Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Final results from a randomized controlled study (NCEE 2010-4027).
Glazerman, S., Isenberg, E., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Grider, M., & Jacobus, M. (2010). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED565837
-
examining882Teachers, gradesK-6
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2023
- Grant Competition (findings for Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Retention in teaching profession |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
94.70 |
94.50 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Teacher retention in the profession |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
1-year districts;
|
88.60 |
86.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Teacher retention in the profession |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
1-year districts;
|
90.40 |
89.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Teacher retention in the profession |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
2-year districts;
|
84.40 |
85.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Teacher retention in the profession |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
2-year districts;
|
86.90 |
90.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Teacher retention in the school |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
74.50 |
75.30 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Teacher retention in the school |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
2-year districts;
|
54.20 |
47.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Teacher retention in the school |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
1-year districts;
|
53.90 |
52.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Teacher retention in the school |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
2-year districts;
|
62.20 |
66.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Teacher retention in the school |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
1-year districts;
|
60.30 |
64.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Teacher retention in the school district |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
85.90 |
85.70 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Teacher retention in the school district |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
2-year districts;
|
64.90 |
60.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Teacher retention in the school district |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
1-year districts;
|
69.10 |
69.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Teacher retention in the school district |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
1-year districts;
|
78.60 |
80.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Teacher retention in the school district |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
2-year districts;
|
69.60 |
75.30 |
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.
-
Female: 87%
Male: 13% -
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
California, Louisiana, Ohio, Texas
-
Race Black 14% Other or unknown 11% White 76% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 6% Not Hispanic or Latino 95% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 17 urban school districts located across 13 states. These states were located throughout the South, Northeast, and Midwest.
Study sample
The districts included in the study served mostly African American students (7 of the 17 districts), Hispanic students (2 of 17), and White students (3 of 17); five diverse districts did not have a racial/ethnic majority. The districts were located throughout the south, Northeast, and Midwest. All of the districts were urban; 9 of 17 districts enrolled more than 50,000 students, and 11 of 17 included more than 50 elementary schools. Teachers in the study were 13 percent male and 87 percent female. The majority were White, non-Hispanic (76%), with 14 percent African American, 6 percent Hispanic, and 5 percent other/unknown/mixed.
Intervention Group
Comprehensive Teacher Induction is a comprehensive program that offers services to support beginning teachers with the goal of improving teacher and student outcomes. The intervention was provided by either the Educational Testing Service (ETS) or the New Teacher Center, based on each school district's preference. Beginning teachers were assigned to a mentor, who received ongoing training and materials to support the teachers’ development. Beginning teachers were offered monthly professional development sessions, opportunities to observe veteran teachers, and an end-of-year colloquium. Ten of the districts provided the intervention for 1 year, while the remaining seven provided the intervention for 2 years.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison condition continued to receive business-as-usual programs and support.
Support for implementation
Intervention districts received support to implement the induction programs, including the following: (1) training for full-time mentors; (2) a curriculum, including orientation, professional development opportunities, and weekly meetings with mentors; (3) opportunities for beginning teachers to observe experienced teachers; (4) formative assessment tools; and (5) outreach to district and school-based administrators to describe the program and obtain their support for the program.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Teacher retention rate |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teachers in schools offering the intervention, a comprehensive teacher induction program, for only one year.;
|
0.89 |
0.86 |
No |
-- | |
|
Teacher retention: same school |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teachers in schools offering the intervention, a comprehensive teacher induction program, for only one year.;
|
0.54 |
0.53 |
No |
-- | |
|
Teacher retention: same district |
New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teachers in schools offering the intervention, a comprehensive teacher induction program, for only one year.;
|
0.69 |
0.70 |
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.
-
Female: 87% -
Urban
-
Race White 76%
Study Details
Setting
Seventeen school districts in 13 states participated in the study.
Study sample
Elementary schools with 50% or more students qualified for free or reduced price lunch were included in the study. About 76% teachers were non-Hispanic White in Year 1 districts and 45% of teachers were non-Hispanic White in Year 2 districts. Eighty-seven percent were female teachers in Year 1 district and 90% in Year 2 districts. Close to half of the teachers were 20-25 years of age in year 1 (50%) and Year 2 (47%) districts.
Intervention Group
Induction services were provided either by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) or the New Teacher Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz (NTC), depending on the district’s preference. Nine districts used the ETS program and eight used the NTC program. Providers worked with districts to select and train mentors. Beginning teachers in treatment schools were assigned a mentor who worked full time with 12 teachers. Beginning teachers were offered monthly professional development sessions, opportunities to observe veteran teachers, and an end-of-year colloquium. In the second year, programs delivered induction activities to treatment teachers that were similar to those in the first year, but the content was designed to reflect growth of mentors and beginning teachers and changes in their circumstances and needs. In 2-year districts served by ETS, mentors led Teacher Learning Communities, an adaptation of the first year’s study groups that included specific content for each session and a formal structure for teachers to try out approaches to instruction. During second year professional development sessions in the 2-year districts served by NTC, mentors elaborated on standardized topics and designed activities to reflect local needs. After the first year of the program, 94% of beginning teachers in the intervention group reported having a mentor, and spending on average 95 minutes per week in meetings with their mentors.
Comparison Group
After the first year of the program, 83% of beginning teachers in the comparison group reported having a mentor, and spending an average of 74 minutes per week in meetings with their mentors.
Support for implementation
The programs are commercially available and implementation support is provided by ETS and NTC.
New Teacher Center Induction Model Intervention Report - Teacher Training, Evaluation, and Compensation
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2015
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Additional source not reviewed (View primary source).
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
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Final results from a randomized controlled study (NCEE 2010-4027).
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2013
- Single Study Review (114 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.
Absence of conflict of interest: This study was conducted by staff from Mathematica Policy Research. Therefore, Mathematica reviewers were not involved in the WWC review of this study.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Retention in school |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
After year 3 of intervention |
Teachers in districts where a single yr of induction was offered to intervention schools;
|
0.54 |
0.53 |
No |
-- | |
|
Retention in school |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
After year 1 of intervention |
All teachers;
|
0.75 |
0.75 |
No |
-- | |
|
Retention in school |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
After year 2 of intervention |
Teachers in districts where a single yr of induction was offered to intervention schools;
|
0.60 |
0.65 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Retention in teaching profession |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
After year 3 of intervention |
Teachers in districts where a single yr of induction was offered to intervention schools;
|
0.89 |
0.86 |
No |
-- | |
|
Retention in teaching profession |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
After year 2 of intervention |
Teachers in districts where a single yr of induction was offered to intervention schools;
|
0.90 |
0.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Retention in teaching profession |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
After year 1 of intervention |
All teachers;
|
0.95 |
0.95 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Retention in district |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
After year 1 of intervention |
All teachers;
|
0.86 |
0.86 |
No |
-- | |
|
Retention in district |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
After year 3 of intervention |
Teachers in districts where a single yr of induction was offered to intervention schools;
|
0.69 |
0.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Retention in district |
Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual |
After year 2 of intervention |
Teachers in districts where a single yr of induction was offered to intervention schools;
|
0.79 |
0.80 |
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.
-
Female: 89%
Male: 11% -
Urban
-
Race Black 19% Other or unknown 5% White 61% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 15% Not Hispanic or Latino 85%
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).