A comprehensive model of teacher induction: Implementation and impact on teachers and students. Evaluation of the New Teacher Center’s i3 Validation Grant, Final Report
Young, V., Schmidt, R., Wang, H., Cassidy, L., & Laguarda, K. (2017). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. https://www.sri.com/publication/a-comprehensive-model-of-teacher-induction-implementation-and-impact-on-teachers-and-students-evaluation-of-the-new-teacher-centers-i3-validation-grant-final-report/ .
-
examining6,156Students, gradesK-8
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2022
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for New Teacher Center Induction Model)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with a risk of bias from individuals who entered clusters after random assignment, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Standardized scores of Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) for BCPS and Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) for CPS |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - RCT Districts;
|
0.03 |
-0.03 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Standardized scores of Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) for BCPS and Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) for CPS |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - RCT Districts;
|
0.10 |
-0.01 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Managing student behavior: sub-score of the Danielson Framework for Teaching |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - RCT Districts;
|
0.19 |
0.15 |
No |
-- | |
|
Using questioning and discussion techniques |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - RCT Districts;
|
0.56 |
0.37 |
No |
-- | |
|
Managing classroom procedures: sub-score of the Danielson Framework for Teaching |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - RCT Districts;
|
0.62 |
0.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Engaging students in learning: sub-score of the Danielson Framework for Teaching |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - RCT Districts;
|
0.53 |
0.43 |
No |
-- | |
|
Creating an environment of respect and rapport: sub-score of the Danielson Framework for Teaching |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - RCT Districts;
|
0.15 |
0.31 |
No |
-- | |
|
Using assessment in instruction: sub-score of the Danielson Framework for Teaching |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - RCT Districts;
|
0.17 |
0.34 |
No |
-- | |
|
Communicating with students: sub-score of the Danielson Framework for Teaching |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - RCT Districts;
|
0.23 |
0.19 |
No |
-- | |
|
Establishing a culture for learning: sub-score of the Danielson Framework for Teaching |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - RCT Districts;
|
0.29 |
0.27 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Teacher retention in the school district after 2 years |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
79.20 |
78.70 |
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.
-
12% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 52% -
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
Florida, Illinois
-
Race Asian 6% Black 44% Other or unknown 43% White 9% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 41% Not Hispanic or Latino 60% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 88% No FRPL 13%
Study Details
Setting
The New Teacher Center (NTC) implemented its induction model in three sites: Broward County Public Schools (BCPS) in Florida, Chicago Public Schools (CPS) in Illinois, and the Grant Wood Area Education Agency (GWAEA), a consortium of rural districts in Iowa. There are two sub-studies: a randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in BCPS and CPS and a quasi-experimental design (QED) conducted in GWAEA.
Study sample
Teachers in the RCT districts are primarily White (49%), Black (26%), or Hispanic (16%). Almost half of the teachers are female (49%). Students in the achievement analysis for the RCT districts are primarily Black (37-48%) or Hispanic (35-49%). Close to half of the student sample is female (48-49%). Most receive free/reduced-price meals (86-90%). A small proportion of the students are in special education (18-19%). (Sample characteristics for the QED study are omitted as the study did not meet standards.)
Intervention Group
The New Teacher Center (NTC) used this validation grant to implement teacher induction strategies, which aim to provide novice teachers with support as they first transition to the classroom. Through the grant, NTC formalized four key components of its comprehensive induction model: (1) build the capacity of districts and school leaders to support the mentoring program, (2) select and assign full-time release mentors to caseloads of no more than 15 teachers each, (3) provide mentors more than 100 hours of intensive training through institutes and in-field support from lead coaches, and (4) provide regular, high-quality mentoring to first- and second-year teachers using a system of NTC-developed online formative assessment tools. The NTC mentors supported first- and second-year teachers in multiple schools at a ratio of 15 beginning teachers to 1 mentor. New teachers received 2 years of coaching, meeting with their assigned mentors weekly for a minimum of 180 minutes per month. Mentors and teachers worked through a system of NTC-developed online formative assessments, including tools to guide observation cycles and to develop teachers’ skills in planning lessons and analyzing student work.
Comparison Group
For the two RCT sites, the teachers in the comparison group received business as usual supports. (A description of the comparison condition for the QED study is omitted as the study did not meet standards)
Support for implementation
Mentors received a series of 12 professional learning days over 2 years. These sessions covered a broad array of topics related to coaching (e.g., taking a collaborative stance with beginning teachers, focusing on equitable instruction), mentoring (e.g., observing and giving feedback), and formative assessment tools intended to aid mentors. The purpose of the training was to develop mentors’ expertise in identifying effective teacher practice, using data to inform instruction, creating classroom conditions to foster equitable learning, supporting language development, and differentiating instruction for diverse learners. Monthly Mentor Forums provided additional opportunity for mentors to reflect on their practice.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2018
- Grant Competition (findings for New Teacher Center Induction Model)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Achievement in English/language arts |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.06 |
-0.03 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Achievement in mathematics |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full Sample;
|
0.14 |
-0.01 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Framework for Teaching: Questioning and discussion techniques |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
a randomly selected subsample of teachers;
|
0.58 |
0.37 |
No |
-- | |
|
Framework for Teaching: Managing classroom procedures |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
a randomly selected subsample of teachers;
|
0.83 |
0.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Framework for Teaching: Engaging students in learning |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
a randomly selected subsample of teachers;
|
0.58 |
0.43 |
No |
-- | |
|
Framework for Teaching: Creating an environment of respect and rapport |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
a randomly selected subsample of teachers;
|
0.35 |
0.31 |
No |
-- | |
|
Framework for Teaching: Communicating with students |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
a randomly selected subsample of teachers;
|
0.20 |
0.19 |
No |
-- | |
|
Framework for Teaching: Establishing a culture for learning |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
a randomly selected subsample of teachers;
|
0.03 |
0.27 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Teacher retention: same district |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
18% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 52% -
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
Florida, Illinois
-
Race Asian 5% Black 41% Other or unknown 47% White 8% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 45% Not Hispanic or Latino 56%
Study Details
Setting
Two districts participated in the study. The districts included Broward County Public Schools (BCPS) located in Florida and Chicago Public Schools (CPS) located in Illinois.
Study sample
The majority (78%) of the teachers were female. 56% were White, 25% were Black, 13% were Hispanic. Most of the teachers had earned a Bachelor's degree (72%) or Master's degree (27%). 27% had earned only partial teacher certification. Students were roughly evenly distributed between grades 4-8. The majority were either Black (45%) or Hispanic (40%), 9% White and 5% Asian.87% qualified for free/reduced lunch. 19% were special education or had an IEP and 12% were English language learners.
Intervention Group
The New Teacher Center implemented high-quality teacher mentoring and induction. This program provided professional development, reseeach-based resouces, and online formative assessment tools for new teachers, mentors, and school leaders. New teachers received two years of support from mentors. Each new teacher was assigned a mentor and met weekly with their mentor for a total of 180 minutes each month. Online formative assessments were used to guide observation cycles and lesson planning.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business-as-usual. New teachers had access to the normal resources available to teachers in the district.
Support for implementation
Mentors were released from teaching assignment for the course of the mentorship. The mentors were trained under the New Teacher Center's induction model, receiving 12 professional learning days over 2 years. Mentor forums and in-field coaching, where a lead coach would observe the mentor's interactions with teacher and provide feedback, were provided along with formative assessments, developed by the New Teacher Center, to support mentoring sessions.
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.
-
Schmidt, R., Young, V., Cassidy, L., Wang, H., & Laguarda, K. (2017). Impact of the New Teacher Center's New Teacher Induction model on teachers and students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
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).