fee

, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany6, 10099 Berlin, Germanyge 15, 60325 Frankfurt am Main, GermanyEducation, Olshausenstrae 62, 24118 Kiel, Germany45, 1419

eitherstudy wcher efemotiothe pro

. All rights reserved.

cially stressful period in the socialization of beginning teachers(Fantilli & McDougall, 2009; Gold, 1996; Veenman, 1984). Relativeto their more experienced colleagues, beginning teachers tend toleave the profession at a higher rate (Ingersoll, 2001; Kukla-Acevedo, 2009), report lower teacher efcacy (Wolters &

ational stress and& Baumert, 2012;se difculties and

the high degree of teacher attrition among beginning teachers inthe United States, school districts and states have introduced formalteacher induction programs that include orientation sessions, in-service training, classroom observation, formative assessments,and the support of colleagues (Barnett, Hopkins-Thompson, &Hoke, 2002; Gold, 1996; Huling-Austin,1990). Although the speciccontent of induction programs varies, many of them pair upbeginning teachers with experienced teachers, otherwise known asmentor teachers (Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004).

* Corresponding author. Humboldt University Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099Berlin, Germany. Tel.: 49 30 2093 46522.

Contents lists availab

Teaching and Tea

.e

Teaching and Teacher Education 36 (2013) 166e177E-mail address: dirk.richter@iqb.hu-berlin.de (D. Richter).Cooperating teacherMentor supportBeginning teacher inductionInduction supportProfessional development

2013 Elsevier Ltd

1. Introduction

The rst years of teaching are frequently described as an espe-

Daugherty, 2007), and perceive higher occupemotional exhaustion (Klusmann, Kunter, Voss,Tynjl & Heikkinen, 2011). In response to theAccepted 17 July 2013

Keywords:Mentor

that explains a successful career start. In particular, mentoring that follows constructivist rather thantransmissive principles of learning fosters the growth of teacher efcacy, teaching enthusiasm, and jobsatisfaction and reduces emotional exhaustion.a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 12 April 2012Received in revised form26 April 2013

a b s t r a c t

This study examines the extent to which the quality of mentoring and its frequency during the rst yearsof teaching inuence teachers professional competence and well-being. Analyses are based on a sampleof more than 700 German beginning mathematics teachers who participated in a pre-test/post-test studyover the course of one year. Findings indicate that it is the quality of mentoring rather than its frequencyaMax Planck Institute for Human DevelopmentbHumboldt University Berlin, Unter den LindencGoethe University Frankfurt, Senckenberganlad Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematicse Free University Berlin, Habelschwerdter Allee

h i g h l i g h t s

Mentoring quality can be described as Constructs are reliably measured in a Constructivist mentoring improves tea Constructivist mentoring also reduces Transmissive mentoring barely affects0742-051X/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.0125 Berlin, Germany

constructivist or transmissive.ith more than 700 beginning teachers.cacy, enthusiasm and job satisfaction.nal exhaustion.fessional development of teachers in these respects.Jrgen Baumert a

Dirk Richter a,b,*, Mareike Kunter a,c, Oliver Ldtke a,b, Uta Klusmann a,d, Yvonne Anders a,e,How different mentoring approaches afdevelopment in the rst years of practic

journal homepage: wwwAll rights reserved.ct beginning teachers

le at ScienceDirect

cher Education

lsevier .com/locate/ tate

eachThe role of mentor teachers and their effects in the inductionprocess has received much attention in educational research (seeoverviews in Hawkey, 1997; Hennissen, Crasborn, Brouwer,Korthagen, & Bergen, 2008; Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, &Tomlinson, 2009; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011; Wang & Odell, 2002;Wang, Odell, & Schwille, 2008). Studies have consistently shownthat novices perceive their mentor teachers to be one of their mostimportant sources of support during the rst year of teaching(Carter & Francis, 2001; Lindgren, 2005; Luft & Cox, 2001; Marable& Raimondi, 2007). Lindgren (2005) reported that mentors providecrucial practical advice about teaching and teachers roles (e.g.,cooperating with parents). Furthermore, together with their men-tee, they reect on positive and negative occurrences in lessons. Inaddition to the qualitative literature on teacher mentoring, quan-titative studies have shown that the support of a mentor teacher ispositively associated with teacher efcacy (LoCasale-Crouch, Davis,Wiens, & Pianta, 2012), teaching commitment (Rots, Aelterman,Vlerick, & Vermeulen, 2007), well-being (Kessels, Beijaard, Veen,& Verloop, 2008), and improved instructional practice (Rozelle &Wilson, 2012; Stanulis & Floden, 2009).

These empirical ndings indicate that mentoring can positivelyaffect the transition to the teaching profession. However, there isvery little longitudinal research investigating howmentor teachersimpact the development of beginning teachers professionalcompetence and well-being. In addition, few studies examine dif-ferences in the quality of mentoring provided (Kessels et al., 2008;Rots et al., 2007). Consequently, little is known about which men-toring approaches best support teachers development in the rstyears of practice. Wang et al. (2008, p. 138) note this gap in theliterature and recommend that researchers explore the connec-tions between these mentoring practices and what beginningteachers think and do.

The goal of this study is therefore to examine whether qualityand frequency of mentoring predict beginning teachers develop-ment of professional competence and well-being in the rst twoyears of their career. The analyses are based on a framework ofteachers professional competence that differentiates betweenprofessional knowledge, beliefs, motivational orientation, and self-regulation (Baumert & Kunter, 2006). In particular, we investigatethe effects of mentoring on teacher efcacy, teacher enthusiasm,beliefs about learning, emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction.

The literature review begins with a brief discussion of the goalsof mentoring and its intended outcomes. Drawing on the discussionon the quality of teacher mentoring, we outline two theoreticalapproaches proposed by Cochran-Smith and Paris (1995) andFeiman-Nemser (1998, 2001). These approaches provide thefoundations for the concepts of constructivist- and transmission-oriented mentoring that constitute the theoretical framework ofthis study.

1.1. Goals of mentoring

Our conceptualization of the goals of mentoring is in alignmentwith Golds (1996) approach to induction support, which distin-guishes between instructional and psychological support. In addi-tion, we draw on literature from organizational psychology, whichdescribes role modeling as an additional function performed bymentors (Scandura & Ragins, 1993).

Instructional support fosters the development of the knowledgeand skills needed to succeed in the classroom (Gold, 1996). It in-cludes assistance with lesson planning, advice on classroom man-agement, instruction-related advice and feedback, help withassessing student work, and other activities that promote begin-ning teachers instructional knowledge and skills. It can be hy-

D. Richter et al. / Teaching and Tpothesized that this type of support impacts not only beginningteachers competence but also the quality of instruction and stu-dent learning. Indeed, beginning teachers report that mentoringimproves their instructional skills (Borko &Mayeld,1995; Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1987; Fletcher & Barrett, 2004). However,studies using observer ratings of instructional quality have yieldedmixed results. Stanulis and Floden (2009) compared the instruc-tional quality of beginning teachers who received intensive men-toring with that of a comparison group who did not. Their ndingsshowed that mentored teachers outperformed non-mentoredteachers in the areas of classroom atmosphere, instruction, andstudent engagement. In contrast, Glazerman et al. (2008) comparedthe effectiveness of comprehensive induction programs (developedby the Educational Testing Service and the New Teacher Center atthe University of California, Santa Cruz) with that of regular districtinduction. This study showed that beginning teachers in thecomprehensive programs received more mentoring and partici-pated more frequently in professional development activities, butthat this was not reected in either improved instruction orincreased student-test scores. In conclusion, the subjectiveperception of beginning teachers is that mentoring develops theirskills. However, there is no clear evidence that mentoring neces-sarily leads to observable improvements in the quality ofinstruction.

Psychological support includes building condence, encouragingself-esteem, listening, and enhancing self-reliance (Gold, 1996).This type of support is especially relevant at the start of the rstyear of teaching, as beginning teachers adjust to their new workenvironment. Psychological support is thought to foster individualwell-being in terms of reduced stress levels and enhanced jobsatisfaction. Strong psychological supportmay also reduce attrition.A number of studies describing the interactions between mentorand beginning teachers has shown that beginning teachers receiveand value psychological support (Ballantyne, Hansford, & Packer,1995; Hall, Draper, Smith, & Bullough, 2008; Odell & Ferraro,1992), but there has been little empirical investigation of its ef-fects on their development. One study investigated the antecedentsof beginning teachers well-being and identied mentor support asan important predictor (Kessels et al., 2008). Other studies haveinvestigated the relevance of mentor support for teacher attrition,but ndings are inconclusive. Results presented by Odell andFerraro (1992) and Smith and Ingersoll (2004) indicate that men-toring has the potential to reduce beginning teacher attrition. Incontrast, Glazerman et al. (2008) found no difference in the attri-tion rates of beginning teachers in comprehensive induction pro-grams and those receiving regular district induction. Organizationalpsychologists have examined the effects of mentoring in otherprofessional contexts (Noe, Greenberger, & Wang, 2002; Wanberg,Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003). Although the goals of mentoring in thecompany context differ, employees who participated in a mentor-ing program showed greater job satisfaction (Seibert, 1999). Thissuggests that mentoring may facilitate individuals well-being,regardless of the organizational context. However, there is noclear evidence that mentoring affects beginning teachers devel-opment longitudinally.

Role modeling is provided when beginning teachers observetheir mentors teaching. Although beginning teachers wereexposed to thousands of hours of teaching during their own time atschool, they can now use their professional knowledge to reect ontheir observations. This gives them the opportunity to analyzeteaching from an external perspective, which can provide newinsightsdfor example, into how to organize instruction andinteract with students. Classroom observation can also serve as abasis for further discussion with the mentor. By providing a rolemodel for beginning teachers, the latter can be socialized into the

er Education 36 (2013) 166e177 167teaching community and learn how to act as professional.

achTherefore, role modeling differs from the two previous goalsbecause it does not require active support on the part of thementor.The empirical literature has shown that beginning teachers drawconclusions for their own teaching from watching their mentorsteach (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1987). However, beyond thending that some beginning teachers perceive their mentors as rolemodels, research has not investigated the distinct importance ofrole modeling for the development of beginning teachers. It seemsreasonable to hypothesize that role modeling contributes to thedevelopment of instructional knowledge and skills, althoughempirical evidence is scarce.

This overview of the three goals of mentoring provides a briefsummary of mentor teachers responsibilities and it identies po-tential outcomes of mentoring. Our review of the literaturerevealed that many studies have investigated the support begin-ning teachers receive without linking these ndings to beginningteachers development. Furthermore, no common theoreticalframework of mentoring has yet been developed, and differentmeasures have been used to assess mentoring experiences. Somestudies have investigated whether mentored and non-mentoredteachers differed from each other (Stanulis & Floden, 2009);others have examined the activities of mentor teachers (Kesselset al., 2008; Rots et al., 2007) and related them to externalcriteria (e.g., teacher efcacy, well-being). Due to this heterogene-ity, caution must be exercised in comparing the results of differentstudies. A more insightful understanding of the effects of teachermentoring requires more careful differentiation of the quality ofmentoring provided. It is not sufcient to examine whether men-toring is available to beginning teachers. Rather, we need toinvestigate the quality and quantity of interactions betweenmentorand beginning teachers and to examine which factors predictprofessional growth in the rst years of teaching. To this end, werst drew on existing theoretical approaches to teacher mentoringand linked them to the literature on learning theory.

1.2. Models of mentoring

Models of mentoring provide a theoretical distinction betweendifferent (prototypical) styles of arranging mentorenovice re-lationships (see overview in Wang & Odell, 2002). They norma-tively describe the roles of mentor and novice, their interactions,and the way learning is organized in this relationship. A diversity ofsuch models has been developed in the past two decades; we focuson two that still receive attention in the literature (Bradbury &Koballa, 2008; Schwille, 2008; Stanulis & Floden, 2009; Wang,2002). First, the model proposed by Cochran-Smith and Paris(1995) characterizes mentoring as either knowledge transmissionor knowledge transformation. Second, the model proposed byFeiman-Nemser (1998, 2001) introduced the concept of educativementoring, which it distinguished from conventional mentoring.

Cochran-Smith and Paris (1995) distinguished two approachesto mentoring, which they labeled knowledge transmission andknowledge transformation (Wang & Odell, 2002). According to theknowledge transmission model, mentors perceive their role asexpert teachers and transmit their knowledge within a hierar-chically structured relationship. In this learning environment,novices are socialized into the prevailing culture of schooling,which manifests the status quo. In contrast, the knowledge trans-formation model assumes an asymmetrical but collaborative rela-tionship with the mentor teacher, in which knowledge aboutteaching is mutually generated. This approach facilitates the ex-change and generation of ideas and may support change andinnovation in classroom practice.

Feiman-Nemser (1998, 2001) coined the term educative men-

D. Richter et al. / Teaching and Te168toring, as distinguished from conventional mentoring. In educativementoring, which can be traced back to Dewey (1938), mentorsprovide opportunities that foster growth and development. Theyinteract with their novices in a way that supports inquiry and thatenables them to learn in and from their practice (Feiman-Nemser,2001). In contrast, conventional mentoring focuses on situationaladjustment to the new school environment, technical advice, andemotional support. Moreover, conventional approaches view thebeginning teacher as a recipient of knowledge and the mentor asthe expert teacher.

The two approaches proposed by Cochran-Smith and Paris(1995) and Feiman-Nemser (1998, 2001) show similarities to twoparadigms of learning theory (Sfard, 1998). The knowledge trans-mission model and conventional mentoring are based on behav-iorist theories of learning, which conceptualize learning as theaccumulation of knowledge provided by experts. From thisperspective, learning is a unidirectional process in which learnersare passive recipients of information. We label the mentoring stylethat is in line with these ideas of learning transmission-orientedmentoring.

The knowledge transformation model and educative mentoringreect a constructivist learning theory. According to this theory,learners construct their own knowledge by connecting new in-formation to their prior knowledge (Shuell, 2001). Learning is anactive process that takes place in a social community (Brown,Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Lave and Wenger (1991) described ap-prenticeships as an example of this form of learning. In appren-ticeships, novices are introduced into a community through activeparticipation in authentic tasks. Novices acquire mastery in skills asthey gradually become more involved in the community and itsactivities. A strict hierarchical relationship between expert andnovice is not assumed. In line with these ideas of learning we labelthis mentoring style constructivist-oriented mentoring.

In sum, both constructs, constructivist- and transmission-oriented mentoring, can be used to distinguish the quality ofmentoring. They are related to different paradigms of learningtheory (constructivist and behaviorist learning theory) and are inline with other approaches that describe teacher mentoring.Moreover, both approaches can be linked to the goals of mentoringintroduced in the previous section. In particular, the descriptions ofconstructivist- and transmission-oriented mentoring illustrate twodifferent forms of instructional support because the primary goal ofmentoring is to foster professional knowledge and skills. However,emotional support and role modeling of mentors is not explicitlyincluded in both models. Therefore, both approaches characterizeonly one part of all the functions mentors exercise.

Although both constructs have not yet been measured empiri-cally, the theoretical literature on teacher mentoring suggests thatconstructivist-oriented mentoring is best suited to foster beginningteachers development. Carter and Francis (2001, p. 260) pointedout that mentoring relationships that promote collaborative in-quiry, cooperative practice and reection are fundamental toworkplace learning for beginning teachers. Similarly, Edwards(1998) argued that mentors should help to transform thelearner instead of simply providing knowledge. Finally, Wang andOdell (2002, p. 490) suggested that mentor[s] should guide nov-ices discovery with principles rather than simply providing arepertoire of teaching knowledge.

It can be hypothesized that constructivist mentoring representsa particularly benecial learning environment for beginningteachers that helps them develop professional competence, i.e.,professional characteristics which in turn affect their work-relatedbehavior, well-being and classroom practice (see Desimone, 2009).A comprehensive model of professional competence proposed byBaumert and Kunter (2006) distinguishes between professional

er Education 36 (2013) 166e177knowledge, beliefs, motivational orientation, and self-regulation

each(see also Kunter et al., 2013). Following the theoretical assumptionspointed out above (Carter & Francis, 2001;Wang & Odell, 2002) andempirical evidence from student learning (e.g., Hmelo-Silver,Duncan, & Chinn, 2007; Schwartz, Lindgren, & Lewis, 2009) weassume that mentoring following constructivist principles oflearning may foster the development of all four aspects: knowl-edge, beliefs, motivation and self-regulation. In particular, weexpect that successful self-regulation of ones resources may sup-port the well-being of teachers. Empirical studies have alreadypointed out that the support of mentors may foster the develop-ment of knowledge and skills (e.g., Fletcher & Barrett, 2004;Hudson, 2013), professional beliefs (e.g., Haser & Star, 2009) andindividual well-being (e.g., Ballantyne et al., 1995; Kessels et al.,2008). However, evidence that shows what kind of mentoringmay be relevant for a successful development of professionalcompetence is still lacking.

1.3. The present investigation

The study investigates whether constructivist- andtransmission-oriented mentoring provides teachers at the start oftheir career with adequate opportunities to acquire the pre-requisites for successful classroom instruction. In this study, wefocus on a set of characteristics that are located in the professionalcompetence model introduced earlier: Teacher efcacy and teacherenthusiasm represent indicators of teacher motivation. In particular,teacher efcacy belongs to this domain because it regulates the timeand effort teachers invest in tasks. Transmissive and constructivistbeliefs about learning can be characterized as teacher beliefs. Thetwo remaining aspects of teacher competence, professionalknowledge and self-regulation, are not investigated in this study.Moreover, we examine teachers well-being because the rst yearsof teaching are often perceived as highly challenging (Fantilli &McDougall, 2009; Veenman, 1984). In particular, we chose to focuson teachers emotional exhaustion as one indicator of burnout(Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leitner, 2001) and job satisfaction as an in-dicator of work-related well-being (Locke, 1969). The four con-structs of teacher competence and the two constructs of well-beinghave been shown to predict teachers instructional quality and canbe expected to be malleable in the rst years of the teaching career(Dubberke, Kunter,McElvany, Brunner, & Baumert, 2008; Klusmann,Kunter, Trautwein, Ldtke, & Baumert, 2008; Kunter et al., 2007).

1.3.1. Teacher efcacyBandura (1986, p. 391) initially dened self-efcacy in general

terms as peoples judgments of their capabilities to organize andexecute courses of action required to attain designated types ofperformances. Transferred to the teaching domain, it describesteachers individual beliefs about their capabilities to teach difcultor unmotivated students even in the presence of obstacles(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). It has been shown that teacherefcacy is associated with teacher characteristics including beliefsabout instruction (Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990), job satisfaction(Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca, 2003), and teacherburnout (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007), and is positively related tostudents sense of efcacy (Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988),motivation (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989), and achievement(Ashton & Webb, 1986; Guo, Connor, Yang, Roehrig, & Morrison,2012). Despite the numerous studies, one needs to acknowledgethat teacher efcacy is a subjective measure of competence thatmay deviate from assessments based on tests.

Only a few studies investigated the development of teacher ef-cacy of beginning teachers. Woolfolk Hoy and Spero (2005) foundthat teacher efcacy increased during student teaching but

D. Richter et al. / Teaching and Tdeclined signicantly during the rst year of teaching. Theyspeculated that mentoring programs may provide support thatprotects and builds teacher efcacy. Another study, conducted byTschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2007), investigated theimpact of different sources of teacher efcacy for novice andexperienced teachers and found that the support of colleaguesnegatively predicted teacher efcacy. The authors argued thatteachers who struggle early in the career depend heavily on thesupport of their colleagues. Our study thus further investigateswhethermentoring fosters the development of teacher efcacy.Wehypothesize that constructivist-oriented mentoring positivelypredicts the development of teacher efcacy because feedbackprovided in a constructivist mentoring setting may promote apositive sense of mastery.

1.3.2. Teacher enthusiasmTeacher enthusiasm can be described as the degree of enjoy-

ment, excitement and pleasure that teachers typically experience intheir professional activities (Kunter et al., 2008). Enthusiasm iswidely regarded as an important characteristic of teacher quality(Brophy & Good, 1986; Dunkin & Biddle, 1974; Kunter, Frenzel,Nagy, Baumert, & Pekrun, 2011) and it has been shown to bepositively related to instructional quality, job satisfaction (Kunter etal., 2008), student enjoyment (Frenzel, Goetz, Ldtke, Pekrun, &Sutton, 2009), and students motivation (Patrick, Hisley, &Kempler, 2000). However, research has not yet determined whichfactors support the development of teacher enthusiasm. The Kunteret al. (2008) described teacher enthusiasm as a stable and trait-likecharacteristic. However, there is reason to believe that enthusiasmfor teaching is pronounced at the beginning of the career and de-creases thereafter. We hypothesize that mentor teachers can helpbeginning teachers to maintain their enthusiasm by providing op-portunities for reection and the freedom to explore differentteaching methods. We therefore predict that constructivist-oriented mentoring fosters teacher enthusiasm.

1.3.3. Transmissive and constructivist beliefs about learningBeliefs can be dened as psychologically held un-

derstandings, premises or propositions about the world that arefelt to be true (Richardson, 1996, p. 104). Pajares (1992) pointedout that teacher beliefs lter teachers perceptions and thus in-uence their instructional practice and classroom behavior.Teacher beliefs are therefore regarded as an aspect of teachercompetence (Baumert & Kunter, 2006) and teacher quality(Richardson, 1996). In particular, we are interested in teacherstransmissive and constructivist beliefs about learning, which arealso reected in different mentoring approaches. Teachers withtransmissive beliefs view learning as a process in which studentsaccumulate knowledge that is presented by the teacher(Dubberke et al., 2008). In contrast, teachers with constructivistbeliefs understand learning as individual process that dependson individuals prior knowledge and characteristics of the envi-ronment (Staub & Stern, 2002). Research on the effects of teacherbeliefs has demonstrated that constructivist beliefs are positivelyrelated to students achievement gains in mathematics (Staub &Stern, 2002), whereas transmissive beliefs are negativelyrelated to instructional quality (Dubberke et al., 2008; Stipek,Givvin, Salmon, & MacGyvers, 2001). It has been shown thatteachers adopt constructivist beliefs during their university ed-ucation, but often revert to transmissive beliefs after they startteaching (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990; Veenman, 1984). This effect hasalso been called the reality shock. We hypothesize thatconstructivist-oriented mentoring reduces the reality shock bysupporting beginning teachers constructivist beliefs. At the sametime, we expect transmission-oriented mentoring to foster the

er Education 36 (2013) 166e177 169development of transmissive beliefs.

gitudinal sample were on average 27.5 years old (SD 3.8 years)at the beginning of the study and the majority was female(65.9%).1 Participation in the study was voluntary; beginningteachers who participated in both assessments received a mon-etary reward of V100.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Independent variables2.3.1.1. Constructivist- and transmission-oriented mentoring.We have assessed constructivist- and transmission-oriented men-toring by asking beginning teachers to rate their interaction withtheir mentor teacher. This does not include the content of theirinteractions. Constructivist-oriented mentoring was measured byitems 1e4 in Table 1; transmission-orientedmentoring by items 5e7. The assessment format was a 6-point scale ranging from (1)strongly disagree to (6) strongly agree. A larger set of items was

Table 1Factor loadings from the exploratory and conrmatory factor analysis (two-factormodel).

Item Item Wording Results of the EFA Results of the CFA

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2

My mentor. l (SE)

do differently

1 Comparisons between individuals participating only at the rst or both mea-surement points, respectively, indicated no signicant differences with respect togender and socio-economic status but individuals participating at both assessmentswere approximately 2 years younger. Furthermore, we found no statistically sig-nicant differences between both groups for the outcome variables teacher efcacy,teacher enthusiasm, transmissive and constructivist beliefs and emotional

acher Education 36 (2013) 166e177The data were collected in the COACTIV-R study, which wasdesigned to assess the development of beginning teacherscompetence during the period of practical training (Referendariat)that is obligatory for obtaining a permanent teaching license inGermany (Lenhard, 2004). The Referendariat follows directly onfrom university training and lasts between 18 and 24 months.During this time, beginning teachers attend theoretical courses at ateacher training institution (Studienseminare) and gain practicalteaching experience in a regular school, which includes observingother teachers, guided teaching (under the supervision of experi-enced teachers), and independent teaching. In addition, all begin-ning teachers are assigned to more senior mentor teachers whosupervise some of their instruction and provide feedback andadvice over the Referendariat period (Jones, 2000). In general, thementor teachers teach the same subjects as their novices and arenot directly involved in grading their nal exams. They are usuallyselected by the principal based on their experience and profes-sional expertise. Mentor teachers can therefore be regarded as apositive subset of the schools teachers, though they do notgenerally receive formal training for their mentorship role.

2.2. Study design and sample

The study used a pre-test/post-test study design with two co-horts and two points of measurement. Beginning teachers in cohort1 were assessed at the beginning and at the end of the rst year ofpractical training. Their counterparts in cohort 2 were assessed atthe beginning and at the end of their second year of practicaltraining. Thus, both cohorts were assessed at an interval of oneof instruction to be more adequate (Klusmann et al., 2008). It istherefore important to facilitate teachers occupational well-being,in particular emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction, during theinduction process. Research on mentoring has shown that begin-ning teachers value the emotional support they receive from theirmentors (Ballantyne et al., 1995; Hall et al., 2008; Odell & Ferraro,1992). However, only one study has found positive relationshipsbetween mentor support and beginning teachers well-being(Kessels et al., 2008). Therefore, more research is needed to docu-ment the longitudinal effects of mentoring on well-being. More-over, research has not yet determined which approaches tomentorenovice interaction are supportive. We therefore examinedthe extent to which constructivist- and transmission-orientedmentoring predict the development of beginning teachersemotional exhaustion and job satisfaction. We expect mentoringbased on collaborative inquiry to create a learning environment inwhich novices and mentors can reect on instructional problemstogether, thus alleviating beginning teachers stress. Therefore, wehypothesize that constructivist-oriented mentoring is positivelyrelated to job satisfaction and negatively associated with emotionalexhaustion.

2. Methods

2.1. Setting1.3.4. Emotional exhaustion and job satisfactionThe rst years of classroom teaching are a particularly

demanding time in the teaching career (Fantilli & McDougall, 2009;Veenman, 1984). The experience of stress has negative conse-quences for teachers health (Guglielmi & Tatrow, 1998) and class-room practice (Klusmann et al., 2008). Students whose teachersexperience lower levels of emotional exhaustion and higher jobsatisfaction perceive instruction to bemore structured and the pace

D. Richter et al. / Teaching and Te170school year. This design enables us to investigate the developmentof teacher characteristics and the relevance of mentoring in thisperiod of induction.

The sample was recruited from randomly selected teachertraining institutions (Studienseminare) in four federal states inGermany (Bavaria, Baden-Wuerttemberg, North Rhine-West-phalia, and Schleswig-Holstein). All beginning teachers in thesample will be teaching mathematics at secondary level. The rstcohort of beginning teachers included 546 individuals that wereon average 27.4 years old (SD 4.0 years) and predominantlyfemale (65.4%). The second cohort consisted of 210 individualswith a mean age of 29.3 years (SD 5.1 years) and 63.3% females.In total, 756 beginning teachers of both cohorts participated atthe rst measurement point and 551 of them (72.9%) continuedat the second measurement point. The participants in the lon-

in lessons.

Note. Items 1 through 4 represent constructivist-oriented mentoring; items 5through 7 indicate transmission-oriented mentoring. EFA Exploratory FactorAnalysis. CFA Conrmative Factor Analysis. *p < .05.1 helps me to improveindependently.

.85* (.03) .02 (.01) .88* (.03) e

2 supports me in trying outdifferent teaching methods.

.82* (.03) .08 (.05) .75* (.03) e

3 gives me the opportunityto draw my own conclusions.

.66* (.04) .29* (.05) .76* (.03) e

4 has ideas that promptself-reection.

.70* (.04) .03 (.05) .63* (.04) e

5 tells me what I need toimprove.

.15* (.06) .83* (.04) e .81* (.04)

6 has specic ideas abouthow I shouldteach the lesson content.

.11 (.06) .70* (.04) e .73* (.04)

7 tells me what I have to .00 (

eachused to assess constructivist- and transmission-orientedmentoringin a pilot study (16 and 15 items respectively); for reasons ofparsimony, a subset of these items was used in the present study.

Because this instrument was newly developed for the purposeof this study, we carried out additional analyses to test its reliabilityand construct validity (Messick, 1989). The scale measuringconstructivist-oriented mentoring revealed an internal consistencyof a .84; the scale tapping transmission-oriented mentoring, areliability of a .80. Construct validity was examined throughcross-validation, with half the data being used in an exploratoryfactor analysis (EFA) and the other half in a conrmatory dataanalysis (CFA). Analyses were conducted with Mplus (Muthn &Muthn, 1998e2007), using oblique rotation (geomin) to allowfor correlations between factors. The results of the EFA demon-strated high factor loadings for the items designed to measure therespective constructs and low cross-loadings for all other items(jlj < .29). Based on this evidence, we tested a two-factor modelusing a conrmatory approach with the second half of the data. Theresults of the CFA demonstrated a model t of CFI .97 andRMSEA .08. According to the recommendations of Hu and Bentler(1999), the CFI value demonstrates a good model t and the RMSEAvalue suggests a reasonable model t. The high factor loadings ofthe two-factor model demonstrate that all items are suitable in-dicators of the construct under investigation (see Table 1). Thecorrelation between the two factors was nonsignicant at r .05(p .52). In sum, these results suggest that our instrument assessestwo independent factors that reect constructivist- andtransmission-oriented mentoring.

To ensure that beginning teachers ratings were an accuraterepresentation of mentoring quality and agreed with their mentorteachers perceptions of beginning teachers learning, we obtainedadditional validity data from a second data source. For this study,we conducted a supplementary study with mentor teachers inNorth Rhine-Westphalia whose mentees participated in COACTIV-R. All mentees in the participating state North Rhine-Westphaliawere invited to contact their mentor teacher and provide themwith a questionnaire about the mentoring relationship. Among all231 beginning teachers in North Rhine-Westphalia, 33 mentorteachers completed this questionnaire. The mentor teachers whoparticipated in this study were on average 44.1 years old (SD 9.1years) and 63.6% of themwere female. The questionnaire included a10-item scale tapping the mentor teachers constructivist beliefsabout learning to teach (example item: Beginning teachers learn toteach best by experimenting with their own solutions to theproblems arising in lessons.). The assessment format was a 6-pointscale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (6) strongly agree. Scalescores were aggregated for the analysis (unweighted mean).Overall, the scale had an internal consistency of a .70.

Results showed thatmentor teachers constructivist beliefs werenegatively correlated with transmission-oriented mentoring asrated by the mentees (r .40, p < .05) and positively correlatedwith constructivist-oriented mentoring as rated by the mentees,although the latter association was not statistically signicant dueto the small sample size (r .32, p > .05). This nding illustratesindicates that beginning teachers ratings overlapped with theirmentors beliefs about learning to teach, which suggests that thementee ratings are useful indicators of the quality of mentoring.

2.3.1.2. Frequency of mentoring. In addition to the quality of men-toring, we assessed its quantity in terms of the frequency of in-teractions between mentor and beginning teacher. Frequency wasassessed by a single item On average, how often did you talk to yourmentor teacher in the rst year of your practical classroom training?Responses were made on a 6-point scale ranging from (1) less than

D. Richter et al. / Teaching and Tonce a month to (6) every day. We dichotomized this item for thepurpose of data analysis, because the scale is not equidistant andtherefore cannot be treated as continuous variable. Responses thatindicated mentorementee interactions several times a week orevery day were recoded as 1 and all other responses that indi-cated less frequent interactions were recoded as 0.

2.3.2. Dependent variablesTeacher efcacy was assessed with an established teacher ef-

cacy scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1999). Beginning teachers wereasked to rate their agreement with 10 statements on a 4-point Likertscale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (4) strongly agree (e.g., Iknow that I am able to equip even the most problematic studentswith the knowledge they need for the exam.). Reliability wassatisfactory at both measurement points (a1 .75; a2 .77).

Enthusiasm for teaching was assessed with a scale developed inthe COACTIV study (Kunter et al., 2008), the precursor to theCOACTIV-R study. Prompted by the instruction How much do youenjoy your work?, beginning teachers were asked to rate theiragreement with 6 statements (e.g., I teach with enthusiasm.) on a4-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (4)strongly agree. Reliability was good at both measurement points(a1 .85; a2 .84).

Constructivist- and transmission-oriented beliefs about teach-ing were measured with two scales developed in the COACTIVstudy (Dubberke et al., 2008). Items tapping constructivist beliefsabout teaching measure the conviction that student learning re-quires cognitively activating tasks and opportunities for students toconverse about and nd alternative solutions to tasks. The scaleconsists of 10 Likert-type items, which were rated from (1) stronglydisagree to (4) strongly agree (e.g., Students can nd solutions tomany mathematics problems without guidance.). Reliability wasgood at both points of measurement (a1 .79; a2 .82).

The items tapping transmission-oriented beliefs about teachingassess the conviction that teachers need to provide examples andsolutions to tasks that students can pick up and practice. The scaleconsists of 10 Likert-type items which were rated from (1) stronglydisagree to (4) strongly agree (e.g., Teachers should equip studentswith detailed procedures for solving problems.). Reliability wasgood at both points of measurement (a1 .78; a2 .83).

Emotional exhaustion was measured by a German adaptation(Enzmann & Kleiber, 1989) of the Maslach Burnout Inventory(Maslach, Jackson, & Leitner, 1996). The scale comprised 5 Likert-type items that were rated from (1) strongly disagree to (4)strongly agree (e.g., I often feel exhausted at school.). Reliabilitywas good at both points of measurement (a1 .77; a2 .82).

Teachers job satisfaction was assessed with a short Germanversion (Baumert et al., 2008) of the work satisfaction scale from theJob Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham,1975). This scale focusedon the overall satisfaction with work rather than on certain aspectsof the job. Beginning teachers rated 9 items on a 4-point Likert scaleranging from (1) strongly disagree to (4) strongly agree (e.g., Giventhe choice, I would denitely become a teacher again.). Reliabilitywas high at both points of measurement (a1 .89; a2 .91).

2.4. Statistical analyses

Researchers seeking to predict interindividual differences inchange must bear in mind that unreliability of the measured vari-ables can distort the parameter estimates (Kaplan, 2000). Wetherefore used latent variable models to determine the effect of thedifferent mentoring approaches on the development of beginningteachers. These models analyze interindividual differences at thelatent level rather than at the observed level. They offer theadvantage of distinguishing structural relationships from error-of-

er Education 36 (2013) 166e177 171measurement components.

Fig. 1 presents the generic model that was estimated separatelyfor each of the six outcome variables. It consists of a measurementmodel that denes the latent constructs and a structural model thatdenes the relationships among the latent variables (Bollen, 1989).Themeasurementmodel species theoutcomesvariablesmeasuredat both assessments (shown as v1 and v2) and constructivist- andtransmission-oriented mentoring (cm and tm) assessed at the sec-ond point of measurement. The factor loadings, intercepts, and re-sidual variances were constrained to be invariant over time, inaccordance with the assumption of measurement invariance(Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). As recommended by Marsh and Hau(1996; see also Jreskog, 1979), correlated uniquenesses wereincluded for thematching items administered at bothmeasurementpoints. The structural part of the model denes regression re-lationships predicting the dependent variable (v2) at the secondpoint of measurement. The score of this construct is controlled forthe score of the same construct (v1) at therst point ofmeasurementand additionally regressed on the predictor variables transmission-oriented mentoring (tm), constructivist-oriented mentoring (cm),and frequency of interaction with the mentor.

The analyses were conducted with the Mplus 5.1 softwarepackage (Muthn & Muthn, 1998e2007) using the Full Informa-tion Maximum Likelihood (FIML) estimator. This estimator uses allavailable data for each person, estimatingmissing information fromrelations among variables in the full sample (Schafer & Graham,2002). Hypothesis testing was conducted at signicance level ofp < .05. The correlations of the latent and manifest variables in thisanalysis are provided in the appendix.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive statistics

Table 2 provides the means and standard deviations of themanifest variables for each cohort at bothmeasurement points. Theresults show statistically signicant change in different variables

Table 2Descriptive statistics of the independent and dependent manifest variables.

Outcome Cohort N Time 1 Time 2 t p

M1 SD1 M2 SD2

Teacher efcacy 1 404 3.09 .37 3.04 .36 2.59 .012 132 3.11 .32 3.17 .38 1.97 .05

Teaching enthusiasm 1 405 3.55 .44 3.53 .47 1.02 .312 125 3.55 .39 3.60 .35 1.65 .10

Transmissive beliefs 1 407 2.36 .46 2.42 .49 2.75 .012 127 2.34 .47 2.37 .53 .86 .39

Constructivist beliefs 1 406 3.40 .37 3.34 .41 3.50 .002 127 3.45 .39 3.42 .41 .93 .36

Emotional exhaustion 1 409 2.04 .61 2.20 .74 4.82 .002 127 2.31 .64 2.06 .63 4.98 .00

Job satisfaction 1 409 3.40 .50 3.30 .64 4.13 .002 127 3.35 .54 3.44 .48 2.60 .01

Transmission-orientedmentoring

1 405 e e 3.33 1.31 e e2 127 e e 3.44 1.27 e e

Constructivist-orientedmentoring

1 407 e e 4.53 1.18 e e2 127 e e 4.75 1.20 e e

Frequency of interaction 1 407 e e .56 .50 e e2 127 e e .72 .45 e e

D. Richter et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 36 (2013) 166e177172Fig. 1. Structural equation model investigating the impact of constructivist- and transmission-oriented mentoring.

and cohorts. Teacher efcacy decreased signicantly (t 2.59,p .01) in cohort 1 (rst year of training) and increased, though notsignicantly, in cohort 2 (second year of training). There was sig-nicant change in beginning teachers transmissive and construc-tivist beliefs in cohort 1, but in opposing directions: transmissivebeliefs about learning increased over the rst year of training(t 2.75, p < .05), whereas constructivist beliefs decreased(t 3.50, p < .05). Emotional exhaustion and job satisfactionshowed signicant changes in both cohorts. Cohort 1 demonstratedincreased emotional exhaustion (t 4.82, p < .05) and decreasedjob satisfaction (t 4.13, p< .05). In cohort 2, in contrast, emotionalexhaustion decreased (t 4.98, p < .05) and job satisfactionincreased (t 2.60, p < .05). The effect sizes of the statistically

The regression coefcients of the model predicting the devel-opment of teacher efcacy show that the baseline measure stronglypredicted teacher efcacy at the second measurement point(b1 .64, p< .05), indicating high stability of the construct betweenthe two measurement occasions. Moreover, beginning teacherswhose mentors exhibited a constructivist-oriented mentoring styleshowed a signicant increase in teacher efcacy over the year(b3 .14, p < .05). No signicant changes in teacher efcacy wereobserved for beginning teachers who experienced a transmission-oriented mentoring style or interacted frequently with theirmentor teacher. The model explained a total of 45% of the varianceand exhibited reasonable model t (RMSEA .04). Similarly,teachers enthusiasm for teaching was strongly predicted by their

e se

Tra

.7

.0.0.0

.5

.0

.0

D. Richter et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 36 (2013) 166e177 173signicant differences were small (Cohen, 1988), ranging betweend .14 and d .39. In sum, the results indicate that beginningteachers developed differently in their rst and second year oftraining which may reect differences in the training provided ineach year.

Table 2 also shows descriptive statistics for the two mentoringapproaches. Ratings of transmission-oriented mentoring weresignicantly below the theoretical mean of 3.5 in cohort 1(t 2.59, p < .05), whereas ratings of constructivist-orientedmentoring signicantly exceeded the theoretical mean in bothcohorts (cohort 1: t 17.73, p < .05; cohort 2: t 11.72, p < .05).

3.2. Predicting beginning teachers development

The descriptive results showed distinct developmental patternsfor beginning teachers in cohorts 1 and 2. Due to these patterns, weexamined whether the structural equation models (see Fig. 1) needto be estimated separately for both cohorts. To check for invariance,we compared an unrestricted model (i.e., different parameters inboth cohorts) with a restricted model that constrained all param-eters to be equal in both cohorts. The comparison was conductedwith a likelihood ratio (LR) test, the results of which showed thatthe unrestricted model provided a better t to the data. However,given that the LR test is strongly affected by sample size, we usedthe alternative indicators DRMSEA and DCFI to compare the t ofboth models (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). The results of theinvariance tests showed that the restricted model produced onlysmall changes in the overall model t. The DRMSEA estimates didnot exceed .005; the DCFI estimates did not exceed .02. Therestrictedmodel thus provides an appropriate representation of thedata. Therefore, we can collapse the data from cohorts 1 and 2 andobtain model estimates that are valid for both groups.

Table 3 shows the regression coefcients from the six structuralequation models (represented in the columns) and their t statis-tics. The predictors were the baseline measure of the outcomevariable as assessed at the rst measurement point and the threevariables indicating the quality and frequency of mentoring.

Table 3Results of structural equation models predicting beginning teachers outcomes at th

Predictors Teacher efcacy Teaching enthusiasm

Baseline measurea b1 .64* .63*Transmission-oriented mentoring b2 .05 .05Constructivist-oriented mentoring b3 .14* .08*Frequency of interaction b4 .04 .00Variance explainedR2 .45 .43Model tRMSEA .04 .0490% Conf. interval .036, .044 .035, .047Note. *p < .05.a Baseline measure of the outcome variable assessed at the rst measurement point (baseline enthusiasm (b1 .63, p < .05) and a constructivist-oriented mentoring style (b3 .08, p < .05). The model explained43% of the variance in teacher enthusiasm and it provided a good tto the data (RMSEA .04).

The models investigating the development of beginning teach-ers beliefs showed strong stability between the rst and secondmeasurement point (transmissive beliefs: b1 .70, p < .05;constructivist beliefs: b1 .63, p < .05). However, whereas atransmissive style of mentoring positively predicted the develop-ment of transmissive beliefs (b2 .09, p< .05), a constructivist styleof mentoring was not signicantly associated with beginningteachers constructivist beliefs. Only frequent interactions with thementor negatively predicted constructivist beliefs (b4 .10,p< .05) when all other variables in the model were controlled. Thisnding indicates that beginning teachers who develop construc-tivist beliefs interact less frequently with their mentor teacher. Themodel explained 53% of the variance in transmissive beliefs and42% of the variance in constructivist beliefs. The goodness-of-tindices indicated acceptable model t (transmissive beliefs:RMSEA .05; constructivist beliefs: RMSEA .05).

The models predicting beginning teachers well-being alsoshowed high stability coefcients (emotional exhaustion:b1 .56, p < .05; job satisfaction: b1 .65, p < .05). Whenbaseline levels were controlled, beginning teachers who experi-enced constructivist-oriented mentoring showed a statisticallysignicant decline in emotional exhaustion (b3 .20, p < .05)and a statistically signicant increase in job satisfaction (b3 .13,p < .05). This is clear evidence that constructivist-orientedmentoring supports beginning teachers well-being. The modelexplained 40% of the variance in emotional exhaustion and 48%of the variance in job satisfaction. Both models showed accept-able model t (emotional exhaustion: RMSEA .05; job satis-faction: RMSEA .06).

In addition to investigating the main effects of quality and fre-quency of mentoring, we were interested in testing whetherbeginning teachers who experience a particular mentoringapproach benet frommore interaction with their mentor. In other

cond measurement point.

nsmissive beliefs Constructivist beliefs Emotional exhaustion Job satisfaction

0* .63* .56* .65*9* .03 .09 .052 .08 .20* .13*4 .10* .01 .04

3 .42 .40 .48

5 .05 .05 .0641, .049 .041, .049 .044, .058 .053, .061v1).

achwords, we were interested in the interaction effects between thefrequency of interactions and the two mentoring approaches. Wetherefore estimated additional structural equation models thatincluded all mentoring variables as main effects as well as twovariables representing the interaction between frequency of in-teractions and the twomentoring approaches. However, therewereno signicant interaction terms, which suggests that beginningteachers do not draw additional benet from more frequentmentorementee interactions, regardless of the mentoringapproach they experience.

4. Discussion

This study distinguished two mentoring approaches: construc-tivist- and transmission-oriented mentoring. In contrast to previ-ous research, we developed a theoretically driven instrument tomeasure both approaches and evaluated its quality. Having estab-lished the reliability and validity of our measure, we predictedbeginning teachers development by reference to qualitative andquantitative characteristics of the mentoring experience. We wereparticularly interested in examining whether empirical evidencecould be found for the theoretically predicted positive impact ofconstructivist mentoring. To this end, we used a pre-test/post-teststudy design to investigate whether mentoring predicts begin-ning teachers teacher efcacy, enthusiasm for teaching, beliefsabout learning, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction whenthe respective baseline levels were controlled.

4.1. Experience of different mentoring approaches

Our preliminary analyses showed that most beginning teachersin our sample experienced constructivist-oriented mentoringinvolving opportunities for reection, experimentation withdifferent teaching methods, and autonomous decision making. Inother words, many mentor teachers evidently provide a learningenvironment that supports individual learning and development.This tendency toward constructivist mentoring might be consid-ered surprising, because the teachers who serve as mentors are notprofessionally trained teacher educators, but regular classroomteachers selected by the principal. Thus, mentor teachers seem tonaturally select helpful supervision strategies despite their lack offormal training.

Further the ndings of the descriptive analyses showed that thetwo mentoring approaches are not related. In other words, trans-mission- and constructivist-oriented mentoring represent twoqualitatively different approaches that cannot be described as thetwo poles of a continuum. Both forms of mentoring make differenttheoretical assumptions about the nature of learning. Therefore, itwould not be warranted to exclude either of them from empiricalinvestigations (Sfard, 1998).

4.2. Constructivist mentoring explains beginning teachersdevelopment

The study provides evidence that beginning teachers whoexperience constructivist mentoring show higher levels of efcacy,teaching enthusiasm, and job satisfaction and lower levels ofemotional exhaustion after one year of training compared toteachers without constructivist mentoring. This conrms previousndings that mentoring is a crucial source of support for beginningteachers (see overview in Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). More impor-tantly, however, it showed that different mentoring approachesdifferentially predict beginning teachers development. Our nd-ings supported the theoretical prediction that mentoring based on

D. Richter et al. / Teaching and Te174collaborative inquiry and critical reection is benecial for thedevelopment of beginning teachers motivation and well-being(Carter & Francis, 2001; Hudson, 2004; Wang & Odell, 2002). Incontrast, although transmission-oriented mentoring increasedbeginning teachers transmissive beliefs, it did not signicantlyaffect any other outcome examined in this study. This suggests thatmentors who supervise their mentees closely and convey theirideas of teaching to their mentee do not successfully foster begin-ning teachers competence and well-being. Findings also showedthat beginning teachers who interacted frequently with theirmentors showed less constructivist beliefs when the quality ofmentoring (i.e., constructivist and transmissive mentoring) wastaken into account. It may be hypothesized that beginning teacherswho receive constructivist mentoring may not need close guidanceand frequent interaction. The development of the other outcomeswas not associated by the frequency of interaction.

The effects of mentoring observed in this study are small in size(Cohen, 1988). When interpreting these effects, we need to bear inmind that beginning teachers are exposed to many other learningopportunities (e.g., those provided in teacher training institutions,independent teaching, etc.) that may also inuence their develop-ment during their practical training. Further, mentors have limitedtime for intensive collaboration with the mentee because theirteaching load is generally not reduced to accommodate their su-pervisory duties (Jones, 2000). Thus, it is important to highlightthat mentors do facilitate beginning teachers development despitethe limited resources available. It is also important to rememberthat the results of this study represent the effects of just one year. Intotal, practical training lasts between 1.5 and 2 years. Thus, cu-mulative effects of mentoring may be even larger than the effectsshown in this study.

4.3. Limitations and future research

Several limitations of the study warrant attention. First, thestudy assessed the mentoring of beginning teachers in mathe-matics. All participants in our study also obtained a teaching licensein one or two additional subjects, andmay have receivedmentoringin these as well. However, we did not assess this aspect in thepresent study. The combined effect of all mentors may be largerthan that indicated by the results of this study. Second, the men-toring variables were assessed through self-report. We chose thisformat because we were interested in beginning teachers per-ceptions and how these relate to their development. Data from oursmall validation study showed that mentors and mentees in-terpretations of the mentoring situation overlap. However, forfurther validation, it would be interesting to collect additional dataabout the mentoring relationship from mentor teachers andexternal observers because they may perceive the mentoringrelationship in a different way. This additional information could beused to generate additional indicators of mentoring quality. Third,the instrument was newly developed for the purpose of this studyand was applied in a German sample of beginning mathematicsteachers. Although reliability and validity were established, futurestudies need to conrm that the instrument can be used in othersubject areas (beyond mathematics) and other cultural contexts(beyond Germany). Fourth, beginning teachers reported on thementoring they received only once, at the end of their rst orsecond year of practical training. Ballantyne et al. (1995) haveindicated that mentoring may change throughout the rst year ofpractice; therefore, multiple assessments scattered across theschool year may be better suited to understand the dynamics ofmentoring relationships. Our study design with two points ofmeasurement did not allow for multiple assessments. Fifth, ourstudy focused on teacher mentoring as one important learning

er Education 36 (2013) 166e177opportunity and did not investigate other potential sources such as

to investigate change in beginning teachers over one year, thusgoing beyond the limitations of cross-sectional analyses that arepresent in many similar studies. The pre-test/post-test study designwas used to examine the extent to which mentoring predicts thedevelopment of beginning teachers motivation, beliefs, and well-being. Our main nding was that, over and above the frequencyof mentoring, constructivist mentoring supports beginning teach-ers development in the rst two years of teaching. Future studies,

References

Anderson, R. N., Greene, M. L., & Loewen, P. S. (1988). Relationships among teachersand students thinking skills, sense of efcacy, and student achievement. AlbertaJournal of Educational Research, 34(2), 148e165.

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers sense of efcacy andstudent achievement. New York, NY: Longman.

Ballantyne, R., Hansford, B., & Packer, J. (1995). Mentoring beginning teachers: aqualitative analysis of process and outcomes. Educational Review, 47(3), 297e307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013191950470306.

(2008). Professionswissen von Lehrkrften, kognitiv aktivierender Mathemati-

5

1.6

7. Transmissive beliefs (time 1) .23 L.20 .10 .10 L.16 L.19 18. Transmissive beliefs (time 2) .26 L.15 L.13 L.19 L.11 L.20 .77 19. Constructivist beliefs (time 1) L.16 .18 .19 .20 .20 .24 L.58 L.48 110. Constructivist beliefs (time 2) .08 .16 .17 .30 .19 .32 L.42 L.54 .68 111. Emotional exhaustion (time 1) .07 L.12 L.45 L.37 L.53 L.36 .17 .11 .09 L.13 112. Emotional exhaustion (time 2) .13 L.26 L.37 L.51 L.41 L.43 .02 .06 .06 .09 .67 113. Job satisfaction (time 1) .04 .20 .50 .37 .69 .49 L.11 .09 .12 .15 L.63 L.46 114. Job satisfaction (time 2) .09 .25 .39 .55 .55 .67 .08 .08 .14 .18 L.45 L.69 .70 115. Frequency of interaction (time 2) .02 .16 .01 .03 .03 .03 .04 .04 .02 .01 .01 L.07 .03 .05 1

Note. Values printed in bold are signicant at p < .05.

eacher Education 36 (2013) 166e177 175however, should consider study designs with multiple measure-ments over the course of one year and if possible of multiple yearswithin the induction period.

The study has implications for the theory on teacher mentoringand practice in schools. Constructivist- and transmissive-orientedmentoring can be mapped on already existing mentoring con-cepts and can also be aligned to different paradigms of learningtheory. The proposed constructs can therefore serve as an inte-grative framework to evaluate previous research and set up futurestudies. Due to the diversity of theoretical models currently used inthis area of research (see overview in Wang & Odell, 2002), it isdifcult to compare study ndings and make informed decisions inthe eld of teacher induction. Thus, these constructs can be used asa framework to successively build up a coherent knowledge base inthis content area.

In regard to the practical implications, the ndings suggest thatmentor teachers should be carefully selected and should receivetraining about successful supervision of mentees. Our resultsindicate that mentors could be chosen on the basis of their super-workshops, teaching practice or feedback from colleagues. There-fore, future studies should take into account the complex system oflearning opportunities and analyze their unique effects. Sixth, wehave limited our study to examining the type of mentorementeeinteraction. We did not, however, assess the content of their dis-cussions and the initial skills of beginning teachers. Therefore,future research needs to take a closer look at the topics of thementorementee-dialogs and mentees individual prerequisitesthat may affect the support that mentors provide. Finally,constructivist and transmissive mentoring is closely related to theinstructional support of mentoring rather than to the emotionalsupport and role modeling. Therefore, this study cannot provideinformation as to whether mentors actually provided support withrespect to the other two goals of mentoring.

5. Conclusions and practical implications

The results of this study inform the discussion about the effec-tiveness of teacher mentoring. The study provided the opportunity

Variables 1 2 3 4

1. Transmission-oriented mentoring (time 2) 12. Constructivist-oriented mentoring (time 2) .04 13. Teacher efcacy (time 1) .08 .17 14. Teacher efcacy (time 2) .01 .24 .74 15. Teaching enthusiasm (time 1) .04 .20 .58 .496. Teaching enthusiasm (time 2) .03 .21 .45 .58

D. Richter et al. / Teaching and Tvision practice. Mentors who provide their mentees withkunterricht und die Entwicklung von mathematischer Kompetenz (COACTIV):Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente [Professional competence ofteachers, cognitively activating instruction, and development of students'mathematical literacy (COACTIV): scale documentation]. Materialien aus derBildungsforschung, 83. Berlin: Max Planck Institute for Human Development.

Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrk-rften [Teachers professional competence]. Zeitschrift fr Erziehungswissen-schaft, 9(4), 469e520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11618-006-0165-2.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY:Wiley.

Borko, H., & Mayeld, V. (1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and universitysupervisor in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(5), 501e518.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(95)00008-8.

Bradbury, L. U., & Koballa, T. R., Jr. (2008). Borders to cross: identifying sources oftension in mentoreintern relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8),2132e2145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.03.002.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. InM. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). (pp. 328e375)Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barnett, B., Hopkins-Thompson, P., & Hoke, M. (2002). Assessing and supporting newteachers. Lessons from the southeast. Chapel Hill, NC: The Southeast Center forTeaching Quality.

Baumert, J., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Dubberke, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., et al.opportunities to practice and support them with help if needed,seem to be more helpful than mentors who closely guide theirmentees. In addition, mentors should participate in trainings tofurther develop professional competence as teacher educator.

Acknowledgments

The COACTIV-R research project at the Max Planck Institute forHuman Development was funded by the Max Planck SocietysStrategic Innovation Fund (2008e2010). We wish to thank themembers of the COACTIV team, Susannah Goss and Ricarda Kleinfor language editing, and Thilo Kleickmann and Yee Lee Shing forhelpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Appendix. Correlation matrix of the latent and manifestvariables used in the structural equation models

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

6 1New York, NY: Macmillan.

achBrown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture oflearning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32e42.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efcacy beliefs asdeterminants of teachers job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology,95(4), 821e832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.821.

Carter, M., & Francis, R. (2001). Mentoring and beginning teachers workplacelearning. Asia-pacic Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3), 249e262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598660120091856.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-t indexes fortesting measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233e255.http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Paris, C. L. (1995). Mentor and mentoring: did Homer have itright. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical discourses on teacher development (pp. 181e202).London, UK: Cassell.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers professional devel-opment: toward better conceptualizations and measures. EducationalResearcher, 38(3), 181e199.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books.Dubberke, T., Kunter, M., McElvany, N., Brunner, M., & Baumert, J. (2008). Lern-

theoretische berzeugungen von Mathematiklehrkrften: Einsse auf dieUnterrichtsgestaltung und den Lernerfolg von Schlerinnen und Schlern[[Mathematics teachers beliefs and their impact on instructional quality andstudent achievement]]. Zeitschrift fr Pdagogische Psychologie, 22(3e4), 193e206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.22.34.193.

Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study of teaching. New York, NY: Holt,Rinehart and Winston.

Edwards, A. (1998). Mentoring student teachers in primary schools: assisting stu-dent teachers to become learners. European Journal of Teacher Education, 21(1),47e62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0261976980210106.

Enzmann, D., & Kleiber, D. (1989). Helfer-Leiden: Stress und Burnout in psychosozialenBerufen. Heidelberg: Asanger.

Fantilli, R. D., & McDougall, D. E. (2009). A study of novice teachers: challenges andsupports in the rst years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 814e825.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.021.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1998). Teachers as teacher educators. European Journal ofTeacher Education, 21(1), 63e74.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). Helping novices learn to teach: lessons from an exem-plary support teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 17e30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487101052001003.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1987). When is student teaching teachereducation? Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(4), 255e273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(87)90019-9.

Fletcher, S. H., & Barrett, A. (2004). Developing effective beginning teachers throughmentor-based induction. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 12(3),321e333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/030910042000275936.

Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Ldtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Sutton, R. E. (2009). Emotionaltransmission in the classroom: exploring the relationship between teacher andstudent enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 705e716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014695.

Glazerman, S., Doln, M., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Isenberg, E., Lugo-Gil, J., et al.(2008). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Results from the rst year of arandomized controlled study (NCEE 2009-4034). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20094035.pdf.

Gold, Y. (1996). Beginning teacher support: attrition, mentoring, and induction. InJ. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 548e594). NewYork, NY: Macmillan.

Guglielmi, R. S., & Tatrow, K. (1998). Occupational stress, burnout, and health inteachers: a methodological and theoretical analysis. Review of EducationalResearch, 68(1), 61e99.

Guo, Y., Connor, C. M., Yang, Y., Roehrig, A. D., & Morrison, F. J. (2012). The effects ofteacher qualication, teacher self-efcacy, and classroom practices on fthgraders literacy outcomes. Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 3e24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/665816.

Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey.Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159e170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076546.

Hall, K. M., Draper, R. J., Smith, L. K., & Bullough, R. V., Jr. (2008). More than a place toteach: exploring the perceptions of the roles and responsibilities of mentorteachers. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16(3), 328e345.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611260802231708.

Haser, C., & Star, J. R. (2009). Change in beliefs after rst-year of teaching: thecase of Turkish national curriculum context. International Journal ofEducational Development, 29(3), 293e302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.08.007.

Hawkey, K. (1997). Roles, responsibilities, and relationships in mentoring: a liter-ature review and agenda for research. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 325e335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487197048005002.

Hennissen, P., Crasborn, F., Brouwer, N., Korthagen, F., & Bergen, T. (2008). Mappingmentor teachers roles in mentoring dialogues. Educational Research Review,3(2), 168e186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.01.001.

Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement

D. Richter et al. / Teaching and Te176in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, andClark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99e107.Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring begin-ning teachers: what we know and what we dont. Teaching and Teacher Edu-cation, 25(1), 207e216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.001.

Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Socialization of student-teachers. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 27(2), 279e300. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312027002279.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structureanalysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural EquationModeling, 6(1), 1e55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

Hudson, P. (2004). Specic mentoring: a theory and model for developing primaryscience teaching practices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27(2), 139e146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0261976042000223015.

Hudson, P. (2013). Mentoring as professional development: growth for bothmentor and mentee. Professional Development in Education.

Huling-Austin, L. (1990). Teacher induction programs and internships. InW. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 535e548).Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: an organizationalanalysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499e534. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312038003499.

Ingersoll, R. M., & Kralik, J. M. (2004). The impact of mentoring on teacher retention:What the research says. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring pro-grams for beginning teachers: a critical review of the research. Review ofEducational Research, 81(2), 201e233.

Jones, M. (2000). Becoming a secondary teacher in Germany: a trainee perspectiveon recent developments in initial teacher training in Germany. European Journalof Teacher Education, 23(1), 65e76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026197600411634.

Jreskog, K. G. (1979). Statistical estimation of structural models in longitudinal-developmental investigations. In J. R. Nesselroade, & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), Longi-tudinal research in the study of behavior and development (pp. 303e351). NewYork, NY: Academic Press.

Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kessels, C., Beijaard, D., Veen, K. v.,& Verloop, N. (April 2008). The importance ofinduction programs for the well-being of beginning teachers. In Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, NewYork, NY.

Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Trautwein, U., Ldtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Teachersoccupational well-being and quality of instruction: the important role of self-regulatory patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 702e715. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.702.

Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Voss, T., & Baumert, J. (2012). Emotional exhaustion andjob satisfaction of beginning teachers: the role of personality, educationalexperience and professional competence [[Beruiche Beanspruchung ange-hender Lehrkrfte: Die Effekte von Persnlichkeit, pdagogischer Vorerfahrungund professioneller Kompetenz]]. Zeitschrift fr Pdagogische Psychologie, 26,275e290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000078.

Kukla-Acevedo, S. (2009). Leavers, movers, and stayers: the role of workplaceconditions in teacher mobility decisions. Journal of Educational Research, 102(6),443e452. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.6.443-452.

Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., & Neubrand, M. (2013).Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence ofteachers. Results from the COACTIV project. New York, NY: Springer.

Kunter, M., Frenzel, A., Nagy, G., Baumert, J., & Pekrun, R. (2011). Teacher enthu-siasm: dimensionality and context specicity. Contemporary Educational Psy-chology, 36(4), 289e301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.07.001.

Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Dubberke, T., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Brunner, M., et al.(2007). Linking aspects of teacher competence to their instruction: results fromthe COACTIV project. In M. Prenzel (Ed.), Studies on the educational quality ofschools. The nal report of the DFG priority programme (pp. S. 39eS. 59).Mnster: Waxmann.

Kunter, M., Tsai, Y. M., Klusmann, U., Brunner, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2008).Students and mathematics teachers perceptions of teacher enthusiasm andinstruction. Learning and Instruction, 18(5), 468e482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.008.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lenhard, H. (2004). Zweite Phase an Studienseminaren und Schulen [[The secondphase of teacher education in schools and teacher training institutions]]. InS. Blmeke, P. Reinhold, G. Tulodziecki, & J. Wildt (Eds.), Handbuch Lehrerbildung(pp. 275e290). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

Lindgren, U. (2005). Experiences of beginning teachers in a school-based mentoringprogram in Sweden. Educational Studies, 31(3), 251e263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055690500236290.

LoCasale-Crouch, J., Davis, E., Wiens, P., & Pianta, R. (2012). The role of the mentor insupporting new teachers: associations with self-efcacy, reection, and quality.Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20(3), 303e323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2012.701959.

Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 4(4), 309e336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0.

Luft, J. A., & Cox, W. E. (2001). Investing in our future: a survey of support offered tobeginningsecondaryscienceandmathematics teachers.ScienceEducator,10(1),1e9.

er Education 36 (2013) 166e177Marable, M. A., & Raimondi, S. L. (2007). Teachers perceptions of what wasmost (andleast) supportive during their rst year of teaching. Mentoring and Tutoring: