This study explores the impact of different mentoring structures on student-teachers’ (STs) experiences, self-efficacy, and intentions to remain in the education system. We compare two distinct fieldwork models: traditional mentoring and a new intensive co-teaching mentoring model mandated by recent policy changes.

Mentoring is widely recognised as a foundational element in teacher preparation, essential for guiding STs from theoretical learning to practical application in real classrooms. Studies have underscored the significance of mentoring in supporting STs’ learning and development process. However, while there is consensus regarding the positive impact of teacher preparation policies that assign mentors to STs (Darling-Hammond, 2017), little is known about how such policies influence the characteristics of mentoring support provided to mentees.

Our theoretical framework is grounded in several key concepts. First, we consider the role of policy-mandated mentoring in teacher preparation. Research suggests that formal mentoring programs can decrease teacher attrition and positively influence mentees’ self-efficacy (Fives et al., 2007; Klassen & Durksen, 2014). Studies show that new teachers who participated in mentoring programs reported higher satisfaction and were more likely to stay in the profession compared to those who did not receive formal mentorship (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Wang & Odell, 2002).

We also examine how policies shape the structures of mentoring, including mentors’ formal responsibilities and the intensity of mentoring relationships. Matsko et al. (2021) found that mentors’ affiliation with different teacher preparation programmes significantly influenced the type of support they provided to student teachers, suggesting that carefully designing the features of formalised mentoring is crucial. Following previous studies, which found that increased mentoring intensity positively influenced educational outcomes (Lambert et al., 2015), we examine the influence of mentoring intensity in our context. Moreover, our study explores co-teaching as a structural mechanism. We examine whether co-teaching encourages mentors to take greater responsibility for fostering mentees’ learning as it attempts to provide more collaboration opportunities for mentors and STs (Guise et al., 2017). This aligns with Feiman-Nemser's (2001) assertion that successful mentor-teachers must go beyond simply allowing mentees to join their classrooms and develop a disposition of responsibility for mentees’ learning.

Our theoretical framework also considers STs’ mentoring experience. We use a taxonomy that describes promising mentoring goals and practices, which we developed in a previous comprehensive qualitative study (Authors, 2023). Based on it, we examine how STs experience the mentoring support they receive and compare the goals and practices of mentors in traditional and intensive co-teaching mentoring.

Our research questions are designed to provide a comprehensive understanding of how different mentoring structures influence STs’ experiences, self-efficacy, and career intentions:
1. What are the differences in STs’ perceptions of mentoring experience (goals and practices) between the traditional and intensive co-teaching mentoring structures?
2. What are the differences in STs’ self-efficacy between the traditional and intensive co-teaching mentoring structures, and to what extent do STs’ perceptions of mentoring experience predict their self-efficacy?
3. What are the differences in STs’ intention to stay in the education system between the traditional and intensive co-teaching mentoring structures, and to what extent do STs’ perceptions of mentoring experience and self-efficacy predict this intention?

This study contributes valuable insights to inform policy decisions regarding mentoring models in teacher preparation programs. By focusing specifically on the mentoring aspect of teacher preparation policies, we address a gap in the literature and provide a nuanced understanding of how different mentoring structures shape daily mentoring experiences. Our findings have the potential to guide policymakers in making informed decisions when choosing mentoring models, ultimately improving the quality of teacher preparation and, by extension, the education system as a whole.

This quantitative study compared traditional and intensive co-teaching mentoring structures. We collected data from 13 teacher-training colleges and four universities in Israel. The final sample comprised 1341 students (92% women, average age 25.92 years, SD=6.02), with 941 participating in Academia-Classroom and 400 in the traditional path. The sample included 661 Jewish participants (48%) and 680 Arab participants (52%). A weighting adjustment was applied to reflect the Israeli population distribution of 23% Arab and 77% Jewish. An anonymous questionnaire was developed based on a taxonomy of high-quality mentoring practices and goals (Authors, 2023) and a validated tool measuring STs’ self-efficacy (Authors, 2024). The questionnaire underwent expert evaluation, pilot testing, and revisions before reaching its final form. It consisted of three main sections: (1) 40 statements assessing STs’ perceptions of their school mentors during practical training, (2) 16 statements evaluating STs' self-efficacy, and (3) background information about the participants. Responses for the first two sections were recorded using a 5-point Likert scale. The study utilised two dependent variables: (1) self-efficacy (16 items, α=.94) and (2) intention to stay in the profession (dummy variable). Six independent variables were derived using factor analysis (Kim & Mueller, 1978) and included four mentoring goals (a-d) and two mentoring practices (e-f): - Knowledge (8 items, α=.93) – contributions to student-teachers’ pedagogical and pedagogical-content knowledge. - Emotional support (4 items, α=.88) – mitigation of tensions and contributions to student-teachers’ wellbeing. - Ecological support (6 items, α=.92) – helping student-teachers’ integration into the school organisation and community. - Personal dimension (6 items, α=.94) – contributions to developing unique professional personae. - Pedagogical guidance (12 items, α=.94) – practices used to help student-teachers develop their pedagogical and pedagogical-content knowledge. - Reciprocity (4 items, α=.83) – dispositions and actions that support reciprocal relations and mutual growth. Three additional independent variables were: - Practical experience – the amount of teaching experience during practical training. - Preparation path – pre-graduate teacher preparation in a college (1) or post-graduate teacher preparation in a college or university (0). - School level training – studying in either a preschool, primary, secondary or multiple-age programme. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 29 and included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, and independent t-tests. Linear regression was employed to estimate the relationship between STs’ perceptions of mentoring experiences and their self-efficacy. Binary regression was used to estimate the effect of STs’ perceptions of mentoring experiences and self-efficacy on their intention to stay in the education system.

Addressing the first research question, STs in the intensive co-teaching mentoring model reported significantly higher levels of reciprocity in and practical experience. Conversely, STs in the traditional mentoring structure described significantly higher levels of emotional support and pedagogical guidance and greater attention to the personal dimension. The second research question addresses the relationships between STs’ perceptions of their mentoring experiences and their self-efficacy. No significant differences were found in STs’ self-efficacy, with respondents in both groups reporting similarly high levels. The multivariant analysis revealed that pedagogical guidance and practical experience positively contributed to self-efficacy in both groups. However, differences between the two structures emerged: the knowledge component was a significant positive predictor only in the traditional co-teaching mentoring structure, while the personal dimension was significant only in the intensive co-teaching mentoring structure. The third research question inspects STs’ intention to stay in the education system for at least 5 years after completing their teacher training. Again, there were no significant differences between the traditional and intensive co-teaching mentoring groups. The results also showed that in both groups, intention to stay was correlated with more positive mentoring experiences and a higher level of self-efficacy. Moreover, we found that STs who intend to stay in the education system for at least five years report higher levels of self-efficacy compared to those who intend to leave, even when controlling for mentoring experiences. Teaching practical experience also emerged as an important factor influencing the intention to remain in the education system. Increased practical experience was associated with a greater likelihood of continuing to work as a teacher. These findings extend our understanding of the relationship between policy-mandated mentoring structures and STs’ daily experiences. They show how policies can influence mentoring relationships and impact their outcomes, including STs’ self-efficacy and retention.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291–309. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). Helping novices learn to teach: Lessons from an exemplary support teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 17–30. Fives, H., Hamman, D., & Olivarez, A. (2007). Does burnout begin with student-teaching? Analyzing efficacy, burnout, and support during the student-teaching semester. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 916–934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.03.013 Guise, M., Habib, M., Thiessen, K., & Robbins, A. (2017). Continuum of co-teaching implementation: Moving from traditional student teaching to co-teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 370–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.002 Kim, J., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues: Vol. no. 07-014;no. 07-014.; SAGE. https://go.exlibris.link/V1Cs3JkF Klassen, R. M., & Durksen, T. L. (2014). Weekly self-efficacy and work stress during the teaching practicum: A mixed methods study. Learning and Instruction, 33, 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.05.003 Lambert, R., Gallagher, P. A., & Abbott-Shim, M. (2015). An evaluation of the intensity of mentoring: Child outcomes. Early Child Development and Care, 185(8), 1314–1330. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2014.992426 Matsko, K. K., Ronfeldt, M., & Nolan, H. G. (2021). How different are they? Comparing preparation offered by traditional, alternative, and residency pathways. Journal of Teacher Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1177/00224871211015976 Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681–714. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041003681 Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2002). Mentored Learning to Teach According to Standards-Based Reform: A Critical Review. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 481–546. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003481