
Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Results from the First Year of a Randomized Controlled Study. NCEE 2009-4034
Glazerman, Steven; Dolfin, Sarah; Bleeker, Martha; Johnson, Amy; Isenberg, Eric; Lugo-Gil, Julieta; Grider, Mary; Britton, Edward; Ali, Melanie (2008). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED503061
-
examining903Students, gradesK-6
New Teacher Center Induction Model Intervention Report - Teacher Training, Evaluation, and Compensation
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2015
- Randomized controlled trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for New Teacher Center Induction Model.
Findings
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentage retained at the same school |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
All teachers;
|
77.90 |
79.20 |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentage retained in the teaching profession |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
All teachers;
|
93.20 |
92.70 |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentage retained in the same district |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
All teachers;
|
90.60 |
87.60 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Midwest, Northeast, South
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 418 elementary schools in 17 urban school districts. This intervention report focuses only on the 215 schools in eight districts that worked with the NTC.
Study sample
The 17 school districts included in the study were selected because they expressed interest in study participation and met the following criteria: (a) the school district had at least 570 teachers in elementary schools; (b) the school district had at least 10 elementary schools in which at least 50% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price meals; (c) and the school district had schools with no comprehensive teacher induction program, no full-time mentors, and an expenditure of $1,000 or less on teacher induction per new hire. Study authors assigned participating districts to one of two comprehensive teacher induction service providers—the NTC (eight districts) or ETS (nine districts)—based mostly on district preferences. Within each district, study authors selected schools that did not have a comprehensive teacher induction program and had eligible beginning elementary school teachers, defined as teachers who: (a) taught in grades K–6; (b) were deemed by the school district to be new to the profession, from the perspective of being eligible for beginning-teacher induction services; and (c) were not receiving induction services from a teacher preparation or certification program. Study authors randomly assigned 215 elementary schools within the eight NTC districts either to receive the NTC Induction Model (110 schools) or to serve as a business-as-usual comparison group (105 schools). The study targeted all eligible beginning teachers in each participating school. The analytic sample for the teacher retention outcomes included 413 teachers (224 NTC Induction Model and 189 comparison) who completed both a baseline background survey and a followup mobility survey; these teachers came from 199 schools (105 NTC Induction Model and 94 comparison).
Intervention Group
The NTC adapted its induction model for the study to deliver required induction components in a 1-year curriculum. Beginning elementary school teachers in NTC Induction Model schools were assigned to full-time mentors, with each mentor assisting 11 beginning teachers, on average. Mentees participated in weekly meetings with mentors, monthly professional development sessions, one or two observations of veteran teachers, and an end-of-year colloquium. The NTC sought to hire mentors who had at least 5 years of experience teaching in elementary school, had been recognized as an exemplary teacher, and had experience mentoring or providing professional development to other teachers (particularly beginning teachers). Mentors were expected to spend about 2 hours each week with each mentee engaging in conversations about teacher learning activities and implementing strategies such as observing lessons, reviewing lesson plans and materials, providing lesson demonstrations, reviewing students’ work, and interacting with students. In spring of the first intervention year, 95% of beginning teachers in the NTC Induction Model group reported having a mentor, and 25% reported having multiple mentors. The beginning teachers in the intervention group also reported spending, on average, 104 minutes meeting with their mentors during the most recent full week of teaching.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison group received the standard induction services, if any, that were provided to beginning teachers in their district. In spring of the first intervention year, 85% of beginning teachers in the comparison group reported having a mentor, and 23% reported having multiple mentors. The beginning teachers in the comparison group also reported spending, on average, 86 minutes meeting with their mentors during the most recent full week of teaching.
Outcome descriptions
Glazerman et al. (2008) used teacher surveys in fall 2006, fall 2007, and fall 2008 to track whether beginning teachers remained in their schools, school districts, and the teaching profession. NTC-specific findings were provided only for the fall 2006 data, describing retention after 1 year of NTC Induction Model services. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B. Glazerman et al. (2008) also examined outcomes in the following domains: English language arts achievement, mathematics achievement, and teacher instruction. However, these outcomes do not meet WWC group design standards because the study authors did not provide the information needed to determine attrition, and the analytic intervention and comparison groups were not shown to be equivalent. Teachers also responded to survey items about their feelings of preparedness for teaching and their satisfaction with teaching. These outcomes are ineligible for review because they do not fall within a domain specified in the Teacher Training, Evaluation, and Compensation review protocol.
Support for implementation
The NTC at the University of California, Santa Cruz, oversaw implementation of all program activities in the eight school districts using the NTC Induction Model. School district coordinators provided local oversight. In addition to helping school districts select mentors, the NTC provided mentors with 12 days of formal training over four sessions during the intervention year. The trainings focused on the professional development content provided to teachers and the process of being a mentor. Mentors also received support throughout the school year through weekly mentor meetings and advice and feedback from school district coordinators and NTC staff. Researchers from WestEd monitored implementation in an attempt to ensure fidelity to the induction model.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Isenberg, E., Glazerman, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Lugo-Gil, J., Grider, M., … Britton, E. (2009). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Results from the second year of a randomized controlled study (NCEE 2009-4072). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
-
Glazerman, S., Isenberg, E., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Grider, M., & Jacobus, M. (2010). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Final results from a randomized controlled study (NCEE 2010-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Results from the First Year of a Randomized Controlled Study. NCEE 2009-4034
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2009
- Quick Review (84 KB) (findings for Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI))
- Randomized controlled trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Teacher remained at same school |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
1 year;
|
352.00 |
323.00 |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Teacher moved to different school in diferent district |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
1 year;
|
30.00 |
32.00 |
No |
-- | |
Teacher left teaching |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
1 year;
|
24.00 |
26.00 |
No |
-- | |
Teacher moved to a private school |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
1 year;
|
11.00 |
6.00 |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Teacher moved to different school in same district |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
1 year;
|
53.00 |
46.00 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Urban
-
Race Black 44% Other or unknown 17% White 17% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 22% Not Hispanic or Latino 78%
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).