re-flections and those corresponding to only the learning partner (B vs C).

S.J. Polizzi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 174e186 183

similar in theme.Next, we analyzed the reflections in aggregate to determine the

frequency of each level of reflection across the VV activities (Fig. 4).Fig. 4A shows that roughly 18% of all comments were assigned to asurface depth of reflection. Almost twice that proportion, 32%, wasassigned to a technical depth. The most abundant level of reflectionwe observed (42%) occurred at the pedagogical depth. This aggre-gate result suggests that a large proportion of each VV discoursemay achieve a pedagogical depth of reflection. In contrast, only 8% ofall comments reached the level of critical depth, consistent with thedeepest reflection level being the most difficult to reach.

We recognized that for a month-long VV to be generative, not allcomments during a given VV necessarily needed to occur at thecritical level of reflection. In fact, our analysis of all 12 activitiesabove indicated that multiple levels contributed to robust VV ac-tivities. Therefore, we further analyzed the VV interactions to findthe deepest level that a participant reflected during a given month,regardless of other lower level comments. For example, if aparticipant reflected twice at the surface level and once at thepedagogical level, we treated this as reaching the deepest level ofpedagogical reflection. As seen in Fig. 4B, the majority of partici-pants (63%) reached pedagogical reflection at some point during aVV. This represented a shift compared to the analysis of all com-ments in Fig. 4A. Examining the deepest level of reflection in Fig. 4Bshowed a shift away from surface (0%) and technical (12%) levelsand a greater than 3-fold increase in the proportion of critical re-flectors (25%). To be thorough, we also disaggregated deepest levelof reflection data by the leadership roles. Fig. 4C shows the learningpartner role produced a slight increase in the percentage of criticalreflectors compared to the aggregate result in Fig. 4B. Theremaining teacher leader roles (Supplemental Fig. S1) conformed tothe overall trend in Fig. 4B. These trends persist when controlled forindividuals (i.e. possible outliers) who operated at the same level ofreflection in all threemonths examined (see Supplemental Results).

4. Discussion

4.1. Teacher leader roles are a viable scaffold for discussingprofessional teaching issues

Settlage et al. (2007) originally proposed the VV format as a wayto facilitate critical discussions during face-to-face, teacher pro-fessional development sessions. Here, we have investigated anadditional scaffold using teacher leader roles in the VV format forearly-career science and mathematics teachers and analyzed itsoutcomes. Teacher leader roles were provided to VV participants inprompts (Table 1) to use as they saw fit, rather than through

S.J. Polizzi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 174e186184

regimented coaching in each of the four roles. As a result, partici-pants were able to interpret (or abandon) the constructs, inter-nalize their meaning, and re-interpret them according to the needsof the VV presenter. In accordance with our scaffold, the presenterwas provided with four unique perspectives on their VV. Thisapproach is a more holistic way to dissect a presenter's teachingissue, as it addresses the actors, the actions, the reasons for acting,and the teacher in one activity. Respectively, the fully functioningperson addresses the students' needs, the reflective practitioneranalyzes the teaching actions, the scholar speaks to the commun-ity's rationale for teaching moves, and the learning partner ad-dresses the teachers' needs (Table 2). Our scaffold therefore limitsthe possibility of only one idea being raised and then supported bythe remaining responders. In this respect, each of the responders isengaged in trying to see a problem from a new vantage and thereare no passive participants.

4.2. Teacher leader roles are accessible to novice teachers

Recognizing the different kinds of support teachers need topersist in the teaching profession, Darling-Hammond and Sato(2006) challenged the education community to (1) mentor begin-ning teachers, (2) facilitate professional dialogue and access be-tween colleagues, and (3) provide opportunities for leadershipresponsibilities. Although leadership opportunities are not listed asthe first step for supporting beginning teachers, our data indicatethat teacher leadership ideas are accessible to novice teachers; ourparticipants were capable of adopting each of the teacher leaderroles as early as during an induction program. Fig.1 shows that eachof the 4 teacher leader roles were adopted every month, with veryfew individuals responding completely outside of their role or withinadequate feedback (i.e. with total rubric scores of �3). Despite noextended coaching in the teacher leader roles, average use of theroles favored adequate and exemplary coded answers (i.e. totalscores �4). Therefore, rooting peer-mentoring deeply in thecontext of teacher leader roles appears to empower even noviceteachers.

Among the teachers, much of the variation in scores could beexplained by an individual's course performance. This suggests thatno single role was more difficult to adopt than another for thesenovice teachers. This result also suggests the possibility of exam-ining individual roles (or combinations thereof) during professionaldevelopment. However, we advocate for simultaneous exposure toall four roles on a rotating basis. From the SI perspective, viewingthe multiple interpretations of others may ease personal re-negotiations of each role and help co-construct a well-roundedteacher identity.

We also observed that participants positioned themselvesdifferently relative to the roles during the meaning-making pro-cess. Some verbalized themselves within the role so others couldmake sense of their comments, while others created distance be-tween their comments and a constraining role. For the latter group,this may indicate that longer exposure or training on the roles mayimprove internalization, social construction of meaning, andincorporation within the teacher identity.

The teacher leader framework we used was based on four roles,but it is not the only leadership framework available to teacherdevelopment programs. For example, Grant (2006) described amodel for developing teacher leaders in South Africa based on fourlevels, or spheres of influence: Teacher as a leader in the classroom,working with other teachers, in whole school development, andbeyond the school into the community. In the US, the KyNT3 projecthas described six spheres of influence for teacher leaders, as well asvignettes for the core beliefs, dispositions, and knowledge/skillsthat can be cultivated to expand leadership capacity in each sphere

(KyNT3, 2015). From outside the education literature, a network-enhanced leadership model stressing the embedded nature ofleadership has also been proposed for impacting individuals' pro-fessional network of relationships to expand leadership capacity(Cullen-Lester, Maupin, & Carter, 2017). Based on our findings thatthe four roles we used were equally accessible, it is possible thatanother leadership model may be similarly useful in the VV scaf-fold. For example, a facilitator could ask responders to think about apresenter's issue from different spheres of influence, or usingdifferent constructs from the social network analysis literature.Further, a leadership model based in a teacher's spheres of influ-ence or networks may be more recognizable to teachers than newconstructs, like teacher as scholar, and promote more rapidinternalization.

4.3. Online roles facilitate reflective discourse on the teachingprofession

While exploring the teacher leader roles, participants wereprompted to post comments at least twice during the month-longdiscussion board. These asynchronous communications werevisible for all five group members, allowing participants the op-portunity to (re)read the presenter's situation and the advice fromother teacher leader perspectives. The (re)reading of discussionboard comments by the participants became evident as respondersverbalized or described their roles to the group and interpretedhow they differed from the other participants' perspectives. Byacknowledging the different roles, participants reflected on how toprovide different types of information and what feedback might bethe most helpful to addressing the teaching topic, rather thansimply agreeing with a previous statement and disengaging. Inaddition, reading four different perspectives provided multiplepoints for comparison with a participant's own teaching practices.The quiet online setting could then allow the participant to reflecton both positive and negative aspects of their own practice andbeliefs, not just the declared objective of helping resolve the VVtopic.

Reflective discourse at the surface and technical levels includedemotional and administrative functions, while deeper reflections atthe pedagogical and critical levels facilitated systemic or culturaldiscussions about the teaching profession at large (Fig. 3). Thesereflection levels can be viewed as contributing to Chang's (Chang,2009; Chang & Davis, 2009) personal and professional realities,respectively. Our scaffold appears to simultaneously attend to theimmediate realities of the teacher with personal and emotionalsupport, as well as to the long-term realities of the professionalwith strategies and social considerations. By supporting teachers'personal and professional selves, our scaffold may help to bringboth realities into alignment, ultimately impacting self-agency andeffectiveness (Lazarus, 1991, 2000). Our observations that thedeepest levels of reflection produced by teachers each month werepedagogical and critical (Fig. 4B) provides further support for theonline scaffold as an effective tool for the “powerful facilitation andmediation” (p. 345) that Larrivee (2008) claimed was necessary tomove reflection to more meaningful levels. Given that reflection isthought to parallel growth from pre-service to induction to masterteacher, our data indicate that our teachers' reflections moved to-ward levels typical of more experienced teachers, even though wedid not give specific support in reflective discourse or differentlevels of reflection.

5. Limitations

This study may have limitations in generalization, given thesmall sample size and other professional development activities

S.J. Polizzi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 174e186 185

the teachers engaged in during the same period of time via theonline TIN platform (i.e. Reflective Journals, Topical Response Fo-rums, and Professional Development Inquiries). Also, our observa-tions were limited to posts within the VV discussion boards, anddid not account for interactions via more passive reading oroccurring in the other TIN activity spaces. The observational natureof our study was not an active attempt to control additional vari-ables, such as the VV topics or participants' knowledge, experience,discipline, or teaching placement. Future studies might examineadditional meaning making outside of the discussion boards usingfollow up survey or interview protocols, and strengthen causallinks.

6. Conclusions and future implications

Using our teacher leader scaffold with early career science andmathematics teachers may have implications for understandingtheir professional development and identity construction. In thisstudy, teachers successfully took on the roles of the teacher as fullyfunctioning person, reflective practitioner, scholar and learningpartner in order to navigate the realities of the profession. The roleswere accessible and routinely enacted by the novice teachers,despite the leadership foundations of the roles. The roles also pro-moted deeper levels of reflection consistent withmore experiencedteachers. Consequently, teachers engaging in the scaffold wereexposed to multiple perspectives that may aid in future reflectionand serve as strategies for overcoming teaching obstacles in theirworkplaces.

We have recently (Rushton & Criswell, 2015) proposed that in-duction programs can mediate the perceived disparities betweenthe idealistic perceptions of the neophyte and the harsh realitiesthey experience by fostering a sense of belonging (Skaalvik &Skaalvik, 2011) with others in their communities of practice. Weargued that the association between low self-efficacy and the dailychallenges encountered in the novice's classroom could be decou-pled if the new teacher recognizes that the difficulties that they areencountering are inherent to the care work professions (e.g.nursing, social work and teaching) rather than idiosyncratic andunusual (Nieto, 2003).

Adopting teacher leader roles may specifically promote abilitiestowards literally ‘seeing’ the experiences of themselves and theirpeers differently. Consequently, initial negative or uncertain sen-timents may be effectively remediated by intentionally adoptingpersonas that force a different perspective into the discourse.Considering Chang's (Chang, 2009; Chang & Davis, 2009) model ofthe interplay between personal expectations and professional re-alities, the adopted roles promote a focus on different aspects of theprofessional reality/self. Viewed through the lens of symbolicinteractionism, role-makingwith the different roles could influenceoverall identity and bring the personal and professional selvescloser into alignment, reducing negative emotions. Further, asteachers consider other ways to think about and address real-lifeprofessional issues, they can experience an empowerment thatarises from recognizing others in their social networks are willingand able to give and receive generative information. Importantly,members of that new community can move forward toward moreeffective teaching and positive dispositions regarding their placewithin the profession.

Acknowledgments

This workwas supported in part by National Science FoundationAwards DUE-1035451 (Head), DUE-1660736 (Rushton), DUE-1340019 (Head) and DUE-0833250 (Roehrig). The authors wouldalso like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support from

Kennesaw State University and our colleagues providing valuablefeedback on early drafts of this manuscript. The findings, conclu-sions, and opinions herein represent the views of the authors anddo not necessarily represent the view of personnel affiliated withNSF.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found athttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.06.010.

References

Allen, J. M. (2009). Valuing practice over theory: How beginning teachers re-orienttheir practice in the transition from the university to the workplace. Teachingand Teacher Education, 25, 647e654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.11.011.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkely, CA:Prentice-Hall.

Boulton, H., & Hramiak, A. (2012). E-flection: The development of reflective com-munities of learning for trainee teachers through the use of shared online weblogs. Reflective Practice, 13(4), 503e515.

Chang, M.-L. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher Burnout: Examining theemotional work of teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 21(3), 193e218.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9106-y.

Chang, M.-L., & Davis, H. A. (2009). Understanding the role of teacher appraisals inshaping the dynamics of their relationships with Students: Deconstructingteachers' judgments of disruptive behavior/students. In P. A. Schutz, &M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research (pp. 95e127). SpringerUS.

Cornu, R. L. (2005). Peer mentoring: Engaging pre-service teachers in mentoringone another. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 13(3), 355e366.https://doi.org/10.1080/13611260500105592.

Criswell, B. A., Rushton, G. T., McDonald, S. P., & Gul, T. (2017). A clearer Vision:Creating and evolving a model to support the development of science teacherleaders. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9588-9.

Cullen-Lester, K. L., Maupin, C. K., & Carter, D. R. (2017). Incorporating social net-works into leadership development: A conceptual model and evaluation ofresearch and practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.005.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Sato, M. (2006). In Keeping Good Science Teachers: WhatScience Leaders Can Do (pp. 177e196). National Science Teachers Association.

Dempsey, R. (1992). Teachers as Leaders: Towards a conceptual framework.Teaching Education, 5(1), 113e120.

Ellis, J., Polizzi, S. J., Roehrig, G., & Rushton, G. (2017). Teachers as Leaders: Theimpact of teacher leadership supports for beginning teachers in an online in-duction program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(3), 245e272.

Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606e633.https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100.

Grant, C. (2006). Emerging voices on teacher leadership: Some South African views.Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 34(4), 511e532. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143206068215.

Hangül, S. (2017). An evaluation of the new teacher induction program in Turkeythrough the eyes of beginning teachers. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(10),191e201.

Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring begin-ning teachers: What we know and what we don't. Teaching and Teacher Edu-cation, 25, 207e216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.001.

Hou, H. (2015). What makes an online community of practice work? A situatedstudy of Chinese student teachers' perceptions of online professional learning.Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 6e16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.005.

Ingersoll, R. (2012). Beginning teacher induction: What the data tell us.Ingersoll, R. M., & Merrill, L. (2010). Who's teaching our children? Educational

Leadership, 67(8), 14e20.Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs

for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research, 201.Johnston, A., & Settlage, J. (2008). Framing the professional development of mem-

bers of the science teacher education community. Journal of Science TeacherEducation, 19(6), 513e521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9112-9.

Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2009). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachersdevelop as leaders. Corwin Press.

KyNT3. (2015). Kentucky teacher leadership framework. Retrieved on april 15, 2018from. https://ctlonline.org/kentucky-teacher-leadership-framework/.

Lander, E. S., & Gates Jr, S. J. (2010). Prepare and inspire. Science, 330(6001), 151e151.Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers' level of reflective

practice. Reflective Practice, 9(3), 341e360. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940802207451.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist,46(4), 352e367. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.4.352.

Lazarus, R. S. (2000). How emotions influence performance in competitive sports.

S.J. Polizzi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 75 (2018) 174e186186

The Sport Psychologist, 14(3), 229e252.Luft, J. A., Roehrig, G., & Patterson, N. C. (2003). Contrasting landscapes: A com-

parison of the impact of different induction programs on beginning secondaryscience teachers' practices, beliefs, and experiences. Journal of Research in Sci-ence Teaching, 40(1), 77e97. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10061.

Maclean, R., & White, S. (2007). Video reflection and the formation of teacheridentity in a team of pre-service and experienced teachers. Reflective Practice,8(1), 47e60. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940601138949.

Mead, G. H., & Morris, C. W. (1967). Mind, self, and Society: From the standpoint of asocial behaviorist (Vol. 1). University of Chicago Press.

Nieto, S. (2003). What keeps teachers going? New York: Teachers College Press.NRC National Research Council. (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing

and employing America for a brighter economic future (Retrieved from Wash-ington, DC).

NRC National Research Council. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited:Rapidly approaching Category 5 (0309160979) (Retrieved from Washington, DC).

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2002). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities ofonline teaching. John Wiley & Sons.

Pellegrino, A., & Weiss, M. P. (2017). examining collaboration in teacher preparationand clinical practice. Action in Teacher Education, 39(3), 340.

Polizzi, S. J., Dean, M., Barrett, D., & Rushton, G. T. (2014). Developing teacher leadersusing adopted personas in an online induction support system. In Paper pre-sented at the Annual conference of the national association for research in scienceteaching (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania).

Polizzi, S. J., Jaggernauth, J., Ray, H. E., Callahan, B., & Rushton, G. T. (2015). Highlyqualified or highly Unqualified? A longitudinal study of America's public highschool biology teachers. BioScience. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv093.

Potts, A. (2015). A theory for educational Research: Socialisation theory and sym-bolic interaction. Education Research & Perspectives, 42, 633.

Reckhow, S., & Snyder, J. W. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in educationpolitics. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 186e195. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x14536607.

Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. (2009). Video annotation Tools: Technologies to scaffold,structure, and transform teacher reflection. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1),52e67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328486.

Roehrig, G. H., Donna, J. D., Billington, B. L., & Hoelscher, M. (2015). Design of onlineinduction programs to promote reform-based science and mathematicsteaching. Teacher Education & Practice, 28(1e2), 286e303.

Romano, M., & Schwartz, J. (2005). Exploring technology as a tool for eliciting andencouraging beginning teacher reflection. Contemporary Issues in Technologyand Teacher Education, 5(2), 149e168.

Rushton, G. T., & Criswell, B. A. (2015). Plugging the 'leaky bucket' of early careerscience teacher attrition through the development of professional vision. InJ. A. Luff, & S. Dubois (Eds.), A better Beginning: Supporting early career science

teachers. Sense Publishers.Rushton, G. T., Ray, H. E., Criswell, B. A., Polizzi, S. J., Bearss, C. J.,

Levelsmier, N.,…Kirchoff, M. (2014). Stemming the diffusion of responsibility:A longitudinal case study of America's chemistry teachers. EducationalResearcher, 43(8), 390e403. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x14556341.

Sch€on, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action, 5126(Basic books).

Settlage, J., Johnston, A., Meadows, L., Harkins, H., & Kittleson, J. (2007). Professionaldevelopment at a crossroads: Using vexations as the focal point. In Paper pre-sented at the Annual meeting of the association for science teacher education,clearwater beach, FL. January, 2007.

Simmons, P. E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett, D.,… Labuda, K.(1999). Beginning Teachers: Beliefs and classroom actions. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 36(8), 930e954. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199910)36:8<930::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-N.

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2011). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leavethe teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging,and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(6), 1029e1038.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.04.001.

Smit, B., & Fritz, E. (2008). Understanding teacher identity from a symbolic inter-actionist perspective: Two ethnographic narratives. South African Journal ofEducation, 28, 91e101.

Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction andmentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational ResearchJournal, 41(3), 681e714. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041003681.

Strong, M. (2009). Effective teacher induction & mentoring: Assessing the evidence.New York: Teachers College Press, c2009.

van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical.Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205e228. https://doi.org/10.2307/1179579.

Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experi-ences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. Internetand Higher Education, 6(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00164-1.

Vryan, K., Adler, P., & Adler, P. (2003). Identity. In L. T. Reynolds, & N. J. Herman-Kinney (Eds.), Handbook of symbolic interactionism. Rowman: Altamira.

Wang, J., Odell, S. J., & Schwille, S. A. (2008). Effects of teacher induction onbeginning teachers' teaching: A critical review of the literature. Journal ofTeacher Education, 59(2), 132e152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107314002.

White House. (2012). President obama announces plans for a new, national corps torecognize and reward leading educators in science, Technology, Engineering, andMath. Retrieved from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/17/president-obama-announces-plans-new-national-corps-recognize-and-reward-.

Yost, D. S., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of theconstruct of critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programmingin the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 39e49. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248710005100105.