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

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. 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 Research-to-Practice Capstone Projects

18. Math Homework Completion

19. Percent Correct on Math Homework

20. Research to Practice Studies 2007-2010

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 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.