Induction and Mentoring: Evidence From the Teacher Graduate Assessment Project Charles Rohn, Dean, Eastern Illinois University Andrew F. Wall, Project Director

History Partnership of Deans of 12 public colleges of education in Illinois Teachers and supervisors surveyed one year after graduation Project funding from participating institutions, Illinois Board of Higher Education, Illinois State Board of Education, and Joyce Foundation

Project Purpose and Goals Provide a standardized assessment of new teacher graduates of public colleges in Illinois assessing teacher preparation programs. Provide a specific examination of teacher skills related to Illinois Professional Teaching Standards, NCATE standards and Illinois Learning Standards for the purpose of identifying areas of improvement for teacher preparation programs and on-going new teacher professional development needs. Develop a collaborative advisory board comprised of teacher preparation program Deans and state agency leaders to provide project guidance. Provide institutions with institution specific data on student learning in teacher education programs that can inform unique program improvement efforts. Proactively respond to call for accountability related to teacher preparation by gathering information that can inform policy makers and the public about both teacher preparation programs in Illinois and new teacher practice in the first year of instruction.

Who Responded: Survey Return

Dimension One: New teachers who indicate having a mentor during their first full year of teaching in public schools in Illinois.

Dimension Two: Prevalence of Mentoring Activities Scale

Dimension Three: Mentoring and Induction Prevalence of New Teachers StandardNo MentoringLow Mentoring Medium Mentoring High Mentoring Total 0-3 Induction Activities 9%2%7%6%24% 4-5 Induction Activities 9%3%8%18%38% 6-7 Induction Activities 4%1%5%18%28% 8-11 Induction Activities 1%0%2%7%10% Total 23%6%22%49%100%

Dimension Four: Mentoring and Induction of New Teachers by Self Reported Instructional Level

Dimension Four: Mentoring and Induction of New Teachers by Self Reported Instructional Level

Dimension Five: Mentoring and Induction Relationship and Mean Perceived Value of Induction Activities (N=1077)

Dimension Six: Intention to Remain in Teaching Categories and Mean of Mentoring And Induction Prevalence Score

Dimension Six: Intention to Remain in Teaching Categories and Mean of Mentoring And Induction Prevalence Score by Grade Level

Implications  Variation in Reported Prevalence of Both mentoring and induction activities  Those reporting more mentoring and Induction are more satisfied with experiences  Those reporting more mentoring and Induction report stronger intention to stay in teaching  Mentoring and induction prevalence and quality matters  Instructional level should be considered further

Dr. Andrew F. Wall Project Director Teacher Graduate Assessment Project Center for Educational Studies College of Education and Professional Studies Eastern Illinois University Charleston, IL