Skip Navigation
Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Results From the First Year of a Randomized Controlled Study

NCEE 2009-4034
October 2008

Summary of Findings: Positive Impacts on Induction Support Received

We found statistically significant differences between the treatment and control groups in the amount, types, and content of induction support teachers reported having received (see Chapter IV). This finding was similar in the fall and the spring of the intervention year. Estimates were computed using an ordinary least squares model with district and grade assignment fixed effects that accounted for clustering of teachers within schools; weights were applied to adjust for survey nonresponse and the study design.

Treatment Teachers Reported Receiving More Mentoring Than Did Control Teachers. Treatment teachers were significantly more likely than control teachers to report having any mentor (94 versus 83 percent) and having more than one mentor (29 versus 17 percent). The types of mentors also differed between treatment and control groups. Treatment teachers were significantly more likely than control teachers to report having a mentor assigned to them (93 versus 75 percent) and to report having a full-time mentor (74 versus 13 percent).6 Treatment teachers reported spending significantly more time working with their mentors than control teachers did during the most recent full week of teaching. Treatment teachers reported spending an average of 95 minutes per week in mentor meetings compared to 74 minutes for control teachers, with the 21-minute difference attributable entirely to differences in the duration of scheduled meetings. For a typical school year of 36 weeks, the treatment-control difference in the total hours of mentor contact time during the year is estimated to be 12.5 hours.

Treatment Teachers Were More Likely Than Control Teachers to Report Participating in Specific Induction Activities. Treatment teachers reported spending significantly more time during the most recent full week of teaching being observed by their mentors (26 versus 11 minutes), observing mentors modeling lessons (11 versus 7 minutes), and meeting one-on-one with a mentor (34 versus 21 minutes) or meeting with mentors and other first-year teachers (27 versus 7 minutes) as compared to control teachers. During the most recent full week of teaching, treatment teachers were 15 to 26 percentage points more likely than control teachers to report having received mentors’ assistance in a variety of topic areas, with a difference of more than 20 percentage points in discussing instructional goals and how to achieve them (70 versus 44 percent), receiving suggestions to improve practice (74 versus 52 percent), and receiving guidance on assessing students (62 versus 40 percent). Examining a broader window of three months prior to the spring survey, treatment teachers were a significant 7 to 36 percentage points more likely than control teachers to receive each type of guidance the survey asked about, with a difference of 25 percentage points or more in reflecting on instructional practice (68 versus 33 percent); managing classroom activities, transitions, and routines (65 versus 40 percent); reviewing and assessing student work (55 versus 30 percent); and using student assessments to inform their teaching (54 versus 29 percent).

Treatment Teachers Spent More Time in Certain Professional Activities Than Did Control Teachers During the Three Months Prior to the Spring Survey. During the three months prior to the spring survey, treatment teachers were significantly more likely than control teachers to report having kept written logs (40 versus 28 percent), worked with study groups of new teachers (68 versus 27 percent) and study groups of new and experienced teachers (47 versus 37 percent), and observed others teaching both in their classrooms (70 versus 42 percent) and in the teacher’s classroom (47 versus 38 percent). However, treatment and control teachers did not differ significantly in their likelihood to report having engaged in other activities such as keeping a portfolio and analysis of student work or meeting with principals, literacy or mathematics coaches, or resource specialists. Compared to control teachers, treatment teachers were significantly more frequently observed by mentors (3.4 versus 1.5 times), though not by principals, and more frequently given feedback on teaching both as part of a formal evaluation (1.7 versus 1.5 times) and not as part of a formal evaluation (2.5 versus 2.0 times) than control teachers during this period. Of 17 areas of professional development asked about, treatment teachers were significantly more likely than control teachers to report having attended professional development in three areas: lesson planning (38 versus 26 percent), analyzing student work/assessment (56 versus 42 percent) and differentiated instruction (55 versus 46 percent). Treatment teachers reported spending significantly more time in professional development in 4 of the 17 areas: analyzing student work/assessment (58 versus 41 minutes), lesson planning (36 versus 26 minutes), parent and community relations (23 versus 15 minutes), and assigning grades/record keeping (17 minutes versus 10 minutes). Treatment teachers reported spending significantly less time than control teachers in one area: preparing students for standardized testing (43 minutes versus 53 minutes).

Top


6 Although all treatment teachers were assigned a full-time ETS or NTC mentor, not all treatment teachers reported this person as their mentor. In addition, not all treatment teachers reported having a mentor assigned to them (as opposed to being someone the teacher sought out) or reported having a full-time mentor who had been released from teaching. We discuss teacher-reported mentor profiles in detail in Chapter IV.