| This qualitative research study explored the progression of teacher expertise and the problems early career teachers may encounter as a result of their lack of instructional or content proficiency. The literature regarding teacher expertise often reflected multiple meanings since an array of subjects and teaching contexts affect the development of the expert teacher. Research did assert one constant: it may take numerous years for individuals to develop expertise in any component of the teaching process (i.e., content, technique, confidence, etc.). Berliner (1988a) posited five phases of expertise progression: novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, and expert. He also contended that this "continuum" of development occurs at differing times (p. 7).;Since development of teacher expertise has a great deal of variability, research into this process may help researchers and school districts better prepare novice teachers when transitioning into the classroom. Therefore, the following research questions were posed: (1) How do individuals become experts; (2) How is this expertise fostered, supported, and otherwise encouraged in early career teachers? These questions explored how novice teachers increase their planning efficiency; shift away from a focus on controlling student behavior to increasing student learning; increase their confidence amongst students, peers, supervisors, and other teacher experts; develop a greater flexibility when encountering problems; take part in professional duties outside of the classroom; and are supported by fellow teachers and administrators.;Initial coding for data analysis utilized the four categories outlined by Palmer et al. (2005): years of experience, social recognition, professional or social group membership, performance based criteria. Coding also drew upon Bullough's (1989) indicators of expertise: planning, emphasis on student learning rather than behavior control, confidence, flexibility, and professional duties. As the data were analyzed, it became necessary to combine similar indicators in order to streamline coding.;The research opted for a two-phase approach for coding. Phase one examined development of a teacher's instructional expertise---what occurs directly inside the classroom through a study of the following indicators: years of experience (both quantitative and qualitative) planning, learning versus controlling, performance based criteria, and increased flexibility. Phase two examined the teacher's growth of professional expertise; these are the qualities of expertise which a teacher demonstrates outside of the classroom: social recognition, professional or social group membership, professional duties, and increased confidence (peers, students).;As the data were collected, they were examined and reexamined to establish themes or patterns established in the data (Maxwell, 2005, p. 95). Themes were analyzed across subject responses to chart similarities and divergences of expertise development of subjects, though no claims of generalizability were made beyond the context of the study (Creswell, 2007, p. 75).;Three portraits of English language arts teachers were created for this study; all were early career teachers possessing less than five years of teaching experience. They taught in the same building in a suburban school district in the Midwest. Subjects in this study were chosen for two reasons. First, they were early-career teachers. Two of the teachers were in the first year. The third teacher was also probationary and had only four years of experience; he was in his third year of teaching at his current school. All three subjects were teaching grade levels and courses new to them during the research study.;The following findings were observed: (1) Development of case subjects' expertise varied according to several factors including: teaching assignment, temperament, collegiality, and personal and educational backgrounds. (2) The two most important contributions in the development of teacher expertise were classroom experience and peer support. (3) Case subjects had little support from their department chair, administration, and district. (4) Department and faculty meetings created more confusion and consternation than they did in fostering teacher development. (5) Professional development activities were inconsequential. Access to conferences depended upon seniority and administration approval. |
