Induction Programs Effect on
Beginning Teachers’ Feelings of
Preparedness and Plans to Remain in
Teaching
A paper presented to the Society for Research on Educational
Effectiveness (SREE) In Washington, DC
Jennifer Flanagan
Second year M.S. graduate student in
Education Psychology
jflanag2@gmu.edu
William J. Fowler, Jr., EdD.
Research Associate
Professor of Education
wfowler@gmu.edu
George Mason University
Graduate School
of Education
Objectives
Possible relationships between induction programs
and beginning teachers’
Feelings of preparedness
• Plans to continue teaching
Replicate of the previous work of Smith and Ingersoll
(2004) (that used the 1999-2000 SASS) with the 20072008 SASS
•
•
Our hypothesis:
•
More elaborate induction programs will be associated with a
higher percentage of teachers that plan to remain in teaching
as well as greater feelings of preparedness.
George Mason University
2
Theoretical Framework
Beginning Teacher Induction Programs
•
•
•
Put in place in public schools across the nation
because of the challenges new teachers face in the
classroom and to mitigate beginning teacher attrition.
Aim to offer support, guidance, and orientation for the
newcomers, but are significantly varied across school
systems (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004).
The more comprehensive induction programs have
previously showed the lowest turnover percentage,
but were not commonly offered (Smith & Ingersoll,
2004).
George Mason University
3
Theoretical Framework
Approximately 50% of teachers leave the profession within
the first five years of teaching (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004).
Voluntary more then involuntary (Guarino, Stanibañez, and
Daley, 2006)
The teacher reported reasons for leaving the profession or
seeking out new positions within the field include
•
•
•
insufficient administrative support
lack of student motivation
unsatisfactory salary and benefits (Smith & Ingersoll,
2004).
George Mason University
4
Theoretical Framework
A shift in emphasis on the importance of retaining
quality teachers, rather than focusing on recruiting
(Guarino et al., 2006, Kersaint, Lewis, Potter, and
Meisels, 2007) .
George Mason University
5
Theoretical Framework
Glazerman’s et al. (2008) randomized control study of a
comprehensive teacher induction program had no effect on
teacher retention after one year or even after a second year.
They also believed teacher preparedness was a mediating
factor for teacher retention, however, they found that
comprehensive teacher induction made teachers feel neither
more satisfied with or better prepared for their jobs as
teachers.
George Mason University
6
Theoretical Framework
Using the NCES Schools and Staffing 2007-2008 restricted
individual teacher dataset:
We seek to confirm Smith and Ingersoll’s findings from the
2000 SASS, and to inform these conflicting findings from
the Glazerman’s et al. study and Isenberg’s et al.
randomized control studies.
We attempt to capture the intensity of induction supports,
although we leave to the more ambitious randomized
control studies the question of whether the inferences we
draw are causal.
George Mason University
7
Research Questions
Are beginning teachers feeling more prepared to teach
having participated in an induction program during their first
year of teaching?
Does a more elaborate induction program lead to higher
feelings of preparedness in beginning teachers?
Are plans to continue teaching and participation in an
induction program related for beginning teachers?
What support is being offered to beginning teachers in their
first year of teaching?
Which supports are highly correlated with plans to remain
in teaching?
George Mason University
8
Methods
Population
•
•
Restricted data from the 47,440 nationally and state
representative sample (weighted n = 305,306) beginning
public school teachers (SASS, 2007).
Beginning Teachers- 3 years or less of teaching
experience
Analysis
•
•
SPSS, AM, and STATA statistical software programs
EDA, t-tests, chi-squared tests of association, factor
analysis, OLS and multinomial logistic regressions
George Mason University
9
Methods
Created variables:
•
Feelings of preparedness
•
Factor Analysis
•
•
•
•
•
Handle a range of classroom management or discipline
situations
Use a variety of instructional methods
Assess students
Select and adapt curriculum and instructional materials
Plans to remain in teaching
•
•
•
Recoded to a scale of 1-7
“As long as I am able” was coded as a seven
“Definitely plan to leave as soon as I can” was coded as a one
George Mason University
10
Means and Standard Deviations and Factor
Loadings for Items of Preparedness Scale
M
SD
Factor
loading
T0214
Handle a range of classroom
management or discipline situations?
2.73
0.817
0.551
T0215
Use a variety of instructional methods?
2.95
0.783
0.696
T0218
Assess students?
2.91
0.734
0.672
T0219
Select and adapt curriculum and
instructional materials?
2.83
0.799
0.673
Scale number
Item
Note. Numbers beside items refer to the variable in the Schools and Staffing Survey data set.
George Mason University
11
Methods
Induction Program Supports
•
•
•
•
•
•
Common planning time with other teachers
Extra classroom assistance (i.e. teacher aides)
Classes or seminars for beginning teachers
Ongoing guidance from a master or mentor
teacher
Support from principal and administration
Reduced teaching schedule or number of
preparations (SASS, 2007)
George Mason University
12
Outcomes
Beginning Teachers’ Feelings of Preparedness
Level of
Preparedness
Level of
Preparedness
Level of
Preparedness
First Year Teaching with
Induction Program
M(SD)
First Year Teaching without
Induction Program
M(SD)
2.87 (.63)
2.76 (.66)
Induction Programs with at
Least Four Supports Provided
M(SD)
Induction Programs with No
Supports Provided
M(SD)
2.91 (.62)*
2.56 (.73)*
Induction Programs with at All
Six Supports Provided
M(SD)
Induction Programs with Less
than Three Supports Provided
M(SD)
3.06 (.62)*
2.81 (.64)*
Note. * = p < .05.
George Mason University
13
Outcomes
Beginning Teachers’ Plans to Remain in Teaching
Definitely plan to leave as
soon as I can
1%
6%
Until a more desirable job
opportunity comes along
7%
Until a specific life event
occurs
18%
56%
Undecided at this time
Until I am eligible for Social
Security benefits
<1%
12%
Until I am eligible for
retirement benefits from this
job/a previous job
As long as I am able
George Mason University
14
Outcomes
Those teachers who reported participating in an
induction program were more likely than those who
did not participate to state that they would remain
in teaching “as long as they were able”
(t(88) = -13.317, p < .000*).
There was no significant difference between those
teachers who wanted to “leave teaching as soon
as possible”, whether they reported having
participated in an induction program or not
(t(88) = -0.421, p = .675) (SASS, 2007).
George Mason University
15
Outcomes
75% of beginning teachers reported having participated in an
induction program during their first year of teaching
Frequency of Induction Program Supports
90%
80%
70%
79%
78%
68%
60%
45%
50%
40%
26%
30%
20%
12%
10%
0%
Supportive
Guidance
Seminars
administrationfrom a mentor
Common
Extra
planning time classroom
help
George Mason University
Reduced
schedule
16
Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis of
Beginning Teachers' Plans to Remain in Teaching
George Mason University
17
Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis of
Beginning Teachers' Plans to Remain in Teaching
George Mason University
18
Outcomes
Elaboration of Induction Programs
Model 1 (Teacher and School Characteristics)
•
•
Age (rrr = .917, p =.005)*
Minority status (rrr = 1.016, p = .006)*.
Model 2 (Mentor)
•
56% reduced risk of leaving
•
(rrr = .442, p = .025)*.
Model 3 & 4 (Seminars & Common Planning Time)
•
•
(rrr = .575, p =.120)
42% reduced risk
•
(rrr = .443, p =.031)*
George Mason University
19
Outcomes
Level of Elaboration for Induction Programs
Model 5 (Supportive administration)
•
79% reduced risk of leaving
•
(rrr = .205, p <. 000)*
Model 6 (Reduced schedule)
(rrr = .362, p =.167)
Model 7 (Extra classroom help)
•
(rrr = .480, p =.107)*
Model 8 (All)
•
•
Supportive administration
•
73% reduced risk of leaving (rrr = 0.273, p = 0.001)*
George Mason University
20
Outcomes
Elaboration of Induction Programs
Two supports (Administration and Mentor)
over four times as likely to remain in teaching with this
induction program elaboration (e^b = 4.38, p < .000)*.
Four supports (Above plus Common planning time and
Seminars)
•
just under four times as likely to remain in teaching
(e^b = 3.91, p < .000)*.
Six supports (Above plus Reduced teacher schedule and
Extra classroom help)
•
•
•
under four times more likely to remain teaching
(e^b = 3.67, p = .001)*.
George Mason University
21
Educational Significance
Beginning teachers are reporting feeling least prepared to discipline
and assess students, as well as select instructional materials.
Controlling for teacher and school characteristics having a induction
program with
•
•
•
a mentor teacher reduces the risk of leaving by 56%.
a common planning time with another teacher reduced the risk of leaving by
42%.
a supportive administration reduced the risk of leaving by 79%.
Having an induction program with a supportive administration and all
other induction program supports, while controlling for teacher and
school characteristics, reduced risk of leaving teaching by 73%.
George Mason University
22
Educational Significance
Various combinations of program supports
demonstrating elaborations of the induction
programs resulted in a beginning teacher
being around four times more likely to
remain in teaching.
George Mason University
23
Conclusions
Despite the Glazerman et al. (2008) and Isenberg’s et al.
(2009) studies that found no significant difference between
teacher attrition rates and teachers’ feeling of
preparedness after participating in an elaborate induction
program, our findings suggest otherwise.
These studies have also found no significant difference
between teacher attrition rates and teachers’ participation
in an elaborate induction program, where as our findings
suggest that a beginning teacher would be much more
likely to remain in teaching.
George Mason University
24
Conclusions
Forgive us if we wonder if some aspect (the
sample; the cluster random assignment of eligible
teachers; HLM) of such a sophisticated study
resulted in findings that differ from those of SASS.
George Mason University
25
Recommendation for Future Study
We would propose that future “gold standard”
studies determine if any of the school districts or
schools or teachers studied are also in the 200708 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) or the
2008-2009 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), and
that the comparison of results between these
federal statistics and the more sophisticated and
ambitious studies might be instructive.
George Mason University
26
References
Annotated SPSS Output: Principal Components Analysis. (n.d.). . Retrieved
February 1, 2010, from http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/SPSS/
output/principal_components.htm
Astin, A. W.& Denson, N. (June, 2009). Multi-Campus Studies of College
Impact: Which Statistical Method Is Appropriate? Research in Higher
Education, v50 n4 p354-367 Jun 2009.
Borman, G., & Dowling, N. (2008). Teacher Attrition and Retention: A MetaAnalytic and Narrative Review of the Research. Review of Educational
Research, 78(3), 367-409. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from Education
Research Complete database.
Brill, S., & McCartney, A. (2008). Stopping the revolving door: increasing
teacher retention. Politics & Policy, 36(5), 750-774. Retrieved June 14,
2009, doi:10.1111/j.1747-1346.2008.00133.x Coalition for EvidenceBased Policy. (2007). When Is It Possible to Conduct a Randomized
Controlled Trial in Education at Reduced Cost, Using Existing Data
Sources? A Brief Overview. Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy,
Washington, DC. Retrieved February 25, 2010, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/
detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED506628
&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED506628
George Mason University
27
References
Coopersmith, J., & Gruber, K. J. (2009). Characteristics of Public, Private, and
Bureau of Indian Education Elementary and Secondary School
Teachers in the United States: Results from the 2007-08 Schools and
Staffing Survey. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009324
Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (2nd ed.). Sage
Publications Ltd.
Glazerman S., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Isenberg, E., Lugo-Gil, J.,
Grider, M. and 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
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Guarino, C., Santibañez, L., & Daley, G. (2006). Teacher Recruitment and
Retention: A Review of the Recent Empirical Literature. Review of
Educational Research, 76(2), 173-208. Retrieved April 4, 2009,
doi:10.3102/00346543076002173
Hayes, W. (1988). Statistics (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
George Mason University
28
References
Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational
analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.
Retrieved April 20, 2009, doi:10.3102/00028312038003499
Isenberg, E., Glazerman, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Lugo-Gil, J., Grider, M.,
and Dolfin, S, 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.
Johnson, S., & Birkeland, S. (2003). Pursuing a 'Sense of Success': New
Teachers Explain Their Career Decisions. American Educational
Research Journal, 40(3), 581-617. Retrieved April 20, 2009,
doi:10.3102/00028312040003581
George Mason University
29
References
Kersaint, G., Lewis, J., Potter, R., & Meisels, G. (2007). Why Teachers Leave:
Factors that Influence Retention and Resignation. Teaching and Teacher
Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 23(6), 775794. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ769453) Retrieved
April 20, 2009, from ERIC database.
Miles, J. User Guide to AM Statistical Software. Washington, DC: Jon Cohen
and the American Institutes for Research, 2002. Developed with support
from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics
National Center for Educational Statistics (2004). Teacher attrition and mobility.
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved May 5, 2009 from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007307.pdf
Perrachione, B., Petersen, G., & Rosser, V. (2008). Why Do They Stay?
Elementary Teachers' Perceptions of Job Satisfaction and Retention.
Professional Educator, Retrieved April 24, 2009, from Education Research
Complete database.
Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). (2007). Retrieved September 25, 2009,
from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_
2009320_d1s_02.asp.
George Mason University
30