PERCEPTIONS OF SUPPORT FOR EARLY CAREER TEACHERS ENGAGED
IN GENERATIVE DIALOGUE

by
Erin Hartfield
Bachelor of Arts, University of the Fraser Valley, 2001
Bachelor of Education, University of British Columbia, 2002

MAJOR PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF EDUCATION
(EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND MENTORSHIP)

In the
Teacher Education Department
© Erin Hartfield, 2021
UNIVERSITY OF THE FRASER VALLEY
2021
All rights reserved. This work may not be
reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy
or other means, without permission of the author.

ii

Approval
Name: Erin Hartfield
Degree: Master of Education (Educational Leadership and Mentorship)
Title:
Examining Committee:
Name: Dr. Joanne Robertson
MEd Chair or Designate, Teacher Education Department
____________________________________________________________

Name: Dr. Awneet Sivia
Senior Supervisor
MEd Chair or Designate, Teacher Education Department, UFV
____________________________________________________________

Name: Dr. Nancy Norman
Second Reader
Professor, Faculty of Education, Vancouver Island University
____________________________________________________________
Date Defended/Approved: June 12, 2021

iii

Abstract
Early career teachers (ECTs) face a number of challenges, and in this study, generative
dialogue was introduced as a framework to provide support for ECTs. A review of the literature
on ECTs indicates that support plays a critical role in addressing the challenges they face, and
that factors such as isolation and connection, professional learning, and teacher dialogue all
relate to this issue of support. This study applies a generative dialogue framework to a series of
dialogue sessions where ECTs engaged in conversations with one another about teaching and
learning. The ECTs in the study were asked about their perceptions of support before and after
the sessions, and then were interviewed after the final generative dialogue session. These
teachers spoke about the challenges they face as ECTs, and they explained the importance of
dialogue, collegial relationships, professional learning, and personal growth as it related to the
implementation of generative dialogue. Finally, a series of next steps were identified in
continuing this work with generative dialogue.

iv

Acknowledgements
I am grateful for the support of my supervisor, Dr. Awneet Sivia of the University of the
Fraser Valley, for her guidance, encouragement and support over the course of this study and
through the entire MEd program. I am thankful for her feedback, patience in answering my
questions, and for her wisdom as I explored the topics of leadership and mentorship. I appreciate
her dedication and commitment to this MEd program. Her passion for education is evident and I
have learned so much by working with her.
Secondly, I also want to thank my second reader, Dr. Nancy Norman of Vancouver
Island University, for her time and commitment through the editing process of this study. I
would also like to thank Dr. Joanne Robertson for being part of my supervisory committee.
I also want to thank my participants of this study for being so open to sharing their stories
with one another, and for taking time to learn together. I feel privileged to be teaching with such
wonderful early career teachers, and I have learned so much from each of them. I am also
thankful for the many colleagues in my school who have supported me through this process and
who have been thinking partners along this journey.
Finally, thank you to all of the instructors and faculty involved in the Master of Education
program at the University of the Fraser Valley and to my learning cohort for creating space for
discussion, collaboration, and reflection. I feel so fortunate to have been part of such a powerful
group of educators and appreciate the work we have done together.

v

Dedication
I dedicate this study to my husband and my daughter who have encouraged me
throughout this study. Thank you for sharing my love of learning and for supporting me through
this process. You have listened when I needed to talk and have always made sure I remembered
to keep having fun as I have been working on this study.
I also dedicate this study to the incredible early career teachers I have been privileged to
work with. Thank you for sharing your experiences and stories, and for all you do for your
students. I have learned so much from you all and I am inspired by your positive energy and
commitment to being incredible teachers.

vi

List of Tables
i. Table 1 Participant Demographic

p. 23

vii

Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vi
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
My Own Educational Journey.................................................................................................. 1
The Issue ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Context........................................................................................................................................ 4
Motivation for this Inquiry ....................................................................................................... 5
Purpose of this Inquiry.............................................................................................................. 7
Scholarly Significance ............................................................................................................... 9

Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 10
Challenges Faced by ECTs ..................................................................................................... 10
The Role of Support for ECTs................................................................................................ 11
Isolation, Connection, and Belonging .................................................................................... 13
Professional Learning.............................................................................................................. 15
Teacher Dialogue ..................................................................................................................... 17

Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................. 19
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 21
Method ...................................................................................................................................... 21
Data Sources.......................................................................................................................... 22
Data Analyses........................................................................................................................ 25

Results .............................................................................................................................. 29
Pre-questionnaire .................................................................................................................... 29

viii

Observation Charts ................................................................................................................. 29
Post-questionnaire ................................................................................................................... 30
Semi-structured Interviews .................................................................................................... 31
Challenges faced by ECTs .................................................................................................... 32
Collegial Relationships ......................................................................................................... 33
Dialogue ................................................................................................................................ 36
Professional Learning............................................................................................................ 38
Personal Growth .................................................................................................................... 39

Discussion......................................................................................................................... 41
Changes from the Action Research Study ............................................................................. 42
Implementation of Generative Dialogue ................................................................................ 43
Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 46
Implications .............................................................................................................................. 47
Directions for Further Research ............................................................................................ 50
Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 51

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 52
References ........................................................................................................................ 55
Appendix A ...................................................................................................................... 60
Appendix B ...................................................................................................................... 61
Appendix C ...................................................................................................................... 63
Appendix D ...................................................................................................................... 65
Appendix E ...................................................................................................................... 66

1

Introduction
In my 14 years of experience as a Humanities teacher at a large secondary school in the
Fraser Valley in British Columbia, I have witnessed tremendous growth and change in our
school. As our student population has increased from 900 to over 1300 students in the past three
years, we have welcomed many new teachers as well. However, with this growth, opportunities
for connection, conversation, and collaboration with the Early Career Teachers (ECTs) in the
school have been inconsistent. As I have stepped into a new role as a lead teacher for the English
Department, I have become interested in whether the ECTs in my department feel connected and
supported. Over the past decade, I have also been a teacher mentor for eight teacher candidates
and have wondered about their transition to the teaching profession and the support that they
need. A review of the literature shows that teacher attrition is a widespread problem, and
researchers have often found that early career teachers (ECTs) identify a lack of support as a
major issue (Kutsyuruba et al., 2019; Taylor et al., 2019). Additionally, the literature points to a
need for ECTs to connect and have opportunities to talk to each other (Mazurkiewicz, 2004;
Wong, 2004). My experiences and observations have motivated me to determine if this is an
issue at my school, and to find solutions and strategies to improve this situation. As such, my
inquiry question for this study was, “How can implementing generative dialogue impact early
career teachers’ perceptions of support?”
My Own Educational Journey
Alone we can do so little. Together we can do so much.
- Helen Keller
Helen Keller was a remarkable person who learned to communicate with others though
she could not see or hear. My young daughter loves the story of Helen Keller, and we often talk

2

about the teacher who worked so closely with Helen, focusing on her strengths to help her learn
to communicate. At first, Helen was completely isolated from the world, but her teacher became
a dedicated teammate who worked alongside her, encouraged her to never give up, and helped
her achieve incredible things. For me this quote connects to the idea that as educators we can
achieve so much more if we work together, and that collaboration and support can reduce
isolation that can occur in our profession.
Similarly, I have always loved being part of a team. From an early age, I knew I wanted
to be a teacher, and at some point, I realized that the lessons I was learning as an athlete, and
then as a coach, would be invaluable as a teacher. When I think about the elements of an
outstanding sports team, there are many parallels to having an amazing team of educators in a
school. Respect, motivation, communication, work ethic, resiliency, dedication, passion, and the
desire to keep getting better – all of these are lessons that I learned as a young athlete and have
carried with me into my coaching career. Yet perhaps above all else, what I remember the most
is the relationships that were built as we worked to help each other achieve our very best.
However, a team will fall apart if there is a lack of trust, there is no clear focus, or members do
not uphold their part of the work. It takes work to build a strong team, but the relationships and
support that develop can benefit everyone on the team.
As a teacher, my best experiences have involved being a part of a teaching, coaching, or
leadership team. I have worked in both middle and secondary schools, and I am a firm believer
in the power of working as a team to achieve a common goal. These experiences have provided
me with opportunities to work alongside incredible educators and to co-plan lessons, units, and
programs. Additionally, I have had opportunities to implement project-based learning, teach
student leadership, establish cross-curricular programs, work in collaborative groups with other

3

educators, and work on place-based learning initiatives. Through these experiences, I have come
to value relationships rooted in trust, and realize the bonds of these relationships can last well
after the work as a team is finished. I believe it is essential to discover and honour the gifts and
talents of each person on the team, and to give everyone a chance to contribute in a meaningful
way.
As an ECT I was fortunate to work with inclusive and welcoming educators who made
me feel valued and supported. During my first year of teaching, both as a teacher on call and
while in short-term placements, I had experienced teachers reach out to help me, and I built
relationships with teachers in several schools in the district. In my first full year contract, I was
hired at a middle school which had a well-established pod structure. This meant that although the
school had close to 800 students, it was divided into smaller groups of approximately 250 to 300
students. From the first day I arrived, I was partnered with a math teacher, a science teacher, and
a counselor/learning assistance teacher. We had common prep times and met regularly to discuss
our students and their progress. These times allowed for problem-solving, strategizing, and
putting supports in place, and when we needed to meet with parents, our whole team was
present. Additionally, in my pod there was an experienced Humanities teacher across the hall
who opened her classroom to me, and we often would talk about what we were teaching.
Furthermore, during this first year, I was paired with a mentor within the school from a district
mentoring program, and I also taught and coached in a physical education department where
teaming and collaboration were common. There was no isolation; in fact, I felt connected and
was able to establish strong relationships. When challenges arose, I was able to find support. Not
only did I have collegial support, I felt empowered, and I knew there was always someone to go
to with any questions I had. In many ways this group of educators had formed a strong learning

4

community. I found myself in a similar situation when I moved to a brand-new school where we
spent a considerable amount of time establishing trust, collaborating on a vision for the school,
and building our programs.
The Issue
However, I was blissfully unaware my experiences as an ECT are not the norm for many
other teachers. More recently, in my role as lead teacher and mentor for teacher candidates, I
have heard stories of ECTs who have had a more negative experiences, and their stories have
caused me to reflect on the reality for many ECTs I have met. Often, I have heard of new
teachers who have been assigned to teach in portables with no connection to the main parts of the
school, or who have been given portable carts so they can move from classroom to classroom
with their supplies. As well, ECTs are often put into positions with little experience with no
established network of support available for them. In many cases, ECTs are being placed in
schools with no formal induction or mentoring arrangement and basically left on their own with
little formal support. I have heard this experience anecdotally from colleagues, and this
experience is echoed by the literature I reviewed. In one article, a teacher summarized her first
day of teaching: “I was not introduced to the staff. I was not shown to my room. I was not told
how to get supplies. I was not told how I would fit in and how I could contribute. I was not even
shown the bathrooms! I left after my first year” (Wong, 2004, p. 42).
Context
My current school has many great aspects. We have innovative teachers who are willing
to try new things, many opportunities for collaboration, cross-curricular initiatives, a supportive
leadership team, and many educators with unique talents and experiences they bring into the
classroom. We have administrators who are supportive of new ideas and encourage us to take

5

risks, and when given the opportunity, we are a staff that enjoys collaboration. However, it is
often the more experienced teachers who lead departments in the school, share ideas with the
staff, collaborate with other teachers and departments, and determine department and school
goals. As I started this inquiry, I knew there were ECTs who have so much to contribute to our
school, yet too often their voices were not being heard. I also had noticed that our ECTs were
often so busy with all the tasks and workload of a being a new teacher that other teachers were
not having many chances to connect with them. Conversations with ECTs were often superficial
and rarely focused on teaching or student learning. As an experienced teacher, I perceived a need
to create space and truly listen to what our newer teachers needed in terms of support. There
were so many resources, ideas, experiences, strategies, and stories to share; yet this sharing was
rarely happening. This made me consider various ways to build support for ECTs in a large
secondary school.
Motivation for this Inquiry
There were several factors motivating me to pursue this inquiry. I have been a teacher
mentor for many teacher candidates over the past decade, and all of these ECTs have had
outstanding practicum experiences and have found work immediately. Despite this success,
several of these ECTs left the profession in their first few years, and I started wondering what
could be done at the school level to make this transition easier. When I spoke to a recently
graduated ECT, she said part of the problem was that she felt like she had no real sense of how
difficult the first few years of teaching would be. While in their teacher education programs,
ECTs have the support of a teacher mentor, a faculty associate, and numerous other instructors
who guide them in their learning and planning. Upon graduating, these ECTs often find
themselves in full time teaching positions in their first year, with few if any support networks in

6

place; in essence, they are left to ‘sink or swim’. As such, this new freedom means ECTs must
find a way to fend for themselves without the support network they may still need to survive
their first years of teaching, and many do not have a mentor they can turn to. The ECT
experience in many ways contradicts what Laurent Daloz suggests in Mentor: Guiding the
Journey of Adult Learners when he says, “Mentors hang around through transitions, a foot on
either side of the gulf; they offer a hand to help us swing across. By their very existence, mentors
provide proof that the journey can be made, the leap taken.” (Daloz, 2012, p. 208). While it is
true that a district mentoring program is available, such programming is just one layer of support.
In many cases the mentors do not work at the same site as the mentee. I began to wonder if there
was a way that a school-based learning community could provide some of this mentorship and
support for ECTs.
In many cases, it appears the ECTs were not familiar with these supports, particularly in
large schools such as mine, and as a teacher leader I felt called upon to do more and help these
teachers continue in their journey. In the book When Mentoring Meet Coaching: Shifting the
Stance in Education by Sharpe and Nishimura (2017), they explain that often the best way to
help new teachers is not to simply problem solve. They suggest that the foundation of mentorcoaching should include collaboration, building trust, mutual respect, support and
encouragement, and that mentors should allow mentees to be “resourceful, creative, and expert in
(their) own life” (Sharpe & Nishimura, 2017, p. 115). These ideas first made me think about the
importance of support, collaboration, and professional learning for ECTs. Additionally, the book
Collaborative Professionalism: When Teaching Together Means Learning For All by Hargreaves
and O’Connor (2018) inspired reflection on the power of teachers working together. In their
book, they speak of the benefits of collaborative professionalism including support, sharing,

7

learning, and the idea that all teachers should be treated equally. Furthermore, I became
interested in finding ways to build the support that is needed and also ways to empower our
ECTs. I started to wonder how we could find ways to truly listen to our ECTs and allow them to
have input on what they really want to learn. As a teacher leader, this idea of teachers supporting
one another is an area I am passionate about, and that this support can extend beyond one-to-one
mentoring into collaborative networks.
Clearly, there was a need for some sort of intervention that would not only provide a
layer of support but would also bring ECTs together with the intention of building connection
between these teachers. The challenge was that any intervention needed to be simple enough to
be implemented almost immediately, without it becoming another item added onto the list of
tasks that ECTs already have to tackle each day. In essence it needed to be practical, meaningful,
and flexible enough to meet their needs. It is for this reason that I began looking into the idea of
using a framework of generative dialogue (Adams et al., 2019) to guide a series of conversations
for a group of ECTs. Generative dialogue is a framework that is used to promote conversations,
questioning, collaboration, reflection, and making meaning through conversations. The
generative dialogue framework was uniquely suitable for this inquiry because it informed how
the sessions were conducted, and it provided structure for the sessions while still allowing
flexibility to meet the needs of the group of ECTs.
Purpose of this Inquiry
The purpose of this inquiry was to explore issues around support for ECTs through the
implementation of generative dialogue as a framework for discussion. As I began the inquiry, my
emerging questions were:

8



Is teacher isolation a concern in a large secondary school? If so, what can be done to
reduce this isolation for ECTs?



Is there a way to create a professional learning community (PLC) that can also function
as a form of mentorship and induction for our ECTs?



What do ECTs really want to make them feel connected and less overwhelmed? What
can be done to reduce burnout?



Can generative dialogue be used to provide support through professional conversations
with ECTs?
As important as these questions were, they were not my primary focus, however, they

still made their way into my main study. I was interested in working with some of the ECTs in
my school to explore topics that are relevant to them in their own teaching and professional
learning. By using generative dialogue, the goal was to get at the heart of what they need to feel
supported and connected. The goal of the generative dialogue sessions was to build and improve
relationships and connections, foster a sense of feeling supported, reduce teacher isolation and
burnout, and to establish a learning community among the ECTs in the English department.
Therefore, my main question for inquiry was: “How can implementing generative
dialogue impact early career teachers’ perceptions of support?” This inquiry had several layers.
First, initial perceptions of support within the school were examined through a pre-questionnaire,
prior to the first generative dialogue session. Next, the participants engaged in three dialogue
sessions in which a wide range of topics were discussed but all linked to issues and ideas related
to teaching. After these sessions concluded, a post-questionnaire was completed, after which
each ECT was invited to participate in a semi-structured interview so I could learn more about
their experiences through the generative dialogue process. This progression allowed me to assess

9

the impact of the introduction of generative dialogue as well as to explore changes in perceptions
before and after implementation. This study took place over the course of two months, which
allowed for the generative dialogue sessions to take place every few weeks.
Scholarly Significance
As I began reviewing literature about mentoring and induction, it became clear that
support for ECTs is critical as they try to survive their first years as teachers. However, in reality
little time is set aside for teaming, which involves a small group of teachers collaborating and
working together to support students, and there is often no clear support network in place for
these teachers. Isolation is a real issue in my context as my school continues to grow, and my
concern is it will lead to teacher attrition. Teacher isolation is very real for these teachers and,
due to a variety of reasons (e.g. workload, scheduled meetings, etc.), experienced teachers rarely
make time to intentionally connect with all of our ECTs. Educators in British Columbia are
called upon to “engage in professional learning” and “contribute to the profession” (BC
Teachers’ Council, 2019), and this study will contribute valuable insights to the field of
induction and mentorship. Additionally, this study may inform supports for ECTs at the school
and district level. Furthermore, it will add to an understanding of the nature of the support that
ECTs perceive as being most valuable, and this support can vary by context. The use of
frameworks such as generative dialogue to guide teachers’ conversations can inform the
literature on collaborative professional learning. Therefore, the scholarly significance of this
study is to examine the perceptions of support for ECTs and to examine the impact of the
implementation of generative dialogue as a support intervention.

10

Literature Review
Early Career Teachers (ECTs) are defined as teachers in the first three to five years of
their career (Chang, 2009; Hobson & Maxwell, 2017; Kelly et al., 2018). These teachers have a
complex array of needs, and at the core of this is the issue of teacher isolation, which in turn can
lead to teacher burnout and attrition. The literature surveyed in this section gives an overview of
some of the most common challenges faced by ECTs. In response, it is evident that schools have
tried many strategies to support ECTs with mixed results but that more needs to be done to
support them. Similarly, we need to find different ways to reduce isolation for these teachers and
to foster a sense of belonging and feeling valued in the school community.
Challenges Faced by ECTs
Teachers often find their first year challenging and more difficult than they anticipated
(Lipton & Wellman, 2018). New teachers in secondary schools often have a wide range of
subjects that they need to teach, and they are given the same responsibilities as veteran teachers
who have many years of experience (Kutsyuruba et al., 2019). Many teachers have a difficult
time handling the myriad of pressures they face, and not surprisingly, teacher attrition is a
concern. In fact, studies have shown that up to 50% of beginning teachers leave the profession
within the first 5 years of teaching (Chang, 2009; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011; Taylor, 2019).
While less research has involved Canadian educators, in 2004 the Canadian Teachers Federation
reported that an estimated 30% of teachers leave within the first five years of teaching
(Kutsyuruba et al., 2019).
A review of the literature demonstrates a link between teacher wellness, teacher burnout,
and attrition. If a novice teacher’s well-being and job satisfaction are negatively impacted, they
are more likely to leave teaching altogether (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011; Hobson & Maxwell,

11

2017). Additionally, teachers who suffer from burnout are less optimistic, more exhausted, and
experience higher levels of stress (Taylor et al., 2019). Multiple factors have been cited for this
burnout, including a lack of self-care, teacher workload, a lack of work-life balance, concerns
around being respected and judged by others, having confidence in one’s level of subject
knowledge, and discomfort around the many critical decisions that teachers have to make each
day (Chang, 2009; Kutsyruba et al., 2019). As Feiman-Nemser et al. (1999) explain, support is
needed because ECTs are “charged with the same responsibilities as their more experienced
colleagues, [and] expected to perform and be effective. Yet most aspects of the situation are
unfamiliar—the students, the curriculum, the community, and the local policies and procedures”
(Feiman-Nemser et al., 1999, p. 4). They go on to explain that ECTs are not only faced with the
challenge of teaching in unfamiliar situations, they are also learning how to teach and establish
their own professional identity. Clearly, ECTs face many challenges in their early years as
educators.
The Role of Support for ECTs
Several researchers have asked ECTs about their transition from university preparation
programs to their first-year teaching. This transition has been noted as “an important, and
potentially sensitive, period for early-career teacher’s wellbeing and longevity in the teaching
profession” (Taylor et al., 2019, p. 1). März and Kelchterman (2020) also found that this
transition is a shock for many new teachers as they are often left to navigate their first year
without much support, which they compare as being “lost at sea” (p.1). Similarly, it has been
said that “providing support to beginning teachers is better than letting them sink or swim on
their own… without support, new teachers are more likely to leave teaching” (Feiman-Nemser et
al., 1999, p. 5). ECTs have reported that because they often do not receive the support of

12

experienced colleagues, they often feel isolated in their schools (Taylor et al., 2019). Teachers
who felt a lack of support reported that this was felt in many ways. For some it meant there was
no feedback in their first years of teaching; one teacher even said that in her first year she wasn’t
observed at all, and despite the fact no one ever came into her classroom there was an
assumption that she was an effective teacher (Mansfield & Gu, 2019). In addition, some ECTs
have said they are not comfortable asking for support as they feared it would be perceived as a
sign of weakness (Halford, 1999). Some ECTs have also expressed disappointment that their
principal could not provide the support they need because administrators just do not have the
time to do so as they are busy like the “mayor of small city” (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2007, p.
152). Kelly et al. (2018) talk about ECTs who “slip through the cracks” and have not been given
any formal support (p. 293). In their study, when they asked teachers to identify the most
significant type of support they received, the second highest response was “no support at all” (p.
295). Additionally, their work also pointed out that teachers who have short-term contracts or
who worked as teachers on call received even less support.
Conversely, teachers who feel like they have support at their schools, report having
colleagues they can go to and that the teachers support each other (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011).
In this same manner, teachers have expressed that when they received sustained support, they
become more resilient and able to handle adversity, and this support can come from leaders,
colleagues, and those who provide personal support (Day, 2012). This support comes in many
forms, both formally and informally, and may include some form of mentoring (Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2011; März & Kelchterman, 2020). However, teachers often have to seek out support
as it is not always offered to them, and the teachers who take initiative in this way are often more
successful. As Kutsyuruba et al. (2019) explain in their study, “proactivity, help-seeking, and

13

initiative were among the active measures that teachers took to curb stress and ensure their
wellness” (p. 306). Indeed, ECTs who received support were able to identify that this support
reduced their feelings of being overwhelmed and burnt out. Kutsyuruba et al. (2019) conclude
that there is a need for a combination of supports which they call “the 3 Cs: consulting a mentor,
connecting with colleagues, and collaborating with others” (p. 301).
Isolation, Connection, and Belonging
As noted previously, a lack of support in school often leads to a real sense of isolation for
ECTs (Taylor et al., 2019). Daniels and Boring (2004), also note that ECTs are usually excited to
be in a classroom, but soon may find themselves feeling “overwhelmed by the isolation,
expectations, challenges, and lack of support from colleagues and administrators” (p. 51). The
feeling of isolation is directly correlated with the absence of social support for ECTs. When a
teacher is experiencing significant stress, it is helpful to have a person to go to, however, in this
case the absence of support may actually be causing additional stress for ECTs (Taylor et al.,
2019). This disconnect has negative impacts on these teachers as it can lead to negativity and
cynicism towards others. Overwhelmingly, the literature shows that a sense of belonging is vital
for ECTs and well-being. Teachers who are able to build connections and relationships with
colleagues report increased levels of confidence (Kutsyuruba et al., 2019), while Hobson and
Maxwell (2017) found that the presence and quality of relationships have a tremendous impact
on teacher well-being. Furthermore, a sense of belonging is connected to lower levels of
emotional exhaustion, which in turn leads to greater job satisfaction and less likelihood that a
teacher will want to leave their school (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011).
Regardless of whether they identify isolation as an issue for themselves, ECTs have
indicated they feel more connected when they are included in decision-making and given a

14

voice. As März and Kelchterman (2020) note, though ECTs have little classroom experience,
they still have a desire to contribute and share ideas with their colleagues, and as such should be
viewed as valuable resources for their schools. However, they also found the ECTs are not often
asked for their perspective or ideas. When asked about this, these ECTs said they “wanted their
voice to be heard, to receive respect, and to be recognized by their peers as knowledgeable” (p.
7). In essence, ECTs who are not included in important aspects of the school community end up
feeling more alienated.
Induction and Mentoring Programs
As it is clear a lack of support and isolation are critical issues, one suggestion that
emerges from the literature is the development of induction programs for new teachers. These
programs can be formal and informal depending on the needs of the teachers and the resources
and structures available at their schools. As mentioned previously, Harry Wong (2004) shares the
story of a teacher who was not provided with any form of induction and he explains, “People
crave connection. New teachers want more than a job. They want hope. They want to contribute
to a group. They want to make a difference.” (p. 43). Formal induction programs are intended to
provide the support that is needed for ECTs to transition to their first teaching positions and have
been shown to have a positive impact on resilience, retention, job satisfaction, and quality of
instruction (Mansfield & Gu, 2019). However, not all induction programs are built equally, and
many teachers find themselves without access to these supports. Some studies have found that
even with a formal induction program, feedback and support may still be limited (Mansfield &
Gu, 2019).
Mentoring is another layer of support that can be put in place for ECTs, and this has been
shown to be an important complement to induction programs (Mansfield & Gu, 2019).

15

Mentoring is often cited as a key factor in preventing teacher attrition, however, some literature
suggests mentoring partnerships need to be carefully established and a structure needs to be in
place for there to be a positive effect on the ECT (Kelly et al., 2018). Additionally, Wong (2004)
argues that mentorship is not always the best way to support ECTs; he argues that induction is
more effective because it is sustained, school-based, and a group process so there are shared
values and knowledge. He also asserts that it takes at least five years to become an effective
teacher, so one or two years of mentoring alone is not enough, and that it should involve veteran
teachers who can share their expertise (Wong, 2004). This sentiment is echoed by the work of
März and Kelchterman (2020) who agree that mentorship is just one component of an effective
induction process for ECTs.
Professional Learning
Another strategy for providing support and reducing isolation is the creation of a
Professional Learning Community (PLC). Dufour et al. (2004) explain that there are many
benefits of PLCs including the fact they allow “educators [to] work collaboratively with and
learn from one another” (p. 9). Furthermore, they say the most powerful professional learning is
school based and should be “pursued in a social setting with opportunities for interaction rather
than in isolation” (p. 20). Additionally, they explain that with PLCs, “teachers work in teams,
engaging in an ongoing cycle of questions that promote deep team learning” (p. 36). Wong
(2004) found that both ECTs and experienced teachers want more opportunities to collaborate
and network with their colleagues, so it would seem that PLCs could fulfill this need. Much has
been written about the benefits of establishing PLCs, yet they are not that widespread in
secondary schools. McLaughlin and Talbert (2007) found that only one in five high school
teachers reports meeting regularly to talk about instruction, so it can be inferred that these

16

learning communities are still quite rare. PLCs can take many forms, and as Campbell (2017)
says “there is ‘no one size fits all’ approach to professional learning in Canada and nor should
there be” (p. 5). She explains that “there is a need for a wide array and repertoire of professional
learning opportunities to meet a variety of needs, experiences, interests, contexts, and career
stages” (p. 13). However, secondary school teachers often have specific and unique needs that
can be addressed by a PLC; for example, secondary teachers often want to collaborate on rubrics,
assessments, assignments, and curricular resources (Daniels & Boring, 2004; Little & Horn,
2007).
In addition, Hargreaves and O’Connor (2018) share several successful models of PLCs in
their book Collaborative Professionalism. One example is a PLC that was created by teachers in
Ontario to address some of the issues and concerns they had about student engagement and to
address issues around literacy. Unlike PLCs in other jurisdictions, principals have taken a step
back and let the teachers fully lead this collaboration. A core value of this collaboration is the
importance of professional dialogue. Another framework they share is the structure implemented
by NW RISE, a collaborative learning network created by teachers in the U.S. Pacific Northwest.
The idea behind this network was to connect teachers who had previously been isolated as they
taught in rural communities. Teachers overcame their isolation by connecting at NW RISE
conferences and eventually virtually to share ideas, lessons, and experiences. Prior to the
establishment of this network, teachers said they felt like they were on an “island”, and one ECT
reported that without someone to talk to he felt overwhelmed by his instructional planning
(Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2018, p. 45).
The literature also shows that in schools where there is a strong learning community
established, teachers feel more supported and empowered to take risks, find ways to collaborate

17

and reflect on their practice, and gain more feedback (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2007). The work
of Schnellert et al. (2015) supports the importance of connection in learning communities, and it
suggests that all educators need to be “welcomed to inquiry communities as active versus passive
agents” (p. 221). For this reason, PLCs are one way to perhaps alleviate the concerns expressed
by ECTs about a lack of support and connection. Additionally, PLCs face additional challenges
in secondary schools since there is often little time for collaboration and teachers rarely
collaborate beyond their subject area, and as such, it is often hard to sustain these communities
(McLaughlin & Talbert, 2007). However, the connection between PLCs and the isolation felt by
ECTs is less well known so this is an area for further study. While McLaughlin and Talbert
(2007) have observed that new teachers can be included and mentored through a professional
community, they give little information about how this idea might look in action. Yet despite this
gap in the research, the benefits of PLCs outweigh the challenges. Schnellert et al. (2015) found
that by creating a “professional community of inquiry through the exploration of values, goals,
and the aims of education” teachers were able to “shift their practice” (p. 226). Also, as
Campbell (2017) explains, “teachers at different stages of their career and life also require
equitable access to quality professional learning” (p. 22). Therefore, it is possible that a strong
learning community can provide ongoing and easily accessed professional learning for ECTs.
Teacher Dialogue
Another idea that is suggested in the literature is creating a space for teacher dialogue and
the benefits of this type of dialogue are numerous. One advantage of a teacher dialogue group is
that it is a safe space for teachers to ask questions about their own practices that prompt deeper
discussion (Little & Horn, 2007). Mazurkiewicz (2004) advocates for the creation of a Critical
Friends Group and says that the teachers he surveyed were hopeful that this would be a way to

18

reduce isolation. In this framework, teachers begin by developing trust in each other. He says
through this process they “received the support that we needed to develop our professional
skills” and “by sharing our difficulties, we learned that we were not alone” (p. 174). Research
has also shown that ECTs have found engaging in informal dialogue has a strong impact on their
professional learning and growth (Mansfield & Gu, 2019). In the induction framework Wong
(2014) suggests, he also advocates for small teacher learning groups that allow teachers to
engage in dialogue, reflect on their practice, and talk about instruction. In this way, he explains,
there is a focus on growth and networking with other teachers.
ECTs often feel most comfortable conversing with other ECTs, and literature suggests
that these teachers often seek teachers with similar years of experience, subject areas, and
personalities (März & Kelchterman, 2020). While it is important for ECTs to connect with one
another, it is just as important for them to connect with veteran teachers, and not just for the
purpose of mentoring. Therefore, it is important to invite experienced teachers to engage in this
professional dialogue at times as well. Another purpose of teacher dialogue is to provide space
for reflection, however, as teachers embark on their first year of teaching, this reflective habit is
often pushed aside. Yet, researchers have found that reflective practice is one of the best ways
for teachers to be resilient, examine their own classroom practice and to become stronger (Little
& Horn, 2007; Kutsyuruba, 2019). However, despite all the known benefits of teacher dialogue,
Little and Horn (2007) found “deep, sustained conversations among teachers about matters of
teaching and learning remain uncommon” (p. 79). Mazurkiewicz (2004) had similar findings,
explaining that although teachers have many opportunities to talk with one another, yet they
rarely talk about their teaching practices because teachers rarely have the support to learn how to
engage in these types of difficult discussions.

19

Evidently, gaps in the research exist, as there are limited studies on the effects of teacher
dialogue groups that specifically are designed to help ECTs. While there is a vast range of
research into teacher induction and mentorship, teacher inquiry groups, and teacher dialogue,
finding connections to research on reducing ECT isolation is more challenging. There are
definite shortcomings in the research, specifically the effect a teacher dialogue group can have
on perceptions of isolation for ECTs. Hence, there needs to be further research to examine the
role teacher dialogue groups can play in reducing isolation and creating a sense of belonging for
ECTs.
Theoretical Framework
For this study, a teacher dialogue group was created that was rooted in the principles of
generative dialogue. Generative dialogue is a “process of deliberate conversations” among
teachers to promote learning and growth (Adams et al., 2019, p. 92). It is a conceptual
framework that involves similar communities of practice, person-centred perspectives that are
focused on personal growth as teachers, Socratic questions to prompt dialogue, and critical and
transformative learning to create a change in practice (Adams et al., 2019, p. 97). This
framework proposes that teachers and leaders need to develop “a specific, rigorous set of skills
that shifts how we converse with each other about professional practice for the purpose of
clarifying and bringing into existence new ideas and thoughts that lead to more purposeful
action” (Adams et al., 2019, p. 96). This theory also rooted in mutual trust and empathy, with the
goal of stimulating deep conversations, fostering creative ideas, and promoting new
understandings. Questions are used to prompt discussion, and to allow for different viewpoints
and perspectives (Adams et al., 2019). Interestingly, Adams et al. caution that with generative
dialogue and teacher discussion groups, leaders need to ensure they listen more than they talk

20

when facilitating this type of dialogue. Leaders must prioritize hearing the different experiences
of the participants and approaching conversations with a stance of curiosity. Moreover,
conversations need to be “frequent and focused” and should be centred on “shared goals, guiding
questions, strategies, and evidence of growth” (p. 102).
As part of this study, ECTs met and worked together in a small group, using generative
dialogue as the framework to guide their conversations about education, teaching, learning, and
curriculum. Ultimately, the goal of the study was to determine whether this generative dialogue
model, as it is applied to regularly scheduled group conversations, had an impact on these
teachers’ perceptions of support. For the purpose of this study, support encompassed sharing
wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. As the facilitator of these discussions, I had to avoid
judgment and criticism, limit my personal anecdotes, and spend more time listening than
speaking. It was important for me to adopt a stance of curiosity about the thoughts and ideas of
the participants, that in turn can “provide an environment of acceptance, trust, and failing
forward” (Adams et al., 2019, p. 105). Therefore, the element of trust played an important role in
this implementation of generative dialogue. Trust is essential to enable teachers to talk about
what matters to them and to discuss challenges they face, that in turn leads to increased
confidence and competence as teachers (Sharpe & Nishimura, 2017, p. 5). Similarly, Adams et
al. (2019) note that professional relationships rooted in trust lead to deeper self-reflection. Due to
the Covid 19 pandemic, these conversations had to be held online as we were not able to meet
face to face; as a result, building this trust and collegiality was essential. My hypothesis was that
using generative dialogue as an intervention would reduce isolation and foster a sense of
belonging and connection for ECTs in a large secondary school.

21

Methodology
My research falls under the constructivist paradigm because human interaction is
essential for dialogue and support to occur. As a researcher, my goal was to deepen my
understanding of the role generative dialogue can play in supporting teachers, and therefore I
was interested in the lived experiences of the ECTs in my school. My ontological assumptions
include the notion that people see the world in different ways and that multiple perspectives of
support exist for ECTs. Additionally, my epistemological assumption is that to truly explore this
topic I needed to be an active participant in the dialogue sessions which meant that though I have
strived for objectivity, I am aware that my interpretation of the data may be subjective.
Method
As a qualitative study designed to understand the impact of implementing dialogue
sessions, I chose action research. It was essential to have descriptive, detailed data to enhance
credibility and trustworthiness. Action research, as noted by Sagor (2000), “is a disciplined
process of inquiry conducted by and for those taking the action” (p. 3). One of the reasons I
chose this method is because it allowed me to be a participant in the generative dialogue
sessions. Furthermore, action research is aligned with this form of dialogue, because generative
dialogue allows for “purposeful action” to bring about change (Adams et al., 2019, p. 96). The
benefits of action research are numerous, including that it provides a reason for teachers to
collaborate and that it “gives educators a voice in the field” (Hendricks, 2017, p. 5). According to
Hendricks (2017), another goal of action research is to work towards school improvement, and
similarly, Sagor (2000) also mentions that the final step of an action research study is to take
informed action. The information from this research can potentially be used to improve support
for ECTs and this in turn will inform future interventions and initiatives in our English

22

department and beyond. Due to the cyclical nature of action research (Hendricks, 2017), I
envision that this research study is likely just the first cycle of an ongoing process, and that there
may be subsequent cycles after the research study concludes.
Data Sources
Context. The source of the data for this study was a large secondary school in the Fraser
Valley in British Columbia. Data was collected between January and March of 2021, during the
Covid 19 pandemic and, as a result, all data had to be collected electronically as per the UFV
Research Guidelines in Response to Covid 19. At the time of data collection, the school was
operating under strict health and safety protocols set out by the school district and BC Ministry
of Education. This meant students were in small learning cohorts, the school was divided into
distinct sections, and the school community had staggered bell schedules. The school district
adopted a condensed timetable for this year to minimize potential mixing of the cohorts and
students. A significant impact of these changes is that educators do not have common lunch
hours for meetings or conversations, nor can they meet in person for this study, and, as a result,
all data collection needed to occur electronically after school hours.
Participants. There were five participants for this study, and pseudonyms were assigned
to respect confidentiality.
Table 1
Participant Demographics
Pseudonym
Nora
Emily
Marie
Nick
Jennifer

Gender
F
F
F
M
F

Experience (Yrs)
2
2
1
2
3

Subject Area
English
English
Multiple
Multiple
English

Has a Mentor
No
Yes
No
No
No

23

All of the participants were ECTs in the English department at the school, and all have
less than five years of teaching experience. “Nora” is a second-year teacher who teaches multiple
grades of English. “Jennifer” is in her third year of teaching and also only teaches multiple
grades of English. Both of these teachers teach in portable classrooms, are only in the English
department, and are in their first year at the school. “Emily” is a second-year teacher who is also
only in the English department and this year is teaching in the main building of the school. She is
the only teacher in the study who has a formal mentor through the district mentoring program,
and her mentor teaches at another school. In comparison, both “Marie” and “Nick” are in
multiple departments, teaching many different subjects and in multiple classrooms throughout
the school. Nick is a second-year teacher and Marie is a first-year teacher, and both of these
teachers have only a few English classes in their course loads.
This was a purposeful sample of teachers to meet the definition of ECTs as those with
less than five years of experience (Chang, 2009; Hobson & Maxwell, 2017; Kelly et al., 2018).
This purposeful sample was limited to English teachers because it is assumed that these teachers
share common areas of interest, may bring forward specific discussion topics related to their
curriculum, and may have similar experiences and questions about teaching in their specific
subject area. Furthermore, action research is founded on the principle that research is cyclical in
nature, so after the study concludes, it is possible to begin another inquiry with the same teachers
to continue the process of bringing change to the school (Hendricks, 2017). Consent was
obtained by emailing prospective participants a Letter of Informed Consent that included details
about the objectives and procedures of the study, potential benefits and risks, confidentiality,
what participation entailed, and how information from the study will be disseminated. Member
checking occurred at the end of the data collection process.

24

There were three tools used to collect the data for this study: questionnaires, observation
charts, and semi-structured interviews (see Appendices for details).
Questionnaires. The first step in this study was to email participants a pre-study
questionnaire as a scan of current perceptions of support. The questionnaire used a Likert scale to
look at participants' perceptions of support in a number of areas such as connection to other
teachers, workload, assessment, and curricular supports. It was used to inform potential topics
for discussion in the dialogue sessions, and also to determine any additional follow-up questions
for the post-study interview. The post-study questionnaire had the same questions as the prestudy questionnaire, which allowed me to track any changes in the participants’ perceptions of
support after the generative dialogue sessions.
Observation Charts. The next step was to meet with this group of teachers three times
over the course of several weeks to engage in generative dialogue. As an observer I was also a
“complete participant” meaning I was fully engaged in the conversation (Angrosino, 2007, as
cited in Creswell, 2013). The rationale behind the frequency of these sessions is that successful
generative dialogue requires “frequent and focused conversations, initiated and sustained by
effective leaders about shared goals, guiding questions, strategies, and evidence of growth”
(Adams et al., 2019, p. 102). For this reason, though I acted as a facilitator for the conversations,
I followed the principles of generative dialogue by listening more than talking, by allowing
participants to share and reflect on their experiences, and by asking questions that promote
interaction and dialogue. The focus of each session was partially determined by the pre-study
questionnaire, but as the conversations progressed, participants identified key areas for further
discussion and each session built off the previous session. Each session lasted between 25 and 35
minutes, and was recorded using the Otter app. As the dialogue occurred, observations were

25

collected and recorded on a chart (see Appendix D), focusing on the generative dialogue process.
After each session the recordings were reviewed to ensure that there was a thorough and accurate
set of data on each chart. The purpose of these observations was to capture and understand the
interactions of the participants in the dialogue sessions, and I was looking for four different types
of interactions: how often participants asked questions, made connections, shared examples and
ideas, and offered diverse perspectives. Each chart also had a section for comments that allowed
me to track which topics were discussed in each phase of the dialogue sessions, and to go back
and record personal reflections on the sessions. By tracking their interactions on a chart, I was
able to compare the participant interactions from session to session.
Semi-structured Interviews. After the final generative dialogue session had concluded,
each participant was invited to participate in a 30-minute semi-structured interview to reflect on
their experience during this process, and to learn about their current perceptions of support in the
school (see Appendix E). The audio from each interview was recorded and transcribed verbatim
using the Otter app. Once data was transcribed, each participant was invited to do a member
check of their transcript and to edit their responses. This process began with each participant
being emailed a copy of their interview transcript to review. At that time, they could add,
remove, or edit their information to ensure accuracy. After member checks concluded, the
information was anonymized, and pseudonyms were assigned to each participant.
Data Analyses
There were several steps involved in data analyses. As there are multiple sources of data,
organization was important. The five-phase cycle for data analyses, as referenced by Hendricks
(2017), was used as a framework. This involved compiling the database, disassembling the data,
reassembling the data, interpreting the data, and drawing conclusions. The compiling of the data

26

(as described above) was organized according to the tool that was used. After the data was
compiled, it was disassembled; in this phase I looked for patterns in the data and completed a
coding process. I used a journal to track my ideas, assumptions, biases, and questions.
Questionnaires. All five participants completed both a pre-questionnaire (see Appendix
B) prior to the first dialogue session, and a post-questionnaire (see Appendix C) after the final
dialogue session. The questions were identical for both sessions, with a four-point Likert scale to
categorize responses as strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree.
The pre-questionnaire data was entered into an Excel spreadsheet and given numeric
values. For example, if three participants indicated strongly agree to a particular question, this
was indicated with a 3 in the table. These numeric qualities served as the first level of coding as
it allowed for patterns to emerge and variations in responses to become more evident. Next, the
questions were grouped by topic and this second level coding revealed some themes in the data.
The post-study questionnaire data was also entered into an Excel spreadsheet and given
numeric qualities. These numeric values again served as the first level of coding allowing for
patterns and variations to emerge. Next the questions were grouped by theme with second level
coding consistent with the pre-questionnaire. The information was organized by participant, and
also for the group as a whole. This time, however, the data from the two questionnaires was
examined to look for any changes in participant perceptions from the start of the study to the end
as a result of the generative dialogue intervention.
Observation Charts. For each dialogue session, an observation chart was used to track
behaviours and interactions by the participants during the sessions (see Appendix D) The
sessions were virtual, due to Covid-19 restrictions, and recorded so they could be reviewed for
specific observations every 10 minutes. The types or categories of observations were: asking

27

questions, making connections, sharing ideas and examples, and offering diverse perspectives.
This instrument allowed for comments to be made about turning points and moments that
prompted shifts in the dialogue. After each session, the comments were used to plan the next
session. For example, if there was a topic that prompted a lot of discussion, this could be revisited in a future session. All participants were invited to speak and share their ideas, questions,
and insights in these dialogue sessions. At the conclusion of the final dialogue session, the data
was collected in a table that compared the data using the previously mentioned categories along
with some general comments for each session. The purpose of this table was to look for patterns
in the interactions between the participants; for example, to determine whether there had been an
increase or decrease in a certain type of interaction such as asking questions over the course of
the three sessions.
Semi-structured Interviews. After the final dialogue session, the five ECTs participated
in a semi-structured interview (see Appendix E) in which they shared their perceptions of
support as well as their experience in the dialogue sessions. These interviews were recorded and
transcribed verbatim, edited for clarity and sent to participants for approval, and then coded to
look for patterns and themes. A preliminary code was used as a first look at the data, and final
first level codes were created with more refined language. Key quotes were highlighted, and all
of this data was arranged in an Excel spreadsheet under each first level code. From there, second
level coding was completed which grouped the codes into themes.
The final step was to draw conclusions. This involved triangulating the data from the
various sources to tell the story of each participant’s involvement and the group as a whole. This
step was necessary to determine corroboration between the various sources of data, which
increases the “confidence about the accuracy of the results of the study” (Hendricks, 2017, p.

28

135). It also allowed me to determine whether the generative dialogue intervention was effective,
and whether the ECTs’ perceptions of support changed over time. This is known as the
“reflective planning stage” (Hendricks, 2017, p. 136) where the researcher uses the findings to
inform their practice as an educator; in this case it will inform potential supports that are needed
for ECTs. The conclusions drawn about what was learned allowed me to think ahead to the
implications of this study.
Managing Bias. There are several ways that I mitigated bias. First, all interviews and
dialogue sessions were recorded using Otter to increase the accuracy of data recording. Member
checking ensured that the transcripts accurately reflected the perceptions, experiences, and
opinions of the participants. Data was gathered from multiple sources from the same participants,
and as previously noted, this information was triangulated. Additionally, I looked for negative
evidence which means “analyzing data that are not supported or corroborated by other sources of
data” (Hendricks, 2017, p. 66). I also utilized the strategy of peer debriefing which involved
discussing the study with a critical friend who is not working on this study. This was an
important step in reducing subjectivity and making me aware of my biases (Hendricks, 2017).
Researcher bias was also addressed in several ways, using the checklist outlined by Miles
et al. (2014, p. 297-298). I was cognizant of researcher effects on the study, during the consent
process, and during each phase of data collection. As a lead teacher involved in this study as a
researcher, I was transparent in my role and ensured that I was there to ask questions, listen to
participant stories, and collect data. I was also aware of the study’s effects on myself as a
researcher. One way I avoided bias from the study was by having several weeks between
dialogue sessions. I also included teachers with potentially different experiences and points of

29

view as part of the study. At all times, I strived to keep my research question at the forefront, and
to remember to think conceptually about the generative dialogue framework we were using.
Results
Pre-questionnaire
Several insights were gained from this initial data. Four themes were identified –
connection, dialogue, confidence, and support. First level coding revealed variation in the data.
When looking at the theme of connection, for example, Marie strongly disagreed with the
statement about feeling isolated, while Emily and Nora agreed that they do feel isolated from the
rest of the school. Similarly, when looking at connection to the other teachers and the department
as a whole, four participants agreed or strongly agreed that they felt connected, whereas Nora
disagreed. Nora is one of two teachers in a portable which may have factored into her response.
When looking at the theme of support itself, there was even more variation. For instance, most
teachers felt they had support within their department and a person they could go to for help, yet
interestingly more than half were not aware of support available within the district and outside of
our school. There was a fairly even split of responses related to the theme of confidence with half
of the participants agreeing or disagreeing with each statement. Finally, the theme of dialogue
was prevalent, as four of five participants identifying that they wanted more opportunities to
connect and share ideas. The results of the pre-questionnaire indicate that these four themes
were perceived as important to the teachers in this study. They held value in connecting and
feeling supported as colleagues. Consequently, the focus of each generative dialogue session was
directly connected to the themes from this pre-questionnaire.
Observation Charts

30

When analyzing the observation chart data (see Appendix D), it was observed that the
length of the sessions increased from the first session which was just 25 minutes to the third
session which was 35 minutes long and the participants appeared to become more comfortable
with the process and structure of the sessions. In the first session, the conversations were fairly
brief, and many prompts were needed to keep the conversation going. In the final session, the
conversation flowed well, and few prompts were needed. It was noted the participants built on
each other’s ideas and raised many interesting points. In addition, the number of questions being
asked by the participants increased with each session, from four questions in the first session to
twelve in the final session. The substantive increase in questions added to the conversation,
invited discussion, and clarified ideas. By the final session, the participants seemed very
comfortable speaking with one another, and their conversations were free flowing and less
contingent upon me facilitating the discussion by asking questions. Similarly, there was an
increase in the number of connections the participants made. For example, by the second session
when one participant spoke about a particular issue in their classroom, there was a consensus
from all the participants that this was an issue they were struggling with. As well, there was an
increase in the diverse perspectives offered over the course of the sessions; this is notable
because the participants were observed as being more willing to share their different views and
insights. The largest increase in behaviours was in sharing examples and ideas; as a participant
myself in the generative dialogue sessions, by the third session I was able to step back and listen
more, and the conversation flowed more smoothly with less prompts.
Post-questionnaire
The post-questionnaire was completed after the final generative dialogue session and the
numeric values from the Excel spreadsheet were compared for changes with the values from the

31

pre-questionnaire Excel spreadsheet. When examining the responses by participant, for example,
one participant reported a higher level of connection, decreased isolation, and a feeling of
support in multiple areas after the three generative dialogue sessions. Two teachers reported a
decrease in feeling that their workload was hard to manage, and one also noted stronger feelings
of collegial support, another indicated that they felt less isolated and more aware of supports that
were available. One teacher also said that they were more aware of curricular support and
reported a stronger sense of connection than previously noted. Finally, one of the participants
identified a strong desire for more collaboration and dialogue once the sessions concluded.
As a group, when looking at the four themes - connection, dialogue, confidence, and
support – there are some notables changes between the pre- and post-questionnaires. For
example, there was an increase in feeling supported when being asked probing questions by
colleagues. As well four of the five participants reported that they strongly agree that they have
colleagues they can turn to for support. As a whole, the data also indicated an increase in
confidence when it comes to planning for instruction in the current timetable. Finally, all
participants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I would like to have more
opportunities to be in dialogue and conversation with colleagues” (Post-questionnaire, March
2021).
Semi-structured Interviews
Each teacher participated in a semi-structured interview (Appendix E) after the final
generative dialogue session. The questions were related to perceptions of support through
participants’ experience in these generative dialogue sessions. After the interviews were coded
using the method described in the previous section, five themes related to perceptions of support
emerged from the data:

32



Challenges faced by ECTs



Collegial Relationships



Dialogue



Professional Learning



Personal Growth

Challenges faced by ECTs
In each of the interviews, even though the focus was on support and perceptions of
support, all five participants talked about the challenges of being an ECT and how it related to
the support they needed. One of the challenges identified by several of the participants was the
isolation that can occur in this profession. Emily explained that as new teachers is easy to feel
isolated, a sentiment shared by Nora who said she is hopeful that she can connect more often
with this group of teachers, “instead of just hanging out in my classroom and doing nothing else,
because I'm very used to doing things on my own”. Nick explained that especially during the
Covid 19 pandemic there are some teachers who he just never has had a chance to connect with,
even though he knows they have interesting ideas to share.
The participants also identified various types of pressure that they face as ECTs. One
issue is the pressure to earn their first continuing teaching contract. As a result of this pressure,
Marie shared that she puts on a brave face “because we really want that continuing contract…but
under our school face or teacher face there are internal struggles as well”. Similarly, Emily said
that even when things are tough, she thinks “best foot forward because I'm still trying to get a
contract”. The teachers shared that the generative dialogue sessions helped them to open up
about these pressures. As Nora said, it was as if there was “finally some weight lifted off their
shoulders”.

33

Additionally, one of the challenges faced by ECTs was the feeling of being overwhelmed
by everything that teaching entails. Jennifer was very open about these challenges in her
interview, and she explained that when planning for instruction and assessment that “there’s just
…such an extensive list of things to think about”. She spoke about what can alleviate that
pressure, saying “I'm somebody who has to talk things out until I understand them”. These
challenges articulated by this group of teachers form the backdrop for and highlight the
importance of the themes that follow in these results.
Collegial Relationships
Another theme was the importance of collegial relationships that are rooted in connection
and are the foundation of collegial, social, and emotional support. All of the participants in this
study identified the importance of connection throughout their interviews and it was clear that
relationships are inextricably tied to connection for the participants in this study. Prior to the
implementation of generative dialogue, these relationships were already forming between the
ECTs and their colleagues. When asked about the most valuable support she has received as a
new teacher, Emily said “I think the biggest thing comes down to relationships for me. I feel like
if I have a good relationship with the department or other teachers and then I can feel
comfortable asking for help and what I need”. Nick agreed that relationships with other teachers
are important and even a simple check in can have an impact:
Just having that time to check in, especially with some young teachers as well, and just
kind of recognize, like, “Hey, I'm dealing with this, what are your ideas”, and just to kind
of hear what's worked well, for other people and what they're also kind of struggling with
right now. It's helpful one to hear some solutions and to just to kind of recognize that
we're all working and battling through it together has been pretty helpful.

34

Similarly, Marie reflected on her experience at the start of the year and the impact of the teachers
who made efforts to connect with her before school began: “having all departments, I mean
specifically English, then come to me even before I stepped foot in the building was really cool
to know that I had that support”.
Additionally, Emily recalled the collegial support she received from another teacher at
the start of the year: “She answered questions from me every single day in that first term”. Marie
explained that support from other ECTs is important but also “having colleagues and more
veteran teachers be more approachable, or even introduce themselves”. Furthermore, Nick
agreed with Marie, and explained that support from veteran teachers is crucial because “it's nice
to also have, I guess that voice of wisdom and reason as well, so that so that we can kind of keep
our heads on straight and keep pushing forward”. He also mentioned that he appreciates that he
can go to myself and another teacher in the school when he needs support, saying “you are
both…pretty invested in those relationships with us younger teachers, I think which is pretty
cool”.
Emily pointed out that this connection can be very simple, and it was something that
developed even more through the implementation of the generative dialogue sessions. When
asked what she found beneficial about these sessions she said, “that would be something that I'm
really glad about - it's just that space to connect with people”. Additionally, she noted “it felt
really good to be included”. When asked about the impact of the generative dialogue sessions,
Nick said “I would say for sure English is now the department I'm most connected with as a
result of that, and if I feel like I have questions I have no hesitation going to anyone in the
English department”. As he so clearly explained, connection is crucial as an ECT because “it's
nice to actually feel like you're a part of the staff rather than still trying to earn a place”.

35

The importance of collegial support was consistently mentioned by all the participants in
their interviews. Collegial support can come in many forms, and not surprisingly each teacher
interviewed had slightly different ideas. For example, Nora talked about what she has learned
about support through the generative dialogue session process, and she said “at first, I thought
you needed admin or lead teachers that was where it stopped. But being able to know that other
teachers could be that support as well, helped a lot”. In comparison, Jennifer explained her
definition of collegial support in detail:
Support to me looks like the ability to go and ask any questions from teachers around the
school. And that they want to sit down with me and talk about my question right then and
there, that they want to really get an understanding of what it is that I'm asking, what it is
that I'm looking, and for what my experience was before. And then showing their own
excitement about answering my question.
These ideas of connection, relationships, and collegial support all connect to the concept
social and emotional support. This support emerged from the interviews as a way to overcome
many of the challenges faced as new teachers. Nora mentioned that “actual emotional support for
teachers” would be incredibly helpful, whereas Nick spoke at length about the importance of
having a social circle for support as a teacher. He explained that to him “support is just kind of
almost that social piece of just kind of people coming alongside and just letting you know that
they're in it with you” and that in his first two years of teaching, the most valuable support he has
received has been the informal check ins with colleagues. Indeed, Marie found that one of the
significant aspects of the generative dialogue sessions was the social aspect of the sessions and
the teachers’ willingness to share. She added, “it’s also cool how open we all are as new teachers
to share our feelings, because again, we're trying to put on that brave face, like me”.

36

Dialogue
The theme of dialogue as a type of support also was evident from the interviews. In
particular, these teachers spoke about the support they found in conversation, listening to each
other, and having a safe space to share their struggles in the generative dialogue sessions. For
example, when asked what support looks like, Nora said, “support looks like being able to have
discussions, sharing resources, knowing exactly who to talk to” and she found the generative
dialogue sessions helpful because “having those conversations open means that I'm able to kind
of continue on with them. I needed that push into it”. She added that listening in the generative
dialogue sessions was a critical element because for her “support is just having someone at the
other end that's willing to pay attention to what you have to say, even if they don't have any
feedback to give you or don't have anything to say, as long as they listen and you know for a fact
that somebody is able to lend an ear”. Jennifer agreed with this sentiment, sharing that for her it
was helpful “just hearing other teachers, ideas and it gives that opportunity to open up that
conversation with particular teachers about what they do in their classes”. Emily and Marie
agreed, as both teachers spoke to the value of taking time for conversation and to talk about what
they are teaching. As well, Nick also found the generative dialogue to be a supportive structure
because “it is nice and I think super valuable to have just that time where we get together and we
talk about what's working in the classroom, we check in and see how things are going”.
However, he was not only appreciative of the way that the generative dialogue sessions brought
this group of teachers together, but also suggested “I think what would be really helpful is if
across all the departments that I'm in if that was more of a thing. Again, I feel really connected
with the English department”.

37

Another element of support that the generative dialogue sessions provided for these
teachers was a safe space to talk. Emily spoke of the importance of this element for her,
explaining “it's nice to have that moment of, like, okay, things have been hard. And to have that
kind of outlet”. Also, Marie talked specifically about the importance of having a safe space to
connect and talk with other ECTs in particular and explained, “I'm not scared to speak because
we're all at that same stage in our career - we're still bouncing ideas and still building who we
want to be as teachers, and we then apply it to our classes”. Once the safe space had been created
for this generative dialogue, these teachers then felt comfortable opening up about their struggles
and were able to be open and honest. This piece led to increased perceptions of support and the
reassurance that others are at the same place as them. For instance, Nora noted that “the most
beneficial part is probably knowing that there are other people having the same struggles as I
am”. Similarly, Emily shared “it's kind of nice to hear again as a new teacher that I am not the
only one struggling with certain things, and whether that is balancing the marking or the prep
work or even just feeling burnt out, it's really validating to hear that from other people”. Marie
explained the importance of this form of support from the generative dialogue sessions in more
detail:
Just to know that that we all struggle. So that was surprising to hear that other people will
struggle the same way. Like, people seem very put together and I also will put on a strong
face …but then when you're given those opportunities to talk about your struggles with
other people, it's kind of like, okay, we may look put together and we fake it till we make
it till the end of the day, but everyone has struggles and it's also different because we all
have different struggles…I just love that part of hearing from each other. It was very

38

humbling to know that other people struggled too and not just me because I was always
questioning myself…like am I doing enough? And what I'm doing is good enough.
Furthermore, Emily spoke of the importance of opening up about these struggles for her own
mental health, saying “Having the new teachers to talk to helps my mental health more and
makes me feel grounded. It makes me feel like I am not like falling apart every single day and
just to also hear they have the same questions”. It became clear from the interviews that the
generative dialogue sessions were a valued and beneficial support structure, and several of the
ECTs inquired as to whether these sessions could continue once the study concludes.
Professional Learning
The theme of professional learning as a method of support emerged from the interviews
as well, including collaboration, learning from other teachers, and sharing resources with one
another. Marie explained that she found this type of curricular support in the generative dialogue
sessions “because we all are different types of types of learners and we're all different types of
educators and just to see how that looks in other people's classroom and what they're struggling
with could be what you're better at - like pieces of the puzzle”. Again, this idea of learning from
one another was mentioned by Jennifer as being beneficial as a support because as she explained
“I would write those things down and I like hearing what worked for these teachers, other
teachers that are in the school and then want those resources and ideas so that was nice”. She
also expressed a desire to look more in detail at some of the units the other teachers have created,
thus continuing this form of professional learning. It was also mentioned several times in the
interviews that it was beneficial to learn about the supports available at the district level from the
curriculum department. Tied to this idea of professional learning is a desire by the ECTs to
continue sharing the resources as a way to support and learn from one another. For example,

39

Marie spoke about an idea from a recent professional development session about “creating the
ultimate list” of resources and ideas that all of the ECTs could access.
Collaboration within professional learning was also mentioned consistently as a valued
type of support. Both Marie and Nick referenced the need for teachers of a certain grade level to
get together to collaborate on units of study, and that this is something that could be the next step
from the generative dialogue sessions. Nora valued the support from the generative dialogue
sessions and said she now feels like “there are other points of views out there and that I'm able to
discuss with them, see what they do, share what I do, so that we can build something together”.
Emily discussed the potential collaboration stemming from this generative dialogue and as
valuable “especially right now because we're so separated and that we have to be…there's some
room in there for some more collaborative pieces to come through”. She also suggested that this
support can help in her own professional learning, and she explained that she really values “that
collaborative process and supporting each other through developing new strategies and new
skills”. Additionally, Jennifer talked about collaboration in her definition of support: “Support to
me is like here's the resource, let's look through the resource together, and how do we make it
work for you?” The interview responses show that the participants are open to further
collaboration and that they value the support that is found in professional learning.
Personal Growth
The final theme that emerged from the interviews was the idea that support allows for
growth as ECTs. Reflection is a piece of this growth, and Marie found that the opportunity to
share ideas in the generative dialogue sessions was an example of reflective practice. She
explained that for her this process was “almost [like] professional development too because we
were able to bounce these ideas [and] it was very reflective”. Confidence was also cited as an

40

outcome of the support that was built in the generative dialogue sessions. Marie explained that
she has found the confidence to ask questions and push forward as she grows as a new teacher:
I will always ask… even if they're intimidating or maybe I'm intimidated by how long
they've been teaching in their career …I won't let that stop me from asking questions or
just raising my voice, and just making myself known…I feel like we're more on a level
playing field and I'm not as intimidated by their experience.
She went on to explain that being a part of these generative dialogue sessions was “a humbling
experience and that reflective experience [helped] to push myself to try new things”. Emily
agreed with this sentiment, explaining that being in these generative dialogue sessions and
thinking about support has empowered her to keep “trying new things or being more willing to
take risks knowing other people are kind of in a similar boat”. She shared that she is excited to
try new things in her classroom feeling supported.
One of the most powerful dimensions of the support the ECTs found in the generative
dialogue sessions and their place in the school is the importance of having a voice in
conversations and decisions that are made. Being able to contribute to the school and have their
ideas respected was something that was articulated by several of the ECTs. Nick said in his
experience as an ECT “it's hard to feel sometimes like you've got something of value to
contribute…but I definitely do feel like the space and place has been made for my voice to be
heard whenever I do want to contribute something”. Similarly, Marie talked about the exchange
of ideas between the newer and the more experienced teachers, and that feeling supported is key
because as she said, “as a new teacher, we also have a lot to bring to the table”. Furthermore,
Marie explained that by finding their voice as ECTs they feel empowered because now there is
“an exchange…of ideas” with experienced teachers so they feel their contributions are valued.

41

Additionally, Emily explained that by having a stronger voice she is now able to “ask questions
that help my practice”.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of support for ECTs engaged in
generative dialogue, and this involved the introduction of generative dialogue as a discussion
framework for a small group of ECTs. This inquiry was driven by the question “how can
implementing generative dialogue impact early career teachers’ perceptions of support?” The
motivation for the inquiry was to explore ways of connecting and supporting the ECTs in my
school and action research was chosen for this study because it allowed for an intervention to
occur during the research process. As an action research study, I needed to understand the
perceptions of support for a group of ECTs prior to implementation of the generative dialogue
sessions as an intervention. Data was collected from a pre- and post-questionnaire, observation
charts from each generative dialogue session, and semi-structured interviews to examine the
impact on perceptions of support. This study was completed between January and early March of
2021, a time of the year when ECTs may find themselves coming out of a time of
disillusionment (Moir, 1999). During this time of disillusionment, which typically occurs in the
winter, ECTs may “express self-doubt, have lower self-esteem, and question their professional
commitment. Getting through this phase may be the toughest challenge they face as new
teachers” (Moir, 1999, p. 22). This study was conducted during the Covid 19 pandemic, which
has led to increased stress for both experienced teachers and ECTs, and it can be assumed that
the challenges faced by the ECTs have been compounded by the pandemic. As such, the hope
was the implementation of generative dialogue would have a positive influence on perceptions of
support for ECTs in this large secondary school. The questions in the pre- and post-questionnaire

42

were grouped by theme: dialogue, confidence, connection, and support. Data analysis on the
semi-structured interviews revealed five themes: challenges for ECTs, the role of collegial
support, the importance of dialogue, professional learning, and personal growth. From this
analysis, there are several findings that confirm some of the literature that was surveyed, and
some additional findings that provide new insights on this topic.
Each of these teachers has their own unique teaching style, and combined with their own
individual personalities, it is not surprising that there was variation in their responses to the
questionnaire and the semi-structured interviews. For example, one of my assumptions was that
isolation was a problem for all of our ECTs, yet as I reviewed their questionnaire data, I realized
this was the case for some but not all of the ECTs in this study. Similarly, some of the ECTs said
they prefer a dialogue that is more organic and informal while others have said they like a more
structured conversation with questions to focus the dialogue. As a result, I believe there is no
‘one size fits all’ type of support that is best for ECTs; instead, I think it is important to be
responsive to the needs of the teachers and generative dialogue is a framework that allows for
this flexibility.
Changes from the Action Research Study
Prior to the implementation of generative dialogue, ECTs in the English department were
not well connected in the school or to one another. Teachers who are in the portables, for
example, were on the complete opposite side of the school from both of the department’s lead
teachers and two of the other ECTs in the department. As a result, check ins, collegial
conversations, and relationships existed but were still quite fragmented. Prior to this study, as a
lead teacher I made efforts to connect with this group of ECTs but these connections felt too
infrequent and superficial. There were not a lot of conversations around teaching, and deeper

43

discussions were not occurring. At department meetings, there were many agenda items to
‘check off’ and little time to sit and work together. Certainly, ECTs had little input into what was
being done at these meetings, and there was little focus on what support they needed in their own
classrooms. For many, this meant there was no time to share any struggles or challenges, and
problems were going unresolved. There were few chances to share ideas around teaching and
what was being done in the classroom.
After implementation, several changes were observed. Teachers in the study felt more
connected, despite the inherent isolation brought about by the pandemic and our division into
separate learning cohorts this year. Conversations have begun as a result of the dialogues,
between ECTs who may not have had other opportunities to connect. A safe space has been
created to share, and ECTs now know they are not alone in the struggles they may face. Collegial
relationships have become stronger, and there is an increase in conversations around teaching.
ECTs are being listened to, being supported, being given chances to reflect on their practice
together, and are now more empowered to take risks and try new things in their classroom. It
should be noted however that we are really just getting started with generative dialogue, but the
potential exists to keep going and hopefully the positive impacts of this intervention will
continue to grow.
Implementation of Generative Dialogue
The results of this study support the work of Adams et al. (2019) with regards to
generative dialogue as a framework for fostering support for ECTs, even though this framework
was not explicitly explained to the participants. Adams et al.’s work states that generative
dialogue is dependent upon the leader avoiding false praise, suspending judgement and criticism,
and limiting their own personal anecdotes to allow the participants to truly be heard (Adams et

44

al., 2019, p. 102). They explain it is essential for active listening to occur, and for the leader to
show an “authentic curiosity about the thoughts, ideas, insights, and conundrums of teachers and
colleagues that provide and environment of acceptance, trust, and failing forward” (Adams et al.,
2019, p. 105). As mentioned previously, Adams et al. also caution that when facilitating a
generative dialogue session, the leader must be very focused on listening more than talking. This
listening stance can be challenging, as I found in the first generative dialogue session. As a
facilitator, my natural instinct was to jump in and keep the conversation going when there were
awkward pauses and moments where there was a lull in the discussion.
Additionally, the results of this study have confirmed the key elements of the generative
dialogue theoretical framework as an intervention for support. Prior to this inquiry, the
participants were not familiar with generative dialogue theory or its elements, so it is interesting
that in their semi-structured interviews many of these aspects of generative dialogue were
described and alluded to. First, the idea of building a community of practice is a central tenet of
generative dialogue. By engaging in this series of generative dialogue sessions, a professional
learning community among the ECTs has developed, something that several of the interviews
touched upon. This community of practice is contingent on the ECTs being full participants in
the conversations, and as the observations of the generative dialogue sessions showed, this
participation grew over the course of the three sessions. A second pillar of generative dialogue is
that it involves transformative learning. This was confirmed by this group of teachers when they
said they felt the process had been very reflective and empowering. As the results show, these
teachers really appreciated the opportunity to hear each other’s stories including sharing some of
their struggles as ECTs. These results are consistent with generative dialogue theory which says
that it is crucial to understand each other’s experiences (Adams et al, 2019, p. 98). The third

45

aspect is that generative dialogue has a person-centred perspective, and this was an important
focus when structuring each of the generative dialogue sessions. Trust was essential, and as trust
developed so too did the comfort levels of the ECTs in the study, and this was observed as a
change over time from the first dialogue session to the final session. Prompts were used to move
the conversation along, however, the key was listening and the “mutual respect of the
contributions of others” (Adams et al., 2019, p. 101). Finally, the generative dialogue sessions
followed the ideas of Socratic questioning, and as time went on the questions were generated by
the participants themselves. This allowed for a genuine curiosity to develop, which allowed for
their unique viewpoints and perspectives to be shared. As such, the process of implementing
these generative dialogue sessions had many benefits on building support for these ECTs, and in
turn confirmed many benefits that are also central components of the framework. It also helped
to answer my emerging question about what ECTs really want as I learned they not only want
support, but they also want to be listened to, respected, and treated as equals.
The results of this study support previous research about the experience of ECTs with
regards to support. Clearly, ECTs face a myriad of challenges, including the many pressures and
responsibilities of a teaching position, and in some cases isolation from colleagues. Feelings of
being overwhelmed and burnt out are very common, as shown by the results of the semistructured interviews which is consistent with the research done by Daniels and Boring (2014).
The results are also consistent with the work of Kutsyuruba et al. (2019) who noted that ECTs
need to find collegial support, build strong relationships, and feel a sense of belonging in their
schools. This support in turn can potentially reduce burnout and feelings of being overwhelmed
and allow ECTs to continue to grow as educators. The results of this study strongly suggest that
these collegial relationships are the foundation of feeling supported. Additionally, this study

46

confirmed the benefits of teacher dialogue for ECTs which is consistent with the work of
Mazurkiewicz (2004), Wong (2004), and Adams et al. (2019) in terms of support.
Whereas past researchers have found similar challenges for ECTs and have explored the
importance of collegial relationships, support, and the benefits of teacher dialogue, this study has
shown additional benefits for ECTs that are consistent with generative dialogue theory in
particular. As suggested, “by listening more and talking less, by describing and clarifying, we
come to recognize their values, beliefs, opinions, and experiences and often support for reflection
and, ultimately, professional learning and growth” (Adams et al., 2019, p. 101). One finding of
this study was that the generative dialogue sessions can provide opportunities for professional
learning, which is one aspect the ECTs identified as valuable to them. This professional learning
was a direct result of the ideas shared by the ECTs about strategies they are using in their
classrooms, lessons they are planning, struggles they have overcome, and questions they have
related to teaching. In essence, these intentional conversations have opened the doors for
collaboration and shared professional learning, which can be planned by the ECTs around topics
that are important to them. Another finding from this study is that by engaging in generative
dialogue, a safe space was built which allowed the ECTs to be vulnerable and therefore open and
honest in sharing some of their struggles. Furthermore, the ECTs who participated in the
generative dialogue sessions have also experienced personal growth such as feeling empowered
and that they have a voice and the opportunity to contribute their ideas. This again can be tied to
the generative dialogue sessions because once trust was built the ECTs in the study then felt
supported by one another and were able to open up.
Limitations

47

There were several limitations to this study. One limitation is that there was a small
sample size, and that the teachers were only from one large secondary school. It is possible that a
study conducted at a smaller school may have different findings. Another limitation was the
short time frame for data collection, so only three generative dialogue sessions were held and
therefore the observations on change and growth over time may be minimal compared to a study
over many months. In addition, research was being conducted electronically and under very strict
protocols due to the Covid 19 pandemic. As such, there were limits to how we could meet, and
the inability to meet face to face may have had an effect on the dynamic of the generative
dialogue sessions. Furthermore, the teachers in this study are not all located in the same area of
the school, so proximity to one another may have been a limiting factor that impacted their
perceptions of support. It is possible the results would be different if all of the ECTs were located
in the same part of the school.
Implications
Despite these limitations, these results suggest that indeed generative dialogue, as a
structure for professional conversation, can have a positive impact on perceptions of support for
ECTs. Generative dialogue requires no special training to implement; rather it requires a shift in
teachers’ thinking and a focus on listening to one another. Therefore, it is something that can be
used in any school and with a variety of groups. While it was used in this study with a group of
ECTs from the same department, it could be used in any department within a school and at any
grade level and can include teachers of varying experience levels. However, the key is to allow
the ECTs to have the chance to feel like they have a safe space to talk, so trust and a focus on
listening to one another are essential for generative dialogue to work well. Furthermore,
generative dialogue does not need to be limited to just a small group of ECTs in one school. In

48

terms of future research, it would be helpful to implement generative dialogue at another school
or department to add to the findings of this study. If, as this study suggests, generative dialogue
is beneficial in the short term over just a few months, it would be interesting to study its impact
over the course of a year or several years.
In my context, one implication of this study is that we can continue meeting as a group
and talking about issues that arise as ECTs. This particular group of teachers has indicated a
desire to share resources, ideas, and strategies, and so there are now opportunities for
collaboration stemming from this generative dialogue. Conversations about areas of particular
interest such as assessment and planning can begin. Similarly, informal conversations and
collegial support that is found in these generative dialogue sessions can continue to grow, and
additional ECTs can be invited to join this group. ECTs can continue to take ownership of the
conversations, thus continuing the evolution of the generative dialogue process that was evident
in the observation charts that were analyzed. Furthermore, ECTs can continue contributing to
learning conversations in meaningful ways, sharing their innovative ideas, learning from one
another, building their professional learning community, and having a positive impact on the
department and school.
Generative dialogue is just one intervention that can be used to provide support for ECTs;
I believe there is tremendous potential for its use in mentoring and induction programs for ECTs.
It is clear that there is a need for these types of programs, and by using this framework these
conversations about support can begin at the school level. The work of Sharpe and Nishimura
(2017) suggests that mentoring is rooted in trust and deep listening. They also speak to the
importance of holding space for the mentee to problem solve, something that complements this
generative dialogue framework. Similarly, the work of Wong (2014) suggests that teacher

49

dialogue is an essential piece of a strong induction program. Therefore, by adding generative
dialogue to existing programs of this nature, or by creating new programs rooted in the key
elements of generative dialogue, a comprehensive support network can be built that allows ECTs
to have a voice and opportunities to identify the support that they really need. Additionally, when
this occurs at the school level, the support that is found is specific to the context of the ECTs,
and it creates collegial support.
However, by moving forward it is important to remember the key elements of generative
dialogue outlined by Adams et al. (2019) that have been confirmed by this study, including
practicing effective listening, suspending judgement, encouraging responsibility, conveying
positive regard and presuming professional competence. It is important that these generative
dialogue sessions not just become traditional department meetings that are burdened with a large
agenda of items that must be addressed; rather, the focus needs to be keeping the conversation
going and building this learning community. While the nature of generative dialogue may seem
informal, there must be intentional time set aside for these conversations to happen. If more
experienced teachers join the dialogue, it is essential to remember to prioritize listening to ECTs
and to ensure that they feel respected and that they have a voice. The ECTs must continue to be
allowed to move the conversations in the direction that addresses their needs.
Finally, ECTs must be encouraged to share their ideas and be given a voice in other
meetings in the school. In fact, it can be suggested that based on this study, generative dialogue
may support the notion of distributing and sharing power within professional learning
communities, similar to Palmer’s (2017) concept of “The Community of Truth”, where all
participants, in this case teachers, are treated as equals and are encouraged to share their
knowledge with one another in a model that emphasizes learning and growth (p. 105). Knowing

50

from this study that generative dialogue fosters more equitable participation by ECTs, this may
strengthen a collaborative sharing of knowledge. This idea connects to the need for a
comprehensive model of support for ECTs because the findings of this study show that support
for ECTs in a school is effective when teachers can find support from multiple sources, including
each other. In turn, this idea complements the findings of this study with regards to the collegial
support, relationships, professional learning, and personal growth that were found in the
generative dialogue sessions.
Directions for Further Research
In terms of future research, it would be useful to extend the current findings by
examining the potential of using generative dialogue with ECTs in other settings. Though this
present study has focused on ECTs in just one school, there is a need for research that examines
the role generative dialogue can play in support for a group of teachers from more than one
school. If, as the present study suggests, generative dialogue is beneficial for ECTs in a short
term of several months, there is a need for research that explores whether it has an impact on
ECTs over a longer period of time up to a period of several years. It would be helpful to follow a
group of teachers over several years and examine the impact this intervention has one their longterm perceptions of support. Additionally, it would be useful to extend beyond the focus on one
department and determine whether a generative dialogue structure can be effective with a group
of ECTs from more than one department. As well, the relationship between generative dialogue
and both professional learning and personal growth are potential areas for further study.
Furthermore, while the connection between the implementation of generative dialogue
and support has been examined by this study, there still remains a gap in the research between
using generative dialogue as a long-term method of support and the impact generative dialogue

51

has on teacher attrition. Similarly, there is a need for research to examine the exact role that
generative dialogue can play in strengthening mentoring and induction programs.
Recommendations
It is clear from this study that the generative dialogue framework can have a positive
impact on perceptions of support for ECTs. In addition, there is potential to continue using
generative dialogue to build additional support for ECTs in my school and district. As a result,
several recommendations can be made from the outcomes of this study:


Continue with generative dialogue sessions specifically for ECTs and invite other ECTs who
are new to the department to join this professional learning community



Prioritize setting aside intentional time to connect with ECTs and ensure that they have a
voice in the English department



Use the information from the generative dialogue sessions to inform other supports that the
ECTs identify as a need



Implement generative dialogue at regularly scheduled English department meetings for
teachers of all experience levels to create a safe space to share ideas and for teachers to
engage in sustained professional learning



Share the generative dialogue framework with other lead teachers and departments within the
school through professional development or collaborative meetings as a way to support ECTs
in other departments



Explore ways to create on-site induction and mentoring rooted in generative dialogue



Present the findings of this study to district level mentoring programs.

52

Conclusion
The present study has added to an understanding of the relationship between generative
dialogue and perceptions of support for ECTs. While it is clear that ECTs will face challenges as
they begin their careers, generative dialogue is one way to provide support through conversations
about teaching. It is also evident in both the literature reviewed and from the research in this
study that collegial support, connection, positive relationships, opportunities for conversations
about teaching, and on-going professional learning are essential for ECTs as they continue to
grow as teachers. It is essential listen to ECTs and ask what they need, and this study has shown
that generative dialogue is an effective framework for supporting ECTs. However, this is just one
piece of a comprehensive way to support ECTs. I believe that several types of support are
possible and necessary to support ECTs and this should include generative dialogue along with
mentoring, induction programs, and the creation of professional learning networks and
communities. In this study, generative dialogue was shown to have a positive impact on the
ECTs involved in the study and therefore I believe it should be implemented more often as a
support strategy.
Since the start of this study, I have learned so much about the ECTs at my school and
their ideas about support. However, the most significant learning for me has come from the
implementation of generative dialogue itself. For example, I have learned that ECTs have a
strong desire to contribute to their schools early in their careers, and that when given an
opportunity to share they have a wealth of information and ideas to bring to the table.
Furthermore, I have learned that there is incredible power in listening and holding space for
others to share their stories, and I have been reminded how important it is to connect and build
relationships. I have also reaffirmed my initial assumption that there is need for professional

53

conversations focused on teaching and learning, and I have learned that generative dialogue can
provide a flexible structure for these discussions. Perhaps most surprisingly I have learned that
ECTs do not just want to be given resources and materials to use; instead, they want to co-create
units and lessons, and to collaborate and learn alongside one another and experienced teachers.
By implementing generative dialogue, I learned that ECTs can indeed support one another
collegially, and that there is rich professional learning that comes from these conversations.
This program has transformed me as an educator. I feel called to advocate for the ECTs I
teach with, and I am committed to giving them opportunities to have their voices heard within
my school. Since the start of this program, I have become acutely aware of the challenges ECTs
face as they begin their careers. However, perhaps more significantly during the course of this
study, I have become aware of the contributions that ECTs can make to the English department
and to the school community if they are given the opportunity to have a voice. The ECTs in this
study have excellent ideas that need to be heard by others in the department. I have developed a
renewed respect for the progressive ideas around curriculum and pedagogy that ECTs can offer
to a school. I have also gained an awareness of the importance of many layers of support for
ECTs, and I am learning about the role that I can play in building this support.
Prior to this inquiry, I was unsure of the role a lead teacher could play in supporting
ECTs within a school. I was aware of district mentoring programs, and yet I could still see at the
school level that there was potential to do more. As I reflect on the past few months, and the
work that has been started with this group of ECTs, I am reminded that “change can come from
the bottom, from grassroots efforts and groups or people who want to see things done
differently” (Gallagher & Thordason, 2018, p. 17). At first, it was tempting to see the role of lead
teacher as the person who needed to disseminate information to the other teachers in the

54

department, and I thought my most important role in terms of support would be to answer
questions, share resources, and problem solve for others. Certainly, that is part of the role, but
this inquiry has transformed my way of thinking of what it means to be a lead teacher. I now see
my role as being one who can bring teachers together, whether ECTs or teachers of varying
experience levels, and that the most important support I can give is to listen and find ways to
empower the teachers in my department, and to be their advocate when needed. I have learned
the most about supporting ECTs by listening to them and letting them take the lead in
conversations. For me the most exciting part of this study is that this is just the beginning of
working with these teachers, and I am looking forward to learning from them and with them in
the future.
It has been said that “teachers working with teachers is the most effective way you can
improve schools” (Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2018, p. 10). By implementing generative dialogue
with a small group of ECTs in just one school, these teachers have built their own professional
learning community rooted in support, and as a result I am confident it will benefit not only the
teachers involved, but our department as a whole. Ultimately, the goal is to keep teachers in the
profession, and by investing time in supporting our ECTs it will benefit our school and students
for many years to come.

55

References
Adams, P., Mombourquette, C., & Townsend, D. (2019). Leadership in education: The power of
generative dialogue. Canadian Scholars.
Campbell, C. (2017). Developing teachers’ professional learning: Canadian evidence and
experiences in a world of educational improvement. Canadian Journal of Education, 40
(2), 1–33.
Chang, M. L. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional
work of teachers. Educational Psychology Review. 21 (3): 193-218.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9106-y
Cresswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Daloz, Laurent A. (2012). Mentor: Guiding the journey of adult learners (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Daniels, M., & Boring, G. (2004). Why One Year of Support Is Not Enough. In Scherer, M.
(Ed.), Keeping good teachers. (p. 50-56). Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Day, B. C. (2012). New lives of teachers: Reflective stances and persistent learning. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 39 (1), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.1108/S14793687(2013)0000019020
Dufour, R. (2004). What is a professional learning community? In Dufour, R., Eaker, R., &
Dufour, R. (Ed.), On common ground: The power of professional learning communities.
(p. 31-43). Solution Tree Press.

56

Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Dufour, R. (2004). Recurring themes of professional learning
communities and the assumptions they challenge. In Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Dufour, R.
(Ed.), On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. (p. 7-29).
Solution Tree Press.
Feiman-Nemser, S., Carver, C., Schwille, S & Yusko, B. (1999). Beyond support: Taking new
teachers seriously as learners. In Scherer, M. (Ed.), Better beginning: Supporting and
mentoring new teachers (p. 3-12), edited by Marge Scherer, Association for Supervision
& Curriculum Development.
Halford, J. (1999). Easing the way for new teachers. In Scherer, M. (Ed.), Better beginning:
Supporting and mentoring new teachers (p. 13-18), edited by Marge Scherer, Association
for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Gallagher, A. and Thordason, K. (2018) Design thinking for school leaders: Five roles and
mindsets that ignite positive change. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor, M. T. (2018). Collaborative professionalism: When teaching
together means learning for all. Corwin, a SAGE Company.
Hendricks, C. (2017). Improving schools through action research: A reflective practice
approach. Pearson Education Inc.
Hobson, A. J., & Maxwell, B. (2017). Supporting and inhibiting the well-being of early career
secondary school teachers: Extending self-determination theory. British Educational
Research Journal, 43 (1), 168–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3261

57

Kelly, N., Sim, C., & Ireland, M. (2018). Slipping through the cracks: teachers who miss out on
early career support. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 46(3), 292–316.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2018.1441366
Kutsyuruba, B., Walker, K. D., Stasel, R. S., & Al Makhamreh, M. (2019). Developing resilience
and promoting well-being in early career teaching: Advice from the Canadian beginning
teachers. Canadian Journal of Education, 42(1), 285–321.
Lipton, W. & Wellman, B. (2018). Mentoring matters: A practical guide to learning-focused
relationships (3rd Ed.). MiraVia.
Little, J. W., & Horn, I. S. (2007). “Normalizing” problems of practice: Converting routine
conversation into a resource for learning in professional communities. In Stoll, L., &
Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas
(p. 79-92). McGraw-Hill Education.
Mansfield, C., & Gu, Q. (2019). “I’m finally getting that help that I needed”: Early career teacher
induction and professional learning. Australian Educational Researcher, 46(4), 639–659.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00338-y
März, V., & Kelchtermans, G. (2020). The networking teacher in action: A qualitative analysis
of early career teachers’ induction process. Teaching and Teacher Education, 87, 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102933
Mazurkiewicz, G. (2004). How professional dialogue prevents burnout. In Scherer, M. (Ed.),
(2004). Keeping good teachers. (p. 169-175). Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2007). Building professional learning communities in high
schools: Challenges and promising practices. In Stoll, L., & Louis, K. S.

58

(2007). Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (p. 151165). McGraw-Hill Education.
Miles M. B., Huberman, A. M. & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Moir, Ellen (1999). The stages of a teacher's first year. In Scherer, M. (Ed.), Better beginning:
Supporting and mentoring new teachers (p. 19-23), edited by Marge Scherer, Association
for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Palmer, P. (2017) The courage to teach: exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life.
Jossey-Bass.
Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Saldana, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
Schnellert, L., Kozak, D., & Moore, S. (2015). Professional development that positions teachers
as inquirers and possibilizers. LEARNing Landscapes, 9(1), 217-236.
https://doi.org/10.36510/learnland.v9i1.754
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2011). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the
teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional
exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(6), 1029–1038.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.04.001
Taylor, M., McLean, L., Bryce, C. I., Abry, T., & Granger, K. L. (2019). The influence of
multiple life stressors during teacher training on burnout and career optimism in the first
year of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86(2019), 102910.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102910

59

University of the Fraser Valley Research, Engagement and Graduate Studies (2020). UFV
Research Guidelines in Response to Covid-19.
https://www.ufv.ca/media/assets/research/policies--plans/covid-19/Research-Guidelinesin-Response-to-COVID-19-Sept2020.pdf
Wong, Harry (2004). Induction programs that keep working. In Scherer, M. (Ed.), Keeping good
teachers (p. 42-49). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

60

Appendix A
Ethics Approval

61

Appendix B
“Perceptions of Support for Early Career Teachers Engaged in Generative Dialogue”
Pre-Questionnaire
Participant: ____________________________
Please read the questionnaire and complete it based on your current experiences teaching at our
school.
1. Please check all that apply:
 I am an Early Career Teacher (less than five years of experience)
 I have a formal mentor
 I am part of the School District 33 mentoring program
2. I feel connected to other teachers in our department and subject area in this school
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
3. I feel isolated from the rest of the school
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree

 Agree

 Strongly Agree

4. I have opportunities to talk with other educators about my teaching
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
5. I feel supported to improve my teaching as an early career teacher in this school
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
6. When my colleagues ask me probing questions, it helps me feel supported as a new teacher
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
7. I can find support when I am faced with challenging situations in my classroom
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
8. I am aware of supports in our school
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree

 Agree

 Strongly Agree

9. I am aware of curricular supports in our district
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree

 Strongly Agree

10. I have colleagues I can turn to for support and to ask questions
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
11. I have been offered formal support as a new teacher at this school
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

62

12. I am confident in my assessment practices
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree

 Agree

 Strongly Agree

13. I am confident in my classroom management
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree

 Strongly Agree

14. I am confident in my ability to plan lessons in our current timetable
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
15. I feel overwhelmed by all the aspects of being a teacher
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree

 Strongly Agree

16. I feel like my workload is hard to manage
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree

 Strongly Agree

 Agree

17. I am able to get regular feedback on my own teaching practices
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
18. I would like to have more opportunities to collaborate with colleagues and share ideas
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
19. I would like to have more opportunities to be in dialogue and conversation with colleagues
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
20. When I am meeting with colleagues, I like to know the discussion topics prior to the session
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

63

Appendix C
“Perceptions of Support for Early Career Teachers Engaged in Generative Dialogue”
Post-Questionnaire
Participant: ____________________________
Please read the questionnaire and complete it based on your current experiences teaching at our
school.
1. Please check all that apply:
 I am an Early Career Teacher (less than five years of experience)
 I have a formal mentor
 I am part of the School District 33 mentoring program
2. I feel connected to other teachers in our department and subject area in this school
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
3. I feel isolated from the rest of the school
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree

 Agree

 Strongly Agree

4. I have opportunities to talk with other educators about my teaching
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
5. I feel supported to improve my teaching as an early career teacher in this school
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
6. When my colleagues ask me probing questions, it helps me feel supported as a new teacher
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
7. I can find support when I am faced with challenging situations in my classroom
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
8. I am aware of supports in our school
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree

 Agree

 Strongly Agree

9. I am aware of curricular supports in our district
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree

 Strongly Agree

10. I have colleagues I can turn to for support and to ask questions
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
11. I have been offered formal support as a new teacher at this school
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

64

12. I am confident in my assessment practices
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree

 Agree

 Strongly Agree

13. I am confident in my classroom management
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree

 Strongly Agree

14. I am confident in my ability to plan lessons in our current timetable
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
15. I feel overwhelmed by all the aspects of being a teacher
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree

 Strongly Agree

16. I feel like my workload is hard to manage
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree

 Strongly Agree

 Agree

17. I am able to get regular feedback on my own teaching practices
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
18. I would like to have more opportunities to collaborate with colleagues and share ideas
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
19. I would like to have more opportunities to be in dialogue and conversation with colleagues
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
20. When I am meeting with colleagues, I like to know the discussion topics prior to the session
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree

65

Appendix D
Generative Dialogue Observation Chart
Session #: ____

Date: ___________________

Time: ____________________

Participants: ____________________________________________________
Time
5 minutes
10 minutes
15 minutes
20 minutes
25 minutes
30 minutes
35 minutes
40 minutes
45 minutes
50 minutes
55 minutes
60 minutes

Asking
questions

Making
connections

Sharing
ideas/examples

Diverse
perspectives

Comments

66

Appendix E
“Perceptions of Support for Early Career Teachers Engaged in Generative Dialogue”
Semi-structured Interview Questions
1.

What does support look like to you?

2.

Reflect on your experience as a participant in the generative dialogue sessions:
a. What was the most beneficial part? Why?
b. What was the most surprising aspect?
c. Will this impact your own teaching? Explain.

3.

As an early career teacher, where and/or with whom are you able to find support?

4.

Have your perceptions of support changed as a result of these dialogue sessions? If so,
how?

5.

What additional supports would be helpful at this stage in your career?

6.

If this process were to continue, what topics would you want to explore?

7.

Do you have any questions for me?

8.

What pseudonym would you prefer for anonymization of the data?