Comprehensive Teacher Induction: What We Know, Don’t Know, and Must Learn Soon!

Larry Maheady, Ph. D.Department of Curriculum & InstructionSUNY Fredonia

April 22, 2010

A Presentation for the Fifth Annual Summit on Evidence-Based Education

Session Purposes• Describe “state of the art” regarding teacher

induction▫Highlight program components linked to

beneficial outcomes▫Describe practices that have failed to benefit

others• Discuss what remains unknown about teacher

induction▫More remains unknown than known▫Sampling of unknown questions and concerns

• Describe at least 6 ways we might improve teacher induction, instructional practice, and pupil learning ▫ Provide 3 specific examples of how we might improve

induction at pre-service and in-service levels

What We Know About Teacher Induction• No clear definition of teacher induction

▫ Extra attention and support for new teachers▫ Programs should last 1-3 years▫ Include mentor-based components & professional development▫ Lack of measurable induction strategies, outcomes, or

evaluation procedures• Induction programs have grown substantially and

consistently▫ 1990, 40% new teacher participation▫ 2000, 80% participation▫ 2010, over 90% participation

• Growth spurred on by▫ Educational reform movements of the 1980s▫ Projected teacher shortages▫ Teacher attrition and migration

As many as 50% of new teachers leave field within 5 years

What We Know About Teacher Induction• Induction programs are common; Comprehensive

programs are NOT▫ Great variability in induction programs▫ Intensive, comprehensive, structured, and sequentially

delivered programs are NOT prevalent▫ Less than 1% of new teachers engage in comprehensive

induction (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004)

▫ Scientifically-based programs with explicit focus on pupil learning are even more rare

• Comprehensive teacher induction includes▫ Reduced teaching load▫ Effective, trained mentors from same discipline▫ Professional development geared to new teachers’ needs▫ Strong administrative support▫ Sufficient time for planning and collaboration

What We Know About Teacher Induction• Comprehensive induction programs are costly

▫ Costs associated with recruitment, training, and hiring teacher replacements for mentors

▫ Ongoing professional development▫ “Costs” associated with highly effective mentors leaving the

classroom• Valid methodologically rigorous research on induction is

▫ Scarce▫ Inconclusive▫ Aggregated at levels not particularly useful for practitioners

• Literature is dominated by qualitative studies that describe researchers’ and participants’ perspectives▫ Most data consist of personal testimonials & opinions▫ Studies plagued by subjectivity and lack of controls▫ Lack of detail regarding “what” is taught in PD and “how” it is

taught▫ Mentoring and induction research is confounded by selection bias

What We Know about Teacher Induction• Researchers have examined 5 primary outcomes

▫ Personal and professional satisfaction*▫ Retention in profession▫ Impact on teaching practice▫ Impact on pupil learning**▫ Process-related variables (e.g., amount and nature of mentor-

mentee contacts and observations)• Some of the most extensive work on teacher induction has

occurred in California▫ Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program▫ The New Teacher Project▫ Consortium that provides induction support in over 25 school

districts▫ Programs meet Smith & Ingersoll (2004) criteria for highest

level of induction support• Most extensive and rigorous induction study completed by

Institute of Educational Studies (IES) (2008)

IES Study on Teacher Induction• 3-year (RCT) compared comprehensive and traditional

induction programs on• Teaching practice• Student achievement• Teacher retention• Participant satisfaction• Composition of districts’ workforces

• Involved 17 school districts across 13 states• Comprehensive teacher induction included

• Carefully selected and trained mentors• Curriculum of intensive and structured teacher supports• Focus on instruction• Direct observations in mentor classrooms• Formative assessment tools for mentors-mentees• Outreach for district leaders• Fidelity of intervention measurement

IES Study Findings

• Noticeable impact on “process” variables▫ Treatment teachers reportedly spent more time per week with

mentors 20 more minutes per week in Year 1 46 more minutes per week in Year 2

▫ Reported spending more time being observed per week by mentors 24 more minutes in Year 1 21 more minutes in Year 2

• No significant impact on teaching practice, student achievement, teacher retention, and/or composition of districts’ work force

What We Don’t Know about Induction• Do teacher induction programs work?

▫ High levels of participant satisfaction with induction programs▫ Some beneficial yet inconsistent effects on teacher retention▫ Very few findings regarding teaching practice and student

learning• Are satisfaction and retention sufficient outcomes?

▫ Is personal and professional satisfaction worth the cost?▫ Is retention, in and of itself, an important outcome?

Retention of ineffective versus effective teachers

• Would “better” induction programs improve teaching practice and student learning?▫ If no, should new teachers still be supported?▫ If yes, what should be included in better induction programs?

What We Don’t Know about Induction

• What should be included in “better” induction programs?▫ Specially selected and trained mentors▫ Enlightened professional development▫ Administrative support linked to broader educational goals▫ Nature of content and pedagogy

• What do new teachers need most to improve practice and pupil outcomes?▫ Do different types of “new teachers” need different things?▫ Do all new teachers need similar knowledge and skills?▫ How do induction and mentoring support new teachers?

What We Don’t Know about Induction• How do we identify effective mentors (i.e., those who

positively impact pupil learning)?▫ Do structures exist in districts’ to identify teachers who are

unusually effective?▫ How do we convince them to leave the classrooms?▫ Can we justify replacing highly effective teachers with other

instructors?• Would better research methods improve induction outcomes?

▫ Direct measures of teaching practice and student learning▫ Direct measures student learning▫ Single-case research design

• What roles, if any, should teacher preparation programs play in induction?▫ Teacher educators have played a limited role to date▫ Can induction begin prior to pre-service program completion?▫ Can pre-service teachers be empowered to improve their own

practice and/or to seek assistance in doing so when necessary?

What We Must Know and Do Soon• Make better pupil outcomes the overarching goal of

induction programs▫ Reverse priorities in induction research and practice▫ Retention and satisfaction as secondary outcomes to improved

teaching practice and student learning

• Re-conceptualize induction as ongoing performance feedback system for all ▫ Aligned with broader district-wide goals▫ Ongoing feedback and skill enhancement for all▫ Create a data-based “feedback” culture for educational decision-

making

• Align content and processes in induction around scientific-based knowledge▫ Teaching reading, classroom management and organization, progress

monitoring, and inclusive practices (Kauffman & Reschly)▫ Examine impact of enlightened professional development

Peer coaching Learning communities Web-based systems of professional communication

What Must We Know and Do Soon• Use more rigorous research methodologies

▫ Create measurable induction strategies and outcomes▫ Monitor fidelity of strategy implementation▫ Monitor impact of induction on teaching practice & pupil outcomes

▫ Scale up usage for sustainable change• Use induction as “vehicle” for bridging “research-to-

practice” gap▫ Many induction programs require participants to complete “learning

projects”▫ Make pupil learning and implementation of evidence-based

practices the focus• Work collaboratively

▫ IHEs must create seamless transitions between pre-service and in-service preparation

▫ IHEs must wrap coursework around P-12 needs▫ Increase clinical experiences; start early, work in high need

schools, and empower future teachers to improve pupil learning

Three Sample Partnership Projects• EDU 105 Initial Teacher Work Sample Research

▫ 400, 1st and 2nd year general education candidates enrolled in 8-week practicum

▫ Provided over 1,700 hours of instructional assistance to high needs schools

▫ Taught over 800 formal lessons▫ Implemented one of six EBP with high degrees of fidelity

(>.90)▫ Provided “evidence” (pre-post assessments) of positive impact

on student learning in over 75% of sampled lessons• Student Teachers Implement Class Wide Peer Tutoring

▫ 10 student teachers implemented CWPT with high degree of accuracy with 1 hour of in class assistance

▫ CWPT produced consistently high spelling grades on weekly post-tests for all pupils

▫ Pre-service and cooperating teachers and pupils liked CWPT▫ Pre-service teachers made procedural adaptations that

produced lower levels of pupil performance and satisfaction.

MATERIALS IN EVIDENCE OR POSTED

TEACHER PROCEDURES

STUDENT PROCEDURES

Class Wide Peer Tutoring Fidelity ChecklistTeacher: _________________ Grade: _____ Date: ___________ School: ___________Observer: ______________________ Reliability Observer: ________________________•N. A. = Not Applicable or that the entry was option for that day. Do not calculate N. A.s in total score.

YES NO N.A.*•Move/Stay Chart ____ ____ ____•Team point chart(s) posted ____ ____ ____•All tutoring pairs have materials ____ ____ ____•All tutoring pairs have point sheets ____ ____ ____SUBTOTAL: ____/____ = ____%

YES NO N.A.*•Teacher spends time introducing new content ____ ____ ____•Teacher instructs students to get materials oror students get materials on their own ____ ____ ____•Teacher sets timer for 10 minutes for spelling ____ ____ ____•Teacher resets timer for second session of spelling ____ ____ ____•Teacher circulates among students during tutoring ____ ____ ____•Teacher awards bonus points for tutoring correctly ____ ____ ____•Teacher helps pairs when needed, avoiding delays ____ ____ ____SUBTOTAL: ____/____ = ____%

YES NO N.A.*•Tutor awards 2 points for each correct response ____ ____ ____•Tutor conducts the correction procedure ____ ____ ____

1.Tutor stops tutee ____ ____ ____2.Tutor provides correct spelling (orally/visually) ____ ____ ____

•Tutor awards 1 point for correct answer after correction ___ ____ ____•Students report points on Daily Individual Point Sheets ____ ____ ____•Students report points on CWPT point sheets ____ ____ ____OVERALL TOTAL: ____/____ = ____% (Add all % subtotals and divide by 3)

Research-to-Practice Capstone Projects• 9-Hour Research Sequence for Master’s Students

• EDU 570, 660 & 690 Understanding, Designing, & Conducting Educational Research

• The Effects of Group Contingent Mystery Motivators & Spinners on Homework Completion & Accuracy ▫ General education “inclusion class” for 5th & 6th grade students; N

= 18▫ Low-SES, urban setting▫ 1st year teacher

• Dependent Variable▫ Percent of students completing daily math homework assignments▫ Percent correct

• Independent Variable▫ Group-contingent mystery motivator ▫ All students must complete homework assignment ▫ Randomly select numbered card 1-18 ▫ Student paper must be 85% correct▫ If criteria are met, students spin spinner

Math Homework Completion

Percent Correct on Math Homework

Research to Practice Studies 2007-2010Intervention Strategies

CWPT Response Cards

Self-Monitoring

Group Contingencies

Mystery Motivators

Heads Together

Other

Early childhood

1 1

Childhood

K-2 2 1

3-6 6 2 6 1 1

Adolescence

Math 1 1 2 2

Science 3 2 1

Social Studies

1 1 2 2 2

Totals 11 5 6 11 1 7

Summary & Implications

• State of the art around teacher induction and its impact on teaching practice and pupil learning is not pretty

• There is reason for optimism given proposed educational reforms▫ Influence of science in education▫ Blueprint for reform▫ NCATE’s transformative initiatives

• Improving practice of general education teachers is good place to start▫ 3 (EC) X 15 new teachers X 25 years = 1,125 pupils▫ 26 (CE) X 20 students X 25 years = 13,000 pupils▫ 17 (AE) X 120 students X 25 years = 51,000 pupils▫ Total potential impact = 65, 125 students

References• Alliance for Excellent Education (2004). Tapping the potential: Retaining and

developing high quality new teachers. Washington DC: Author.• Glazerman, S., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Isenberg, E., Lugo-Gil, J.,

Grider, M., & Britton, E. (2008). Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Results from the First Year of a Randomized Controlled Study (NCEE 2009-4034). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

• Hiller, L., Maheady, L., & Jabot, M. (2010). The effects of group contingent mystery motivators and spinners on the homework completion and accuracy of a 5th and 6th grade inclusion class. To be submitted to the Journal of Evidence-Based Practices in Schools.

• Maheady, L., Harper, G. F., Mallette, B., & Karnes, M. (2004). Preparing pre-service teachers to implement Class Wide Peer Tutoring. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 408-418.

• Maheady, L., Jabot, M., Rey, J., & Michelli-Pendl, J. (2007). An early field based experience and its effects on pre-service teachers’ practice and student learning. Teacher Education and Special Education 30, 24-33.