1 / 22

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

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. Session Purposes.

Télécharger la présentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

  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)

  16. 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

  17. Math Homework Completion

  18. Percent Correct on Math Homework

  19. Research to Practice Studies 2007-2010

  20. 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

  21. 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.

More Related