Educator Induction: A Quantitative Study Comparing the Relationships and
Engagement Between Educators and Mentors During Induction

A Doctoral Capstone Project
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Education

In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education

Jason Alonzo Stragand
Pennsylvania Western University
July 2023

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTOR

© Copyright by
Jason Alonzo Stragand
All rights reserved
July 2023

ii

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTOR
Dedication
To my mom and step-dad, Darlene and Darrell, who have championed every step of my
journey through life. All my love, Jason.

iv

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTOR

v

Acknowledgment
Beginning the doctoral journey at PennWest University was sparked by Dr.
Amanda Winnor, who recently completed her dissertation through PennWest University.
A tremendous thank you to Dr. Mary Wolf, Faculty Capstone Commitee Advisor, and Dr.
Rebecca McGee, External Commitee Chair, who nudged my thinking throughout this
journey. To Denise Lohr and Rebecca Henderson, colleagues at the Westmoreland
Intermediate Unit, who took this doctoral journey with me at PennWest University. You
always answered my texts and phone calls no matter the day or time. Your support meant
the world. Thank you for being thoughtful peer mentors. Lastly, thank you to the
educators, educational specialists, mentors, and educator induction program leaders who
volunteered to participate in my action research study. Your input was the glue to the
study.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTOR

vi

Table of Contents
Dedication

iv

Acknowledgement

v

List of Tables

ix

List of Figures

x

Abstract

xi

Chapter I. Introduction

1

Background

1

Capstone Focus

2

Research Questions

3

Expected Outcomes

3

Fiscal Implications

4

Summary

4

Chapter II. Literature Review
History of Induction in the United States
Evolution of Induction in Pennsylvania

6
6
8

Teacher Attrition and Retention

10

Policies and Legislation

13

Trajectory of New Teachers Entering the Field of Education

15

Educator Perceptions of Induction Programming

19

Mentoring as Critical Piece to Teacher Induction

21

Teacher-Mentor Connection

24

Paring of Teachers and Mentors

25

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTOR

vii

Induction Alignment and Requirements to Job Types - Teachers versus
Specialists
Differentiating the Induction Experience for Different Job Types

27
28

Comprehensive Teacher Induction Programs

29

Connections to Student Outcomes

30

Summary

33

Chapter III. Methodology

34

Purpose

35

Setting

36

Participants

38

Project History

42

Research Plan

45

Research Design, Methods, & Data Collection

47

Validity

52

Limitations

54

Summary

55

Chapter IV. Data Analysis and Results

57

Data Analysis

57

Results

58
Research Question One

61

Triangulation Research Question One

68

Research Question Two

70

Triangulation Research Question Two

88

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTOR
Research Question Three

viii
91

Discussion

96

Summary

97

Chapter V. Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions

99
101

Research Question One

101

Research Question Two

103

Research Question Three

104

Limitations

110

Recommendations for Future Research

111

Summary

113

References

114

APPENDIX A. PennWest University Institutional Review Board

133

Approval Letter
APPENDIX B. Informed Participant Consent Acknowledged

134

APPENDIX C. Teacher and Educational Specialist Survey Questions

135

for Data Collection
APPENDIX D. Educator Mentor Survey Questions for Data Collection

139

APPENDIX E. Intermediate Unit Leader Survey Question for

142

Data Collection

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

ix

List of Tables
Table 1. Differences in Emphasis in Traditional View of Mentoring and

23

Educative Mentoring
Table 2. Alignment of Research Questions, Data Sources, Timeline

48

Table 3. Data Triangulation of Educators, Education Specialists, and their

69

Mentors on Relationship Quality and Induction Engagement
Table 4. Data Triangulation of Educators, Education Specialists, and their

89

Mentors on Overall Induction Experience and the Mentee/Mentor Experience
Table 5. Data Triangulation of Educators, Education Specialists, and their

89

Mentors on Overall Induction Relevance as Compared to Job Type
Table 6. Tangible Improvements Leading to Attracting and Retaining
Educator Induction Mentors

108

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

x

List of Figures
Figure 1. Educator and Educational Specialist Survey Question 3

62

Figure 2. Educator Induction Mentor Survey Question 2

62

Figure 3. Educator and Educational Specialist Survey Question 4

64

Figure 4. Educator Induction Mentor Survey Question 3

64

Figure 5. Educator and Educational Specialist Survey Question 7

66

Figure 6. Educator Induction Mentor Survey Question 6

66

Figure 7. Educator and Educational Specialist Survey Question 2

72

Figure 8. Educator Induction Mentor Survey Question 1

73

Figure 9. Educator and Educational Specialist Survey Question 5

79

Figure 10. Educator Induction Mentor Survey Question 4

80

Figure 11. Educator and Educational Specialist Survey Question 6

84

Figure 12. Educator Induction Mentor Survey Question 5

85

Figure 13. Educator and Educational Specialist Survey Question 7

86

Figure 14. Educator Induction Mentor Survey Question 7

87

Figure 15. Intermediate Unit Educator Induction Leader Survey Question 2

93

Figure 16. Intermediate Unit Educator Induction Leader Survey Question 9

94

Figure 17. Intermediate Unit Educator Induction Leader Survey Question 10

94

Figure 18. Intermediate Unit Educator Induction Leader Survey Question 11

96

Figure 19. Mathematical Equation for a Comprehensive Educator Induction

109

Program

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

xi

Abstract
Educator induction programs are designed to support new educators and educational
specialists during their first years of teaching. The research problem this study aimed to
remediate was the challenge of designing an induction program that comprehensively
supports educators and educational specialists with different job types. A comprehensive
educator induction program systematically and explicitly teaches new educators
workplace systems, routines, and policies, while sharpening the instructional lens of the
practitioner. The purpose of this study was 1) to determine if correlations existed
between the relationships of educators and mentors and the level of engagement of the
educators during induction and 2) to identify the components of comprehensive educator
induction programs. A quantitative research approach, through closed surveys, was used
to collect data to answer the research questions. Three groups of stakeholders
participated in the study: educators and educational specialists, mentors, and
intermediate unit educator induction leaders. The data analysis concluded there was no
significant evidence to suggest the strength of the relationship between mentee and
mentor impacted the engagement of the mentee during induction.
Keywords: new teacher induction, educator induction, educator mentors, teacher
attrition, induction planning

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

1

CHAPTER I
Introduction
Background
Educator induction programming is required for all public school entities in
Pennsylvania. Every six years, induction plans must be revised and submitted to the
Pennsylvania Department of Education for approval. This six-year window allows public
school districts and intermediate units to continuously improve induction content and
practices that best support their newest employees. A teacher's first-year experience has a
long-term impact on employee sustainability and overall success in education. Daloz
(1999) suggests that environments that combine a high level of challenge with a high
level of support are the most conducive to growth. Educator induction planning matters.
The researcher has been a Student Services Supervisor for the Westmoreland
Intermediate Unit (WIU7) since 2019. This leadership position has provided
opportunities to supervise professional support staff, teachers, educational specialists, and
educational consultants while simultaneously creating programs that provide technical
assistance to the public and nonpublic schools in the county. The researcher was tasked
with re-imagining WIU7’s Educator Induction Program, which included writing the
Educator Induction Plan for approval from the Pennsylvania Department of Education at
the end of the 2020 - 2021 school year. The WIU7, historically, provided educator
induction to its internal employees and as a pay-for-service option for its district partners.
As part of the re-imagining process, a team of WIU7 division directors, program leaders,
and educational consultants met to discuss and analyze the strengths, weaknesses (areas
for growth), opportunities, and threats of the previously implemented educator induction

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

2

program. The team identified numerous program strengths that should be replicated in
the new educator induction program. However, the team determined that program
weaknesses and growth opportunities should be focal points for re-imagining. The WIU7
decided it would be in the organization's best interest to re-imagine an educator induction
program focusing on its employees and to pause providing induction as a pay-for-service
option for its district partners.
Capstone Focus
The challenge for the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit is designing an Educator
Induction Program that meets the unique needs of new educators with different job
functions. Pennsylvania Code, since 1987, has required school entities in Pennsylvania
to have approved educator induction plans for educators who need to obtain their Level II
Pennsylvania Instructional or Educational Specialist certification. Educators include
Pre-Kindergarten through twelfth-grade general and special education teachers, reading
specialists, teacher interns, long-term substitutes, and educational specialists.
Educational specialists include Dental Hygienists, Elementary and Secondary School
Counselors, Home and School Visitors, Instructional Technology Specialists, School
Nurses, School Psychologists, School Speech and Language Pathologists, and School
Social Workers (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2022b). This capstone research
project will focus on the experience of educators, educational specialists, and mentors
who have participated in the WIU7’s induction program over the past three to five years.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

3

Research Questions
The following research questions will seek to identify and compare the
perceptions and relationships between WIU7’s educators, educational specialists, and
their mentors:
1) What is the relationship between a new educator and their mentor
compared to educator engagement in the induction process?
2) What is the difference in perception between educators and educational
specialists regarding induction experiences?
3) What induction practices effectively meet the needs of new educators with
various job types?
Expected Outcomes
The demands placed on first-year educators must be analyzed when planning
educator induction programs. Standard job requirements ranging from lesson planning to
building relationships with varied stakeholders can lead to professional unhappiness if
intentional support is not provided by the organization where the new educator is
employed. To complicate these demands, fewer educators are entering the teaching
workforce. Forty percent of students in teacher education programs never enter the
profession, citing a lack of respect and describing teaching as a disempowered line of
work (Riggs, 2013). The results of this action research project will allow school entities
to re-imagine induction programs through a more comprehensive lens. This lens could
lead to more relevant experiences unique to the different job types within school entities.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

4

Fiscal Implications
A comprehensive approach to induction programming that supports the different
kinds of educators and educational specialists is an anticipated outcome for this
action-research capstone project. Because intermediate units do not directly benefit from
tax-based revenues and rely on government funding and shared distribution costs paid by
its member school districts, funding induction programs at an intermediate unit will look
different compared to a school district. Direct and indirect costs associated with the
program are a reality that must be planned for when budgeting. Direct costs associated
with comprehensive induction programming are those related to potential resources
(curriculum), hiring of substitute teachers for the release of new educators to attend
training sessions, digital platforms to store content or track mentoring interactions, and
mentor stipends. Indirect costs include supervision of the induction program (partial
salary and benefits). Actual costs associated with induction would depend on the size of
the intermediate unit or school district, the number of new employees hired each year
who need induction, and the amount of funding made available to the program.
Intermediate units and school districts that have the means to invest in their educator
induction program should do so, but a comprehensive approach to induction planning can
be accomplished without a surplus of money.
Summary
This capstone research project aims to assess the relationship between a new
educator and their mentor as it compares to the level of engagement of each stakeholder
in the induction process. The researcher will also identify the differences in perception
between educators and educational specialists regarding their induction experience.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

5

Chapter One introduced why studying educator induction is critical for school entities
wanting to create unique programming for educators with different job types. The next
chapter will synthesize existing literature on teacher induction by discussing teacher
attrition, examining policies and legislation, and connecting the impact mentoring has on
induction programming. In chapter three, the researcher will explain the methodologies
used to evaluate the perceptions and connections between educators, educational
specialists, and their mentors. The final two chapters will showcase the action research
project results, summarize the findings, and share potential recommendations for future
studies.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

6

CHAPTER II
Literature Review
For the last fifty years, teacher induction has been a common strategy used across
many schools to introduce new teachers to the policies and culture of a school district.
This strategy was successful until policymakers and educational leaders learned more
about what new teachers need to feel supported and successful as they enter and progress
through their first years of teaching. As a result, induction for new teachers has evolved
and is more sophisticated than fifty years ago. While the sophistication of new teacher
induction should be celebrated, the current support services offered to new teachers in
many school systems need tremendous improvement. A thoughtful and intentional
teacher induction program can curve the trajectory of teacher attrition in the United
States.
This literature review will discuss the evolution of induction, connect teacher
attrition and retention to educational policy, bridge new teachers' perceptions of their
induction experience, link mentoring to successful induction programming, and connect
induction to student outcomes.
History of Induction in the United States
Over the past four decades, induction programming has increased in the United
States, with each state having varied requirements and expectations for new teachers
(Sclan & Darling-Hammond, 1992). Behling (1984) showed only four percent of all 51
states (eight states) had induction programs implemented or offered to new teachers.
Each new decade reported an increase in induction programs: 26 states in 1991 (Andrews
& Andrews, 1998) and 29 states in 2016 (Goldrick, 2016).

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

7

Induction programming in the United States coincided with what educators knew
about teaching and learning throughout the different decades and were impacted by the
policies of those eras (Odell & Huling, 2000). Fideler and Haselkorn (1999) described
four distinct periods of induction in the United States: period one established before
1986, period two between 1986 and 1989, period three between 1990 and 1996, and
period four between 1997 and 2006.
The wave metaphor is appropriate for describing the historical ebb and flow of
induction programs due to sporadic budgetary cuts and legislative indifference.
Each wave of induction programs is characterized by the time period in which
they exist and by the sociological, political, and economic factors that shape that
time period such as reduced class size or educational budget reduction. (Wood &
Stanulis, 2009, p. 2)
Florida was the first state to design a state-level induction program in 1978
(Feiman-Nemser et al., 1999), but teacher induction can be dated as early as the late
1950s, with many programs having begun as a result of internships, grants and federal
funding (Elias, 1980). The Ford Foundation awarded grant opportunities that extended
the learning of new teachers planning to enter the field of education. The grant
opportunity added a year onto the formal schooling of teachers (a fifth year) that bridged
the gap between educational theory and practice (Elias, 1980). Before these grants
opportunities, induction was viewed as a process in which new educators entered the field
of education absent of influential factors such as age, race/ethnicity, and culture and with
little to no support from experienced teachers (Lawson, 1992). This paradigm of thinking

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

8

changed significantly when teacher voice and perception were accounted for in hopes of
improving induction programming (Lawson, 1992).
The political reformation of education during the 1970s and 80s further developed
teacher induction through the era’s influence of educational research, policy mandates,
and the suggestions of change by educators. As a result, these reformations led to many
studies that ignited conversations centered on the development of new teachers entering
the educational profession.
One such study by the Texas Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education concluded that being a teacher was not an all-or-nothing proposition, and
teachers continuously developed through preservice training, into induction, and then in
service (Hall, 1979). Hall’s study (1979) catapulted conversations into the 1980s and
called to action the need for more research on new teacher development. By the end of
the 1990s, about half of all new teachers were participating in some form of induction,
and by 2000, this figure increased to 80% (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). A pre-Covid 19
study published by the New Teachers Center showed that 29 states required support for
novice teachers, and nine offered continued support for at least three years (Goldrick,
2016). Teacher induction plans are now required in School Improvement Plans under
Every Child Succeed Act (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2016).
Evolution of Induction in Pennsylvania
The late 1980s brought change to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that
impacted the permanent certification process of new teachers. Chapter 14 Induction,
required all public schools in the Commonwealth to author and lead a formal induction
program for new teachers that served as a precursor to permanent certification (Public

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

9

School Code, 1949). Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, Chapter 14 Induction was revised
six times and provided additional guidelines for induction with each revision.
The Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) requires public school districts
in the Commonwealth to develop and submit induction plans every six years. Induction
plans must be developed and approved by an induction steering committee composed of
teachers and administrators. The induction steering committee and the school board of
directors must approve these plans before submission to PDE. Pennsylvania’s
Department of Education (2019) suggested that induction plans be at least one year long
and contain content related to Pennsylvania’s Standards-Aligned System (SAS) and
Pennsylvania’s Educator Effectiveness System: Act 82 of 2020. The guidelines also
suggested induction programming to include mentoring and support for new educators
that include instruction on students from diverse backgrounds, students with
exceptionalities, and English-Language Learners (Pennsylvania Department of
Education, 2019).
Pennsylvania’s Educator Guidelines suggest new teacher induction as a critical
component to the development of Pennsylvania’s new teachers, but Allen et al. (2016)
believed the guidelines fell short of an evidenced-based induction strategery. Allen et al.
(2016) proposed changes for Pennsylvania’s Teacher Induction Programming that
included revisions to the Legislative Code (22 PA Code 49.16) and the Educator
Induction Plan Guidelines (dated 2013). Suggested edits included:
●

Increase induction to three years.

● Use language that requires specific induction components.
● Provide training for mentors.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

10

● Provide funding for induction.
More recent state-level efforts have been made that will influence Pennsylvania’s
new teacher induction processes. Pennsylvania Department of Education (2022a) has set
goals aligned to Chapter 14, Induction for new teachers, that have initiated the expansion
of induction programming within public school entities. The Workforce Strategy is aimed
at providing clarity to Chapter 14 Induction guidelines by the year 2025. As part of the
new workforce plan, the Pennsylvania Department of Education will redesign its
professional learning database to market opportunities more relevant to Pennsylvania
teachers and collect data on exemplary induction programs across the state (Pennsylvania
Department of Education, 2022a). Darling-Hammond et al. (2020) stated that by 2025,
Pennsylvania will need to recruit, hire, and train thousands of new teachers to serve the
growing population of students in the state.
Teacher Attrition and Retention
Teacher attrition and retention have been concepts that can be defined by the
prevention of quality teachers who have transitioned away from the profession for
reasons that can be avoided (Kelchtermans, 2017). For decades, American schools have
been forced to deal with the ongoing reality that teachers have been leaving the field of
education. Smith and Ingersoll (2004) found that 15 percent of all new teachers have
transitioned away from the profession, and another 14 percent changed schools after their
first year on the job. Comparatively, data collected ten years later by Ingersoll and
Merrill (2012) showed the statistics have remained unchanged, reporting that 14 percent
of first-year teachers transitioned away from teaching by the conclusion of their first year,
33 percent by the end of their third year and 40 to 46 percent within their first five years.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

11

To further compound Ingersoll and Merrill (2012) research, data projected by
McFarland et al. (2019) showed a decrease in the number of students who had completed
a four-year teacher education program at the university level. Of those professionals who
graduated from a 4-year college or university, new teachers struggled to apply what they
learned as a preservice teacher to practical classroom application (Goodwin, 2016).
These studies have indicated that fewer teachers are entering the field of education while
just as many, if not more, are leaving. Conclusions from both data sets have shown the
teacher attrition gap has not closed.
Studies of teacher attrition are well documented, and researchers agreed on
similar contributing factors that led to teachers leaving the profession. An early study
conducted by Ingersoll (2001) found that many new teachers quit the education
profession because they were not satisfied with their job based on the following:
● unhappiness with their rate of pay (salary)
● little to no support from their administrators
● lack of student buy-in (motivation)
● issues with classroom management and student discipline
● lack of voice connected to decision-making
A large number of recent researchers agreed and have added to the factors that have led
to teacher attrition. Diliberti et al. (2021) surveyed teachers before and after the
pandemic and found stress to be the number one reason teachers left the profession. Work
environment (Craig, 2017), lack of upward mobility (Guha et al., 2017), lack of
acknowledgment and space to implement innovative practices (Matete, 2021), difficult to
manage students (Williams et al., 2020), and low salaries (Allegretto & Mishel, 2018).

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

12

There exists a considerable body of literature that identifies classroom
management and unruly students as a pervasive theme that underpins the concept of
teacher retention. Public Agenda (2004) identified classroom management as an
overwhelming challenge for teachers. They found that 85 percent of teachers surveyed
believe new teachers are ill-prepared to manage classroom behavior issues. The Coalition
for Psychology in Schools and Education (2006, 2019) indicated that teachers had a
preferential need for professional development opportunities focused on classroom
management and reported mixed levels of confidence. Researchers overwhelmingly
agree many factors cause teacher attrition, and despite decades of research, very little has
been done to change the trajectory of teachers transitioning away from the profession.
The Education Policy Implementation Center at Texas State University engaged
in a 10-year study designed to slow teacher attrition. The study involved 37 public
school districts and seven universities in Texas. Induction programming afforded by the
grant assigned six to eight novice teachers to a trained mentor (in some cases retired
teachers), provided time for mentors to observe and confer with mentees twice per week,
and offered specialized training and graduate-level classes for new teachers. The
research found that participating new teachers were retained by more than 10 percent
compared to the state average and earned nearly 3,000 graduate hours. A follow-up study
two years later showed that 94 percent of the participating teachers were mentors or had
been a mentor to a novice teacher. New teachers noted that the instructional and
emotional support provided by their mentors impacted their decision to stay in the
education field. This long-term study is supported by research that novice educators,
who are a product of strategic mentoring and partnerships, have remained in the

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

13

profession at higher than average retention rates and experience reduced learning curves
(Darling-Hammond, 2003).
Policies and Legislation
Since the 1990s, education policy in the United States has changed how we think
about teacher reform (Aaronson et al., 2007). Nguyen et al. (2019) have connected
education policy to the reformation of teacher attrition. As previously reported in the
literature, extensive research has shown that teacher attrition in the United States has
remained unchanged. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2022),
teacher attrition rates are approximately at 16 percent.
For the past two decades, several states have attempted to create programs
incentivizing teachers to remain in the profession. Research has shown that these
incentive programs did reduce teacher attrition, but none reported replicable efforts that
sustained gains in teacher retention or policies that changed legislation. An example of
one such program was implemented in North Carolina and paid math, science, and
special education teachers a bonus of $1,800 to teach in high-need schools. According to
Clotfelter et al. (2008), the bonus program reduced teacher attrition by 17 percent over
three years. In a more recent study of similar monetary incentives, Tennessee offered
high-performing teachers a $5,000 stipend to teach at lower-performing schools. Nguyen
et al. (2019) reported a 20 percent improvement in teacher retention. Based on this
research, monetary incentives assisted with teacher attrition and led to understanding
more about sustainability of such programs, but the long-term effects on teacher turnover
still need to be studied.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

14

More recent and promising approaches to policy reformation are hopeful to
reduce teacher attrition and are supported by several researchers. Darling-Hammond et
al. (2020) authored a framework that suggested how federal, state, and local
policymakers could use the Covid-19 pandemic to excite change for educational
reformation. The framework provided research and policy recommendations in 10 focus
areas (Priorities). Of the ten priorities, priority nine was specifically designed to prepare
educators to think differently about school through motivation at the federal, state, and
local policy level. A critical piece of priority nine suggested policymakers support
“high-retention teacher strategies” (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020, p. xii) through several
concepts that included teacher and leader residencies. This research is directly connected
to research completed by Guha et al. (2016), who reported:
Studies of teacher residency programs consistently point to the high retention
rates of their graduates, even after several years in the profession, generally
ranging from 80 - 90 percent in the same district after three years and 70 - 80
percent after five years. (p. 34)
In an executive summary to the Pennsylvania Department of Education,
Darling-Hammond et al. (2018) recognized tremendous shifts in the states’ teacher
workforce. Enrollment in teacher preparation programs has declined by 65 percent since
2009, and the percentage of teachers from diverse backgrounds is below the national
average by 15 percent (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2022a).
Darling-Hammond et al. (2018) recommended changes to Pennsylvania’s School Code
Chapter 14 to address teacher shortages and better support beginning teacher induction
programming. These recommendations have established priorities for Pennsylvania’s

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

15

Every Student Succeed Act state plan by supporting efforts to reduce teacher shortages,
provide greater access to high-quality teachers and increase diversity in Pennsylvania’s
teacher workforce. Darling-Hammond et al. (2018) stated that:
The major review of Chapter 49 presents an opportunity to advance the state’s
priorities for the future and ensure that Pennsylvania’s system of teacher licensure
and preparation supports a diverse teacher workforce, promotes equitable access
to quality teaching for all students, and helps the districts tackle persistent
shortages that undermine teacher quality and student achievement. (p. 33)
Reports, studies, and recommendations like those of Darling-Hammond et al. (2020) and
Guha et al. (2016) are needed to help policymakers understand more completely the
connections between teacher attrition and policy reformation.
Trajectory of New Teachers Entering the Field of Education
Education has remained one of the largest professions in the United States for
decades. The profession has employed nearly 3 million public school teachers annually,
with 310,000 new educators entering the profession (Aspen Institute, 2022). Over the
past 50 years, the education profession has seen shifts from teachers who enter the field
and stay until retirement to the younger generation of teachers who enter the field and
leave after a few years (Aspen Institute, 2022). The younger generation of teachers who
have entered the profession view teaching as a short-term opportunity, as 40 percent have
left the field after five years (Aspen Institute, 2022). The trajectory of new teachers
entering and remaining in the field is declining and has posed concerns for the future of
education in America. Public school entities nationwide do not have enough teachers to
fill open positions and are challenged by not having enough candidates to hire (U.S.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

16

Department of Education, 2022a). While traditional teacher preparation programs still
represent the majority of new teachers entering the field (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2018), closing the growing teacher gap will require creative approaches to
training and certifying new teachers.
Many states have changed traditional licensure requirements and have relied on
alternative education programming to increase the trajectory of new teachers entering the
field (Yin & Partelow, 2020). Alternative education programs certifying non-traditional
students to become teachers are called Non-Institutions of Higher Education (Non-IHE)
programs (Yin & Parelow, 2020). The Center for American Progress found non-IHE
alternative certification programs existed in 32 states. Most of these programs are
implemented by individual public school entities and regional service agencies (King &
Yin, 2022). Yet despite the growing popularity of non-IHE alternative certification
programs, traditional teacher programs have enrolled the largest number of students at 75
percent of the total number of new teachers who have entered the field (U.S. Department
of Education, 2022b).
Research completed by Garcia and Weiss (2019) indicated the United States had
seen fewer students entering the teaching profession. Incentivized by the USDOE, Texas
became an early leader in this movement and initiated changes in teacher preparation and
certification policies that attracted, hired, and retained new teachers who entered the field
(Guthery and Bailes, 2019). A study of teacher attrition completed by Guthrey & Bailes
(2019) found that Texas’s policy reformation on teacher preparation and certification was
a statistically significant predictor of new teachers' grit and tenacity. Unlike Texas,

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

17

several states have introduced stipends or student loan forgiveness programs to new and
existing teachers that have supported a decrease in teacher attrition.
Alternative routes to education have impacted teacher shortages by providing
creative routes to licensures for non-traditional students, but the research has shown
challenges. The alternative education movement was a reaction to the discontent with
teacher preparation programs hosted by colleges and universities nationwide. The
disenchantment of these traditional teacher preparation programs included accusations of
low admission bars being accepted as the norm and coursework that was not practical for
novice teachers (Solomon, 2009). Supporters of alternative pathways to licensing new
teachers argued that removing unnecessary obstacles that often hindered interested
students from becoming teachers would open the gateway for more teachers to enter the
profession. Tom (2000) reported that most alternative pathways to education programs
are characterized by a summer of intense training and professional development before a
person becomes the teacher of record. According to the National Center for Education
Statistics (2022), nearly 18 percent of public school teachers earned their teacher licenses
through an alternative certification program.
Haberman's (1999, 2001) research showed a positive correlation between
alternative pathways to education programs and teacher retention. Haberman reported on
the recruitment and retention efforts in a large mid-western school district that
collaborated with their bargaining union and a local university to form an alternative
pathway program. The alternative education pathway program he studied gave
opportunities to minorities who held a non-education bachelor’s degree. During this
program, individuals participated in a summer training coupled with a teacher residency

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

18

with a mentor. Haberman (2001) reported that 94 percent of those who participated in the
program stayed within the school system over ten years. This particular study showed an
increase in teacher retention due to an alternative pathway to education program. It also
connects to the research of Darling-Hammond et al. (2020), and Guha et al. (2016) that
reported teacher residency programs increase teacher retention.
In contrast to the literature and studies on alternative pathways to education,
Scherer (2012, p. 2) stated that because of their popularity, alternative routes to education
programs were “all over the map.” Darling-Hammond (2000), in her report for the
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, showed the relationship
between alternative routes to teaching and retention and found that retention in the
profession was connected to advanced levels of preparation. Her study reported that
Eighty-four percent of teachers who held a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in education
remained in the field after three years compared to 34 percent who participated in an
alternative licensure program who only had a Bachelor’s degree (Darling-Hammond,
2020). Darling-Hammond’s research (2020) concluded that alternative pathways to
education may have reversed its effect on teacher retention and contributed to greater
teacher attrition rates.
New approaches to creating a more robust teacher pipeline have been growing in
popularity (Bartanen & Kwok, 2022). Grow Your Own Programs (GYO) became
increasingly popular, impacted the teacher pipeline, and were often cited as a progressive
approach addressing teacher shortage (Goings et al., 2018). As of 2022, forty-nine states,
including the District of Columbia, had at least one GYO program (Garcia, 2022). GYO
programs are pathways for high school students interested in becoming teachers (Garcia,

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

19

2022). One such program, Pathways2Teaching, gained significant traction over the past
decade and has become a national model for high school GYO teacher programs (Bianco
& Marin-Paris, 2019). With numerous programs in Colorado, Minnesota, Tennessee,
New York, North Carolina, and New Jersey, Pathways2Teach offered high school
students the opportunity to earn nine credits (through local universities) during eleventh
and twelfth grade. The Pathways program provided weekly classroom field experiences
that included working with students with exceptionalities and learners from diverse
backgrounds. A unique feature of the Pathways2Teach curriculum was its strong focus
on college access and academic writing (Bianco & Marin-Paris, 2019). High school
students who completed the program graduated high school with a paraprofessional
certificate that allowed them to gain employment within their district upon graduation.
Although the Pathways2Teach program has the researched elements of success, specific
data on the program was not found.
Educator Perceptions of Induction Programming
Teaching is one of the few professions where new educators are expected to
perform as their veteran counterparts, on day one, with no real-life training other than
student teaching (McGeehan, 2019). States nationwide have new teacher induction
programs, but research is scarce in identifying the science or theories of well-designed
programs (McGeehan, 2019). Researchers have determined that new teachers have
experienced tremendous shock (Hobson & Ashby, 2012) during their first years of
teaching. Clark (2017) reported this could be lessened by understanding new teachers'
perceptions as they reflect on their induction experiences.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

20

A review of the literature has shown that numerous large-scale studies of teacher
perceptions of their induction experience have been conducted over many years. A
recent large-scale study supported by the New Teacher Center analyzed the perceptions
of new teachers and their principals on induction. The study captured the results of
educators in four teacher induction programs across the United States. The significant
findings of this study, as reported by Kutsyuruba (2020), showed that teachers'
perceptions of communication and frequency of classroom visitations were consistently
lower than their principals' perceptions. New teachers' perceptions varied as related to
support from their principals and ranged from highly supportive (Kutsyuruba, 2020) to
unapproachable. Both new teachers and principals agreed there was a shared vision, but
many new teachers felt uncomfortable asking questions (Kutsyuruba, 2020). The study
also revealed that the “principal’s evaluative responsibilities created tensions in the
perceptions of their supportive role in teacher induction and mentoring programs”
(Kutsyuruba, 2020, p. 31). A reasonable deduction from this study is that perceptions of
new teachers and principals will vary, but research has supported significant evidence
that strategic mentor-mentee pairing is critical (Andrews et al., 2006). Because the
process for mentor matching was not shared in the study supported by the New Teacher
Center, it was difficult to determine if that had any significant impact on perception.
Several other researchers have reported on studies and found varying perception
levels of new teachers on their induction programming. Nelson (2016) examined new
teachers’ perceptions of their induction experiences in several North Carolina school
districts. He found a tremendous disconnect between new teachers and their assigned
mentors and an un-focused professional development experience. Holtzapple (2012)

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

21

found new teachers struggled to maintain a working relationship with their mentor when
their mentor taught in a different building. Wechsler et al. (2010) conducted a study on 39
state-funded induction programs across Illinois and found new teachers did not feel they
were offered quality instructional support.
Mentoring as Critical Piece to Teacher Induction
A mentor is an experienced individual with a specific skill set who shares
knowledge with a person who is a novice (Roberts, 2000). The most critical
school-based factor that affects student achievement is high-quality instruction given by a
teacher (Wong, 2004). Research has been examined from numerous surveys (Charnock
& Kiley, 1995; Hudson, 2012) and showed that new teachers remembered their first
teaching years as daunting, stressful, and overwhelming. New teachers have rated
support from a mentor as the most crucial factor during their induction years
(Behrstock-Sherratt et al., 2014).
For the past three decades, mentoring has transformed from “a method of
knowledge and skill transfer to understanding mentoring as part of lifelong learning and
professional development, key support strategy and mutually beneficial developmental
partnership” (Zembytska, 2016, p. 68). Since the 1980s, mentoring has taken hold for
two groups of teachers: in-service and pre-service teachers (Feiman-Nemser, 1996).
Throughout the 1990s, mentoring became popular and was used as a method of support
for new teachers as they grappled with learning how to teach (Darling-Hammond, 1998).
The concept of new teacher mentoring has developed since the late 90s from a role as a
confidant (Little, 1990) to a connector that brings overarching practices together. This
support often consists of supporting new teachers as they navigate the many resources a

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

22

school may have (Langdon & Ward, 2015; Wang et al., 2008). Other researchers have
described mentoring as coaches, teachers, parent figures, role models, counselors, and
sponsors (Abell et al., 1995; Ganser, 1998; Gehrke & Kay, 1984; Little, 1990; O’Brien,
1995). More research on defining terms such as coach, friend, supporter, and role model
needs to be further developed to show how each concept connects to the dynamics of
mentoring (Ambrosetti & Dekkers, 2010).
Educative mentoring programs have shown evidence of mutual gains between the
mentor and a mentee (Bradbury, 2010; Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Wexler (2020) found that
relationships between novice teachers and their mentors build and continue over time.
Recent studies showed that building-level administrators and educational researchers
found positive correlations between the overall effectiveness of novice teachers and those
who have had mentors as part of their induction program (New York University, 2019).
Carter and Francis (2001) compared induction experiences between new teachers with
mentors and those without. They found that new teachers with mentors were generally
more satisfied with their induction experience.
Differences in traditional mentoring models compared to educative mentoring
models include assisting new teachers in developing innovative ways of solving both
short- and long-term problems they may encounter during their first years of teaching
(Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Educative mentoring (Feiman-Nemser, 2001) has been
described as mentoring focused on the professional growth of beginning teachers through
their experiences with veteran teachers (Bradury, 2010). Educative mentoring has
promoted pervasive reflection and continuous development, and case studies showed
positive correlations as measured by the engagement of the novice teacher and the mentor

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

23

(Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Bradbury (2010) has linked the success of educative mentoring
to mentoring that has occurred in science classrooms because of its effect on inquiry. In
Table 1, the differences between traditional and educative mentoring are described.
Table 1
Differences in Emphasis in Traditional View of Mentoring and Educative Mentoring

Note. Reprinted from “Educative mentoring: Promoting reform-based science teaching
through mentoring relationships,” by Bianchini, J., Sutherland, S., & Windschitl, M.,
2010, Science Teacher Education, p. 1052 (https://DO110.1002/sce.20393).
Thirty-one states have a requirement specific to training before becoming a
mentor; in 15 states, this required mentor training is followed by pervasive professional
development (Goldrick et al., 2012). Mentor training in the United States that is
considered robust and comprehensive trains mentors using:
Different types of individual and collaborative activities: orientation sessions,
presentation of available instructional materials and resources for self-education,
coaching, training, reflective workshops, teaching seminars, conferences,
communication with program coordinators and school administrators,

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

24

participation in discussion panels or problem-solving groups, mentor support
groups and mentor communities. (Zembytska, 2016, p.71)
Compensation for mentors varies from school district to school district and state to state.
Some mentors have volunteered their time and effort to pay forward their first-year
teacher experiences with a mentor, while other mentors are given incentives. Incentives
to support and encourage mentors can include workload reduction to meet with their
mentees, stipends or additions to their salary base, career advancements, and intrinsic
motivators like certificates and awards at end-of-year employee celebrations (Zembytska,
2016).
Teacher-Mentor Connection
The relationship between a new teacher and their mentor matters and can
potentially catapult a new teacher’s career into success (Muschallik & Pull, 2016).
Research has described the relationship between a new teacher and mentor in many
different ways, but there is limited research on how a mentor builds explicitly
relationships with new teachers by using non-traditional activities (Baker et al., 2018).
Relationships that have been built from a place of empathy (Nemanick, 2017), explained
school and theoretical frameworks (Maynard et al., 2014), provided new teachers with
specific feedback, filled gaps that assist with managing classroom behaviors (Boz & Boz
2006), and helped teachers find their professional voice (Maynard et al., 2014) have been
common themes found in the literature. These new teacher and mentor relationship
characteristics have been most helpful when defining the commonalities in highly
successful relationships and provided insight into the kind of mentors needed for new
teachers. More research that defines the types of activities mentors do and should not do

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

25

is required to describe better the strategy behind forming more efficient relationships
between new teachers and their mentors (Maynard et al., 2014). Numerous studies
evaluated success between a mentee and their mentor and have measured soft variables
like the relationship satisfaction assessed by the mentee and the mentor (Linden et al.,
2013). Studies that measured hard variables (Muschallik & Pull, 2016), such as
developing teachers as leaders during their induction experience, have been less common
in the education field and warrant more research to help identify the specific strategies
that support a relationship between mentor and mentee that develop hard skills.
Mentors as collaborators have been a common theme in the literature when
defining the relationship between a new teacher and a mentor and is an element needed to
enhance a new teacher’s skill set (Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2005). In contrast to this
common theme, some research has cautioned mentors on collaborating. Mentoring
relationships focused largely on the mentor as a collaborator are more likely to reduce the
mentor role from a relationship of guidance to the mentor taking a lead in project
completion (Maynard et al., 2014).
Pairing of Teachers and Mentors
Mentoring is an essential piece for new teachers as they participate in induction
programming, and often these relationships extend well beyond the completion of formal
induction experiences. Ingersoll and Strong (2011) suggest criteria for mentor selection
to include:
● excellent people skills
● effective as an instructor
● related work experience

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

26

● leadership skills
● grade-level or content expertise synonymous with the mentee
Intentional mentor-to-mentee pairing has a significant impact on a new teachers’ success
during their first years of teaching. Careful consideration of how mentors and mentees
are paired is essential (Lozinak, 2016). Zembytska (2016) found that
American researchers suggest an ideal age difference of about 8 - 15 years between new
teachers and mentors, but many school systems across the country are experiencing high
teacher turnover rates and will invite retired teachers to close the mentor-to-mentee gap.
Extensive research shows positive correlations between healthy mentor-to-mentee
relationships and teacher attrition (Wong, 2004).
Lozinak (2016), whose action research in a suburban Connecticut school district,
examined mentor-to-mentee assignments and found the matching process of a veteran to
a novice teacher to be ineffective as perceived by new teachers. The research study was
designed to determine if the mentor-pairing process would improve new teachers'
perceptions of mentoring relationships. As Lozinak (2016) identified, three contributing
factors should be considered in mentor-mentee pairing:
● The relevance of sharing the logistics behind the pairing process with all
stakeholders involved.
● The importance of matching mentees with mentors who work in the same
building for accessibility.
● The power of matching mentees and mentors in similar grades or content
to create a job-alike atmosphere.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

27

Lozinak (2016) shared that despite limitations that included sample size and timing of
new teacher hires, the study focused on the importance of thoughtful pairing between
mentors. Comparatively, Lozinak (2016) connected research done by Ingersoll and
Strong (2011) that provided empirical evidence that suggested 1) mentoring has had
positive effects on new teachers, 2) mentoring has helped new teachers refine their craft,
and 3) mentoring reduced new teacher attrition.
Induction Alignment and Requirements Specific to Job Types - Teachers versus
Specialists
School districts in the United States have separated by definition and certification
the differences between teachers and educational specialists. Each of the fifty states has
mandated specialized licensing requirements for all public school educators. Despite
common definitions attached to specific certification types, distinctions between the
terms teacher, educator, support specialist, educational specialist, direct service providers
(etc.) vary across each state and have been found to be ambiguous and defined by local
contexts (Pollock & Mindzak, 2015). The Pennsylvania Department of Education
(2022b) defines a teacher as someone whose primary job is to instruct students as
outlined by a specific state educational agency. A support personnel is someone other
than a teacher or administrator who is mandated to possess an educator license based
upon at least a bachelor’s degree (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2022b).
According to the Pennsylvania Department of Education (2022b), Support
Personnel is synonymous with Educational Specialists. It is defined by a person whose
primary job function is to provide direct services other than classroom instruction.
Educational specialists in Pennsylvania have included school counselors, nurses, speech
and language therapists, reading specialists, and school psychologists.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

28

Because of the ambiguity between the different terms that may define a teacher, it
has been difficult to discern which job types associated with the education field are
required to participate in induction for each state. All of the researchers, studies, and
national organizations in this literature review connect induction to teachers.
Differentiating the Induction Experience for Different Job Types
Researchers agree there are core elements that comprise most educator induction
programs, and they have varied in style and implementation (Lawson, 1992). Common
elements include training on district-specific curricula and policies, instructional
strategies, and support mentoring (Robinson, 1998). Differentiation can occur through
shared leadership of induction programs, affiliations with educational entities, and by
varying the structural design of the induction program to emphasize certain components
(Zewe, 2000). A majority of induction programs vary across regions, but most share
similar visions (Zewe, 2000).
The concept of differentiating the induction experience for job types that fall
outside the teacher's definition has yet to be well documented or researched. A
Pennsylvania study conducted by Holtzapple (2012) surveyed new teachers and noted
“negative perceptions focused primarily on issues of relevance within the induction
program for non-traditional new teachers or new teachers other than those in regular
classrooms” (p. iv). Additional studies to understand the complexities of differentiating
induction for different job types are required that could include examination of how
National and State Educational Agencies approach induction.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

29

Comprehensive Teacher Induction Programs
The original title of this literature review section was Innovation in Educator
Induction. A review of the literature found the term innovative to be used minimally to
describe induction programs. A more inclusive approach that describes innovative
induction programming can be identified as “comprehensive” (Glazerman et al., 2010, p.
xxiii ). Glazerman et al. (2010) described comprehensive induction programming as
support to new teachers defined by rigor, structure, and sequenced. Conversely, teacher
induction programs that provide basic support services to new teachers (Berry et al.,
2002; Smith & Ingersoll 2004) are referred to as “informal or low-intensity” (Glazerman
et al., 2010, p. xxiii).
It should be noted in this literature review that not all studies were completed in
an era when the term comprehensive was used to define teacher induction programming.
An example of such a study came from Moskowitz and Stephens (1997), who defined
systems of support for new teachers as targeted interventions. Both groups of researchers
used different terms to describe high-quality induction programming.
Assessment has been a recurring theme in the literature and identified as an
element of comprehensive induction programs. Assessments that have involved
constructive feedback (Glazerman et al., 2010) or assessments that are used to support the
ongoing growth of the teacher are perceived by new teachers as non-threatening and
generally successful (Moskowitz & Stephens, 1997 ). Zembytska (2016) suggested
assessment data could also be collected through reflective journals, new teacher tracking
logs, student achievement data, and observations.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

30

Many researchers in the field have supported comprehensive teacher induction
programs. Smith and Ingersoll (2004) defined induction programs that incorporated
multiple types of support for new teachers as comprehensive. (Gilles et al., 2009; Pavao,
2018; Xuan, 2019;) have noted support for new teachers by reducing workload that
allowed for mentoring activities and learning experiences. Comparatively, other
researchers described support for new teachers similarly. Zembyst (2016) outlined
support for new teachers, including dedicated on-site mentors, common planning time
with mentors, reduced workload, and opportunities for job-alike networking.
Each of the researchers noted different kinds of support for new teachers, but each
support mechanism could be connected to comprehensive induction planning. As shared
by Zembytska (2016), some states have adopted evaluation standards for new teachers
connected to induction policies. It was not found in the literature if those assessments
impacted induction success.
Connections to Student Outcomes
Teacher induction has impacted novice teachers’ ideology about teaching and
learning, but few long-range research studies have successfully measured or connected
the effects of induction on student achievement (Wang et al., 2008). Strong (2006)
suggested studies that attempted to measure the connections between new teacher
induction programs and student achievement have been difficult to measure:
It is hard to obtain the necessary data. Many schools and districts do not maintain
databases connecting student test scores to teachers. Many states do not test
students in all grades annually, and tests are changed frequently, making it
difficult to compare performance from year to year. Induction programs vary, and

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

31

many factors contribute to changes in student achievement besides the kinds of
support beginning teachers receive. (p. 1)
The research completed by Strong (2006) has coincided with research from (Ronfeldt et
al., 2013) that has connected new teacher induction programming to student achievement
in schools that have had high teacher retention rates (Ronfeldt et al., 2013). Increased
levels of teacher turnover and programs that have struggled to successfully prepare
students have posed challenges for educational policymakers (Glazerman et al., 2010).
Darling-Hammond (2000) has noted that high turnover in urban schools has negatively
impacted student outcomes because it has forced students to be instructed by teachers
lacking the experience to support quality schooling. High turnover has caused undue
stress to school systems and has forced negative financial impacts onto school entities
that must attract, retain, and professionally develop teachers to replace their poorer
counterparts (Ingersoll & Smith 2003; King & Newman, 2000). It has been found that
even teachers with tenacity and grit have shown hardships with curricular content and
managing students when they have yet to be adequately supported at the onset of their
teaching career (Johnson et al., 2004). This research has connected to the research
reported by Glazerman et al. (2010) that has called on school entities to provide a more
comprehensive approach to teacher induction programming.
In 2004, the United States Department of Education collaborated with
Mathematica Policy Research and led a large-scale review of comprehensive teacher
induction support. This research study aimed to determine what, if any, impact
comprehensive teacher induction practices had on new teachers and student outcomes.
Districts participating in the study chose from two providers, the Educational Testing

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

32

Service or the New Teacher Center at the University of California, to provide
comprehensive induction services. Both service entities assigned new teachers with
mentors at a 12 to 1 ratio. Mentors were trained and received high-quality professional
development. New teachers were provided with frequent professional development and
ongoing opportunities to observe experienced teachers (Glazerman et al., 2010). The key
findings of this research made positive connections between comprehensive teacher
induction training and student outcomes. Glazerman et al. (2010) showed that it took
three years of ongoing support offered through a comprehensive teacher induction
program before a positive impact was made on student achievement. This study proved
that support provided by comprehensive induction programs can impact student
outcomes. A question for future researchers is can this study be replicated. If
comprehensive support for new teachers (during induction) has proven to impact student
outcomes, could this change induction policies?
More literature has connected student achievement by way of being an effective
teacher. Sanders and Rivers (1996) have reported that a critical factor for student growth
to occur; better instruction equates to higher achievement (Sanders & Rivers, 1996).
Strong et al. (2011) concluded that effective teachers experience higher student
achievement than less effective teachers.
Additional studies of teacher induction that have connected student achievement
(good, bad, or indifferent) as a result of induction are supported by a comprehensive
induction strategery and use control trials to measure student growth. As an example of
one such study, findings reported by Young et al. (2017) found notable impacts on student
achievement in English Language Arts and Mathematics after two years of New Teacher

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

33

Center (NTC) induction support in schools in Florida, Illinois, and Iowa. NTC’s
induction program, where student gain was observed, had schools that implemented the
program with fidelity, new teachers who interfaced with mentor teachers more often than
non-NTC new teachers, focused on instruction, valued at higher levels activities centered
on mentoring, and credited their NTC induction experience to the development of
stronger skills as novice teachers. Follow-up interviews with new NTC teachers
suggested tremendous value in having trained NTC mentors to support them through
learning about classroom management, lesson planning, individualizing instruction,
continued reflection, and ultimately gaining confidence in their first years of teaching
(Young et al., 2017).
Summary
Teacher induction programming continues to evolve, including the critical need to
create a more comprehensive support system for new teachers. Using research, school
districts can better design induction programs that 1) support new teachers during their
first years of teaching, 2) bridge achievement gaps between new teachers and student
outcomes, and 3) impact the trajectory of teacher attrition in the United States. The
intended goal of sharing this research is to support educational leaders responsible for
leading and designing induction programs for new educators.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

34

CHAPTER III
Methodology
This action research project was designed to interrogate the realities of Educator
Induction through the lens of educators, educational specialists and their mentors, and
Intermediate Unit leaders who manage induction. A thorough review of the literature has
shown that 1) teacher attrition and retention have been a growing concern for many
educational researchers and practitioners over the past two decades (Smith & Ingersoll,
2004), and 2) strong mentorship matters (Zembyst, 2016). Smith and Ingersoll (2004)
found that 15 percent of all new teachers have transitioned from the profession, and
another 14 percent changed schools after their first year on the job. Data collected ten
years after Smith and Ingersoll showed that the statistics have remained unchanged,
reporting that 14 percent of first-year teachers transitioned away from teaching by the
conclusion of their first year (Ingersoll & Merrill, 2012). The Covid-19 pandemic has
deepened this reality and left school districts scrambling to attract and retain highly
qualified teachers to fill gaps left by the pandemic.
The literature review supported the researcher’s need to 1) identify the sequence
of events and planned activities that support comprehensive induction programming and
2) determine if relationships between new educators and their mentors increase
engagement with the induction process. This chapter further illustrates the purpose of the
action research study, describes the educational setting and participants, provides a brief
description of the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit’s (WIU7) history of induction,
discusses the research design, methods, and data collection methods, captures the validity
of the study, and details the fiscal implications for induction.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

35

Purpose
This action research project investigated and compared the perceptions and
relationships between the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit’s educators, educational
specialists, and mentors on the intermediate unit's induction programming. Numerous
studies have shown that mentor-mentee pairing is essential (Andrews et al., 2006), and a
comprehensive scope and sequence of induction activities and content can lead to
improved student outcomes (Glazerman et al., 2010). This study was strategically
designed to collect quantitative data that will assist the researcher in reimagining and
developing a more comprehensive approach to the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit’s
Educator Induction Program. The quantitative data was collected through surveys
distributed to educators, educational specialists, and mentors who completed the
Westmoreland Intermediate Unit’s induction program over the past five years. An
additional survey was distributed to intermediate unit leaders across the Commonwealth
who were identified as Educator Induction Program Leaders for their prospective
intermediate units. Data collected as a result of these surveys will answer three research
questions.
Research Questions:
1. What is the relationship between a new educator and their mentor compared to
educator engagement in the induction process?
2. What is the difference in perception between educators and educational specialists
regarding induction experiences?
3. What induction practices effectively meet the needs of new educators with various
job types?

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

36

The first research question measured the perceived relationship between the new
educator and their mentor and compared the educators’ engagement with induction
programming as evaluated by each educator and mentor. The second research question
determined the perceptual differences between the educator and mentor on various
programmatic features of the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit’s Induction Program.
These two research questions aimed to collect and compare the perceptions of educators
and their mentors on induction programming and overall stakeholder engagement. The
third research question was designed to identify practices that have successfully met the
needs of new educators with various job types across the Commonwealth.
Setting
This action research study targeted educators, educational specialists, and their
mentors, whom the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit employed over the past three to five
years. The Westmoreland Intermediate Unit is one of 29 educational service agencies
that provide technical assistance to public and nonpublic schools across the
Commonwealth. Intermediate Units are innovative and highly specialized and offer
cost-efficient instructional and operational services to their member school entities.
Intermediate Units are direct service providers to approximately 50,000 Pennsylvania
students (Pennsylvania Association of Intermediate Units, 2023). Each intermediate unit
is unique, but most technical services offered can be associated with the following
categories:
● Adult Education
● Cooperative Projects
● Educational Technology

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

37

● Preschool Education
● School-Age Programs
● Statewide Programs
● Training and Development (Westmoreland Intermediate Unit, 2023)
The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1997) created
intermediate Units to function as regional educational service agencies to support local
school entities.
Until 1971, county superintendents supplied the structure between the State and
local levels. In 1970, the General Assembly passed Act 102, creating a system of
29 intermediate units (IUs), which replaced the county superintendent offices as
of July 1, 1971. The IUs were mandated to create a broad program of educational
services to be offered to public and nonpublic schools, including curriculum
development and instructional improvement services; educational planning
services; instructional materials services; continuing professional education
services; pupil personnel services; State and federal agency liaison services; and
management services. The IUs were created as instruments of Federal, State, and
local education policies. They were empowered to create new services needed by
public and nonpublic schools. The IUs were envisioned as achieving economies
of scale in the provision of services. (p. 11)
The Westmoreland Intermediate Unit is in Southwestern Pennsylvania’s
Westmoreland County. The Westmoreland Intermediate Unit comprises 17 public school
districts, three Career and Technology Centers, 20 nonpublic schools, and Clairview
School. Direct and indirect technical assistance is provided to stakeholders through

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

38

curriculum, executive, financial, technology and infrastructure, and student services
(Westmoreland Intermediate Unit, 2023). Most of Westmoreland County is located in the
Laurel Highlands and spans 1,028 square miles with a total population of 353,057
(United States Census, 2021).
The public school districts in Westmoreland County range in size. Hempfield
Area School District, the largest, enrolls 5,700 students (Hempfield Area School District,
n.d.) compared to Monessen City School District, the smallest, which enrolls 751
students (Monessen City School District, n.d.). Comparatively, the largest nonpublic
school entity in Westmoreland County is the Diocese of Greensburg which enrolls
approximately 1,300 students (Diocese of Greensburg, n.d.).
Westmoreland County's population includes 94 percent white, 3 percent black, 1.7
percent two or more races, 1.4 percent Hispanic, and 1.2 percent American Indian, Asian,
or Native Hawaiian. The median household income is $68,708, and 11.2 percent live in
poverty. High school graduates represent 95 percent of the total population, and 31
percent represent individuals with a Bachelor’s degree or higher (United States Census,
2021). Clairview School is the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit’s special education
placement entity for students with low-incidence disabilities for Westmoreland County
and beyond. The school opened in 2000 and provided students with unique learning
opportunities through an individualized curriculum centered on social-emotional learning
(Clairview School, 2023).
Participants
Three different groups of educational stakeholders participated in this
action-research study. Group One consisted of Westmoreland Intermediate Unit

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

39

inductees (educators and educational specialists), Group Two participants were the
mentors of the inductees, and Group Three consisted of educator induction leaders from
across the Commonwealth. All participants who volunteered for this study consented to
participate in the research study (Appendix B).
The researcher identified 26 potential educators and educational specialists for
this action research project. Each of the 26 potential participants was employed by the
Westmoreland Intermediate Unit, provided direct services to the county's early
intervention or school-age students, and completed induction over the past three to five
years. All educators and educational specialists were Level I educators in pursuit of
completing induction as one of the Pennsylvania Department of Education requirements
before applying for Level II certification. The educators and educational specialists who
participated in this research project completed induction at the Westmoreland
Intermediate Unit.
The completion of induction was one step in the process of applying for Level II
certification. Level I certifications for educators and educational specialists are valid for
six years of service. Educators and educational specialists teaching in Pennsylvania with
a Level I certification for three to six years of satisfactory teaching and having earned 24
post-bachelor credits can apply for a Level II certification. The Pennsylvania Department
of Education (2023b) has determined that educators and educational specialists can apply
for Level II certification when the following “conditions” are met:
● Six credits must be associated with your [the educator or educational
specialist] area(s) of certification and/or must be designed to improve
professional practice

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS
● You [the educator or educational specialist] must have three years of
satisfactory service on a Level I certificate, verified by the chief school
administrator of the employing school entity
● You [the educator or educational specialist] must have completed a PDE
[Pennsylvania Department of Education] induction program verified by
the chief administrator of your employing entity (Pennsylvania
Department of Education, 2023b, “Level I to Level II” section).
The Pennsylvania Department of Education (2023b) defines educators as
professional or temporary employees who provide direct instruction to students in a
specified content area or grade level. An educational specialist is a nonteaching
professional who provides direct services to students but is not considered a classroom
teacher (educator). Educational specialists include:
● Speech and Language Therapists
● Social Workers
● Nurses
● School Psychologists
● School Counselors
● English as a Second Language Teachers
● Dental Hygienists
● Home School Visitors
● Instructional Technology Specialists
● Other (professional employees who provide services and who are not
classroom teachers)

40

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

41

Educator participants in this action research project taught special education in grades
pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade. Educational specialists participants in this action
research project provided direct services specific to speech and language therapy (early
intervention and school-age), vision impairment, and deaf and hard of hearing.
The researcher identified 17 potential mentors for this action research study.
Sixteen were employees of the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit, and one was an
employee of a local public school district. All mentors shared the same job type as their
mentees. Chapter 49 of the Pennsylvania School Code requires a mentor relationship
between new educators and educational specialists. Mentors are educators with
exceptional instructional leadership skills and can assist the new educator or educational
specialist in developing on-the-job skills (Pennsylvania Department of Education,
2023b). The mentors were not provided a stipend and volunteered to support the new
employee in this capacity. Each mentor held a Level II educator or educational specialist
certification through the Pennsylvania Department of Education and earned a satisfactory
rating on all end-of-year evaluations before and during their time as a mentor.
Intermediate unit educator induction program leaders were also participants in this
study. Educator induction program leaders design or manage the induction process at
their intermediate unit. Because each intermediate unit across the Commonwealth is
unique, participants in this study who were induction program leaders had job titles that
ranged from Director of Educational Programs and Services, Director of Curriculum and
Instruction, and Supervisor of Special Education to Program Assistants. The size of each
participating intermediate unit varied and ranged from very large, which employed 1,200
professionals, to very small, which employed 100 professionals. The researcher emailed

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

42

all 29 intermediate units requesting they identify the person who oversees/manages
Educator Induction at their intermediate unit. Of the 29 emails sent by the researcher, 18
intermediate units responded with the name, title, and contact information of the Educator
Induction point of contact. As a result, there were 18 potential intermediate unit
induction leaders for this action research project participants.
Project History
The researcher found no data on Educator Induction at the Westmoreland
Intermediate Unit before 1990. However, putting context around the induction program
was essential for this action research study and was based on the information learned
through personal communications. The individuals used to collect this information asked
to remain anonymous and are cited as such at the end of this section. They asked to
remain anonymous because their recollection of events was based on their experiences as
Westmoreland Intermediate Unit employees.
New employees engaged in induction in the early 1990s were assigned a mentor
who received a stipend. Induction lasted one year, and mentees and mentors met
informally and as needed. The intermediate unit provided end-of-year checklists to
inductees and mentors to verify proficiency in specific competencies. The researcher was
unable to discern what competencies were included in this checklist. Once the mentors
and supervisors verified the completion of these competencies with the inductees, the
inductees were considered finished with induction requirements, and the intermediate
unit awarded a letter of completion was awarded to the inductees.
The induction program became more formally structured in 2000; the number of
meetings increased, and specific induction content was identified. The induction

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

43

competency checklist was no longer used. Four meetings per year with intermediate
unit-related information were offered during these meetings. Information shared at these
meetings included how to access travel reimbursement, attend a professional conference,
and an introduction to special education policy. Conversations between the mentee and
mentor consisted of teaching strategies that included direct instruction.
A layer of asynchronous professional development was added to the induction
program in 2010, the number of meetings increased to monthly, and induction became a
three-year requirement. The induction program also became a group-led initiative.
Induction content focused on the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s expectations
(guidelines), including confidentiality, special education - Individualized Education Plans
(IEPs), curriculum and assessment, and classroom management. This induction
programming change resulted from an outside educational consultant hired by the
intermediate unit, who observed the need for a more robust program. Mentors were still
assigned to mentees, were paid a small stipend, and induction terminology became a part
of the bargaining agreements.
During this time, the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit offered induction services
to its member public school districts and local preschool programs. The rationale for
offering induction services to district and preschool partners was to 1) provide them with
an option to have a more robust approach to induction and 2) provide them with a
program that could serve one or two new employees. As a result, the intermediate unit
hosted induction for various employee types that included nurses, general and special
education teachers, special teachers (gym, art, music), speech and language therapists,
school counselors, and psychologists. The costs to districts and preschools were

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

44

minimal: $350 in year 1, $250 in year 2, and $140 in year 3. This concept continued until
districts created their own induction programming.
In 2017 the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit’s Educator Induction program
transitioned from being group-led and was assigned to one person. The new induction
program leader created personalized learning plans for the employees engaged in
induction. Induction remained a three-year program, and face-to-face or virtual meetings
were held in the evenings every other month. Induction content focused on explicit
instruction, professionalism, working with difficult parents, keeping organized, behavior,
and mental health. Beginning-of-the-year goal setting and end-of-the-year sharing of
learning presentations were added to the induction curriculum. During this time, mentors
were no longer paid a stipend, and it became difficult to attract mentors. As a result, the
mentoring piece of induction became less formal, and mentees were not assigned a
specific mentor (Anonymous respondents, personal communications, March 9, 2023).
Educator induction programming for the 2022 - 2023 school year reverted to assigning
Level I educators and educational specialists a formal mentor and was reduced from a
three-year requirement to a two-year requirement. Content for all educators and
educational specialists who instructed students participated in structured literacy
professional workshops and were required to complete four field experiences that
included:
● attending a Westmoreland Intermediate Unit board meeting
● interviewing a Westmoreland Intermediate Unit supervisor or director that
is outside of the employee's job type

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

45

● shadowing a Level II professional who was not employed at the same
entity as the employee
● attending a Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network
(PaTTAN) in-person workshop
Educators who did not directly instruct students were still required to complete the four
field experiences. However, these employee types completed an action research project in
place of structured literacy training.
Research Plan
The research plan for this action-research project was supported by critical
findings in the literature review:
● Forty percent of the newest generation of teachers have left the profession after
five years (Aspen Institute, 2022).
● New teachers have experienced tremendous shock during their first years of
teaching (Hobson & Ashby, 2012).
● Induction programs with multiple support types are comprehensive (Smith &
Ingersoll, 2004).
● A strong relationship between a new teacher and their mentor matter
(Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2005).
The key findings of the literature review revealed that new teachers need a
comprehensive support structure that includes mentors. The research plan used
quantitative surveys to collect data on the following research questions:
1. What is the relationship between a new educator and their mentor compared to
educator engagement in the induction process?

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

46

2. What is the difference in perception between educators and educational specialists
regarding induction experiences?
3. What induction practices effectively meet the needs of new educators with various
job types?
The research plan included three quantitative survey questions to measure the
perceived relationship between mentees and their mentors. These perceptions were
compared to the level of engagement each stakeholder (mentee and mentor) had in the
induction process. The research plan met the needs of the research problem through a
collection of survey responses from mentees, their mentors, and intermediate unit leaders
who managed induction programs. Survey responses were analyzed to identify how
induction could be improved by strengthening mentee and mentor relationships and
identifying common program elements that defined a comprehensive induction program.
The fiscal implications related to the research plan were minimal. The researcher
used the KeySurvey digital platform to create, distribute, collect, and house the survey
question responses. KeySurvey enabled the researcher to create a varied approach to
question design and provided survey participants access to the survey on mobile devices
and stand-alone computers, and laptops. KeySurvey was a previously purchased survey
platform at the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit and was used across different programs.
The KeySurvey program was purchased at $5,000 annually with unlimited use for all
survey designers. This research plan could have been implemented using a different
survey platform, with numerous options available at zero cost.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

47

Research Design, Methods, & Data Collection
Action research is a “systematic approach to investigation that enables people to
find effective solutions to the problems that confront their everyday lives” (Stringer,
2014, p. 1). This researcher used a systematic approach to find solutions to the
complexities that educator induction presented at the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit.
Kemmis and Wilkinson (1997) described a systematic approach as a specific sequence of
events for planning, observing, and collecting data. The researcher used a quantitative
approach to data collection for this research plan; this data collection approach used
statistics and numbers to compare relationships between mentees and mentors. Research
studies that “focus on hypothesis testing and studying relationships among variables often
use quantitative, statistical methods to analyze data” (Hendricks, 2017, p. 9). Using the
quantitative data collection method, the researcher identified patterns in perceptions and
programs as surveyed by the three stakeholders in the research plan: educators and
educational specialists, mentors, and intermediate unit leaders who managed induction.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS
Table 2 describes the alignment of research questions, data collection methods, data
sources, and the timeline for this action research study.
Table 2
Alignment of Research Questions, Data Sources, and Timeline
RESEARCH
QUESTIONS

DATA SOURCES

TIMELINE

What is the
relationship
between a new
educator and their
mentor compared to
educator
engagement in the
induction process?

A ten-question, close-ended survey was sent to
27 potential educators who have participated in
and completed the Westmoreland Intermediate
Unit’s induction program and their respective
mentors. The researcher used the purposeful
sampling method to identify inductee
participants. The purposeful sampling method
ensured the inclusion of the different types of
educators and educational specialists who have
completed the induction program. The goal
was to identify and survey educators,
educational specialists, and their mentors from
various job types (Appendices B and C).

January 30 February 6,
2023

What is the
difference in
perception between
educators and
educational
specialists
regarding induction
experiences?
What induction
practices effectively
meet the needs of
new educators with
various job types?

The final question on the survey for inductees
and mentors gave an opportunity to list any
additional services they thought would be
helpful related to induction.
A ten-question, close-ended survey was sent to
a potential 18 intermediate unit induction
leaders across the Commonwealth. The survey
gathered data to determine the practices used at
intermediate units that supported a
comprehensive induction experience for new
educators, educational specialists, and mentors
(Appendix E).
The final question on the survey for induction
program leaders gave the opportunity to list any
additional programs or services they thought
would be helpful or practical related to
induction programming. This data was
collected to determine and compare more than
one or no mode.

January 30 February 6,
2023

48

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

49

Data collected by the three surveys will be analyzed using KeySurvey.
KeySurvey is the digital platform the researcher used to create, distribute, collect, and
house survey question responses. KeySurvey arranges data by question type, enabling
the researcher to determine the survey question responses' mean, median, and mode.
Each of the three surveys contained the same questions and question type, with the
exception of two questions on the survey sent to intermediate unit induction leaders.
Because the survey questions and question types are the same across all three surveys, the
researcher can establish the mean, median, and mode for each research group’s set of
survey questions (educators and educational specialists, mentors, intermediate unit
induction leaders). The researcher will identify patterns and anomalies by analyzing and
comparing responses for each group surveyed. Comparing each group's responses will
increase validity, discussed in detail in the next section of this chapter. The content of the
survey questions used to establish mean, median, and mode across all three surveys
included:
● induction content satisfaction on overall induction experience, length of
induction, educator effectiveness (Danielson Framework), Standards-Aligned
System (SAS), collaboration with other inductees, teaching strategies for diverse
learners, and inductee/mentor experience;
● relationship quality between mentees and mentors;
● induction activities (inductee and mentor observations, co-observing, co-planning,
goal setting between inductees and mentors, and attending professional learning
opportunities;
● relevance of induction as compared to job types;

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

50

● engagement level between inductees and mentors.
The two survey questions that were different and included on the surveys sent to
induction leaders at intermediate units gathered data to determine the strategies used
during induction that attempt to differentiate the induction process of new educators and
educational specialists with different job types. This data will be analyzed by 1)
establishing the response rate for each differentiation strategy implemented and 2)
determining the mode of the complete data set.
The researcher obtained approval from the PennWest University Institutional
Review Board before conducting any research for this action research study. The
Westmoreland Intermediate Unit also reviewed and approved the proposed research plan.
Prior to completing any survey for data collection, potential participants read a letter that
explained the:
●

purpose of the action-research project

● expected time to complete the survey
● privacy expectation (no names)
● option to withdraw from the project at any time
● benefits of participating in the study
Each group of participants was asked to complete a digital survey. The approval letter
provided by the PennWest University Institutional Review Board shows that the
researcher’s project proposal was approved (Appendix A).
The budget for implementing the Educator Induction program for the
Westmoreland Intermediate Unit totals $89,933.00. It includes the partial salaries and
benefits of the program administrators, travel expenses for the supervisor, contracted

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

51

services, stipends, and indirect costs. During the first three years of implementation,
there will not be any revenue stream to support expenditures in the budget. Any potential
revenue for the Educator Induction program will be forecasted in a five-year budget upon
successful implementation after three years. Revenue will be generated through potential
District partnerships that choose Westmoreland Intermediate Unit’s Educator Induction
program as a pay-for-service option to satisfy the Pennsylvania Department of
Education’s Educator Induction requirement. As a result, funding will be supported by
the general operating budget under the function of special education core programming.
The funding source expends dollars from the administrative budget, applied to the entire
Intermediate Unit, and was not assigned to a specific instructional level. Expenditures
associated with this budget were not segregated by individual schools because the
Intermediate Unit was classified as a non-instructional building.
A professional development platform, “Alludo,” will be used to design educator
induction courses and track progress throughout the program. The cost associated with
Alludo is shared because other Westmoreland Intermediate Unit teams use Alludo.
Potential stipends for the mentors may be needed to compensate for the time and effort of
each mentor. Mentors would earn a flat stipend per year (cost to be determined)
regardless of how much time they spend with their mentees. Most of the required work
for the new educators and their mentors will be completed during regular school hours
throughout the board-approved calendar year.
The indirect costs associated with the Educator Induction program totaled
$4,350.00, including rent, utilities, administrative fees, telephone, technology, and
supplies. These indirect costs were shared and standard for major programs that required

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

52

a budget housed at the Intermediate Unit. The indirect cost rate for the Educator
Induction program was .05% of the total budget (approximately $4,350.00). Line items
such as rent, utilities, telephone, technology, and supplies were needed to 1) account for
the space and utility of the program at the Intermediate Unit and 2) maintain the quality
of the everyday programming associated with the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit
Educator Induction Plan. The intermediate unit’s administrative fee was associated with
most programming across all divisions and was considered an indirect cost. This
administrative fee included a portion of the salaries of those employees who worked in
accounting, payroll, human resources, and technology. In general, because the Educator
Induction program represented a small percentage of the overall programming at the
Intermediate Unit, the indirect costs associated with this initiative were negligible.
Validity
A non-negotiable requirement for any researcher engaged in action research is
validity. Hendricks (2017) defined validity as studies that can be trusted. Lincoln and
Guba (1985) developed criteria for trustworthiness that are used vastly in action research.
These four criteria include credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
Hendricks (2017) defined these criteria:
● Credibility: The plausibility of the research findings for the context that
was studied.
● Transferability: The extent to which results of a study are applicable to
other contexts and other individuals.
● Dependability: The degree to which research results would replicate with
the same or similar participants and/or contexts.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

53

● Confirmability: Showing that results are an accurate representation of
what occurred rather than the result of the researcher’s bias, motivation, or
interest. (p. 64)
Credibility, dependability, and confirmability can be established through
triangulation, a procedure that requires the researcher to gather and analyze multiple data
sources (Hendricks, 2017). Rossman and Rallis (2012) described triangulation as a way
to “ensure that you have not studied only a fraction of the complexity that you seek to
understand” (p. 65). In this research study, the researcher compared the survey results
between educators, educational specialists, and their mentors on relationships with each
other, engagement level during the induction process, and overall perceptions of
induction programming. Each mentee and mentor created a six-digit numerical code
unknown to the researcher to ensure the anonymity of the mentees and mentors who
participated in the study. This six-digit code was created to identify the like mentee and
mentor so that triangulation could occur. This triangulation of multiple data sources
increased the validity of the first two research questions:
1. What is the relationship between a new educator and their mentor
compared to educator engagement in the induction process?
2. What is the difference in perception between educators and educational
specialists regarding induction experiences?
Triangulation was also used to increase the validity of the third research question:
3. What induction practices effectively meet the needs of new educators with
various job types?

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

54

Triangulation for research question number three occurred by cross-comparing the
responses to common questions on the three surveys sent to educators, educational
specialists, mentors, and intermediate unit leaders who supervised induction across the
Commonwealth. The content of these common question types assessed the value each
group of research participants placed on different induction activities such as observing,
co-observing, lesson planning, action research, and goal setting.
Limitations
Two limitations were placed on this action research project: mentee-to-mentor
assignments and inductee representation from all different job types. The Westmoreland
Intermediate Unit discontinued offering a stipend for mentors in 2017. Thereafter, it was
difficult for the induction program leader to attract and retain the number of mentors
needed to assign a specific mentor to most mentees. As a result, the researcher had to
cross-compare notes from the induction program leader and the mentees to identify the
mentors. In some cases, there needed to be more clarity between whom the program
leader identified as a mentor and whom the mentees identified as mentors. Mentees often
identified several people as their mentors because a specific person was not assigned to
them.
The second limitation of this research study was the representation of all the
different jobs, specifically those associated with the role of educational specialists.
Because the researcher surveyed inductees who completed the Westmoreland
Intermediate Unit’s Educator Induction program over the past five years, certain job types
were not represented in this study because no new employees needed to be hired in those

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

55

job types. The educational specialists not represented in this research study were school
nurses, counselors, and psychologists.
Summary
This quantitative action research study was conducted to 1) determine how
engagement between induction mentees and mentors impacts overall satisfaction with the
induction process and 2) identify induction strategies that impact the different employee
types that educational entities employ. The setting for this study was the Westmoreland
Intermediate Unit and included three different induction stakeholders:
● Educators and Educational Specialists
● Mentors
● Intermediate unit leaders who managed induction
A brief overview and connection to the literature review reestablished the central
findings of educator induction programming. These findings included the need for a
comprehensive approach to induction design (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004) and a strong
relationship between new teachers and their mentors (Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2005).
These critical findings in the literature further supported the need for this action research
project.
A project history was shared to provide additional context that illustrated the
evolution of educator induction at the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit since the 1990s.
The historical narrative established the changes over time and how they impacted
induction, good, bad, or indifferent. The fiscal implications of this research plan were
minimal because the researcher used an existing survey platform to collect data. The cost
to implement induction increased tremendously when the direct and indirect costs were

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

56

considered. The validity of the research plan was established by triangulating multiple
data sources between the different induction stakeholders. Finally, two potential
limitations were presented to create a context for the results. Chapter IV will focus on
how the action research plan unfolded and the interpretations of the surveys sent to each
participant group.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

57

CHAPTER IV
Data Analysis and Results
This action research study aimed to re-imagine the Westmoreland Intermediate
Unit’s Educator Induction Program. The challenge for the Westmoreland Intermediate
Unit is designing an Educator Induction Program that successfully meets the unique
needs of new educators with different job types. These job types include
Pre-Kindergarten through twelfth-grade general and special education teachers, reading
specialists, teacher interns, long-term substitutes, and educational specialists.
Educational specialists include Dental Hygienists, Elementary and Secondary School
Counselors, Home and School Visitors, Instructional Technology Specialists, School
Nurses, School Psychologists, School Speech and Language Pathologists, and School
Social Workers. The Westmoreland Intermediate Unit’s current induction program
weaknesses and growth opportunities led to the development of the researcher’s three
research questions:
1) What is the relationship between a new educator and their mentor
compared to educator engagement in the induction process?
2) What is the difference in perception between educators and educational
specialists regarding induction experiences?
3) What induction practices effectively meet the needs of new educators with
various job types?
This chapter will detail the quantitative data collection methods used for this
action research study. Three different groups of participants were used to collect data
designed to answer the three research questions above. These participant groups included

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

58

Westmoreland Intermediate Unit educators and educational specialists who previously
completed the intermediate units induction program, their respective mentors, and
intermediate unit leaders who supervised the induction process across the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania. This action research project will provide insight into how Educator
Induction Programs can be more engaging for the different job types hired by
intermediate units and public school districts.
Data Analysis
A quantitative-methods research design was used to collect data for this action
research project and to answer the three research questions designed by the researcher.
The researcher used three quantitative surveys to collect data from educators and
educational specialists, their mentors, and induction leaders at intermediate units
throughout Pennsylvania. The three surveys were sent to each participant group on
January 30, 2023, and data was collected through February 6, 2023. Baseline data was
not collected because the study aimed to identify the perceptions of previous
Westmoreland Intermediate Unit inductees, their mentors, and the current perceptions of
intermediate unit leaders who lead induction in their respective intermediate units.
The overarching objective of the data collection process of this study was to 1)
determine if correlations exist between the perceptions of educators, educational
specialists, and their mentors as compared to program engagement and 2) determine the
strategies perceived to be successful for induction program design. The study results
were collected using KeySurvey, the same digital platform the researcher used to create,
distribute, and house the survey questions sent to each of the three research groups.
KeySurvey arranged the data into charts and graphs based on the question type. Five

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

59

survey questions required participants to select from a drop-down menu or gave
participants two options for choosing only one answer. This data was reported in a
numerical response rate using percentages. Two survey questions required participants to
rate different items along a scale and were reported in percentages. Data was collected to
show the mode for each response, represented by percentages. The last question type on
the three surveys was an optional, multi-line text response box used to collect comments.
The multi-line text response survey question was designed to elicit any additional
information yet to be addressed in the surveys. Data for the multi-line text responses
were reported by quoting the participant’s responses and were placed in a table format.
Educator and educational specialists surveys were sent to 26 inductees from the
Westmoreland Intermediate Unit, who completed induction over the past five years.
Fifteen surveys were sent to mentors. The discrepancy in the number of surveys sent to
educators and educational specialists was attributed to several mentors serving in the
mentoring capacity for multiple mentees. Of the surveys sent to educators and
educational specialists, one inductee was on maternity leave and did not complete the
survey. Of the surveys sent to mentors, one mentor denied participation, which
automatically removed both the mentor and mentee from the study due to triangulation
and validity due diligence on behalf of the researcher. An additional two mentors did not
complete the survey because they felt their interactions were limited with their mentees.
The lack of interaction between the two mentors and their mentees removed them from
the study. Two mentors completed a survey but needed to correctly identify the six-digit
code their mentees created. The incorrectly identified six-digit code withdrew the
mentors and their mentees from the study due to removing the ineligible surveys from

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

60

KeySurvey, fourteen of the 26 educators, educational specialists, and eight corresponding
mentors completed the survey. Seven of the 14 educators and educational specialists
whose surveys were eligible for the study became ineligible because their mentors did not
complete a survey. Those seven educators' and educational specialists' surveys were not
included in the researcher's data collection due to triangulation and validity due diligence.
After processing all of the surveys to determine eligibility for this study, data were
collected on six educators, educational specialists, and their mentors with the following
job types:
● one early intervention speech and language therapist
● one teacher of deaf or hard-of-hearing students
●

three school-age speech and language therapists

● one special education teacher
The third group of participants in this study were educator induction leaders.
Eighteen surveys were sent to educator induction leaders from intermediate units across
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Nine of the eighteen surveys were returned for the
researcher to analyze.
Data from the three surveys were analyzed to establish a mean, median, mode, or
no mode for each question. Data comparison existed on questions that were the same
across all three surveys and were used to find similarities and anomalies among the
survey responses of each participant group. These comparisons were designed to increase
the validity of the action research study. Data triangulation is discussed after the data has
been presented for each research question.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

61

Results
Research Question One: What is the relationship between a new educator and their
mentor compared to educator engagement in the induction process?
The results for research question one were collected from two surveys distributed
to educators, educational specialists, and their mentors. Each survey asked the educators,
educational specialists, and mentors the same questions. The output results of these
questions showed the total survey responses between all educators, educational
specialists, and mentors and were used to establish a mean, median, mode, or no mode.
The data comparisons of individual responses between the mentee and their mentor are
presented after the mean, median, or mode has been determined. The comparison of
individual responses between the mentee and the mentor supported the researcher’s effort
to increase the study's validity.
The first set of questions on both surveys asked educators, educational specialists,
and their mentors to describe the quality of their relationship. The question design gave
those surveyed seven options and required a “pick one” option. The seven options used
to describe the quality of their relationships ranged from very strong to completely weak.
Figure 1 shows data explaining how the educator or educational specialist perceived the
quality of their relationship with their mentor. Figure 2 shows data describing how the
mentor perceived the relationship quality with their mentee.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

62

Figure 1
Educator and Educational Specialist Survey Question 3

Figure 2
Educator Induction Mentor Survey Question 2

To perform a statistical analysis of the data in Figures 1 and 2, a numerical value
was given to represent each response category, with one being given to the response
“Completely Weak” and seven to the answer “Very Strong.” The data in Figure 1 shows
how educators and educational specialists perceived the relationship quality with
mentors. Fifty percent of those surveyed perceived the relationship as very strong, and

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

63

16.67 percent perceived the relationship as either strong, somewhat strong, or neither
strong nor not strong. The data in Figure 1 were analyzed to determine the distribution of
responses was skewed to the left with a center of seven, given by the mode, and a spread
of 1.75 categorical units, provided by the interquartile range (IQR). There were no
significant outliers in the data. The median response to the survey question in Figure 1
was 6.5, representing a value between “Strong” and “Very Strong.” The data in Figure 2
shows how the mentors perceived the relationship quality with inductees. Fifty percent
of those surveyed perceived the relationship to be very strong, 33.33 percent described
the relationship as strong, and 16.67 percent as neither strong nor not strong. The data in
Figure 2 were analyzed to determine the distribution of responses was skewed to the left
with a center of seven, given by the mode, and a spread of one categorical unit offered by
the IQR. There were no significant outliers in the data. The median response to the
survey question in Figure 2 was 6.5, representing a value between “Strong” and “Very
Strong.” When comparing the two distributions from Figure 1 and Figure 2, it was
observed that both distributions were skewed to the left. The center of each distribution
was the same, each with a mode of seven. The spread of responses by educator induction
mentors given by the IQR was slightly higher at 1.75 than that of educators and
educational specialists with an IQR of one.
The next set of questions on both surveys asked educators, educational specialists,
and their mentors to identify if the relationship between each other could have been more
impactful throughout induction. The question design gave those surveyed two options,
“yes or no,” and required a pick one or the other option. Figure 3 shows the number of
educators and educational specialists who believed the relationship with their mentor

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

64

could have been more impactful. Figure 4 shows data describing the percentage of
mentors who thought their relationship could have been more impactful with their
inductees.
Figure 3
Educator and Educational Specialist Survey Question 4

Figure 4
Educator Induction Mentor Survey Question 3

To analyze the data in Figures 3 and 4, a number was given to represent each
response category, with one being given to the response “No” and two to the answer
“Yes.” The data in Figure 3 shows the number of educators and educational specialists
who believed the relationship with their mentor could have been more impactful. Of
those educators and educational specialists surveyed, 83.3 percent stated the relationship
between them and their mentor could have been more impactful, and 16.67 percent felt
the relationship could not have been more impactful. The data shown in Figure 3 was
analyzed to determine the distribution of responses was skewed to the left with a center
of two, given by the mode, and a spread of zero categorical units presented by the IQR.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

65

One possible outlier with a value of one represented a single response of “No” to the
survey question. The median response to the survey question in Figure 3 was two, which
meant a " Yes " response to the question, “Do you think the relationship with your mentor
could have been more impactful?” Figure 4 shows data describing the percentage of
mentors who believed their relationship could have been more impactful with their
inductees. Of those mentors surveyed, 83.3 percent felt the relationship between them
and their inductee could have been more impactful, and 16.67 percent did not think the
relationship could have been more impactful. The data shown in Figure 4 was analyzed
to determine the distribution of responses was skewed to the left with a center of two,
given by the mode, and a spread of zero categorical units offered by the IQR. One
possible outlier with a value of one represented a single response of “No” to the survey
question. The median response to the survey question illustrated in Figure 3 was two,
representing a " Yes " response to the question, “Do you think the relationship with your
inductee could have been more impactful?” When comparing the two distributions from
Figure 3 and Figure 4, it was observed that both distributions were skewed to the left. The
center of each distribution was the same, each with a mode of two. The spread of
responses by mentors, educators, and educational specialists was the same, with an IQR
of zero.
The final survey question used to collect data on research question one, “What is
the relationship between a new educator and their mentor compared to educator
engagement in the induction process?” asked educators, educational specialists, and their
mentors to rate engagement levels during the induction process. The question design
gave those surveyed five options, requiring a pick one or the other option. The five

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

66

options used to describe engagement during the induction process ranged from almost
always engaged to never engaged. The data in Figure 5 shows the level of engagement of
the educator or educational specialist during the induction process. Figure 6 shows the
level of engagement of the educators or educational specialists through the lens of the
mentors.
Figure 5
Educator and Educational Specialist Survey Question 7

Figure 6
Educator Induction Mentor Survey Question 6

To analyze the data in Figures 5 and 6, a number was given to represent each
response category, with five being given to the response “Almost always engaged” and

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

67

one to the response “Never engaged.” The data in Figure 5 shows the level of
engagement of the educator or educational specialist during the induction process. The
data collected shows that 33.33 percent of the educators and educational specialists
surveyed are either almost always engaged, often engaged, or sometimes engaged with
the induction process. The data shown in Figure 5 was analyzed to determine the
distribution of responses was symmetrical and multimodal, with modes at three, four, and
five representing responses of “Sometimes engaged,” “Often engaged,” and “Almost
always engaged,” respectively. The center of the distribution is four, given by the median,
and has a spread of 1.5 categorical units, presented by the IQR. There were no significant
outliers in the distribution of responses. Figure 6 shows the level of engagement of the
educators or educational specialists through the lens of the mentors. Data collected
shows 66.67 percent of the mentors felt their inductees were almost always engaged with
induction processes, and 33.33 percent showed inductees as often engaged. The data
shown in Figure 6 was analyzed to determine the distribution of responses was skewed to
the left and unimodal. The center of the distribution is five, given by the mode, and has a
spread of 0.75 categorical units, given by the IQR. There were no significant outliers in
the distribution of responses. The median response was five, representing a response of
“Almost always engaged” to the survey question, “How would you rate the level of
engagement of your inductee with the induction process.” When comparing the two
distributions from Figure 5 and Figure 6, it was observed that the shapes of the
distributions were different, whereas the distribution of Figure 5 was symmetrical. In
contrast, the distribution represented in Figure 6 was skewed to the left. The center of the
distribution of responses from mentors was slightly higher at five, represented by the

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

68

median, compared to the center distribution of responses from educators and educational
specialists, with a median value of four. The spread of responses by educators and
educational specialists was slightly higher, with an IQR of 1.5 when compared to the
spread of mentors of 0.75 given by the IQR.
Triangulation Research Question One
Data comparing individual responses on relationship quality between the
educators, educational specialists, and their mentors are presented in Table 3. To
triangulate the data, the researcher asked each educator and educational specialist to
create a six-digit code only to be shared with their mentor. These six-digit codes were
used to identify and compare individual educators, educational specialists, and mentors'
responses. Table 3 compares the responses between educators, educational specialists,
and their mentors on two survey questions that measured the perceived quality of the
relationship between the mentee and the mentor and the mentee's engagement level
during the induction process. The data triangulation in Table 3 supports research
question one “What is the relationship between a new educator and their mentor
compared to educator engagement in the induction process?”

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

69

Table 3
Data Triangulation of Educators, Education Specialists, and their Mentors on
Relationship Quality and Induction Engagement

Note. S-STR = somewhat strong; NS-NS = neither strong nor not strong; A-A = almost
always; O = often, V-STR = very strong; STR = strong
The data from Table 3 shows 66.67 percent of educators, educational specialists,
and mentors agree on their perceptions of the quality of their relationship. Induction
engagement indicates that .17 educators, educational specialists, and mentors agree on
perceptions of engagement levels during induction.
The Mann-Whitney U test was performed on the survey results about the
relationship quality of the relationships between educators, educational specialists, and
mentors. The Mann-Whitney U test is used when researchers want to know if two groups
differ on a variable of interest. The null hypothesis was established to test whether there
was a difference between how educators and mentors perceived their relationship quality.
After performing the test, the data was found to have a U-value of 17. At the five percent
significance level, the critical value of U is five. Therefore, because the result of 17 is

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

70

greater than the critical value of five, the impact was insignificant and failed to reject the
null hypothesis.
The Mann-Whitney U test was then performed on the survey results about the
induction engagement between educators, educational specialists, and mentors during the
induction process. The null hypothesis was established to test whether there was a
difference between how educators and mentors perceived their induction engagement.
After performing the test, the data was found to have a U-value of 10. At the five percent
significance level, the critical value of U was five. Therefore, because the result of 10
was more significant than the critical value of five, the impact is insignificant and failed
to reject the null hypothesis.
Research Question 2: What is the difference in perception between educators and
educational specialists regarding induction experiences?
The results for research question two were collected from two surveys distributed
to educators, educational specialists, and their mentors. Each survey asked the educators,
educational specialists, and mentors the same questions. The output results of these
questions showed the total survey responses between all educators, educational
specialists, and mentors and were used to establish a mean, median, mode, or no mode.
The data comparisons of individual responses between the mentee and their mentor are
presented after the mean, median, or mode has been determined. The comparison of
individual responses between the mentee and the mentor supported the researcher’s effort
to increase the study's validity.
The first set of questions that collected data on research question two asked
educators, educational specialists, and their mentors to rate their level of satisfaction with

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

71

the required components of the Pennsylvania Department of Education Educator
Induction as provided through the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit’s induction program.
The question was designed to allow participants to rate different induction components
on a scale ranging from completely satisfied to completely dissatisfied. Participants were
also allowed to select “was not part of my induction experience” if they felt any of the
required components were not introduced during their induction experience. Figure 7
data shows the satisfaction levels of educators and educational specialists for the different
induction components. Figure 8 data depicts data that shows the satisfaction levels of
mentors for the various components of induction.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS
Figure 7
Educator and Educational Specialist Survey Question 2

72

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

73

Figure 8
Educator Induction Mentor Survey Question 1

Both Figures 7 and 8 show results for seven different variables being analyzed.
The variables analyzed in research question two were overall induction experience,
length of the induction program, Educator Effectiveness Training, Standards Aligned
System Training, opportunities for inductees to collaborate with other inductees, teaching
strategies for diverse learners, and mentor/inductee experience. To analyze the data in
Figures 7 and 8, a number was given to represent each response category, with one being

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

74

given to the response “Was not part of my induction experience” and eight being given to
the reaction “Completely Satisfied.”
Figure 7 shows that no educator or educational specialist was completely satisfied
or dissatisfied with their overall induction experience. Eighty-three percent of the
educators and educational specialists were either somewhat or mostly satisfied with their
overall induction experience, 17 percent were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 16.76
percent were mostly dissatisfied, and one educator or educational specialist said their
overall induction experience was not part of their induction experience. Data collected
on the perceived mentor/inductee experience through the lens of the educator or
educational specialist shows 16.67 percent were completely satisfied, 50 percent were
mostly satisfied, and 33.33 percent were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. The remaining
induction program components, including program length, Educator Effectiveness
training, Standards Aligned System training, collaboration with other inductees, and
teaching strategies for diverse learners, averaged 8.34 percent completely satisfied, 16.67
mostly satisfied, 5.56 percent somewhat satisfied, 16.67 percent neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied, 16.67 percent somewhat dissatisfied, 5.56 percent mostly dissatisfied, zero
percent completely dissatisfied, and 5.56 percent stated one or more program elements
were not part of their induction experience.
Figure 8 data shows that no mentor was completely satisfied or dissatisfied with
their overall induction experience. Fifty percent of the mentors were either somewhat or
mostly satisfied with their overall induction experience, 16.67 percent were neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied, 16.76 percent were mostly dissatisfied, and one mentor said
their overall induction experience was not part of their induction experience. Data

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

75

collected on the perceived mentor/inductee experience through the lens of the mentors
show 16.67 percent were completely satisfied, 50 percent were mostly satisfied, and
33.33 percent were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. The remaining induction program
components, including program length, Educator Effectiveness training, Standards
Aligned System training, collaboration with other inductees, and teaching strategies for
diverse learners, averaged 8.34 percent completely satisfied, 11.11 percent mostly
satisfied, 11.11 percent somewhat satisfied, 15 percent neither satisfied nor dissatisfied,
2.78 percent somewhat dissatisfied, zero percent mostly dissatisfied, 16.67 percent
completely dissatisfied, and 22.22 percent stated one or more program elements were not
part of their induction experience. “Not part of their induction experience” is an option
provided to participants if they believed specific induction content was not offered during
their experience. The researcher created this as an option to avoid participants from
feeling forced to select an option that may not fully describe their induction experience.
The distributions of satisfaction in the overall induction experience for educators,
educational specialists, and mentors were skewed to the left. The center of each
distribution was seven, represented by the mode. The median response for educators,
educational specialists, and mentors was 5.5. The spread of the answers was slightly
higher for mentors, with a distance of 3.25 given by the IQR, compared to the spread of
2.5 for educators and educational specialists. Neither distribution had any apparent gaps
or outliers.
The distributions of satisfaction in the length of the induction program for
educators, educational specialists, and mentors were skewed to the left. The center of the
distribution for educators and educational specialists was four, represented by the mode,

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

76

which was several units lower than the center of the mentor distribution, which was
seven, given by the mode. The median response from educators and educational
specialists was 4.5, which was lower than the median from mentors at 6.5. The spread of
responses was slightly higher for educators and educational specialists at 2.5, given by
the IQR, compared to the spread of mentor responses of 1.75. There were no apparent
outliers in the educator and educational specialist distribution; however, there was a
possible outlier in the response distribution for mentors at two.
Educators, educational specialists, and mentors were asked to rate their overall
satisfaction with the Educator Effectiveness training during the induction experience.
The distribution of mentors' responses was skewed to the right, whereas the distribution
of educators' and educational specialists' responses was skewed to the left. The center of
the distribution of educators and educational specialists was five, given by the mode,
which was significantly higher than the center of the distribution for mentors of one,
provided by the mode. The spread of responses for educators and educational specialists
was 1.75 given by the IQR, lower than the spread of responses for mentors, which was
4.75 provided by the IQR. There was a single possible outlier response of one for
educators and educational specialists, and there was a gap between responses of one and
four for mentors involved in the induction process.
The fourth variable educators, educational specialists, and mentors were asked
about was their satisfaction level with Standards Aligned Systems training. The
distribution of the educator, educational specialist, and mentor responses was skewed to
the right. The center of the distribution for educators' and educational specialists'
responses at five, given by the mode, was significantly higher than the center of the

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

77

distribution for mentor responses at one, presented by the mode. The spread of answers
for educators and educational specialists was 0.75 provided by the IQR, which was
significantly lower than the spread of mentor responses of 4.5, provided by the IQR.
Educators, educational specialists, and mentors also responded to a survey
question about their satisfaction with opportunities to collaborate with other inductees
during the induction process. The distribution of educators' and educational specialists'
responses was symmetric and bimodal, whereas the distribution of mentor responses was
skewed to the left. The center of the educators' and educational specialists' response
distribution was six, given by the median, which was slightly higher than the center of the
mentors' response distribution of 5.5, provided by the median. The spread of educators'
and educational specialists' response distribution was marginally higher at 2.75, provided
by the IQR than the spread of the distribution of mentor responses, which was one, also
provided by the IQR.
The surveyed groups were asked to rate their satisfaction with their experience
with teaching strategies for diverse learners during the induction process. The distribution
of educators' and educational specialists' responses was symmetric and unimodal,
whereas the distribution of mentor replies was skewed to the right. The center of the
response distribution for educators and educational specialists was four, represented by
the mode, which is significantly higher than the center of the response distribution for
mentors, which is one, given by the mode. The spread of responses for the distribution of
educators and educational specialists was 1.5, given by the IQR, which was lower than
the spread of responses for mentors of three, given by the IQR.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

78

The final survey question, represented by Figures 7 and 8, asked educators,
educational specialists, and mentors to rate their overall inductee/mentor experience.
Both distributions were skewed slightly to the left. The center of both the educators' and
educational specialists' responses distribution and mentor response distribution was
seven, given by the mode of each set of responses. The spread of educators' and
educational specialists' responses was slightly higher at 2.75, given by the IQR than the
spread of responses from mentors at 1.5, given by the IQR.
The second survey question that collected data on research question two asked
educators, educational specialists, and their mentors to rate different mentor services
(services provided by the mentor during induction) used to engage the inductee on a scale
from one to six with “one” representing “most important” to “six” representing “least
important.” Participants could only use each number one time. These mentoring services
included the mentor observing the inductee, the inductee observing the mentor,
co-observing or co-planning with the mentor, goal-setting with the mentor, and attending
a professional learning event with the mentor. Figure 9 shows how the educators and
educational specialists ranked the importance of specific mentoring services that the
mentor could have provided during induction. Figure 10 shows how the mentors ranked
the importance of specific mentoring services they could have provided during induction.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS
Figure 9
Educator and Educational Specialist Survey Question 5

79

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

80

Figure 10
Educator Induction Mentor Survey Question 4

Figure 9 shows a list of mentoring services the mentor could have provided
during induction. The data shows that 50 percent of educators and educational
specialists ranked the “inductee observes the mentor” as the most critical (impactful)
mentoring service from the list of six services, and fifty percent ranked “attending a
professional learning event together” as the least important (impactful) mentoring
service. The second most selected mentoring service was “goal-setting with the mentor”
at 33.33 percent, and the second least selected mentoring service was the “mentor
observing the inductee” at 50 percent.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

81

Figure 10 shows a list of mentoring services the mentor could have provided
during induction. The data shows that 50 percent of the mentors ranked the mentoring
service of “mentor observes the inductee” to be the most critical (impactful) service from
the list of six services, and fifty percent ranked “attending a professional learning event
together” as the least important (impactful) service. The mentors' second most selected
mentoring service was the “inductee observing the mentor” at 50 percent, and the second
least desired mentoring service was “attending a professional learning event together” at
33.33 percent.
Both Figures 9 and 10 show results for six different variables being analyzed. The
variables analyzed in this portion of the survey rated mentor services during the induction
process, which included mentor observing inductee, inductee observing mentor,
co-observing with inductee and mentor, co-planning with inductee and mentor,
goal-setting with inductee and mentor, and inductee and mentor attending professional
learning event together. To analyze the data in Figures 9 and 10, a number represented
each possible response category, with one being given to the response “Most important”
and six being given to “Least important’.
The first chart in Figures 9 and 10 shows the responses from educators,
educational specialists, and mentors on their perceptions of the importance of the mentor
observing the inductee. The educator and educational specialist response distribution
showed a left skew, whereas the mentor response distribution represented a right skew.
The center of the educator and education specialist distribution was five, represented by
the mode, which was significantly higher than the center of the mentor distribution of
one, given by the mode. The spread of the distribution of responses for educators and

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

82

educational specialists was 1.75, given by the IQR. In contrast, the spread of the
distribution of responses for mentors was slightly higher at 2.75, given by the IQR.
The next chart in Figures 9 and 10 represents the responses from educators,
educational specialists, and mentors and their perceptions on the level of importance for
the inductee observing the mentor. Distributions for educators, educational specialists,
and mentors represented a skewed distribution. The center of the educator and education
specialist response distribution was one, given by the mode, which was only slightly
below the center of the mentor response distribution, which had a center of two, provided
by the mode. The spread of the distribution of educators' and education specialists'
responses was 1.75, given by the IQR, which was very similar to the spread of the mentor
responses of 1.5, also given by the IQR.
The third chart in Figures 9 and 10 represents the perceptions of educators,
educational specialists, and mentors on co-observing with the mentor during induction.
Both distributions were bimodal and skewed left. The educators and educational
specialists distribution had modes of four and five, whereas the mentor distribution had
modes of three and six. The center of both distributions was four, represented by the
median. The spread of mentor responses was slightly higher at 2.75, given by the IQR
than the spread of educators' and educational specialists' responses of 1.5, given by the
IQR.
Co-planning with the mentor was the next variable analyzed for participant
perception. This variable was represented by the fourth chart in Figure 9 with educators
and educational specialists and in Figure 10 with mentor responses. The educator and
education specialists distribution was bimodal with a slight left skew, whereas the mentor

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

83

response distribution was bimodal and relatively symmetrical. Because both distributions
were bimodal, the center of each distribution was represented by the median and was
found to have a center of 2.5. The spread of both distributions was also the same, 1.75,
given by the IQR.
Figures 9 and 10 show charts representing perceptions of the importance of goal
setting with the teacher during the induction process based on responses. Both
distributions for the different groups represented right-skewed distributions. The center of
the distribution of responses for educators and educational specialists was 2.5, given by
the median, which was just slightly higher than the center of the distribution of responses
for mentors at two. The spread of responses from educators and educational specialists
was 1.75, given by the IQR, which was nearly the same as the spread of responses from
mentors of 1.5.
Attending a professional learning event was the final variable analyzed in Figures
9 and 10 to determine the perception of the two studied groups. Distributions for
responses from educators, educational specialists, and mentor teachers were skewed to
the left. The center of the distribution for educators and educational specialists was six,
given by the mode, which was the same as the center for the mentor response
distribution. The spread of responses from educators and educational specialists was
significantly higher at four, given by the IQR than from mentors of one.
The final two survey questions that provided data on the second research
question, “What is the difference in perception between educators and educational
specialists regarding induction experiences?” asked educators, educational specialists,
and mentors to reflect on induction at the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit to determine if

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

84

the experience was relevant and impactful to their specific job types. The design for both
survey questions gave participants five options and required a pick one or the other
format. The first survey question in this data set, “How often did you feel your induction
experience was relevant to your job type,” gave participants five options that ranged from
all of the time to not at all. The second survey question in this data set, “How would you
describe the impact of your induction experience as it relates to the responsibilities
unique to your job type?” gave participants five options that ranged from very impactful
to not impactful. Figure 11 shows the perception of educators and educational specialists
that compared induction experience to job type relevance. Figure 12 shows the perception
of mentors compared to the induction experience of their mentee to job type relevance.
Figure 11
Educator and Educational Specialist Survey Question 6

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

85

Figure 12
Educator Induction Mentor Survey Question 5

Figure 11 shows the perception of educators and educational specialists that
compares induction experience to job type relevance. This data was collected from one
special education teacher, one early intervention speech and language therapist, three
school-age speech and language therapists, and one teacher of deaf or hard of hearing.
None of the inductees thought induction was always or not at all related to their job type.
Fifty percent believed induction was related to their job type most of the time, and the
other fifty percent considered induction was related to their job some of the time. Figure
12 shows the perception of mentors that compares the induction experience of their
mentee to job type relevance. The data shows 83.33 percent of the mentors believed
induction was relevant to their mentee’s job type most of the time, and 16.67 percent
thought induction was relevant to their mentee’s job type some of the time.
To statistically analyze the data in Figures 11 and 12, a number was given to
represent each response category, with one being given to the response “Not at all” and
four being given to the response “All of the time.” The distribution for educators' and
education specialists' responses was symmetric and bimodal, whereas the distribution for
mentor responses was unimodal and skewed slightly to the left. The center of the

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS
educator and educational responses was 2.5, given by the median, which is just slightly
lower than the center of responses for mentors of three. The spread of responses from
educators and educational specialists was one, given by the IQR, which was slightly
higher than the spread of mentor responses of zero, also provided by the IQR.
Figure 13 shows how educators and educational specialists compared their
induction experiences to the responsibilities unique to their job type. Figure 14 shows
how mentors connected induction experiences to the responsibilities unique to their
mentee’s job type.
Figure 13
Educator and Educational Specialist Survey Question 7

86

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

87

Figure 14
Educator Induction Mentor Survey Question 7

The data in Figure 13 shows that 16.67 percent of the educators and educational
specialists found their induction experience to be very impactful compared to their job
type's unique responsibilities, and 66.67 percent found their induction experience was
slightly impactful. Figure 14 shows 66.67 percent of the mentors believed induction was
impactful to their mentee's unique job responsibilities, and 33.33 percent believed
induction to be fairly impactful on their mentee’s unique job responsibilities.
To statistically analyze the data in Figures 13 and 14, a number was given to
represent each response category, with one being given to the response “Not impactful”
and four being given to the response “Very impactful.” The distribution of responses to
the impact level of the induction process for educators and educational specialists was
skewed to the right. In contrast, the distribution of mentors was skewed to the left. The
center of the educators and educational specialists was two, given by the mode, which
was lower than the center for mentors of four. The spread of responses from educators
and educational specialists was slightly higher than that of the spread of responses from
mentors, with spreads of 1.5 and 0.75, respectively, both given by the IQR.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

88

Triangulation Research Question Two
Data comparing individual responses on the overall induction experience and the
mentee/mentor experience between the educators, educational specialists, and mentors
are presented in Table 4. To triangulate the data, the researcher asked each educator and
educator specialists to create a six-digit code only to be shared with their mentor. The
six-digit codes were used to identify and compare individual educators, educational
specialists, and mentors' responses. Table 5 compares educators, educational specialists,
and mentors' responses to two survey questions. The content used to triangulate the data
focused on the overall induction experience of the mentee and their mentor, and then
specifically, the experience between the mentee and their mentor. Table 4 compares the
individual responses between educators, educational specialists, and mentors on
induction relevance and job types. Tables 4 and 5 support data triangulation for research
question two, “What is the difference in perception between educators and educational
specialists regarding induction experiences?”

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

89

Table 4
Data Triangulation of Educators, Education Specialists, and their Mentors on Overall
Induction Experience and the Mentee/Mentor Experience

Note: OIE = overall induction experience; IME = inductee/mentor experience; MS =
mostly satisfied; NS-ND = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; CS = completely satisfied;
MD = mostly dissatisfied; NP = not part of induction; SD = somewhat dissatisfied; SS =
somewhat satisfied.
Table 5
Data Triangulation of Educators, Education Specialists, and their Mentors on Overall
Induction Relevance as Compared to Job Type

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

90

To triangulate the data in Table 4, a number was given to represent each response
category, with one given to the response “Was not part of my induction experience” and
eight given to the response “Completely Satisfied.” The Mann-Whitney U test was
performed on the survey results about the overall satisfaction during the induction
process between educators, educational specialists, and mentors in Table 5. The null
hypothesis was established to test whether there was a difference between how educators
and mentors perceived their overall induction experience. After performing the test, the
data was found to have a U-value of 16.5. At the five percent significance level, the
critical value of U was five. Therefore, because the result of 16.5 was more significant
than the critical value of five, the result was not significant and failed to reject the null
hypothesis.
Similarly, Table 4 compares the survey responses between educators, educational
specialists, and mentors and their perceptions of the overall experience between inductees
and mentors. The Mann-Whitney U test was performed on the survey results about the
overall satisfaction during the induction process between educators, educational
specialists, and mentors in Table 4. The null hypothesis was established to test whether
there was a difference between how educators and mentors perceived their overall
inductee and mentor relationship. After performing the test, the data was found to have a
U-value of 13.5. At the five percent significance level, the critical value of U was five.
Therefore, because the result of 13.5 is greater than the critical value of five, the result
was not significant and failed to reject the null hypothesis.
To analyze the data in Table 5 for statistical significance, a numerical value was
given to represent each response category with one given to the response “Not at all,” two

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

91

to “Some of the time,” three to “Most of the time,” and four given to the response “All of
the time.” The Mann-Whitney U test was then performed on the survey results about the
data representing the overall perception of induction relevance and job types between
educators, educational specialists, and mentors in Table 5. The null hypothesis was
established to test whether there was a difference between how educators and mentors
perceived their overall inductee and mentor relationship. After performing the test, the
data was found to have a U-value of 12. At the five percent significance level, the critical
value of U is 12. Therefore, because the result of 12 was more significant than the critical
value of five, the result was not significant and failed to reject the null hypothesis.
Research Question 3: What induction practices effectively meet the needs of new
educators with various job types?
The results for research question three were collected from a survey distributed to
educator induction leaders from nine intermediate units across the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The second question on the survey asked induction leaders to rank
different mentoring services in order of importance.
Data collected in Figure 15 shows a list of mentoring services a mentor could
provide during induction. These mentoring services included the mentor observing the
inductee, the inductee observing the mentor, co-observing or co-planning with the
mentor, goal-setting with the mentor, and attending a professional learning event with the
mentor. The data describes the top two most impactful mentoring services: goal setting
with a mentor at 33.33 percent and co-planning with a mentor at 25 percent. The
mentoring service of attending a professional learning event together was determined as

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

92

the least important (impactful) service by induction leaders, with 33.33 percent selecting
that service as a non-important mentoring service option.
The next two survey questions that collected data on research question three,
“What induction practices effectively meet the needs of new educators with various job
types?” asked induction leaders to determine the strategies used to differentiate the
induction process of new educators with different job types at their intermediate unit.
Participants selected from the following options: synchronous training sessions,
asynchronous training sessions, book talks, special projects, action research,
self-selection of professional learning experiences, interviews, job-alike meetings,
observations of job-alike employees, field experiences, and individual portfolios. From
the list mentioned, induction leaders were asked to identify the top two strategies used to
differentiate induction at their intermediate unit.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS
Figure 15
Intermediate Unit Educator Induction Leader Survey Question 2

93

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS
Figure 16
Intermediate Unit Educator Induction Leader Survey Question 9

Figure 17
Intermediate Unit Educator Induction Leader Survey Question 10

94

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

95

Figure 16 shows data collected from educator induction leaders at different
intermediate units across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The question was
designed for participants to check all options for their intermediate unit. Data shows the
top three strategies used to differentiate induction was synchronous training sessions at
100 percent and asynchronous training sessions and observations of job-alike employees
at 77.78 percent. The two strategies least used to differentiate induction with different
job types were book talks and interviews at 22.22 percent. Figure 17 shows data
collected from educator induction leaders at other intermediate units across the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The question design was a multi-line text response that
allowed participants to type out their responses. The most common responses were
observations of job-alike employees and self-selection of professional learning
experiences.
The last survey item for educator induction leaders was optional. It required the
induction leaders to list any additional programs or services for new educators that would
be useful or effective for induction programming. Three induction leaders gave
responses. Figure 18 lists the responses of the induction leaders. Responses include
increasing time spent on induction, more support for inductees, quarterly check-in
meetings between the mentor and the mentee, evaluation of the mentoring cycle, and a
place designated for inductees to access “everything they need to know” about their place
of employment.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

96

Figure 18
Intermediate Unit Educator Induction Leader Survey Question 11

Discussion
This action research study used a quantitative approach to collecting and
analyzing data. Surveys were given to three groups of participants: Westmoreland
Intermediate Unit educators, educational specialists, mentors who participated in
educator induction over the past five years, and intermediate unit leaders across the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who led induction at their respective intermediate units.
Data were collected to answer three research questions:
1. What is the relationship between a new educator and their mentor compared to
educator engagement in the induction process?
2. What is the difference in perception between educators and educational specialists
regarding induction experiences?
3. What induction practices effectively meet the needs of new educators with various
job types?
Results for research question one, “What is the relationship between a new
educator and their mentors compared to educator engagement in the induction process?”

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

97

indicated there was no convincing evidence that there was a difference between how
educators and mentors perceived their relationships with respective mentee/inductee, nor
was there compelling evidence that there was a difference between how educators and
mentors perceived their level of engagement.
Results for research question two, “What is the difference in perception between
educators and educational specialists regarding induction experiences?” indicated there
was no convincing evidence that there was a difference between how educators and
mentors perceived their level of satisfaction with the overall induction process. The
results also concluded there was no convincing evidence that there was a difference
between how mentees and mentors perceived their overall level of satisfaction with their
relationships, nor was there a difference between how educators, educational specialists,
and mentors perceived induction relevance and job types.
Results for research question three, “What induction practices effectively meet the
needs of new educators with various job types?” indicated the two most impactful
mentoring services offered during educator induction were goal setting and co-planning
with a mentor. Data also concluded the top three strategies used to differentiate induction
for different employee types were synchronous and asynchronous training and
observations of job-alike employees.
Summary
Chapter Four showcased and discussed the results of this action research study.
Data collected resulted from three surveys distributed to educators, educational
specialists, mentors, and intermediate unit educator induction leaders. The Westmoreland
Intermediate Unit employees were educators, educational specialists, and mentors. The

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

98

educator induction leaders were employees of intermediate units across the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Chapter Five will provide conclusions and recommendations made as a result of
this action research study. Chapter Five will also include a description of how the
researcher will apply the information to the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit, and other
educational entities across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will be included.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

99

CHAPTER V
Conclusions and Recommendations
Teaching is one of the few professions where new educators are expected to
perform as their veteran counterparts, on day one, with no real-life training other than
student teaching (McGeehan, 2019). Researchers have identified that new teachers have
experienced tremendous shock (Hobson & Ashby, 2012) during their first years of
teaching. Clark (2017) reported this [tremendous shock] could be lessened by
understanding new teachers' perceptions as they reflect on their induction experiences.
New teachers have rated support from a mentor as the most crucial factor during their
induction years (Behrstock-Sherratt et al., 2014). A thoughtful and comprehensive
approach to educator induction programming is essential to the success and retention of
new educators and educational specialists who enter the teaching profession.
Challenges observed by the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit include designing an
educator induction program that supports the needs of new educators and educational
specialists with different job types. Educators include Pre-Kindergarten through
twelfth-grade general and special education teachers, reading specialists, teacher interns,
long-term substitutes, and educational specialists. Educational specialists include Dental
Hygienists, Elementary and Secondary School Counselors, Home and School Visitors,
Instructional Technology Specialists, School Nurses, School Psychologists, School
Speech and Language Pathologists, and School Social Workers (Pennsylvania
Department of Education, 2022b). This capstone research project focused on the
experience of educators, educational specialists, and mentors who have completed the

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

100

WIU7’s induction program over the past three to five years and educator induction
program leaders from intermediate units across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Chapter Five will discuss the conclusions and recommendations of this Doctoral
Research Capstone Project and incorporate the conclusions made due to the data
collection efforts. The researcher will also address the fiscal implications, limitations,
and recommendations for future research in Chapter Five.
The Westmoreland Intermediate Unit is an educational service agency in Western
Pennsylvania, approximately 45 minutes from Pittsburgh. The intermediate unit provides
technical assistance to the 17 public school districts and 20 nonpublic schools in
Westmoreland County. The Westmoreland Intermediate Unit employs close to 400
employees that support the following teams/services: Student, Curriculum, Technology
and Infrastructure, and Executive. Any newly hired educator or educational specialist,
who needs educator induction before applying for their Level II certification, must
participate in the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit’s Educator Induction program. The
purpose of this study was to reimagine educator induction to provide the different
employee types with a unique induction experience relevant to their job type.
The following research questions identified and compared the perceptions and
relationships between WIU7’s educators, educational specialists, mentors, and induction
programming implemented at intermediate units across the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania:
1) What is the relationship between a new educator and their mentor
compared to educator engagement in the induction process?

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

101

2) What is the difference in perception between educators and educational
specialists regarding induction experiences?
3) What induction practices effectively meet the needs of new educators with
various job types?
A quantitative approach using surveys collected data on three groups of
participants: educators and educational specialists, their mentors, and educator induction
leaders from across Pennsylvania. Perceptions and relationships between the educators,
educational specialists, and their mentors were triangulated by cross-comparing responses
to survey questions of each participant group.
Conclusions
The educators, educational specialists, and mentors who participated in this study
were WIU7 employees who completed a three-year induction program. Their induction
programming included quarterly face-to-face meetings during evening hours,
synchronous coursework, observations, and self-selected book talks. The content of the
evening meetings focused on explicit instruction, professionalism, working with difficult
parents, keeping organized, behavior, and mental health. Induction programming also
included beginning-of-the-year goal setting and end-of-the-year sharing of learning
presentations led by the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit’s educator induction leader.
The formal assignment of mentors to inductees was not part of the induction experience
for the participants in this research study.
Research Question One
Research question one asked, “What is the relationship between a new educator
and their mentor compared to educator engagement in the induction process?” To seek

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

102

an answer to this question, the researcher asked the inductees and their mentors'
closed-survey questions that related to their induction experience at the Westmoreland
Intermediate Unit. These survey questions aimed to gather data on inductee-mentor
relationships, engagement with the induction process, and mentoring services used to
support the inductee during induction. The Mann-Whitney U test triangulated responses
between inductees and their mentors. The Mann-Whitney U test determines if two
groups differ on a variable of interest; for this study, the two groups included
Westmoreland Intermediate Unit educators, educational specialists, and their mentors.
The Mann-Whitney U test used the following survey questions to determine if any
statistical correlations existed:
1. How would you [the inductee] describe the quality of your relationship with your
mentor?
2. How would you [the mentor] describe the quality of your relationship with your
inductee?
3. Do you think the relationship with your mentor could have been more impactful?
4. Do you think the relationship with your inductee could have been more
impactful?
5. How would you rate your [the inductee] level of engagement with the induction
process?
6. How would you [the mentor] rate the level of engagement of your inductee with
the induction process?
Based on the results of the Mann-Whitney U test regarding the perceptions of
relationship quality between inductees and their mentors, there was no convincing

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

103

evidence to corroborate a difference between how educators and mentors perceived their
relationships with each other. This statistical finding suggests strong evidence that
inductees and mentors did not differ in how they described their relationship. The
Mann-Whitney U test also found no compelling evidence of a difference between how
inductees and mentors perceived stakeholder engagement during the induction process.
This statistical finding suggests strong evidence exists between inductees and mentors
and how each equally perceives the engagement level of the inductee throughout
induction. Based on these statistical findings, the perceived strength of a relationship
between an inductee and a mentor does not impact the engagement of inductees during
educator induction activities.
Research Question Two
Research question two asked, “What is the difference in perception between
educators and educational specialists regarding induction experiences?” To seek an
answer to this question, the researcher asked the inductees and their mentors' several
close-survey questions that collected data on induction experience, inductee/mentor
satisfaction, mentoring services, and job-type relevance. The Mann-Whitney U test was
used to triangulate responses. The survey questions used to determine if any correlation
existed included:
1. How satisfied were you [the inductee] with your overall induction experience?
2. How satisfied were you [the mentor] with your overall induction experience?
3. How satisfied were you [the inductee] with your mentor experience?
4. How satisfied were you [the mentor] with your inductee experience?

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

104

5. Rank the following mentor services in order of importance: observing,
co-observing, co-planning, goal setting, and attending a professional learning
event together.
6. How would you [the inductee] describe the impact of your induction experience
as it relates to the responsibilities unique to your job type?
7. How often did you feel your inductee’s experience was relevant to his/her job
type?
Based on the results of the Mann-Whitney U test regarding the perceptions of how
educators and mentors perceived their level of satisfaction with the overall induction
process, there was no compelling evidence of a difference in perception. No statistical
difference existed between how inductees and mentors perceived educator induction
satisfaction. Similarly, the Mann-Whitney U test found no convincing evidence there
was a difference between how educators and mentors perceived their induction
experiences, relationships with each other, or induction relevance to specific job types.
As a result of the Mann-Whitney U test, there is no significant difference in how
educators, educational specialists, and their mentors perceive the overall induction
process, relationships with each other, or induction content compared to job types.
Research Question Three
Research question three asked, “What induction practices effectively meet the
needs of new educators with various job types?” To seek an answer to this question, the
researcher asked educator induction leaders from intermediate units across the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania a set of survey questions that focused on mentoring
services, strategies used to differentiate induction for different employee types, and an

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

105

open question designed to elicit responses that were not addressed in any of the
close-survey questions. These survey questions included:
1. Rank the following mentor services in order of importance: observing,
co-observing, co-planning, goal setting, and attending a professional learning
event together.
2. What top two strategies are used to differentiate the induction process of new
educators with different job types at your intermediate unit?
3. List any additional programs or services for new educators that you [educator
induction program leader] think would be useful or effective.
Based on the survey data collected, the researcher concluded the most important
mentoring services offered by intermediate units across the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania to be:
● goal setting with a mentor
● co-planning with a mentor
● observations by a mentor
When compared to responses made by educators, educational specialists, and their
mentors, this data ranked the same in importance for mentoring services. Educators,
educational specialists, and their mentors also ranked goal setting and co-planning with
mentors and observations by mentors as essential mentoring services that induction
leaders could implement during educator induction.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

106

Data collected through the closed-question survey item concluded the top two
strategies used to differentiate the induction process of new educators with different job
types as:
● synchronous and asynchronous training sessions
● observations of job-alike employees.
This data was corroborated by examining the open-ended responses collected at the end
of the educator induction leader survey. Induction leaders reflected “observations of
job-alike employees,” “self-selection of professional learning experiences,” “job-alike
meetings,” “observations of peers/mentors,” and “differentiated training” to be the most
common points of sharing when asked to identify the top two strategies that effectively
met the needs of new educators in their induction programs. The triangulation of
responses among all three participant groups on mentoring services and data collected on
top induction differentiation approaches shows compelling evidence that goal setting,
co-planning, mentor observations, synchronous and asynchronous training sessions, and
inductee observations of job-alike employees are essential components for
comprehensive educator induction programs.
Application to what was learned as a result of this action research study includes
1) determining the best approach to re-engage the current Westmoreland Intermediate
Unit educators, educational specialists, and supervisors to consider becoming an educator
induction mentor and 2) creating opportunities that will enable inductees to authentically
get-to-know the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit, while forming a strong bond with their
mentors.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

107

Determining the best approach to re-engaging current Westmoreland Intermediate
Unit educators, educational specialists, and supervisors begins by revisiting the literature
on educator induction programming. Research has demonstrated positive correlations
between the overall effectiveness of novice teachers and those with mentors as part of
their induction program (New York University, 2019). Lozinak (2016) connected
research done by Ingersoll and Strong (2011) that provided empirical evidence that
suggested 1) mentoring has had positive effects on new teachers, 2) mentoring has helped
new teachers refine their craft, and 3) mentoring reduced new teacher attrition. New
educators and educational specialists deserve the opportunity to engage with
highly-successful mentors who can bridge the gap between theory and practice, what was
learned in college during pre-service teaching, to the daily realities of service teaching.
Improvements to current educator induction programming at the Westmoreland
Intermediate Unit can be made by assigning inductees to mentors in their same job type
while simultaneously capturing the successes of both the inductees and mentors to use for
marketing the new educator induction mentoring program. Table 6 provides specific
examples of tangible improvements that could be made to current educator induction
programming at the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit that will lead to a more systematic
and explicit approach to attracting and retaining educator induction mentors.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

108

Table 6
Tangible Improvements Leading to Attracting and Retaining Educator Induction Mentors

Creating opportunities that will enable inductees to authentically get-to-know the
Westmoreland Intermediate Unit while forming a strong bond with their mentors is a
second tangible improvement that can be made from this action research project.
Glazerman et al. (2010) described comprehensive induction programming as support to
new teachers defined by rigor, structure, and sequenced. Induction activities that 1)
create academic discourse using a systematic and explicit approach to understanding the
culture of the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit, 2) strengthen the instructional lens of new
educators and educational specialists, and 3) allow inductees to choose their induction
pathway are essential for future induction planning. Figure 19 provides a simple
mathematical equation that illustrates the structural components of a comprehensive
educator induction program.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

109

Figure 19
Mathematical Equation for a Comprehensive Educator Induction Program

In Figure 19, teaching workplace systems, routines, and policies and strengthing the
instructional lens of the practitioner are factors assigned a numerical value of one. For
the product (comprehensive approach to educator induction programming) to equal one,
both factors (teaching workplace systems, routines, policies, and strengthening the
instructional lens of the practitioner) must be fully executed. Complete execution of both
factors requires frequent interactions with an assigned mentor. A comprehensive
approach to designing an educator induction program requires both teaching the
workplace systems, routines, and policies and strengthening the instructional lens of the
practitioner.
The fiscal implications connected to this quantitative action research study were
minimal. KeySurvey was the informational technology platform used to develop and
store participant survey questions and responses. KeySurvey provided the researcher
with opportunities to design many different question types and gave participants access to
the surveys on mobile devices and digital desktop devices. KeySurvey was a previously
purchased survey platform at the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit and purchased at

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

110

$5,000 annually with unlimited access for any survey developer. This action research
study could have been implemented using a different survey platform, with numerous
options available at zero cost. There would be no costs associated with implementing the
mentorship program because the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit does not offer stipends
to mentors.
Limitations
Multiple sources were used to corroborate the data of this action research project.
While triangulation efforts increased the validity and accuracy of the results, two
limitations existed and should be considered.
In 2017, the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit transitioned from an educator
induction program led by a team of supervisors to a single-person leader of
non-supervisory status. This leadership transition impacted the depth and breadth of
induction programming, specifically assigning mentors to new educators and educational
specialists. The single-person leader could not find existing Westmoreland Intermediate
Unit employees to volunteer as mentors for the educator induction program. As a result,
the inductees were left to find their own person [mentor] to “collaborate with” throughout
their three-year induction experience. Inductees responsible for identifying their mentors
often translated to the inductee relying on several tenured/non-tenured employees (both
inside/outside the intermediate unit) with whom they loosely identified as their “mentors”
(Anonymous respondent, personal communication, March 9, 2023). The lack of assigned
mentors to inductees made it difficult for the researcher to identify a consistent match of
educators, educational specialists, and mentors. Alternatively, the researcher had to ask
the educators and educational specialists who agreed to participate in the study, who they

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

111

identified as their “mentors” during induction. Asked differently, who did you [the
inductee] rely on/talk to the most during your induction experience? The researcher used
this information to identify potential mentors to participate in the study. In several
instances, the identified “mentors” expressed concern as they were never identified as
formal mentors, resulting in their unwillingness to participate in the study. This potential
limitation could have impacted the perceptions of the educators, educational specialists,
and mentors who participated in the study.
The second limitation of this action research study was the result of offering
educator induction programming as a fee-for-service option to interested school districts
in Westmoreland County. The fee-for-service educator induction model implemented by
the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit created a robust array of employee types.
Participating inductees ranged from nurses to librarians, early intervention teachers, to
special education teachers, special teachers (art, physical education, music), to
elementary and high school teachers. This wide array of employee types added
complexity for the single-person induction leader. Despite the best attempts of the
single-person induction leader to differentiate the induction experience for each educator
or educational specialist, induction programming was impacted, and the Westmoreland
Intermediate Unit employees, who participated in induction, were in this large array of
different employee types. This potential limitation could have affected the perceptions of
the educators and educational specialists who participated in the study.
Recommendations for Future Research
This action research project used the quantitative data collection method to gather
the perceptions of educators, educational specialists, mentors, and educator induction

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

112

program leaders on educator induction programming. The conclusions of this study will
allow school and intermediate unit leaders to re-imagine induction programs and design
comprehensive educator induction programs for their new educators, educational
specialists, and mentors. Closed surveys were given to educators, educational specialists,
and mentors who completed the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit’s educator induction
program and induction leaders who manage induction programs at intermediate units
across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Recommendations for future research
include:
1. Bonds between an inductee and a mentor. A more comprehensive approach to
determine the kinds of relational activities that occur between inductees and
mentors that lead to strong relationships between the two stakeholders.
Specifically, inductee and mentor relationships that positively impact the new
educator or educational specialist.
2. Employee retention post-induction. A systematic and explicit approach to
identify the kinds of induction opportunities that impacted the new educator or
educational specialist to stay employed at the entity in which induction was
completed.
3. Attracting and retaining high-quality mentors. Analyze the reasons why
mentors want to participate in educator induction programs. Determine strategies
to attract potential mentors to participate in the induction process.
4. Work-load reduction for new educators and educational specialists.
Determine best practices for implementing this strategy and then measure teacher
retention and student outcomes.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

113

5. Induction programming that leads to improved student performance. Gather
data to identify the characteristics of comprehensive induction programs that
evidence improved student outcomes, including Structured Literacy.
6. Induction programming that develops teachers as leaders. Identification of
specific strategies that support novice teachers taking on leadership roles at their
place of employment after induction is completed.
Summary
Education is one of the largest professions in the United States and employs
nearly 3 million public school teachers annually, with 310,000 new educators entering the
profession each year (Aspen Institute, 2022). However, public school entities nationwide
need more teachers to fill open positions and are challenged by needing more candidates
to hire (U.S. Department of Education, 2022a). A comprehensive support structure must
be considered by educational leaders when designing educator induction programs. This
action research study evaluated the relationship between new educators, educational
specialists, and mentors and compared their relationships to participant engagement
during the induction process. The results of this action research study did not find any
statistical evidence to corroborate a difference in mentee/mentor relationships and mentee
engagement during induction. Still, the results did find strong evidence that a
comprehensive educator induction program is essential for supporting and retaining
educators. School leaders who can re-imagine educator induction through a more
comprehensive lens will create a trajectory of success and longevity for new educators.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

114

References
Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the
Chicago public high schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25, 95–135.
Abell, S. K., Dillon, D. R., Hopkins, C. J., McInerney, W. D., & O’Brien, D. G. (1995).
“Somebody to count on”: Mentor/intern relationships in a beginning teacher
internship program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(2), 173 – 188.
Allegretto S., & Mishel, L. (2018). The teacher pay penalty has hit a new high: Trends in
the teacher wage and compensation gaps through 2017. Economic Policy
Institute.
Allen, C., Joella, E., Luetkehans, L., Schram, S., Wojcik, T., & Woods, L. (2016).
Reshaping teacher induction programs in the commonwealth: How should state
policymakers ensure that there is a highly qualified and highly effective teacher in
every public school classroom? The Education and Policy Leadership Center.
https://www.eplc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/EPFP-Paper-on-Teacher-Induct
ion_050416-final.pdf
Ambrosetti, A., & Dekkers, J. (2010). The interconnectedness of the roles of mentors and
mentees in pre-service teacher education mentoring relationships. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 42–55.
Andrews, S. P., Gilbert, L. S., & Martin, E. P. (2006). The first years of teaching:
Disparities in perception of support. Action in Teacher Education, 28(4), 4–13.
Andrews, T. E., & Andrews, L. (Eds.) (1998). The NASDTEC Manual 1998-1999.
Manual on the preparation and certification of educational personnel.
Kendall/Hunt.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

115

Aspen Institute. (2022). The teaching workforce.
https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/files/content/docs/education/E
d_AspenTeacherWorkforceDatasheet.pdf
Baker, A., Muschallik, J., & Pull, K. (2018). Successful mentors in academia: Are they
teachers, sponsors, and/or collaborators? Studies in Higher Education, 45(4), 723
- 735. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1544235
Bartanen, B., & Kwok, A. (2022). From interest to entry: The teacher pipeline from
college application to initial employment (ED22535). Annenberg Institute at
Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/hqn6-k452
Behling, H. (1984). Quality control of teacher preparation programs through the
program approval process (ED250300). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED250300.pdf
Behrstock-Sherratt, E., Bassett, K., Olson, D., & Jacques, C. (2014). From good to great.
Exemplary teachers share perspectives on increasing teacher effectiveness across
the career continuum. Center on Great Teacher and Leaders.
http://www.gtlcenter.org/sites/default/ files/Good_to_Great_Report.pdf
Berry, B., Hopkins-Thompson, P., & Hoke, M. (2002). Assessing and supporting new
teachers: Lessons from the Southeast. Southeast Center for Teaching Quality.
Bianco, M., & Marin-Paris, D. (2019). Pathways2Teaching: Addressing the teacher
diversity gap through a grow your own program. Teaching Exceptional Children,
52(1), 38-40.
Bickmore, D. L., & Bickmore, S. T. (2010). A multifaceted approach to teacher
induction. Teaching and Teacher Education 26(4), 1006-1014.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

116

Boz, N., & Boz, Y. (2006). Do prospective teachers get enough experience in school
placements? Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(4), 353–368.
Bradbury, L. U. (2010). Educative mentoring: Promoting reform-based science teaching
through mentoring relationships. Science Education, 94(3), 1049–1071.
Carter, M., & Francis, R. (2001). Mentoring and beginning teachers’ workplace learning.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3), 249 – 262.
Charnock, B., & Kiley, M. (1995). Concerns and preferred assistance strategies of
beginning middle and high school teachers (ED390855). ERIC.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED390855
Clark, J. L. (2017) Teachers' experiences of induction: A narrative retrospective inquiry.
[Doctoral dissertation, Rhode Island College]. Rhode Island College Digital
Archive.
https://digitalcommons.ric.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1179&context=etd
Clairview School. (2023). Clairview School History.
https://clairview.wiu7.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=1444373&type=d&pR
EC_ID=1606632
Clotfelter, C., Glennie, E., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2008). Would higher salaries keep
teachers in high-poverty schools? Evidence from a policy intervention in North
Carolina. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5-6), 1352 - 1370.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2005). The AERA panel on research and teacher
education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeicher (Eds.), Studying teacher
education (pp. 37–68). Lawrence Erlabum.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

117

Craig C. (2017). International teacher attrition: Multiperspective views. Teachers and
Teaching, (8), 859–862.
Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education. (2006). Report on the teacher needs
survey. American Psychological Association.
https://www.apa.org/ed/schools/coalition/2006-teacher-needs-report.pdf
Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education. (2019). Report on the teacher needs
survey 2019. American Psychological Association, Center for Psychology in
Schools and Education.
Daloz, L. (1999). Mentor: Guiding the journey of adult learners (ED434228). ERIC.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED434228
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning.
Educational Leadership, 55(5), 6 – 18.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders can
do. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6-13.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). The challenges of supporting new teachers [Interview].
Educational Leadership, 60(8), 18-23.
Darling-Hammond, L., Schachner, A., Edgerton, A. K., Badrinarayan, A., Cardichon, J.,
Cookson, P. W., Jr., Griffith, M., Klevan, S., Maier, A., Martinez, M., Melnick,
H., Truong, N., & Wójcikiewicz, S. (2020). Restarting and reinventing school:
Learning in the time of COVID and beyond. Learning Policy Institute.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sclan, E. M. (1996). Who teaches and why. Dilemmas of
building a profession for twenty-first century schools. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, &

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

118

E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 67101). Macmillan.
Diliberti, M. K., Schwartz, H. L., & Grant, D. (2021). Stress topped the reasons why
public school teachers quit, even before covid-19. RAND Corporation.
https://doi.org/10.7249/RRA1121-2
Elias, P. (1980). Induction programs for beginning teachers (ED257780). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED257780.pdf
Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301(2015).
http://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ96.pdf
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1996). Teacher mentoring: A critical review (ED397060). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed .gov/fulltext/ED397060.pdf
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). Helping novices learn to teach: Lessons from an exemplary
support teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 17–30.
Feiman-Nemser, S., Schwille, S., Carver, C., & Yusko, B. (1999). A conceptual review of
literature on new teacher induction (ED449147). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/ED449147.pdf
Fideler, E., & Haselkorn, D. (1999). Learning the ropes: Urban teacher induction
programs and practices in the United States recruiting new teachers (ED434879).
ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED434879
Ganser, T. (1998). Metaphors for mentoring. Educational Forum, 62(2), 113 – 119.
Garcia, A. (2022). A 50-state scan of grow your own teacher policies and programs.
Education Policy.
https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/grow-your-own-teachers/

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

119

García, E., & Elaine, W. (2019). The teacher shortage is real, large and growing, and
worse than we thought: Report 1 in the “Perfect Storm in the Teacher Labor
Market” series. Economic Policy Institute.
Gehrke, N. J., & Kay, R. S. (1984). The socialization of beginning teachers through
mentor-protege relationships. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3), 21 – 24.
General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (1997, December). The role of
educational service agencies in promoting equity in basic education. Joint State
Government Commission.
http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us/resources/documents/ftp/publications/1997-89-iureport.
pdf
Gilles, C., Davis, B., & McGlamery, S. (2009). Induction programs that work. Phi
Delta Kappan, 91(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909100210
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. U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Educational Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences.
Glazerman, S., Isenberg, E., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Grider, M., & Jacobus,
M. (2010). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction. U.S. Department of
Education.
Glazerman, S., & Seifullah, A. (2012). An evaluation of the Chicago teacher
advancement program after four years. Mathematica Policy Research.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

120

Goings, R. B., Brandehoff, R., & Bianco, M. (2018). To diversify the teacher workforce,
start early. Educational Leadership, 75(8), 50-55.
Goldrick, L. (2016). Support from the start: A 50-state review of policies on new
educator induction and mentoring. Students At The Center Hub.
https://studentsatthecenterhub.org/resource/support-from-the-start-a-50-state-revie
w-of-policies-on-new-educator-induction-and-mentoring/
Goldrick, L., Osta, D., Barlin, D., & Burn, J. (2012). Review of state policies on teacher
induction. New Teacher Center.
https://www.issuelab.org/resources/12457/12457.pdf
Goodwin, A. L. (2016). Who is in the classroom now? Teacher preparation and the
education of immigrant children. Educational Studies, 53(5), 433–449.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2016.1261028
Grammatikopoulos, V., Tsigilis, N., Gregoriadis, A., & Bikos, K. (2013). Evaluating an
induction training program for Greek teachers using an adjusted level model
approach. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 225–231.
Guha, R., Hyler, M.E., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). The teacher residency: An
innovative model for preparing teachers. Learning Policy Institute.
Guha R., Hyler M. E., & Darling-Hammond L. (2017). The teacher residency: A practical
path to recruitment and retention. American Educator, 41(1), 31–44.
Guthery, S., & Bailes, L. (2019). Patterns of teacher attrition by preparation pathway and
initial school type. Educational Policy, 36(2), 11-13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819874754

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

121

Haberman, M. (1999). Increasing the number of high-quality African American teachers
in urban schools. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26(4), 208–212.
Haberman, M. (2001). The creation of an urban normal school: What constitutes quality
in alternative certification? Educational Studies, 32(3), 278–288.
Hall, G. E. (1979). A national agenda for research and development in teacher education
1979-1984. Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, the
University of Texas.
Hempfield Area School District. (2023). About Us.
https://www.hempfieldsd.org/domain/6
Hendricks, C. (2017). Improving schools through action research: A reflective practice
approach. Pearson.
Hobson, A. J., & Ashby, P. (2012) Reality aftershock and how to avert it: Second year
teachers’ experiences of support for their professional development. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 42(2), 177–196.
Holtzapple, M. (2012). Two year teacher induction program: Perceptions of inductees,
mentors, and administrators [Doctoral dissertation, Immaculata University]. IU
Campus Repository.
https://library.immaculata.edu/Dissertation/digital/Doc400HoltzappleM2012.pdf
Hudson, P. (2012). How can schools support beginning teachers? A call for timely
induction and mentoring for effective teaching. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 37(7), 71–84.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational
analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

122

Ingersoll, R., & Merrill, E. (2012). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching
force. CPRE Working Paper. http://repository.
upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&context=gse_pubs
Ingersoll, R., & Smith, M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage.
Educational Leadership, 60(3), 30-33.
Ingersoll, R., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring for beginning
teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research,
81(2), 201-233.
Joest, J. A. F. (2003). The impact of induction programs on retention of novice teachers
as reported by novice teachers and district administrators in selected Texas public
schools in regions XIII & XX education service centers [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. Texas A & M University.
Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Kauffman, D., Liu, E., & Morgaen, L. (2004). The
support gap: New teachers’ early experiences in high-income and low-income
schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(61), 1-25.
Kelchtermans G. (2017). Should I stay or should I go?” Unpacking teacher
attrition/retention as an educational issue. Teachers and Teaching, 23(8),
961–977.
Kelley, L. M. (2004). Why induction matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5),
438-448.
Kemmis, S., & Wilkinson, M. (1997). Participatory action research and the study of
practice. Routledge.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

123

King, B., & Newmann, F. (2000). Will teacher learning advance school goals? Phi Delta
Kappan, 81(8), 576-580.
King, J., & Yin, J. (2022). The alternative teacher certification sector outside higher
education. American Progress.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-alternative-teacher-certification-sect
or-outside-higher-education/
Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review,
53(1), 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910120033628
Kutsyuruba, B. (2020). School administrator engagement in teacher induction and
mentoring: Finding from statewide and district-wide programs. International
Journal of Education and Policy Leadership, 16(18), 1-36.
Langdon, F., & Ward, L. (2015). Educative mentoring: A way forward. International
Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 4(4), 240–254.
Lawson, H. A. (1992). Beyond the new conception of teacher induction. Journal of
Teacher Education 43, 163-172.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Linden, J., Ohlin, M., & Brodin, E. (2013). Mentorship, supervision and learning
experience in PhD education. Studies in Higher Education 38(5), 639–662.
Little, J. W. (1990). The mentor phenomenon and the social organization of teaching.
Review of Research in Education 16(2), 297 – 351.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1167355

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

124

Liz, R. (2013, October 18). Why do teachers quit? The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/why-do-teachers-quit/280
699/
Lozinak, K. (2016). Mentor matching does matter. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin,
83(1), 12.
Matete R. E. (2021). Teaching profession and educational accountability in Tanzania.
Heliyon, 7(7), 1–11.
Maynard, C., Laparo, K.M., & Johnson, A.V. (2014). Before student teaching: How
undergraduate students in early childhood teacher preparation programs describe
their early classroom-based experiences. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher
Education, 35(3), 244–261.
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Wang, K., Hein, S., Diliberti, M., Forrest
Cataldi, E., Bullock Mann, F., & Barmer, A. (2019). The Condition of Education
2019 (NCES 2019-144). U.S. Department of Education. National Center for
Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/ pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2019144
McGeehan, A. (2019). A study of new teachers' perceptions of their induction programs
[Doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University]. SH Campus Repository.
https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations/2609
Monessen City School District. (2023). About Us.
https://www.monessenschooldistrict.com/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=13007
04&type=d&pREC_ID=1504939

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

125

Moskowitz, J., & Stephens, M. (1997). From students of teaching to teachers of
students: Teacher induction around the Pacific rim (ED415194). ERIC.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED415194
Muschallik, J., & Pull, K. (2016). Mentoring in higher education: Does it enhance
mentees’ research productivity. Education Economics, 24(2), 210-223.
http://10.1080/09645292.2014.997676
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Characteristics of public school
teachers who completed alternative route to certification programs. Condition of
education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/tlc
Nemanick, R. (2017). The mentor’s way eight rules for bringing out the best in others.
Routledge.
Nguyen, T., Pham, L., Springer, M., & Crouch, M. (2019). The factors of teacher
attrition and retention: An updated and expanded meta-analysis of the literature.
EdWorkingPaper No. 19-49. Brown University.
https://edworkingpapers.com/ai19-149
Nelson, B. (2016). Experiences of induction and mentor programs by new teachers
working in high-poverty schools: An exploration of views and teaching practices
(ED575778). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED575778
New York University. (2019, March 7). The power of teacher mentors.
https://teachereducation.steinhardt.nyu.edu/the-power-of-teacher-mentors/
Odell, S. J., & Huling, L. (2000). Quality mentoring for novice teachers. Association of
Teacher Educators & Kappa Delta Pi.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

126

Pavao, S. (2018). Creating conditions for strong mentoring. Northwest Journal of
Teacher Education, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.15760/nwjte.2018.13.2.4
Pennsylvania Association of Intermediate Units. (2023). IU Facts.
https://paiu.org/Find-an-IU
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2019). Educator induction plan guidelines.
https://www.education.pa.gov/Documents/Teachers-Administrators/Act%2048-PE
RMS/Educator%20Induction%20Plan%20Guidelines.pdf
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2022a). The foundation of our economy,
Pennsylvania’s educator workforce strategy.
https://www.education.pa.gov/Documents/Teachers-Administrators/PA%20Educa
tor%20Workforce%20Strategy.pdf
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2022b). Certification staffing policy guidelines.
https://www.education.pa.gov/Educators/Certification/Staffing%20Guidelines/Pag
es/default.aspx
Pollock, K., & Mindzak, M. (2015). Specialist teachers: A review of the literature.
Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.
https://www.etfo.ca/getmedia/dcdb69d0-fb8c-44bb-9f93-d8875e90b24f/161123_
ReviewSpecTeacher.pdf
Public Agenda. (2004). Teaching interrupted: Do discipline policies in today’s public
schools foster the common good? www.publicagenda.org
Public School Code of 1949, Pub. L. 30 No. 14 (1949).
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/HTM/1949/0/0014.HTM

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

127

Resta, V., Huling, L. L., & Yeargain, P. (2013). Teacher insights about teaching,
mentoring, and schools as workplaces. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue,
15(117), 18-21.
Roberts, A. (2000). Mentoring revisited: A phenomenological reading of the literature.
Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 8(2), 145–170.
Robinson, G. (1998). New teacher induction: A study of selected new teacher induction
models and common practices (ED424219). ERIC.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED424219
Roman Catholic Diocese of Greensburg. (2023). Schools.
https://www.dioceseofgreensburg.org/schools/academics/
Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4–36.
Rossman, G.B., & Rallis, S.F. (2012). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative
research. Sage.
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on
future student academic achievement. University of Tennessee Value-Added
Research and Assessment Center.
https://www.beteronderwijsnederland.nl/files/cumulative%20and%20residual%20
effects%20of%20teachers.pdf
Saunders, R., Kini, T., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2018). Examining educator
certification in Pennsylvania: Research and recommendations for Chapter 49.
Learning Policy Institute.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

128

Scherer, M. (2012, May 1). The challenges of supporting new teachers. Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development, 69(8), 11-12.
https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/the-challenges-of-supporting-new-teachers
Sclan, E., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1992). Beginning teacher performance evaluation:
An overview of state policies (ED341689). ERIC.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED341689
Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring
on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3),
681-714.
Solomon, J. (2009). The Boston teacher residency: District-based teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education 60(5) 478 - 488.
Stringer, E.T. (2007). Action research. Sage.
Strong, M. (2005). Teacher induction, mentoring, and retention: A summary of the
research. The New Educator, 1(3), 181-198.
Strong, M. (2006). Does new teacher support affect student achievement? New Teacher
Center, 6(1), 1-4.
Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A
cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student
achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(339), 1-18.
Tom, A. (2000). Teacher education reform in the United States: Thrusts, assumptions, and
implications. Keynote address at the International Symposium on Repositioning
Teacher Education (ED438262). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED438262
United States Census Bureau. (2021). Data and maps. https://www.census.gov/data.html

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

129

U.S. Department of Education. (2022a). Title II reports. National Teacher Preparation
Data. https://title2.ed.gov/Public/DataTools/Tables.aspx
U.S. Department of Education. (2022b). U.S. Department of Education awards over $60
million to strengthen the teacher pipeline, increase educator leadership, and
support quality teaching and learning to further address teacher shortage.
https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-awards-over-60
-million-strengthen-teacher-pipeline-increase-educator-leadership-and-support-qu
ality-teaching-and-learning-further-address-teacher-shortage
Wang, J., Odell, S., & Schwille, S. A. (2008). Effects of teacher induction on beginning
teachers’teaching: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Teacher
Education, 59(2), 132–152.
Walker, S., Rodriquez, L., & Springer, M. (2016). Selective retention bonuses for highly
effective teachers in high poverty schools: Evidence from Tennessee. Economics
of Education Review, 68(C), 148-160.
Wechsler, M. E., Caspary, K., Humphrey, D. C., & Matsko, K. K. (2010). Examining the
effects of new teacher induction. SRI International.
Westmoreland Intermediate Unit. (2023). About, Background.
https://www.wiu7.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=1696629&type=d&pREC
_ID=1606239
Wexler, L. J. (2020). I would be a completely different teacher if I had been with a
different mentor’: Ways in which educative mentoring matters as novices learn to
teach. Professional Development in Education, 46(2), 211-228.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1573375

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

130

Williams J., Lewis C., Starker Glass T., Butler B. R., & Hoon, L. J. (2020). The discipline
gatekeeper: Assistant principals’ experiences with managing school discipline in
urban middle schools. Urban Education. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920908913
Wong, H. (2004). Induction programs that keep new teachers teaching and improving.
NASSP Bulletin, 88(638), 1-3.
Wood, A. L, & Stanulis, R. N. (2009). Quality teacher induction: “Fourth-wave”
(1997-2006) induction programs. The new educator, 5(1), 1-23.
Xuan, Z. (2019). Innovation of teacher induction: Review on regional standardized
training of beginning teachers in Shanghai. Journal of Education and Training,
6(1), 55-67.
Yin, J., & Partelow, L. (2020). An overview of the teacher alternative certification sector
outside of higher education. The Center for American Progress.
americanprogress.org
Young, V. M., Schmidt, R., Wang, H., Cassidy, L., & Laguarda, K. (2017, December). A
comprehensive model of teacher induction: Implementation and impact on
teachers and students. SRI International.
https://newteachercenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/NTC-i3-Validation-Co
mprehensive-Report-with-App_Final.pdf
Zembytska, M. (2016). Mentoring as the core element of new teacher induction in the
USA: Policies and practices. Comparative Professional Pedagogy, 6(2).
https://DOI:10.1515/rpp-2016-0021

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

131

Zewe, S. (2000). Beginning teacher induction: A review of the literature. American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Zewelanji, S., & Bozeman, L. (1999). Beginning teacher induction: A report on
beginning teacher effectiveness and retention. National Partnership for
Excellence and Accountability in Teaching.
Zuljan, M. V., & Bizjak, C. (2007). A mentor between supporting and challenging a
novice's reflection. In M.V. Zuljan & J. Vogrninc (Eds.), Professional inductions
of teachers in Europe and elsewhere (pp. 309-323). University of Ljubljana.

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

APPENDICES

132

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS
Appendix A
PennWest University Institutional Review Board Approval Letter

133

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS
Appendix B
Informed Participant Consent Acknowledged

134

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS
Appendix C
Teacher and Educator Specialist Survey Questions for Data Collection

135

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

136

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

137

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

138

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS
Appendix D
Educator Mentor Survey Questions for Data Collection

139

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

140

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

141

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS
Appendix E
Intermediate Unit Leader Survey Questions for Data Collection

142

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

143

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

144

RELATIONSHIPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF EDUCATORS AND MENTORS

145