REQUIRED REFERENCESRoussel, L., & Thomas, P. L. (2020). Leadersh.docx

REQUIRED REFERENCES
Roussel, L., & Thomas, P. L. (2020). Leadership theory and
application for nurse leaders. In L. Roussel, P. L. Thomas, & J.
L. Harris (Eds.), Management and leadership for nurse
administrators (8th ed., 23–42). Burlington, MA: Jones &
Bartlett Learning.
Gokenbach, V., & Thomas, P. L. (2020). Maximizing human
capital. In L. Roussel, P. L. Thomas, & J. L. Harris (Eds.),
Management and leadership for nurse administrators (8th ed.,
189–226). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Boamah, S. A., Spence Laschinger, H. K., Wong, C., & Clarke,
S. (2018). Effect of transformational leadership on job
satisfaction and patient safety outcomes. Nursing Outlook,
66(2), 180–189.
Fischer, S. A. (2016). Transformational leadership in nursing: A
concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(11), 2644–
2653.
Sherman, R. O. (2006). Leading a multigenerational nursing
workforce: Issues, challenges and strategies. Online Journal of
Issues in Nursing, 11(2), 13.
QUESTION:
Describe the situation or case study you selected. If it is one
from your professional practice (rather than the case studies
from the course text), be sure to provide relevant details about
the setting, situation, and challenge you faced.
Then, explain what you might have done differently in the
management of the situation. Be sure to justify your position
using the Resources and evidence-based practices from the
literature, particularly as these relate to situational leadership
and (as applicable) a multigeneration workforce.
· Review the Resources, focusing in particular on those related
to situational leadership.
· Search a reputable academic/professional resources on the

Internet to locate and analyze a peer-reviewed article related to
situational leadership.
· Critically examine a leadership situation in your professional
practice. As an alternative, you may select one of the case
studies included in the Roussel, Thomas and Harris text:
· Case Study 2-1: Is a Leader a Leader Only When Paid? (p. 39)
· Case Study 2-2: Managing Conflict (p. 40–41)
· Case Study 9-1: Healthy Work Environments (p. 223)
Unacceptable
Developing
Acceptable
Score
1
Introduction: Problem Statement
Neither implicit nor explicit reference is made to the topic,
problem or question to be examined. (0)
Readers are aware of the overall problem, challenge, or topic of
the article. (1-2)
The topic problem is introduced, and brief background
information is provided to re-orient the reader to what the
author plans to discuss. (3)
/3
2
Articles Selection
Information is gathered from a limited number of appropriate
sources. (0)
Information is gathered from multiple appropriate sources. (1-2)
Information is gathered from multiple, appropriate research-

based sources.(3)
/3
3
Critical Thinking/Analysis/Synthesis
There is no indication the author tried to synthesize the
information provided. Articles are summarized, but there is
little evidence of analysis. (0-1)
The author demonstrated ability to evaluate and analyze
information. There is some evidence of analysis, but this
analysis is not apparent throughout the paper. (2-3)
The author demonstrates the ability to effectively, evaluate,
analyze, and synthesize the information. Collection of studies
analyzed for differences and commonalities about the topic. (4-
5)
/5
4
Clarity (Structure & Flow)
Written work has weak beginning, development and
conclusions. Sections, paragraphs and transitions are deficient.
Weakly organized with no logical sequencing or structure. The
report appears to have no direction, with subtopics appearing
disjointed. (0-1)
Written work has adequate beginning, development and
conclusion. Sections, paragraphs, and transitions are adequate.
Well organized, but demonstrates illogical sequencing or
structure. There is a basic flow from one section to the next, but
not all sections or paragraphs follow in a natural or logical
order. (2-3)
Written work has clear and appropriate beginning, development,
and conclusion. Sections, paragraphs, and transitions are clear
and appropriate. Well organized, demonstrates logical
sequencing and structure. There is a logical flow from general
ideas to specific conclusions. Transitions tie adjacent
paragraphs and sections together. (4-5)
/5
5

Clarity (Coverage of content)
Written work does an inadequate job of covering the topic.
Assertions are weakly supported by evidence. (0-1)
Written work adequately covers the topic. Assertions are
supported by evidence. (2-3)
Written work provides an in-depth coverage of the topic.
Assertions are clearly supported by evidence. (4-5)
/5
6
Clarity (Expression of Ideas)
It is difficult to determine what the author is trying to convey.
Difficulties with sentence structure, grammar, and/or
punctuations are evident. Uses lengthy descriptions and
explanations; expresses vague opinions and conclusions. (0-1)
Writing is generally clear, but there are some areas in need of
improvement. Summarizes the relevance and significance of
cited literature using scholarly language.
(2-3)
Report is well-written. Clarity and precision of the writing
conveys exactly what the author intends and leaves little room
for semantic confusion or interpretation. Clearly and concisely
states the significance and relevance of information using
appropriate scholarly terminology. (4-5)
/5
7
Conclusions
There is no indication the author tried to draw conclusions
based on the literature under review.
(0-1)
The author provides concluding remarks that show an analysis
and synthesis of ideas occurred. Some of the conclusions,
however, were not supported in the body of the report.
(2-3)
The author was able to make succinct and precise conclusions

based on the review. Insights into the problem are appropriate.
Conclusions are strongly supported in the review. (4-5)
/5
8
Implications
There is no indication that the identified implications are
supported by the literature under review or implications are not
provided.(0-1)
The author provides concluding remarks that show an analysis
and synthesis of ideas occurred. Some of the implications,
however, were not supported in the body of the report.
(2-3)
The author was able to identify implication with direct
connections to the review. Insights into the problem are
appropriate. Implications are strongly supported in the review.
(4-5)
/5
9
Directions for Future Research
No connections are made between the reviewed literature and
the areas identified for further research. (0)
Some links are made between the reviewed literature and the
areas identified for further research. (1-2)
Clear links can be made between the reviewed literature and the

areas identified for further research.(3)
/3
10
APA (Body of Paper)
APA format (i.e., headings, spacing, citations, etc.) is not used
appropriately in the body of the paper. (0)
APA format (i.e., headings, spacing, citations, etc.) is used for
the majority of the paper, but there are some errors evident. (1-
2)
Correct use of APA for the body of the paper. (3)
/3
11
APA (Citations/
References)
Citation for the article did not follow APA format and was
missing essential information.
(0)
Citation for the article did follow APA format; however; a few
(2) errors in essential information were evident. (1-2)
Citation for the article did follow APA format. Essential
information was accurate and complete. (3)
/3
TOTAL:______/45
Running head: LITERATURE REVIEW
1
LITERATURE REVIEW
2

Literature Review
When it comes to teaching mathematics, the aspect of teaching
STEM comes in place. This is because Mathematics is one of
the fields that lie within the STEM disciplines. With this in
mind, it is important that the past and researched information
regarding STEM is put into consideration. In doing so, it will
become simpler in making sure that STEM education is well
taught in elementary schools. Through a review of journals and
articles regarding STEM education, it is possible to come up
with mechanisms of improving preservice teachers’ service
delivery to elementary school students for all disciplines
including mathematics.
Research has established that most elementary school teachers
feel that they do not have enough knowledge in the field of
STEM. In this research, preservice elementary teachers were
given the opportunity to give their own rating on their abilities
to teach STEM disciplines to elementary school students. This
research went ahead to outline the ways in which teachers’
knowledge and skills can be improved through ways such as
integrated place-based activities. The research further gives
room for these teachers to come up with their own designs and
implementation of STEM design (Anne, Adams, Brant, Melissa,
Jerine, 2014). The same information can be applied to teaching
mathematics.
It has also been established that the quality of education that
preservice elementary schools teachers receive on STEM
education also has an impact on their ability to pass the
knowledge to their students. This establishes that these teachers
deserve to have an opportunity to be also educated on STEM
subjects in order to have the knowledge and ability to teach. It
is also worth mentioning that it is impossible for a teacher to
teach what they do not know (Hacıömeroğlu1, 2018). This,
therefore, points out the importance of improving the education
systems and programs for the preservice teachers. This is major

because the teachers pass the knowledge that they have to their
students. Equipping them with the best knowledge, skills, and
experience in STEM is, therefore, an important way of ensuring
that students will later receive the best STEM education (Teo &
Ke, 2014). In a research study that was carried out on the theory
of planned behavior in Taiwan, it was established that Stronger
STEM teaching was positively related to higher perceived
behavioral control. In this research, the conclusion was that a
positive appreciation of STEM education resulted in a positive
teacher competence in this field (Lin & Williams, 2016).
In the same aspect as the knowledge content of a teacher, a
study established that the level of mathematics content in a
teacher can be improved through the use of online study
materials. As the world goes digital, so should the education
system. Digitalization can be beneficial in boosting knowledge
and skills among STEM teachers (Swars, Daane & Giesen,
2006). This is because, through exposure to an online learning
platform, preservice elementary teachers are able to gain new
knowledge and even get reference materials to use in classes.
Further research establishes that the use of Makerspace is a
useful tool to engage students studying STEM disciplines. The
research focuses on the ability of the teacher to engage their
students using Makerspace. Far from improving student
engagement, the tool has also been found to be effective in
improving the teachers’ professional development. Both the
student and the teacher are able to benefit from the use of
Makerspace in STEM subjects (Blackley, Sheffield, Maynard,
Koul & Walker, 2017). Through this, the idea of mentorship has
been brought into picture. When students have their teachers as
their mentors, it is possible for them to benefit at a wider range
from STEM education. This research is further supported by
another research that was carried out on the effectiveness of
Makerspace in engaging primary school students in Indonesia.
The results were that learning experiences were improved
(Blackley, Sheffield & Koul, 2018). This, therefore, points out
that teacher preparation to teach STEM subjects can be

enhanced through the use of this tool.
The views of preservice teachers on STEM education have
been catered for. A researcher carried out research on the
opinions and perceptions of preservice and in-service teachers
on the STEM education system. Throughout the research, it was
established that there are common features between in-service
and preservice teachers. They both want to develop their careers
in education in various ways (Ejiwale, 2013). One common way
is through attending training workshops where they are guided
on the different forms of project-based approaches that aid them
in teaching STEM subjects. With this research on professional
development using project-based approaches, the same
knowledge can be applied in teaching other subjects such as
languages and mathematics to elementary school students
(Beyer & Davis, 2012). This research is further supported by
the fact that there is need to reform the education system for
preservice elementary school teachers. Their education system
should be designed in such a way that it gives focus on how
teachers should be prepared to teach STEM subjects in order to
improve the end result of service delivery to students (Rogers,
Winship & Sun, 2015). It is therefore important to note that
case methodologies are taking a big role in the shift from
traditional education system which was focused on knowledge
towards the STEM education system which is focused on
innovation ad real practice (Siew, Amir & Chong, 2015). This is
because case methodologies give the students the ability to
experience teaching through practice.
Researchers have also addressed the issue of improving formal
teacher efficacy as a way of preparing preservice elementary
teachers to teach STEM subjects. Scholars have mentioned the
idea of teachers n’ training (TNT), which is one of the informal
teaching experience from the traditional education system. This
study tries to explain the fact that STEM education does not
only depend on formal settings, informal settings also boost the
ability of the student to remember what they have been taught
easily (Flores, 2015). TNT which was used in this case showed

that the elementary preservice teachers benefit from this
informal science teaching model (Bracey, Brooks, Marlette &
Locke, 2013). The teachers were able to make quality
presentations after being exposed to this type of informal
training.
When it comes to STEM education, the importance of exposing
children to this education system at an early age has been
mentioned. It is important for kids to get exposed to STEM
education at early age as it helps them understand their interests
at an early age. This was a conclusion after looking at the
declining population of American children who are pursuing
STEM degrees and related disciplines in colleges and
universities (Lee & Nason, 2012). The decrease was explained
by the fact that most of the students were not exposed to STEM
education during their early schooling. The job market is
narrowing down and there is high demand for people with
degrees in STEM and its related courses (DeJarnette, 2012). In
order to prepare kids for the future it is important that early
exposure to STEM education is improved.
Various scholars have also taken the step to outline ways in
which STEM teachers should be prepared to teach. One way of
focusing on their preparedness is by investing in their education
system. This further pointed out to the need of various
education stakeholders to take part in improving their education
programs as a way of improving the general education system of
a country (Nadelson, Callahan, Pyke, Hay & Schrader, 2009).
According to this research,there is need to ensure that these
teachers have enough research and study materials in order to
improve the general progress in STEM education.
Teacher experience has over time been associated with
increased output in terms of their knowledge and ability to
engage their students. The same has been found to be an
important aspect of STEM teaching. Teachers' pre-practice
during their training in colleges and universities has been used
by their lecturers to evaluate their ability to go into the field
and practice teaching. Researchers have therefore also outlined

that periodical field teaching practice by teachers improve their
ability to teach STEM subjects (Kennedy & Archambault,
2012). The article goes further to outline the importance of field
experiences to these teachers. Through such experiences, they
learn other skills and personal competencies that accompany
their profession. Their confidence level is boosted through
frequent exposure to the teaching environment (Radloff &
Guzey, 2016). Similarly, another research that was aimed at
establishing what was missing in the STEM teaching curriculum
addressed the issue of teaching practice. From this specific
research, it was established that preservice teacher exposure had
one major positive impact of boosting their confidence. The
issue that was being mentioned in this research is the fact that
their curriculum was missing enough exposure to prepare them
to teach STEM to elementary students. Some of the other
benefits that these teachers will achieve as a result of teaching
practice exposure are self-efficacy. Their abilities to render
teaching services to students are boosted through teaching
practice exposures (Jaipal-Jamani & Angeli, 2017). Robotics is
another tool that has been found to improve self-efficacy among
preservice elementary teachers. In the research, it was
established that those teachers who used robotics in teaching
science showed an increased interest in teaching as well as
improved self-efficacy. Those teachers who have mastered the
art of using robotics in designing their lesson plans were able to
capture the attention and emotion of their students (Kim, Kim,
Yuan, Hill, Doshi & Thai, 2015). This boosted their
concentration and hence the general gain from STEM classes.
For an effective output from STEM education, there is need for
proper teacher preparation. Studies have therefore gone into
finding out ways in which preservice elementary school teachers
should be prepared to teach SDTEM disciplines. Some of the
preparations that have been outlined include teacher training
and induction (Wilson, 2011). This goes hand in hand with the
need to prepare these teachers to fit the changing education
demands and systems. With the aim of outlining the required

preparation for teachers, it was outlined that the learning
opportunities that teachers accessed had a direct impact on the
quality of knowledge they passed across to their students. The
teachers should be able to remain consistent in their ability to
provide guidance to their students irrespective of the changes to
education systems. Teacher relevance should be maintained
through their STEM education systems. This was addressed by
the case study on two Korean community schools. The study
pointed out t the important of STEM content in ensuring that
teachers remained relevant in all STEM education systems that
might be incorporated in future (Jho, Hong & Song, 2016). The
STEM content of their education also determines the knowledge
that they pass across to their students in elementary schools.
One unique aspect of teaching that has been found to be
effective in teaching is the use of case and case methodologies.
The use of these methods in teaching STEM had the effect of
teacher consistency in making use of their knowledge (Eckman,
Williams & Silver-Thorn,2016). Preservice elementary school
teachers came to learn that it was important to make their
lessons and teachings in STEM subjects student-centered (Yoon,
Pedretti, Pedretti, Hewitt, Perris & Van Oostveen, 2006). They
learned that in order to ensure that students have a maximum
gain from their classes; they needed to make sure that they
involved them in-class activities.
References
Adams, A. E., Miller, B. G., Saul, M., & Pegg, J. (2014).
Supporting Elementary Pre-Service Teachers to Teach STEM
through Place-Based Teaching and Learning
Experiences. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 18(5),
n5.
Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2012). Learning to critique and
adapt science curriculum materials: Examining the development
of preservice elementary teachers' pedagogical content
knowledge. Science Education, 96(1), 130-157.
Blackley, S., Sheffield, R., & Koul, R. (2018). Using a

Makerspace approach to engage Indonesian primary students
with STEM. Issues in Educational Research, 28(1), 18.
Blackley, S., Sheffield, R., Maynard, N., Koul, R., & Walker,
R. (2017). Makerspace and reflective practice: Advancing pre-
service teachers in STEM education. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education (Online), 42(3), 22.
Bracey, G., Brooks, M., Marlette, S., & Locke, S. (2013).
Teachers’n training: Building formal STEM teaching efficacy
through informal science teaching experience. In ASQ
Advancing the STEM Agenda Conference, Grand Valley State
University, Michigan.
DeJarnette, N. (2012). America's children: Providing early
exposure to STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math)
initiatives. Education, 133(1), 77-84.
DiFrancesca, D., Lee, C., & McIntyre, E. (2014). Where Is the"
E" in STEM for Young Children? Engineering Design Education
in an Elementary Teacher Preparation Program. Issues in
Teacher Education, 23(1), 49-64.
Eckman, E. W., Williams, M. A., & Silver-Thorn, M. B. (2016).
An integrated model for STEM teacher preparation: The value
of a teaching cooperative educational experience. Journal of
STEM Teacher Education, 51(1), 8.
Ejiwale, J. A. (2013). Barriers to a successful implementation of
STEM education. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(2), 63-
74.
Flores, I. M. (2015). Developing Preservice Teachers' Self-
Efficacy through Field-Based Science Teaching Practice with
Elementary Students. Research in Higher Education Journal, 27.
Hacıömeroğlu, G. (2018). Examining Elementary Pre-service
Teachers' Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) Teaching Intention. International Online Journal of
Educational Sciences, 10(1).
Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Angeli, C. (2017). Effect of robotics on
elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy, science learning,
and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 26(2), 175-192.

Jho, H., Hong, O., & Song, J. (2016). An analysis of
STEM/STEAM teacher education in Korea with a case study of
two schools from a community of practice perspective. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology
Education, 12(7).
Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. (2012). Offering preservice
teachers field experiences in K-12 online learning: A national
survey of teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher
Education, 63(3), 185-200.
Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N.
(2015). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service
teachers' STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers
& Education, 91, 14-31.
Lee, K. T., & Nason, R. A. (2012). Reforming the preparation
of future STEM teachers.
Lin, K. Y., & Williams, P. J. (2016). Taiwanese preservice
teachers’ science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
teaching intention. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 14(6), 1021-1036.
Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., & Schrader, C.
(2009). A systemic solution: Elementary teacher preparation in
STEM expertise and engineering awareness.
Radloff, J., & Guzey, S. (2016). Investigating preservice STEM
teacher conceptions of STEM education. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 25(5), 759-774.
Rogers, R. R., Winship, J., & Sun, Y. (2015). Systematic
support for STEM pre-service teachers: An authentic and
sustainable four. Innovative professional development methods
and strategies for STEM education, 73.
Siew, N. M., Amir, N., & Chong, C. L. (2015). The perceptions
of pre-service and in-service teachers regarding a project-based
STEM approach to teaching science. SpringerPlus, 4(1), 8.
Stohlmann, M. S., Moore, T. J., & Cramer, K. (2013).
Preservice elementary teachers' mathematical content
knowledge from an integrated STEM modeling activity. Journal
of Mathematical Modelling and Application, 1(8), 18-31.

1
Literature Review
STEM comes in place.
This is because Mathematics is one of the fields that lie within
the STEM
disciplines
.
With this
in mind, it is important that
the past and researched information regarding STEM is put into
consideration. In doing so, it will become simpler in making
sure that STEM education is well
taught in elementary schools. Through a revie
w of journals and articles regarding STEM
education, it is possible to come up with mec
hanisms of improving preservice
teachers’
service
delivery to elementary school students
for all disciplines including
mathematics.
Research has established that most el
ementary school teachers feel that they do not have

enough knowledge in the field of STEM. In this research,
preservice elementary teachers were
to teach STEM
disciplines to
elementary school students.
This research went ahead to outline the ways in which teachers’
integrated
place
-
based activities.
The research further gives room
for
t
hese teachers to come up with thei
r own designs and
implementation of STEM design
(
Anne, Adams, Brant, Melissa, Jerine,
2014
)
.
The same
information can be applied to teaching mathematics.
It has also been established that t
he quality of education that pr

eservice elementary
schools teachers receive on
STEM education also has an impact on their ability to pass the
deserve to have an opportunity
to be also educated on STEM subjects in order to have the
knowledge
and ability to teach. It is
also
worth mentioning that it i
s impossible for a teacher to teach what they d
o not know
1
Literature Review
STEM comes in place.
This is because Mathematics is one of the fields that lie within
the STEM disciplines. With this
in mind, it is important that the past and researched information
regarding STEM is put into
consideration. In doing so, it will become simpler in making
sure that STEM education is well
taught in elementary schools. Through a review of journals and
articles regarding STEM
education, it is possible to come up with mechanisms of
improving preservice teachers’ service
delivery to elementary school students for all disciplines
including mathematics.
Research has established that most elementary school teachers
feel that they do not have
enough knowledge in the field of STEM. In this research,
preservice elementary teachers were

to teach STEM disciplines to
elementary school students. This research went ahead to outline
the ways in which teachers’
integrated place-based activities.
The research further gives room for these teachers to come up
with their own designs and
implementation of STEM design (Anne, Adams, Brant, Melissa,
Jerine, 2014). The same
information can be applied to teaching mathematics.
It has also been established that the quality of education that
preservice elementary
schools teachers receive on STEM education also has an impact
on their ability to pass the
deserve to have an opportunity
to be also educated on STEM subjects in order to have the
knowledge and ability to teach. It is
also worth mentioning that it is impossible for a teacher to
teach what they do not know
- Literature Review Study paper
-16 pg without reference 1.5 space
STEM Teaching at the Elementary school
RQ: How do we prepare preservice teachers to engage in STEM
teaching at the elementary?
Goal: To ground a research question/professional development
presentation within a framework of extant literature (i.e.,
Review of the Literature). The topics for the study/professional
development must fall under one of the Principles to Actions
Eight Effective Mathematics Teaching Practices. This major
course project provides an opportunity for you to become an
expert on a topic related to mathematics teaching or teacher
education.
IMPORTANT NOTE: In order to complete this assignment

successfully, you must follow the guidelines provided in Galvan
(2014) Writing Literature Reviews. This book guides you
through the entire process from planning, conducting the
review, and writing the document. This assignment prepares you
for the technical writing style expected by the profession. In
addition, the mechanics for how you write (i.e., sentence
structure, word choice, citations, etc.) must adhere to the
standards outlined in the APA Styles Manual.
Although general teacher education literature may be used for
the literature review, the focus should be on the impact of the
topic on mathematics teaching and/or learning. Also, the review
of the literature should focus primarily on empirically grounded
research (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods). As part
of this effort, we will review and critique each other’s work.
-
Literature
Review
Study
paper
-
16 pg
without reference 1.5 space

presentation within a framework of
extant literature (i.e., Review of the Literature). The topics for
the study/professional development must
fall under one of the Principles to Actions Eight Ef
fective Mathematics Teaching Practices. This major
expert on a topic related to mathematics
teaching or teacher education.
successfully, you
must follow the guidelines
provided in Galvan (2014) Writing Literature Reviews. This
book guides you through the entire process
from planning, conducting the review, and writing the
document. This assignment prepares you for the
technical writing style e
xpected by the profession. In addition, the mechanics for how
you write (i.e.,
sentence structure, word choice, citations, etc.) must adhere to
the standards outlined in the APA Styles
Manual.
the literature review, the focus should be
on the impact of the topic on mathematics teaching and/or
learning. Also, the review of the literature
should focus primarily on empirically grounded research
(quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods).

As par
t of this effort, we will review and critique each other’s work.
- Literature Review Study paper
-16 pg without reference 1.5 space
presentation within a framework of
extant literature (i.e., Review of the Literature). The topics for
the study/professional development must
fall under one of the Principles to Actions Eight Effective
Mathematics Teaching Practices. This major
expert on a topic related to mathematics
teaching or teacher education.
successfully, you must follow the guidelines
provided in Galvan (2014) Writing Literature Reviews. This
book guides you through the entire process
from planning, conducting the review, and writing the
document. This assignment prepares you for the
technical writing style expected by the profession. In addition,
the mechanics for how you write (i.e.,
sentence structure, word choice, citations, etc.) must adhere to
the standards outlined in the APA Styles
Manual.

the literature review, the focus should be
on the impact of the topic on mathematics teaching and/or
learning. Also, the review of the literature
should focus primarily on empirically grounded research
(quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods).
As part of this effort, we will review and critique each other’s
work.
Clinical Experiences of Secondary Mathematics Teachers in
Their Induction Years
A Literature Review
Introduction
Teaching math is hard work. New teachers of mathematics must
manage the application of their own content knowledge to a new
and highly complex learning environment. Yet, a review of the
literature reveals that little is known about the needs of these

beginning secondary mathematics teachers. The research
confirms however, that the first years for secondary math
teachers are uniquely challenging even for very strong and well-
prepared new teachers (Wood, Jilk, & Paine, 2012).
Our review of the literature aims to uncover how new secondary
mathematics teachers are supported in their first years on the
job. We first discuss the methods we used for locating our
literature sources and themes that we use to organize this
review. We then begin our review of the literature by exploring
induction from an historical perspective and by discerning what
is known about new teacher induction. We consider new teacher
induction from a broad perspective including what supports
might comprise induction for new teachers and how those
supports are applied to new teachers of secondary mathematics.
We attempt to synthesize the current literature by organizing
our findings into major themes on induction for new teachers
and on induction supports specific for beginning secondary
mathematics teachers.
Methods
Initially we conducted our literature search using University of
South Florida’s education database of peer-reviewed scholarly
articles. Our research topic was worded as, “describe what is
known about clinical experiences of mathematics teachers
through the induction years – the first five years of practice”.
When we conducted our initial literature search, we used the
keywords “clinical experiences” and “induction” but these terms
did not yield useful articles. We then began looking more
specifically at “induction” and the adjectives
“beginning/new/novice” to capture literature on teachers in their
first five years of practice. We also used these phrases and the
adjectives, “mathematics” and “secondary” to capture relevant
literature on secondary mathematics teachers. We excluded
studies that focused on primary grades specifically or non-
mathematics content specifically and opted for studies that were
general in nature or specific to secondary mathematics.

After these modifications, we began to uncover relevant
literature but as we read the articles and assessed the quality of
the studies, we questioned the quality of the articles pulled. We
then located key articles by “pearling” from the first articles
unearthed. We used this strategy multiple times which yielded
more valuable sources. We realized the difficulty of staying on
topic and chased after frequent “red herrings” in an effort to
absorb greater depth on our topic. Nevertheless, we found a
stopping point and submitted our annotated citations. However,
we continued to pearl new articles and found more studies and
articles that helped explore the topic more deeply. Our
references therefore reflect an up-to-date list of what we have
found to be the most relevant articles for our topic.
We also actively used Nvivo software to identify themes across
the literature and for quickly locating words and phrases. These
themes are bolded throughout this review.
Background
Traditionally, new teachers have not had the kind of support,
guidance, and orientation programs that other highly-skilled
professions have had (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011) and new
teachers have been left to “sink or swim” (Wood et al., 2012).
New teachers have often been given the hardest assignments
with the most challenging students. According to Ingall (2006),
(as cited in Ingersoll & Strong, 2011), some denounce this
practice as an example of a profession that “cannibalizes its
young”. Notably, attrition from beginning teachers causes high
turnover, yet evidence suggests new teachers leave because they
don’t have adequate support from their school administrators
(Ingersoll & Strong, 2011).
However, new-teacher learning is not complete when teachers
leave their pre-service preparations. In fact, the most powerful
learning for new teachers occurs in their first few years in
service (Darling-Hammond, 2017). This is especially true for
new secondary mathematics teachers (Zhang, 2014).

Discussion on New Teacher Induction
Induction for beginning teachers is necessary for their
flourishing in their new profession. Several studies describe
induction as orientation, preparation, systematic support,
guidance, and mentoring for novice teachers (Darling-
Hammond, 2017; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). For the purposes of
this review we define induction as any professional
development geared especially for beginning teachers within the
first five years of their practice. Induction for new teachers is
recognized as a necessary system of supports for helping new
teachers not just survive in the classroom but thrive in their new
profession (Scherer, 2012).
Induction should be all-inclusive. McNally and Oberski (2003)
propose that induction needs be like a “seamless garment” of
professional development for new teachers. They specifically
identify non-formal learning, classroom observation and
feedback, and induction curriculum supports as key pieces of an
induction program. McNally & Oberski (2003) caution however
that there is little research on why and how these different
pieces of “fabric” should be woven together. Yet, Bianchini &
Brenner (2009) suggest that breadth of induction programs
should be sacrificed for depth so that the needs of beginning
teachers are addressed as the most pressing issues in induction.
Non-formal learning and collaboration should be a part of
Induction. McNally & Oberski (2003) first identify the
importance of non-formal or informal learning and collaboration
as critical to an induction program. More specifically, there
exists vast spectrums of non-formal learning, both professional
and personal that occur outside of any imposed system of
support. These non-formal learning events are worthy of further
investigation (McNally, Blake, & Reid, 2009). A corollary to
non-formal learning is the importance of collaborative
relationship development. Several studies suggest that
relationships are of central importance to new teachers and
informal relationships with colleagues and with students are
important for the growth of an individual in his profession

(Cwikla, 2004; McNally et al., 2009; Wood et al., 2012). For
example, Cwikla (2004) noted that beginning teachers
consistently rated collaborative types of activities higher than
3.0 on a 1–4 Likert-type scale. Wood et al (2012) noted in their
case studies of beginning mathematics teachers that managing
the complex relationships of math, students, and teacher is
particularly challenging for new teachers. Comment by
Cynthia Castro-Minnehan: Need to define what nonformal and
informal learning is
Classroom observation and feedback is necessary. McNally &
Oberski (2003) also identify the importance of observation and
feedback as critical to an induction program. The opportunity to
discuss and reflect on one’s own teaching describes classroom
observation and feedback. This type of support helps new
teachers make sense of their own teaching (McNally et al,
2003). Harrison, (2001) noted that there have been positive
effects on teacher development when regular observations and
feedback are provided (as cited in McNally et al, 2009). For
example, Japanese lesson study, a support that encourages each
teacher’s practice to be public and for observation by all
members of the learning organization, is one version of this
type of support that is being implemented worldwide and takes
advantage of mentor and developing teachers’ rich classroom
expertise (Cwilka, 2004).
Induction curriculum is a proposed list of competencies that
should be implemented with care. McNally & Oberski (2003)
also identify the need for an induction curriculum. This implies
a list of competencies or a standard for induction support.
Tickle (2000a) argues (as cited in McNally et al, 2003) that
there is no simple prescription for an induction curriculum
because teaching and learning to teach is complex. McNally et
al., (2009) declare that standards can be very easily politicized,
and any standards should be learning-led rather than
assessment-led (McNally et al., 2009). Comment by Cynthia
Castro-Minnehan: Are?
Individualized support for beginning teachers recognizes the

importance of developing a new teacher’s identity in the
profession. Teachers have “special qualities as individual
persons which imbue their teaching” (McNally et al, 2003, pg
66). On this point, individualized support through early
nurturing of the new teacher, of early professional learning, and
of professional identity are important and may comprise
mentoring or coaching, for example. In fact, Ingersoll & Strong
(2011) state that mentoring has become the dominant form of
induction support and the terms “mentoring” and “induction”
are often used interchangeably. They also declare that greater
participation by beginning teachers in mentoring programs has
been shown to have a positive impact on student achievement
(Ingersoll & Strong, 2011).
Learning to exercise autonomy typifies the teaching profession
and sets new teacher development apart from other professional
development learning. Teaching is distinct and less like the
more directed work of some other careers. Individual choices in
the moment align teaching more with professions that require
autonomy in decision-making and that demand expansive
learning, while also requiring adherence to ethical practices.
Developing competency in “discretion over practice” requires
the development of strong identities for new teachers (McNally
et al., 2009). However, Gellert, (2008) observed in his analysis
of mathematics teacher orientations that teachers who are at
schools where they are not given a certain degree of autonomy
are less likely to initiate their own professional development.
Singapore is an example of all-inclusive system of induction
support. Internationally, some countries like Singapore for
example, have well-developed systems for induction of new
teachers like that envisioned by McNally et al. (2003).
Singapore offers their new teachers systemic induction and
mentoring and is arguably the most comprehensive support
system in the world. The supports include:
· Mentors. Singapore’s National Institute of Education (NIE)
trains mentor teachers and provides them a special
compensation. Their professional development is tied to

specifically supporting new teachers.
· Comprehensive Induction Support Package. Novice teachers
receive a package of supports that includes mentoring, in-
service courses, reduced teaching load, courses on classroom
management, counseling, reflective practices, and assessments
driven by the NIE.
· A buddy system.Singapore also offers their novice teachers a
buddy system in which the new teacher is assigned a peer
teacher who teaches the same subject and a supervisor to help
adjust them adjust to the demands of the work.
(Darling-Hammond, 2017).
New Teacher Induction in the U.S.
New teacher induction in the U.S. is improving. The National
Staff Development Council, NSDC published a report in 2010
that summarized progress in the U.S. on key indicators of
professional development. This data was collected as a part of
survey work completed in the school years 2003-04 and 2007-
08. The report identified the following range of supports being
provided to new teachers in the US through the induction years:
· Induction Program
· Working with a master or mentor teacher
· Working with a mentor teacher in the same subject area
· Regular supportive communication with a principal,
administrator or department chair
· Seminars or classes for beginning teachers
· Common planning time
· Reduced number of preparations
· Reduced teaching schedule
(Wei, Darling-Hammond, Adamson, & National Staff, 2010b)
This report highlights that nationally, new teacher participation
in induction and mentoring programs climbed to 73 and 78%
respectively in the last decade (Wei et al., 2010) .
Although induction programs are becoming more common, there
is great variation in the length and the availability of the
induction programs. Few schools in the U.S. actually provide
comprehensive induction support past the first year or two (Wei

et al., 2010). The state of California, for example, provides a
mandatory two-year induction program prior to teachers
receiving their professional certification (Bianchini & Brenner,
2010) . Beginning teachers who received some type of
induction had higher measures of job satisfaction, commitment
or retention (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011) and sustained induction
over many years has a positive impact on student achievement.
(Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). A large-scale evaluation of a
comprehensive teacher induction where new teachers were
followed for three years reported a positive and statistically
significant impact on student achievement in year three
(Glazerman et al., 2010). Also, types of supports available to
new teachers is variable especially when demographics are
taken into account. Additionally, although 56 % of beginning
teachers with five or fewer years of teaching experience report
common planning time, teachers report only 2.7 hours per week
of collaboration and only 16% agree that their schools support
cooperative efforts. Notable is that of the 55 % of beginning
teachers identified more of these teachers are elementary than
secondary (Wei et al., 2010). Teachers in urban and rural
schools and schools with the highest free and reduced lunch and
minority enrollments participated in these programs less often
than teachers in suburban schools and schools with fewer low-
income and minority students (Wei et al., 2010a) .
New mathematics teacher induction in the U.S.
Content-specific supports for new teachers in the U.S. are
lacking for secondary mathematics teachers. The content-
specific supports for new teachers involve working with mentor
teachers in the same content area, for example. According to the
National Staff Council’s report, about half of all new teachers
work with mentors in their content area but they noted that
beginning secondary mathematics teachers participate less in
content-specific professional development in their first three
years of teaching than their more experienced colleagues (Wei
et al., 2010). According to Ingersoll & Strong (2011), how

carefully mentors are selected is an issue for programs. They
also conclude that that beginning teachers with mentors from
the same field were less likely to leave after their first year.
Learning to teach secondary mathematics is a complex
undertaking.Yet, Wood et al., (2012) argue that even well-
prepared new mathematics teachers’ face difficult challenges.
These researchers attempted to access the experiences and
perspectives of beginning mathematics teachers to get at what
learning to teach mathematics requires and also to document its
complexity. Wood et al (2012) concluded that induction should
be focused on learning to teach mathematics rather than just
providing general support and suggests that this notion is a
powerful shift in the study of induction for secondary
mathematics teachers. This perspective was also highlighted by
Bianchini & Brenner (2010) who suggest that breadth of
induction programs should be sacrificed for depth so that the
needs of beginning teachers are addressed as the most pressing
issues in induction. Wood et al (2012) also suggest that new
secondary mathematics teachers need help with how to think
about simultaneously managing the complex relationships with
students, with the mathematical content, and with the
connection between students and mathematics in ways that help
them continually teach and learn from teaching.
Non-formal learning opportunities are very important to
beginning secondary mathematics teachers. The unique
complexity of teaching suggests that critical teacher learning
happens outside the formal induction structures and professional
support systems and is informal in nature (McNally, 2009). An
ethnographic study of 40 beginning secondary school teachers
in their first year of teaching revealed that informal learning
drives teacher identity in the school workplace (McNally,
2009). A more recent study (Hopkins & Spillane, 2014)
revealed that formal organizational structures inside schools
such as grade level teams, were critical for shaping beginning
mathematics teachers’ opportunities to learn. This study also
reveals that beginning mathematics teachers sought advice on

mathematics instruction from colleagues in the same grade level
who have experience with teaching the curriculum. (Hopkins &
Spillane, 2014). As noted earlier, Cwikla (2004) found that
beginning mathematics teachers consistently rated collaborative
types of activities higher than 3.0 on a 1–4 Likert-type scale.
Small scale studies have attempted to discern the needs of
novice secondary mathematics teachers. Cwikla (2004)
interviewed 10 mathematics educators with seven years of
experience or less to try to understand their reactions to
professional support in their profession. She concluded that
arteries for teacher exchange about mathematics teaching and
learning had not been established and that the conversations
with their peers did not tackle ways to improve mathematics
practice. The implication in her work is that new teachers seek
rich pedagogical content-specific collaboration with their
colleagues. Zhang (2014) investigated how new teachers
implemented secondary mathematics common core state
standards (CCSS). He surveyed 17 secondary mathematics
teachers. His qualitative study revealed that these new teachers
felt their content knowledge was obsolete and that the content
in the mathematics CCSS went beyond their preparation.
Specifically, his study revealed a mismatch between new
teachers’ expected teaching competence and their actual
teaching competence and concludes that professional
development programs, especially induction programs for new
teachers, should be redesigned to integrate the CCSS into
curricular development, instructional strategies, learning
experiences, and assessment techniques (Zhang, 2014).
New teachers are more willing to adapt to the demands of the
new content. Another major theme that emerged from this
review is that new teachers were more willing to adapt to the
demands of new math standards than their peers. Zang (2014)
noted that new teachers were more willing to embrace CCSS
than their more experienced teachers. Although experienced
teachers are expected to mentor new teachers, their resistance to
adopting the CCSS made collaboration with their new

colleagues difficult. New teachers suggested collaboration
should involve collaborative activities through peers and online
collaboration (Zhang, 2014) . This was echoed in a study by
Cwikla, (2004) where she reported that less experienced
mathematics teachers expressed disappointment with the more
experienced teachers’ content knowledge and suggested that
these views ought to be used to help structure professional
learning environments for less experienced teachers.
Conclusions
This study investigated literature on the experiences of
beginning secondary mathematics teachers in their induction
years. This investigation has revealed that there is very little
research concerning subject-specific induction support programs
(Wood, Jilk, & Paine, 2012) and more specifically secondary
mathematics induction supports. Further, there seems to be
ambivalence around how to best support new teachers who are
undertaking the challenging work of teaching mathematics.
Although studies (Cwikla, 2003; Zhang, 2014) suggest that new
mathematics teachers are frustrated with their more experienced
peers’ content knowledge.
Designing relevant and effective induction programs for new
mathematics teachers depends upon learning what the unique
needs of new mathematics teachers are and learning how to
implement comprehensive and sustained induction programs
that meet those needs in a collaborative and sustained manner.
Induction programs designed around the needs of new secondary
mathematics teachers during his/her first 5 years is essential for
the unique and complex work of teaching secondary
mathematics.
Directions for future research
From the review of the literature there appears to be a lack of
understanding of what the needs are of beginning secondary

mathematics teachers. An understanding of these needs could
serve to better inform the design of systematic induction
programs that are relevant and effective. Therefore, one
teacher-focused area for further research would be to answer the
question, “what are the needs of beginning secondary
mathematics teachers?”
More research is needed in the area of content-specific
induction supports to determine what subject or content-specific
induction supports are most relevant for new teachers in their
content area. More broadly, there may be significant policy
implications to providing more “personalized” induction
programs that are subject specific.
References
Bianchini, J. A., & Brenner, M. E. (2010). The role of induction
in learning to teach toward equity: A study of beginning science
and mathematics teachers. Science Education, 94(1), 164-195.
Gellert, U. (2008). Routines and collective orientations in
mathematics teachers’ professional development. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 67(2), 93-110. doi:10.1007/s10649-
007-9089-x
Glazerman, S., Isenberg, E., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson,
A., Grider, M., . . . WestEd. (2010). Impacts of comprehensive
teacher induction: Final results from a randomized controlled
study. NCEE 2010-4027. ().National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Hopkins, M., & Spillane, J. P. (2014). Schoolhouse teacher
educators: Structuring beginning teachers opportunities to learn
about instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, (4), 327.
doi:10.1080/19322909.2014.927745
Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction
and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical
review of the research. Review of Educational Research, (2),
201.
Scherer, M. (2012). The challenges of supporting new teachers
A conversation with linda darling-hammond. United States:
ASCD ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION AND.

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Adamson, F., & National
Staff, D. C. (2010a). Professional development in the united
states: Trends and challenges. phase II of a three-phase study.
executive summary. ().National Staff Development Council.
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Adamson, F., & National
Staff, D. C. (2010b). Professional development in the united
states: Trends and challenges. phase II of a three-phase study.
technical report. National Staff Development Council
Wood, M. B., Jilk, L. M., & Paine, L. W. (2012). Moving
beyond sinking or swimming: Reconceptualizing the needs of
beginning mathematics teachers. Teachers College Record,
114(8)
Zhang, S. (2014). New teachers’ implementation of the common
core state standards. United States: Taylor & Francis.
1
Clinical
E
xperiences of
S
econdary
M
athematics
T
eachers in
T
heir
I
nduction
Y
ears

1
Clinical
E
xperiences of
S
econdary
M
athematics
T
eachers in
T
heir
I
nduction
Y
ears
1

Introduction
why is your topic important?
end with what is your research question
METHODOLOGY
What databases
what search terms
inclusion/exclusion criteria
how many articles did you find?
define any terms
FINDINGS/RESULTS
DISCUSSION
implications for teacher preparation
directions for future research
explain the structure of your results. What are the “buckets”
that you will use?
In this section, I present my findings on the review of literature
for preparing teachers to use technology. I present these
findings in three sections: Section A, B, C
TPACK
technology pedagogical content knowledge
PCK
Shulman
Pedagogical content knowledge
MKT- Deborah ball mathematical knowledge for teaching.
M-TPACK

Introduction
why is your topic
important?
e
nd with what is your research question
METHODOLOGY
What databases
what search terms
how many articles did you
find?
define any terms
FINDINGS
/
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
that you will use?

for preparing teachers to use
technolo
gy. I present these findings in three sections: Section A, B, C
TPACK
PCK
Shulman
Pedagogical content knowle
d
ge
MKT
-
Deborah ball mathematical knowledge for teaching.
M
-
TPACK
Introduction
why is your topic important?
end with what is your research question
METHODOLOGY
What databases
what search terms

how many articles did you find?
define any terms
FINDINGS/RESULTS
DISCUSSION
that you will use?
for preparing teachers to use
technology. I present these findings in three sections: Section
A, B, C
TPACK
PCK
Shulman
Pedagogical content knowledge
MKT- Deborah ball mathematical knowledge for teaching.
M-TPACK

REQUIRED REFERENCESRoussel, L., & Thomas, P. L. (2020). Leadersh.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to REQUIRED REFERENCESRoussel, L., & Thomas, P. L. (2020). Leadersh.docx

Similar to REQUIRED REFERENCESRoussel, L., & Thomas, P. L. (2020). Leadersh.docx (20)

More from audeleypearl

More from audeleypearl (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

REQUIRED REFERENCESRoussel, L., & Thomas, P. L. (2020). Leadersh.docx