Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Sep 2.
Published in final edited form as: Mentor Tutoring. 2012 Jul 24;20(3):303–323. doi: 10.1080/13611267.2012.701959

The Role of the Mentor in Supporting New Teachers: Associations with Self-Efficacy, Reflection, and Quality

Jennifer LoCasale-Crouch 1, Emily Davis 2, Peter Wiens 3, Robert Pianta 4
PMCID: PMC8412436  NIHMSID: NIHMS1725396  PMID: 34483706

Abstract

In our study, we examined variation in mentoring aspects of an induction program for 77 novice teachers and associations with self-efficacy, reflection, and quality of student–teacher interactions. Mentors’ previous experience and full- vs. part-time status predicted novices’ perception of support, reflection, and observed student–teacher interactions. Time spent with a mentor, participation in mentor-facilitated professional development activities and the quality of mentors’ interactions with novice teachers were related to novice teachers’ perceptions of mentoring success, self-reflection, and efficacy. The data in our study add to the growing research suggesting the need to look within the mentoring experience to more fully understand the working mechanisms and important contributors to their success.

Keywords: mentors, induction, new teachers, professional development

New teachers represent a well-known risk group in education, prone to working in high-stress teaching environments with excessive attrition (Ingersoll, 2001), experiences of low self-efficacy, and evidence suggesting less effectiveness in the classroom (Benner, 2000; National Academy of Education, 2008; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future [NCTAF], 1996; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Early Child Care Research Network [NICHD ECCRN], 2005; No Child Left Behind Legislation [NCLB], 2001; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Consequently, professional development support for new teachers has become a major focus (American Federation of Teachers [AFT], 2001; Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2001; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). This type of new teacher professional development is based on the assumption that close supervision, observation, coaching, and support from an experienced teacher can be helpful to new teachers (Moir, 2004); however, for the most part induction and mentoring programs have been targets by very little research (Grossman, Thompson, & Valencia, 2001; Rockoff, 2008; Smith, 2007)

In our study, we provided initial descriptive results from an induction approach in which professors from a local university collaborated with teachers and administrators from two local districts to implement an approach based on the New Teacher Center of Santa Cruz model (Moir, 2008) . The core component of the induction program involved a consultation process with a mentor that provided regular feedback to novice teachers, as well as other structured professional learning opportunities. The two school systems’ reports demonstrate that novice attrition dropped since implementing the program (Novice Teacher Network, 2008).

That analysis, however positive, provides little insight into the program mechanisms responsible for new teachers’ choices to stay in the teaching field, or how it may support their skills to become more successful teachers. Thus, although the evidence suggested the program was effective in relation to the outcome of novice teacher retention, it is equally, if not more important, to better understand the processes through which such a program achieves these results. Examination of the association of the mentor and experiences related to the mentor with possible mediators such as teacher efficacy, reflection, and quality of instructional interactions, can further understand the mechanisms that lead to new teachers staying in the field and, ultimately, being more effective in enhancing student outcomes. Given the rich literature underlining the importance of examining mechanisms that may contribute to the success of an effective intervention (Dusenbury, Brannigan, Falco, & Hansen, 2003; Greenberg, Domitrovich, Graczyk, & Zins, 2005; O’Donnell, 2008), the role of the mentor in the induction experience and the contributions to novice teachers’ self-efficacy, reflection, and quality of student–teacher instructional interactions will be explored in this study.

Induction and Influence on Novice Teachers

Induction is a professional development intervention designed to systematically train and support teachers in their first years in the classroom. One of the prominent reasons, the induction programs are growing is to address the high rates of novice teachers leaving the field. No matter how it is examined, attrition is highest during the initial stages of teaching (Grissmer & Kirby, 1992; Ingersoll, 2003; Murmane, Singer, & Willett, 1989; Shen, 1997; Singer, 1993), with consistent reports of as many as 50% of new teachers leaving the field within the first 5 years of entering it (Hafner & Owings, 1991; Huling-Austin, 1990; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Murmane et al., 1989). In schools, attrition has been shown to create staffing problems and instability, likely contributing to poor school performance (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Additionally, there is often a negative association between school attrition rates and teacher quality (Baker & Smith, 1997) as well as student achievement (Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002; Plecki, Elfers, Loeb, Zahir, & Knapp, 2005; Sanders & Rivers, 1996).

One of the common goals of induction programs is to reduce the attrition rates of new teachers. In a study by Strong and St. John (2001), 72 teachers were followed for 7–8 years after they were enrolled in the Santa Cruz New Teacher Project (SCNTP) in California (a similar model to the one in the current study). When compared to local, state, and national samples of teachers hired about the same time, Strong and St. John found that retention rates were higher among beginning teachers who receive mentoring from SCNTP than those who do not. Further, most teachers in the study who remained in education cited induction and mentoring as important factors in their decisions to stay. Additionally, the teachers who received mentoring support expressed increased satisfaction about the teaching profession and planned to stay in teaching longer than those who did not receive this support (Strong & St. John, 2001).

Mentoring, as one approach to individualized support, pairs the novice with an expert teacher who attends to the professional development of beginning teachers through ongoing observation, reflection on, and assessment of practice, as well as technical and emotional support (Feiman-Nemser, 1996; Joftus & Maddox-Dolan, 2002; Roberts, 2000). Reflection has long been seen as an interactive way for teacher learning to occur from their own and others’ observations (Schon, 1983, 1987). Smith and Ingersoll (2004) found that two-thirds of new teachers receive some degree of mentor support as part of an induction program. Induction supporters have argued that collaboration in the form of mentoring is critical for shaping the norms, habits, and practices of newcomers to the profession (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Odell & Huling, 2000) and can make the difference between a successful and unsuccessful induction program (Arends & Rigazio-DiGilio, 2000; Serpell, 2000).

Villar (2004) has suggested that comprehensive induction, which involves regular meetings with a mentor in addition to other regularly structured learning opportunities, supports new teachers’ developing skills and abilities more rapidly; minimizing the time it takes to reach the level of more experienced peers. In a few small-scale studies, induction and mentoring programs were reported to improve new teacher quality (Huling-Austin, 1990; Odell & Ferraro, 1992) and effectiveness (Goodwin, 1999; Schaffer, Stringfield, & Wolffe, 1992; Weiss & Weiss, 1999). In one study of the California induction program, Darling-Hammond (2001) reported that new teachers become competent more quickly. In a survey by the Public Education Network (PEN, 2003), mentoring and support were reported among the top five contributors to teacher satisfaction. Additionally, Tetzlaff and Wegstaff (1999) found that induction can decrease new teachers’ stress and increase their efficacy in the classroom. Also, Woolfolk-Hoy (2000) discovered that new teachers’ self-efficacy was positively correlated with perceptions of support. This is particularly noteworthy as efficacy is one of the few teacher characteristics consistently related to teaching and learning (Guo, Piasta, Justice, & Kaderavek, 2010; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). Others have reported similar results, suggesting that induction programs may support new teachers’ confidence (Gold, 1996; Feiman-Nemser, Schwille, Carver, & Yusko, 1999). What is missing in this literature, however, is the systematic study of induction using a multivariate approach, allowing for examining of several possible factors of influence at once.

Induction and Mentoring Experience Variability

More recently, researchers have suggested that school-based interventions are often implemented with considerable range in use of the active ingredients (Rohrbach, Grana, Sussman, & Valente, 2006), and potential effectiveness can be undermined due to this lack of standard implementation (Carroll et al., 2007; Moncher & Prinz, 1991). Time spent experiencing an intervention or the quality of the experience, for example, may be key determinants to actual change in practice. In studying the additive effects of induction program components, Smith and Ingersoll (2004) found that as the number of induction components increased the turnover rates decreased. Specifically, they found that teachers who had mentors from the same field and participated in other activities like collaborating with other teachers were more likely to return to teaching and remain in the same school. They concluded that the more intensive an induction program, based on time spent and other professional development experienced, the more likely new teachers would stay in the field.

Relatedly, in a study by Fletcher, Strong, and Villar (2008) examining the effects of induction variation on student achievement, they found that intensive induction, which includes weekly contact with a mentor and high selectivity of the mentor (their teaching background and training) can cancel out negative effects of poverty on student achievement. Low intensity induction effects on student achievement, however, were minimal. They concluded that intensive induction may support new teachers instructionally so they can help students progress academically. The authors also note that mentor background may be a key determinant in understanding the pathways through which induction supports novices. Although both Smith and Ingersoll (2004) and Fletcher and colleagues (2008) conclude that more intensity may be beneficial to new teachers and student achievement, they still provide little insight to which induction components have the greatest potential to influence teacher development and, subsequent, student outcomes (Lopez, Lash, Schaffner, Shields, & Wagner, 2004).

Research Questions

The aim of our investigation was to better understand the mentoring component of an induction program and how the variability may relate to multiple novice teacher outcomes (e.g. self-efficacy). Specifically, the questions posed in this study were (a) What is the association between mentors’ characteristics and mentor-related experiences to novice teachers’ perception of the mentoring support? (b) To what extent does the variation in mentors’ characteristics, mentor-related experiences, and perception of the mentoring support relate to novice teacher reflection, self-efficacy, and quality of student–teacher interactions?

Methods

Induction Program Overview

The induction program examined in our study was developed in partnership between two school districts and a local University in the Southeastern United States, and offered to all first- and second-year teachers. Partially based on the New Teacher Center of Santa Cruz Model (Moir, 2001), induction components were organized into two areas of support: Individual mentoring and other structured professional learning opportunities organized and led by the mentors. Based on the needs of the novice, the mentoring time could involve team teaching classes, co-observing lessons taught by master teachers, reflecting on videotaped instructional practice, analyzing student work, planning lessons, developing management plans, and/or preparing for parent conferences or special meetings together. In terms of the other mentor-facilitated structured professional learning opportunities provided, novices could attend workshops specifically designed for new teachers, participate in other self-identified workshops, and/or observe in other teachers’ classrooms (Alvarado, 2006).

As noted previously, the implementation of this induction program in these two school districts was associated with reduced attrition. By program design, however, mentors and the support they provided was variable. For example, mentors were both part and full time, with different combinations of expertise—resulting in different combinations of connections between the mentor and novice. Also, it was recommended for novices and mentors to meet weekly, but this was not always the case. Additionally, novices had choices about how many additional other learning opportunities to participate in. This range of mentor characteristics and activities provided allows for examination of these components’ influence on teacher reflection, self-efficacy, and quality. Thus, a key aspect of this study was to examine how naturally occurring variation in the mentor and their role relates to novice teachers’ outcomes.

In August of 2005, during the New Teacher Academy held jointly by the schools systems prior to the start of the school year, novice teachers and mentors were introduced to the induction study. The novice teachers and mentors were provided with information and consent forms at that time. Additionally, novices and mentors not present at the New Teacher Academy were mailed information about the study and invited to participate. Of the 146 novice teachers participating in induction that school year, 77 consented to participate in the data collection.

Specific to the mentors, all of the mentors agreed to participate. This group included 5 full-time and 11 part-time mentors. In the final analysis, only 6 of the part-time mentors had novice teachers in the sample and were, thus, included.

In the Fall of 2005, mentors and novices completed surveys that provided demographic information and novices completed a self-efficacy measure entitled How Much Can You Do? In the Spring of 2006, novices and mentors completed a survey about induction, titled Mentoring Experience Questionnaire. Additionally in the spring, novices again completed the How Much Can You Do? self-efficacy measure and a self-reflection measure. Last, observations of novices occurred in the spring of the 2005–2006 school year using the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), a standardized teaching quality measure. Psychometrics and additional descriptions of measures are provided below.

Participants

Of the 77 novice teachers participating in the study 63% were 26 or younger, with nearly 20% over 30. Fifty-four of the teachers were in their first year teaching and 23 were in their second year. The sample was predominantly women (75%) and Caucasian (91%). The overwhelming majority attended a teacher education program (91%), and either possessed or were in process of obtaining their teaching license (95%). Additionally, 58% held an advanced degree.

Of the 11 mentors in this study, 10 were women and nine were Caucasian. The 5 full-time mentors were responsible for 115 novices, 65 of whom were participating in the study. The remaining 31 novices, 12 of whom were in the study, were provided with advice from one of the administrators who were considered part-time mentors. Nine of the 11 mentors were in their second year of being a mentor in the induction program. Over 70% of the mentors either taught the same grade or the same content in which they were supervising novices.

Measures

Teacher, mentor, and classroom characteristics

At the beginning of the 2005 school year, novice teachers and mentors completed a general information questionnaire. From this information, two new variables were created. One represented if a novice was being supervised by a mentor who had experience in the same grade and the other was if a novice was being supervised by a mentor who had experience in the same subject. Descriptive information is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Schools, Teachers, Mentors, and Induction Quantity and Quality

Variables N % M SD Range
Schools
Elementary 30 39
Middle 19 25
High School 28 36
Novice teacher
Attended teacher education program 70 91
Currently has valid teaching license 71 95
Advanced degree 43 58
First-year teaching 54 70
Mentor
Full-time   5 46
Taught same grade supervising novice in 55 71
Taught same content supervising novice in 59 77
Mentor experience
Individual weekly time with mentor-fall
0 (1)   1   1
Less than 1 h a week (2) 18 24
1–1.9 h per week (3) 51 67
2–2.9 h per week (4)   5   7
3 or more hours per week (5)   1   1
Individual weekly time with mentor-spring
0 (1)   1   1
Less than 1 h a week (2) 36 49
1–1.9 h per week (3) 37 50
Fall/Spring composite for analysis 73 2.68   .51   2–4
Mentor-facilitated professional development z score 77   .07 1.86 −4–5
Novice perception of mentor support
Novice 77 4.26 .72 1.5–5
Open in a new tab

Time with mentor

To provide a measure of mentor-related induction exposure, novices reported both at the midpoint and end of the year how many hours per week their mentors worked with them. On average, novices reported spending 1–2h a week with their mentors in the fall and less than that in the spring. A mean of the winter and spring responses was computed to represent time spent with mentor over the induction year, and this variable is called individual time with mentor.

Additionally, novices reported on how many large group training sessions, novice meetings, and other professional development opportunities they participated in during the year under study. Totals were converted to z scores, and summed across all three variables to represent an exposure variable of mentor-facilitated induction professional development opportunities.

Perception of mentoring support

Items used to create the perception of support variable come from the Mentoring Experience Questionnaire. The scale asked novices to respond to statements like “I feel comfortable sharing my experiences and ideas with my mentor.” Responses were in a range from one to five, with one representing strongly disagrees and five representing strongly agree with the statement. The scale contained 10 items (winter/spring α = .96). Correlations for the scores between winter and spring were .88, indicating stability in measurement over the two time points and so a composite of the two scores was created, resulting in a sample mean of 4.26 (SD = .72).

Perception of self-reflection

Novices completed a scale in the spring of the teaching year addressing their sense of their own ability to reflect on their teaching. The scale contained five items such as “I spend time thinking about how my teaching is going and what I can do to become a better teacher.” Spring rating of self-reflection had an alpha of .92 and a mean of 4.37 (SD = .40).

Teacher’s self-efficacy scale

In the fall and spring of the study year, novices completed an 11-item version of the Bandura measure of teacher self-efficacy titled How Much Can You Do? (Bandura, n.d.). Responses can range from one to nine, with a one representing “nothing” and a nine “a great deal.” Sample items include “How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students?” This measure has been shown to positively correlate with teachers’ perceptions of support (Woolfolk-Hoy, 2000). The mean for self-efficacy in the fall was 6.59 (SD = 1.03) and for spring was 6.73 (SD = 1.02) with a correlation of .52 (α .92 and .91, respectively). From these scores, a change score was created for each teacher, and used as an outcome.

Effective student–teacher interactions

The CLASS is a well-known and used standardized classroom quality observation tool (CLASS; Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2004). In prior work, higher scores on these dimensions of teacher–child interactions predict growth in pre-k children’s achievement (Howes et al., 2008; Mashburn et al., 2007); first-graders’ achievement gains (Hamre & Pianta, 2005); and social adjustment in early childhood and elementary school (Downer & Pianta, 2006). Both classroom observation system and CLASS have shown classrooms as offering moderate emotional support and classroom organization with low instructional support across the grades (Mashburn et al., 2007; NICHD, 2002, 2004, 2005; Pianta et al., 2003).

The CLASS is comprised of nine scales designed to measure emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional supports for learning. Each scale is rated from one to seven with a rating of one or two indicating the classroom is low on that dimension, three, four, or five indicating that the classroom is in the mid-range, and a six or seven indicating the classroom is high on that dimension. The nine scales of CLASS factor into three domains: emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support. Alphas for domain composites range from .76 to .90. Mean, standard deviations, and range of scores for the three domains are reported in Table 2.

Table 2.

Self-Efficacy, Reflection, and Observed Quality Descriptive Data

Time period
Fall 2005
 Spring 2006
Outcomes N M SD Range N M SD Range
Self-efficacy 72 6.6 1.0 4.1–8.9 74 6.7 1.0  3.6–8.7
Self-reflection 74 4.37   .40  3.4–5
CLASS factors 74
Emotional support 5.3   .80  2.7–6.8
Classroom organization 5.4   .91 3–6.7
Instructional support 3.2 1.1 1–5.5
Open in a new tab

CLASS data collectors were six women and all former teachers. Prior to the data collection cycle, all were trained over two days with a standard protocol that involved watching, coding, and discussing teaching video segments. They then watched and coded five elementary and five secondary teaching segments without discussion for reliability. Data collectors were considered reliable when they completed a video-based reliability test in which 80% of their codes were within one scale point of the gold standard response. Then, in the spring of the academic year under study (10 April 2006 and 22 May 2006) observers rated studentk–teacher interactions on the nine CLASS dimensions roughly every 30 min for a minimum of three cycles and a maximum of four cycles per teacher.

Results

As previously described in the measures section, a series of preliminary analyses were run to describe the data and composite variables (reported in Tables 1 and 2). Choices regarding variables used in the final analyses are based on the induction literature and preliminary analyses conducted. Given the small sample size and the hypothesized unidirectionality of findings, final model results are reported at the p < .05 level for a one-tailed test.

What is the Association between Mentors’ Characteristics and Mentor-Related Experiences and Novice Teachers’ Perception of the Mentoring Support?

To answer this research question, a linear regression was conducted with mentor characteristics of full-time, experience in the same grade as novice and experience in the same content as the novice entered in the first block. Then, after controlling for these characteristics, mentor-related experience variables of individual time with mentor and mentor-facilitated professional development activities experienced were added to the model to examine their unique contributions to the novice teacher’ perception of the mentoring support. Table 3, column one presents the results of the model, with the standardized betas from the final model.

Table 3.

Predictors of Novice Perception of Relationship Support, Change in Self-Efficacy, Perception of Self-Reflection, and Student–Teacher Interactions

Outcomes
Novice perception of relationship support
 Change in self-efficacy
 Perception of self-reflection
 Spring instructional support in student–teacher interactions
Predictors   RΔ2   β   RΔ2   β   RΔ2   β   RΔ2   β
Mentor characteristics .078 .048 .005 .161*
Mentor full-time   .068   .032 −.086   .363*
Mentor taught same grade   .260* −.127 −.092 −.012
Mentor taught same content −.080   .013 −.012   .201+
Mentor experience .188*** .097* .088* .023
Individual time with mentor   .309*   .162   .214   .165
Mentor-facilitated professional development   .187   .285* −.046 −.157
Quality of experience .026 .053* .010
Novice perception of relationship support −.193   .269* −.117
Final R2 .266*** .171* .146* .194*
Open in a new tab

Note. Significant for a one-tailed test

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001.

In examining novices’ perception of mentoring support, the model explained a significant level of the variance (R2 = .266***), with both mentor characteristics and time with mentor relating positively. Specifically, novices who were mentored by someone who had taught the same grade reported higher levels of support. Additionally, novices reported higher levels of relational support when they spent more time with their mentors.

To What Extent Does Variation in Mentors’ Characteristics, Mentor-Related Experiences and Perception of the Mentoring Support Relate to Novice Teacher Reflection, Self-Efficacy, and Student–Teacher Interactions?

The second set of analyses addressed the extent to which variation in mentor characteristics, mentor-related experiences, and perception of the mentoring support were related to novice teacher reflection, change in self-efficacy, and observed quality of student–teacher interactions. A linear regression was conducted with mentor characteristics of full-time, experience in the same grade as novice and experience in the same content as the novice entered in the first block. Then, individual time with mentor and mentor-facilitated professional development activities was added to the model followed by novice perception of relationship support to examine their unique contributions to the outcomes of change in self-efficacy, perception of self-reflection, and quality of student–teacher interactions. Progression through the above steps was the same for each outcome. Table 3 presents the results of linear regression models with the standardized betas from the final model.

Change in self-efficacy

In examining change in self-efficacy, novices’ mentor-related experiences were significantly positively related to self-efficacy at the end of the year in the final model (R2 = .171*). Specifically, novice teachers who reported participating in more mentor-facilitated professional development activities outside their individual time with their mentor also reported higher positive changes in feelings of self-efficacy at the end of the academic year.

Reflection

In examining perception of self-reflection, both the mentor-related experiences and quality of the experience blocks contributed significantly to the final significant model (R2 = .146*), meaning that both mentor-related activities and quality of the mentoring support provided important information in understanding the variance in novice reflection. In the final model, novice perception of mentor relationship support uniquely related positively to self-reflection.

Observed quality of student–teacher interactions

The CLASS domains of emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support were predicted as separate outcomes in the model described above. Emotional support and classroom organization models were not significant. Mentor characteristics, however, contributed significantly to observed instructional support quality (final model R2 = .194*). Both the full-time status of the mentor and if the mentor taught in the same content positively related to end of the year which observed instructional student–teacher interactions.

Discussion

In our study, we closely examined variation in teachers’ perceived support and exposure to a mentor driven induction intervention, and the association of this variation on teachers’ behaviors. Participating novices and mentors viewed this intervention as an effective support for early career teachers, and attribute the high new teacher retention rate to supports received in it. Even within this effective program, though, differences in aspects of the mentors, the time they spent with novices and perceived quality of support were associated with differences in behaviors important to effective teaching. Findings underscore the importance of fully examining the processes within an intervention to understand the potential change mechanisms—in this case, aspects of and experiences with the mentor.

As suggested in previous induction literature, new teachers who spent more time with a mentor were potentially able to foster more effective collaborative relationships, allowing the “work” on improving practice to begin (Feiman-Nemser, 1996; Joftus & Maddox-Dolan, 2002). Caution needs to be used, however, in interpreting this finding. It is critical not to jump to the conclusion that merely increasing time spent in with a mentor during induction will directly translate to improved novice outcomes. How time spent with a mentor is measured in this and other studies (Fletcher et al., 2008; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004) is a rough measure and does not capture the “what” from within these interactions. Mentors in this program readily acknowledged that what happened during their time with novices varied considerably and, in fact, individualizing these interactions exists as a cornerstone to their program (Alvarado, 2006). Despite this, as in other work that has shown frequency of contact related to success of the mentoring relationship (Fletcher et al., 2008; Robinson, 1998), using this rough measure of intervention dosage is associated with enhanced induction value and needs to be considered in this light.

Of particular interest is the relationship between mentor characteristics and several outcomes of interest. Commonalities such as teaching in the same grade or content between mentors and novices positively related to both sense of support as well as observed instructional support. These findings replicate Smith and Ingersoll’s work (2004) in the large-scale studies, and speak to the potential benefit of having mentors who have some shared experiences as the novice as a pathway to building a collaborative relationship, that can lead to the “work” being done.

Additionally, full-time vs. part-time mentor status also related to novices observed instructional practice, with novices mentored by full-time staff being observed as providing more effective instructional interactions with students. This could be due to full-time mentors’ being able to keep focused on the novice as this is their main responsibility, and continue to encourage improved practice. Perhaps, though, full-time vs. part-time mentor status is an indicator of a bigger program issue around training and support to mentors and the deepening of their role expertise (Gibson, 2005), and should be examined further.

In examining mentoring time and perception of quality together, both elements provided unique contributions to novice’ enhanced self-efficacy and reflection. For example, novices who reported feeling more supported in their relationship with their mentor reported higher levels of reflection at the end of the year. In terms of self-efficacy, novices who reported engaging in additional professional development outside their mentor relationship also reported greater increases in self-efficacy over the year. Although the directionality is unable to be determined, what is clear is self-efficacy and reflection is sensitive to differences in mentoring. As self-efficacy and reflection are consistently discussed as mechanisms through which effective teaching flows, this finding suggests a need to pay more attention to the inputs as they relate to these skills.

Systematic induction with a mentor offers professional development in a way that connects the relevance of lessons to the actual classroom as well as addresses the personal and professional challenges of the teacher. In contrast to teacher reports of largely ineffective and irrelevant training venues (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001), novices and mentors overwhelmingly liked mentor-supported induction and felt it was good for career development. Satisfaction with training, however, is not enough to ensure money spent on professional development will translate into improved teaching that ultimately positively impacts children. The findings here suggest that investing in a mentoring based induction program not only results in less teacher turnover, but also in the skills and abilities necessary to positively influence students’ development and learning in the classroom.

Limitations and Future Directions

One clear study limitation is the specification of the intervention, what it was designed to do, and measurement of the “what” that happens within the mentoring relationship. The program has overall goals, well-trained and enthusiastic mentors and strong school-level support. Issues arise in studying a program’s effectiveness, however, when no standard protocol of how the program is best implemented to meet those goals is available. This may account for some of the differences in novice outcomes based on full-time vs. part-time mentor status, in that part-time mentors have even less connection with the goals of the program, and may be likely to do their own thing with novices. Individualized support is vital, but it still needs to fit within an overall framework of both quality teaching and what the pathway is to creating it (Shulman, 1987). Having an explicit statement of what induction is designed to support and how, aligned with measurement that captures it, is critical for future work to evaluate if what the program intended to do has had an impact. Current study measures provide limited precision in the “what” that occurs between novice mentors. Because the induction program emphasizes individualization over a standard and systematic approach to supporting new teachers, what happens in the individual interactions is not clear. Novices were getting support, but measures that capture what the topic focus is and how that information is transferred needs more refinement to guide future work.

Two other important study limitations are lack of a comparison group and the small sample size. Looking inside an intervention provides important information about variance but falls short in showing how this type of support was different than no support. In addition, the small sample led to positive but small significant relationships between mentor support and some novice outcomes. Despite these issues, intensity did show a relationship with behaviors believed to matter for teachers and, thus, is worth exploring further.

In addition, the under-examined school culture context exists as a study limitation. A recent study of the Chicago Public Schools induction program found that two school-level factors emerged as vital to determining novices’ sense of teaching and plans to return: welcoming faculty and strength of school leadership (Kapadia, Coca, & Easton, 2007). They concluded that, “contextual factors of teacher background and preparation, classroom demands, and school-level features work in concert to influence novices’ teaching experience, and by extension, their likelihood to continue in the profession and remain in the same school.” Supports novices receive through induction programs may not be intense enough to counter classroom demands or school factors that inhibit professional satisfaction and intentions to continue in the profession. On the other hand, novices might be receiving school-based mentoring and supports that they find more influential than what they receive through their induction program. Along these lines, more personal measures from the novices about things like beliefs about children or their personality that could contribute to their ability to successfully integrate lessons from the mentoring support would be helpful (Shulman, 1987). Future work needs to more systematically explore this level of strengths and stressors as it relates to novice teachers.

Conclusions

In this study, we addressed some of the mentor-based induction literature criticisms by using more rigor in design and increasing program outcomes explored. In addition, this study attempted to drill down into the mechanisms through which induction may influence attrition through teacher development. In addition to influencing teacher retention, new teachers in general like mentor-based induction and feel supported by this professional development approach. In addition, both exposure to and quality of the experience influenced key areas in teacher development in ways not previously captured. In considering new teacher development and evolution, this study shows promising effects in areas believed to contribute to long-term quality teachers that stay in the field.

In examining the study limitations, what becomes evident is the strengthening of both intervention and program design that could come from more closely aligned and collaborative relationships between researchers and schools. Within an induction program, experiences need to be placed within a well-articulated guiding framework of what constitutes quality teaching and the mechanisms through which that develops. This framework needs to provide a continuous looping of information gained in assessment (observation of teaching practice, self-efficacy, and reflection) to inform intervention (mentoring support and other professional development). All of this needs to be systematically evaluated to track growth in key areas known to contribute to child and teacher outcomes. Collaboration at all levels—with students, school systems, faculty, other Universities—needs to be emphasized throughout to continue to make systematic improvements to improve teacher, and child outcomes.

This approach cannot be limited to induction alone. For the teaching field to progress systematically, mechanisms of training teachers must not only be developed but also rigorously tested in pre-service training, induction, and ongoing professional development (Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000; Borko, 2004; Clifford & Maxwell, 2002; Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Pianta, 2006). With continued enhancement of program design paired with rigorous research, more informed decisions can then be made about where to focus precious financial and people resources to positively impact not only the teachers who are participating but the students that they teach.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the generous programs and teachers who participated in this study. This work was supported by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, and the Annenberg Foundation. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author.

Biographies

Notes on contributors

Jennifer LoCasale-Crouch is a research assistant professor at the University of Virginia’s Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning (CASTL). Her research focuses on ways to understand and support effective teacher–student interactions to enhance children’s development and learning.

Emily Davis, PhD is a clinical researcher and director of the Partner School Induction Program in the Center to Support Excellence in Teaching, School of Education, Stanford University. Her research and work focus on content-specific mentoring and the elements of high-quality mentoring interactions.

Peter Wiens is a doctoral student in curriculum and instruction at the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education. His research interests focus on understanding and improving teacher education.

Robert C. Pianta is dean of the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia. He also holds positions as the Novartis professor of education and the director of the Curry School’s Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning (CASTL), professor of psychology at the U.Va. College of Arts & Sciences, and director at the National Center for Research in Early Childhood Education. His research and policy interests focus on teacher–student interactions and relationships, and conceptualization, measurement and improvement of their contributions to students’ learning and development.

Contributor Information

Jennifer LoCasale-Crouch, The University of Virginia.

Emily Davis, Stanford University.

Peter Wiens, The University of Virginia.

Robert Pianta, The University of Virginia.

References

  1. Alvarado A (2006). New directions in teacher education: Emerging strategies from the teachers for a new era initiative. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. [Google Scholar]
  2. American Federation of Teachers. (2001). Beginning teacher induction: The essential bridge. Washington, DC: Author. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arends RI, & Rigazio-DiGilio AJ (2000). Beginning teacher induction: Research and examples of contemporary practice. [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker DP, & Smith T (1997). Teacher turnover and teacher quality: Refocusing the issue: Trend 2. Teachers College Record, 99(1), 29–35. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bandura A (n.d.).Measure of teacher self-efficacy. Unpublished measure. [Google Scholar]
  6. Benner AD (2000). The cost of teacher turnover. Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research. [Google Scholar]
  7. Birman BF, Desimone L, Porter AC, & Garet MS (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  8. Borko H (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. [Google Scholar]
  9. Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2001). Teachers for a new era: A national initiative to improve the quality of teaching. Washington, DC: Author. [Google Scholar]
  10. Carroll C, Patterson M, Wood S, Booth A, Rick J, & Balain S (2007). A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science, 40, 1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cochran-Smith M, & Zeichner KM (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  12. Clifford RM, & Maxwell K (2002, April). The need for highly qualified prekindergarten teachers. Preparing Highly Qualified Prekindergarten Teachers Symposium. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina. [Google Scholar]
  13. Darling-Hammond L (2001). The challenge of staffing our schools. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 12–17. [Google Scholar]
  14. Downer JT, & Pianta RC (2006). Academic and cognitive functioning in first grade: Associations with earlier home and child care predictors and with concurrent home and classroom experiences. School Psychology Review, 35(1), 11–30. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dusenbury L, Brannigan R, Falco M, & Hansen WB (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research, 18, 237–256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Feiman-Nemser S (1996). Teacher mentoring: A critical review. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. [Google Scholar]
  17. Feiman-Nemser S (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain practice. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055. [Google Scholar]
  18. Feiman-Nemser S, Schwille S, Carver C, & Yusko B (1999). A conceptual review of literature on new teacher education. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. [Google Scholar]
  19. Fletcher S, Strong M, & Villar A (2008). An investigation of the effects of variations in mentor-based induction on the performance of students in California. Teachers College Record, 110(10), 2271–2289. [Google Scholar]
  20. Garet MS, Porter AC, Desimone L, Birman BF, & Yoon KS (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gibson S (2005). Developing knowledge of coaching. Issues in Teacher Education, 14(2), 63–74. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gold Y (1996). Beginning teacher support: Attrition, mentoring, and induction. In Sikula J, Buttery TJ, & Guyton E (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 548–594). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  23. Goodwin B (1999). Improving teaching quality: Issues and policies. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved from www.mcrel.org/products/school-improve/qualitybrief.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  24. Greenberg MT, Domitrovich CE, Graczyk PA, & Zins JE (2005). The study of implementation in school-based preventive interventions: Theory, research, and practice. Promotion of Mental Health and Prevention of Mental and Behavioral Disorders, 3. [Google Scholar]
  25. Grissmer DW, & Kirby SN (1992). Patterns of attrition among Indiana teachers, 1965–1987. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. [Google Scholar]
  26. Grossman P, Thompson C, & Valencia S (2001). District policy and beginning teachers: Where the twain shall meet (No. cTp-DOC-R-01–4). Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement. [Google Scholar]
  27. Guo Y, Piasta S, Justice L, & Kaderavek J (2010). Relations among preschool teachers’ self-efficacy, classroom quality, and children’s language and literacy gains. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1094–1103. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hafner A, & Owings J (1991). Careers in teaching: Following members of the high school class of 1972 in and out of teaching. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hamre BK, & Pianta RC (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76(5), 949–967. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hanson S, & Moir E (2008). Beyond mentoring: Influencing the professional practice and careers of experienced teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(6), 453–458. [Google Scholar]
  31. Howes C, Burchinal M, Pianta R, Bryant D, Early D, Clifford RM, & Barbarin O (2008). Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(1), 27–50. [Google Scholar]
  32. Huling-Austin L (1990). Teacher induction programs and internships. In Houston WR (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 535–548). New York, NY: Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ingersoll RM (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ingersoll RM (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ingersoll R, & Smith T (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30–33. [Google Scholar]
  36. Joftus S, & Maddox-Dolan B (2002). New-teacher excellence: Retaining our best. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kapadia K, Coca V, & Easton J (2007). Keeping new teachers: A first look at the influences of induction in the Chicago public schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lankford H, Loeb S, & Wyckoff J (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37–62. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lopez A, Lash A, Schaffner M, Shields P, & Wagner M (2004). Review of research on the impact of beginning teacher induction on teacher quality and retention. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. [Google Scholar]
  40. Mashburn AJ, Pianta RC, Hamre BK, Downer JT, Barbarin O, Bryant D et al. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development, 79 (3), 732–749. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Moir E (2001). Quality induction: An investment in teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(1), 109–114. [Google Scholar]
  42. Moir E (2004). Induction: Rethinking how we launch the next generation of teachers. Teachers for a New Era Quarterly Newsletter, 1(3), 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  43. Moncher FJ, & Prinz RJ (1991). Treatment fidelity in outcome studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 11, 247–266. [Google Scholar]
  44. Murmane RJ, Singer JD, & Willett JB (1989). The influence of salaries and “opportunity costs” on teachers’ career choices: Evidence from North Carolina. Harvard Educational Review, 59, 345–346. [Google Scholar]
  45. National Academy of Education. (2008). Improving teacher quality and distribution: White papers project: Education policy briefing sheet. Washington, DC: Author. [Google Scholar]
  46. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. Woodbridge, VA: Author. [Google Scholar]
  47. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Early Child Care Research Network. (2002). The relation of global first-grade classroom environment to structural classroom features and teacher and student behaviors. The Elementary School Journal, 102(5), 367–387. [Google Scholar]
  48. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Early Child Care Research Network. (2004). Social functioning in first grade: Associations with earlier home and child care predictors and with current classroom experiences. Child Development, 74(6), 1639–1662. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). A day in third grade: A large-scale study of classroom quality and teacher and student behavior. The Elementary School Journal, 105, 305–323. [Google Scholar]
  50. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 [NCLB], PL 107–110, 20 U.S.C. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/nclb
  51. Novice Teacher Network (2008). Program report.
  52. Odell SJ, & Ferraro DP (1992). Teacher mentoring and teacher retention. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 200–204. [Google Scholar]
  53. Odell SJ, & Huling L (2000). Quality mentoring for novice teachers. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi. [Google Scholar]
  54. O’Donnell CL (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33–84. [Google Scholar]
  55. Pianta RC (2006). Standardized observations and professional development: A focus on individualized implementation and practices. In Zaslow M & Martinez-Beck I (Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood professional development (pp. 231–254). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. [Google Scholar]
  56. Pianta R, Kinzie M, Justice L, Pullen P, Fan X, & Lloyd J (2003). Web training: Pre-K teachers, literacy, and relationships. Effectiveness of Early Childhood Program, Curricula, and Interventions. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. [Google Scholar]
  57. Pianta RC, La Paro KM, & Hamre BK (2004). Classroom assessment scoring system (CLASS). Unpublished measure, University of Virginia. [Google Scholar]
  58. Plecki ML, Elfers AM, Loeb H, Zahir A, & Knapp MS (2005). Teacher retention and mobility: A look inside and across districts and schools in Washington State. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. [Google Scholar]
  59. Public Education Network. (2003). The voice of the new teacher. Washington, DC: Public Education Network. [Google Scholar]
  60. Roberts A (2000). Mentoring revisited: A phenomenological review of the literature. Mentoring & Tutoring, 8(2), 145–170. [Google Scholar]
  61. Robinson GW (1998). New teacher induction: A study of selected new teacher induction models and common practices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago. [Google Scholar]
  62. Rockoff JE (2008). Does mentoring reduce turnover and improve skills of new employees? Evidence from teachers in New York City. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved 2009, April 27 from http://www.nber.org/papers/w13868. [Google Scholar]
  63. Rohrbach LA, Grana R, Sussman S, & Valente TW (2006). Type II translation: Transporting prevention interventions from research to real-world settings. Evaluation and Health Professions, 29, 302–333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Sanders W, & Rivers J (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center. [Google Scholar]
  65. Schaffer EC, Stringfield S, & Wolffe DM (1992). An innovative beginning teacher induction program: A two year analysis of classroom interactions. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 181–192. [Google Scholar]
  66. Schön D (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  67. Schön D (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  68. Serpell Z (2000). Beginning teacher induction: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. [Google Scholar]
  69. Shen J (1997). Has the alternative certification policy materialized its promise? A comparison between traditionally and alternatively certified teachers in public schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 276–283. [Google Scholar]
  70. Shulman L (1987). Knowledge and teaching foundations of a new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57(1), 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  71. Singer JD (1993). Are special educators’ career paths special?: Results from a 13-year longitudinal study Exceptional Children, 59, 262–279. [Google Scholar]
  72. Smith T (2007). How do state-level induction and standards-based reform policies affect induction experiences and turnover among new teachers. American Journal of Education, 113, 273–311. [Google Scholar]
  73. Smith TM, & Ingersoll RM (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681–714. [Google Scholar]
  74. Strong M, & St. John L (2001). A study of teacher retention: The effects of mentoring for beginning teachers (3). Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center @ UC Santa Cruz. [Google Scholar]
  75. Taggart VS, Bush PJ., Zuckerman AE, & Theiss PK (1990). A process evaluation of the District of Columbia “Know Your Body” project. Journal of School Health, 60(2), 60–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Tetzlaff JA, & Wegstaff I (1999). Mentoring new teachers. Teaching and Change, 6(3), 284–294. [Google Scholar]
  77. Tschannen-Moran M, Woolfolk Hoy A, & Hoy WK (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248. [Google Scholar]
  78. Villar A (2004). Measuring the benefits and costs of mentor-based instruction: A value added assessment of new teacher effectiveness link to student achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center. [Google Scholar]
  79. Weiss EM, & Weiss SG (1999). Beginning teacher induction. Washington, DC: ERIC digest. [Google Scholar]
  80. Woolfolk AE, & Hoy WK (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81–91. [Google Scholar]
  81. Woolfolk-Hoy AE (2000). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES