1. Comprehensive Teacher Induction: What We Know, Don’t Know, and Must Learn Soon!
Larry Maheady, Ph. D.
Department of Curriculum & Instruction
SUNY Fredonia
April 22, 2010
A Presentation for the Fifth Annual Summit on Evidence- Based Education

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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?

10. 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?

11. 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?

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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.

15. Class Wide Peer Tutoring Fidelity Checklist
Teacher: _________________ 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.
MATERIALS IN EVIDENCE OR POSTED
YES NO N.A.*
Move/Stay Chart ____ ____ ____
Team point chart(s) posted ____ ____ ____
All tutoring pairs have materials ____ ____ ____
All tutoring pairs have point sheets ____ ____ ____
SUBTOTAL: ____/____ = ____%
TEACHER PROCEDURES
YES NO N.A.*
Teacher spends time introducing new content ____ ____ ____
Teacher instructs students to get materials or
or 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: ____/____ = ____%
STUDENT PROCEDURES
YES NO N.A.*
Tutor awards 2 points for each correct response ____ ____ ____
Tutor conducts the correction procedure ____ ____ ____
Tutor stops tutee ____ ____ ____
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)

17. 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

18. Math Homework Completion

19. Percent Correct on Math Homework

20. Research to Practice Studies 2007-2010
Intervention Strategies
CWPT
Response Cards
Self-Monitoring
Group Contingencies Mystery Motivators
Heads Together
Other
Early childhood 1
Childhood
K-2 2
3-6 6
Adolescence
Math
Science 3
Social Studies
Totals 11 5 7

21. 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

22. 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 ). 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,
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,