Teacher induction plays a crucial role for the transition into the reality of classroom practice, since the demanding teaching assignments not only induce significant stress but also can hinder the development of essential teaching skills (Huling-Austin, 1992). In Germany, this phase is highly regulated. It contains mandatory mentoring, but it has been criticized, and the dropout rate is alarmingly high: Approximately 30% of teacher trainees do not complete their practical training period (Gülen, Müller, & Schmid-Kühn, 2023). In this contribution, I will therefore

1. sketch the German context of teacher training in comparison to other national contexts, with a focus on one of its biggest federal states, Bavaria, since teacher training and school administration are entirely administered at the federal-state level
2. provide an overview of how mentoring is established in Bavarian induction and discuss it in light of what is known about effective mentoring of young professionals
3. present empirical results from my recent survey of teacher trainees on 1. their mentoring relationships, 2. additional social support during induction, and 3. their thoughts about dropping out already at the induction stage.

Teacher training in Germany and Bavaria

The German model emphasizes a comprehensive education during its university-based first phase and a strongly practice-oriented second phase, where trainee teachers receive theoretical lessons while they are teaching actively and independently. This contrasts with the single-phase systems found in East Asia, including Bulgaria, Mexico, South Korea, and Taiwan. A similar structure exists in Italy and England, while in the United States, the system, although also two-phased, includes only a brief internship during the second phase (Blömeke, 2006).

The preparatory service in Bavaria lasts for two years, making it one of the longest practical training periods in Germany. This allows for an intensive school-based training experience. However, compared to countries with single-phase education systems (e.g., the United States, South Korea), the prolonged transition into the profession may reduce the attractiveness of the career path and increase the likelihood of attrition during the training period.

Mentoring during the practical phase

During the practical phase, the trainee teachers receive support from assigned mentors who play a crucial role in their professional development (Ellis, Alonzo, & Nguyen, 2020). These mentors provide emotional, informational, and instrumental support, and according to a study by Richter, Kunter, Lüdtke, Klusmann, and Baumert (2011), their support has been significantly correlated with lower levels of burnout. Berliner (2004) further emphasizes that mentoring and coaching can reduce teacher attrition within the first three years by 50%.

However, the current mentoring structure does not fully align with what is known about effective mentoring relationships. Mentors are externally assigned and hold a dual role, both supporters and evaluators of trainee teachers. This structural arrangement can hinder the development of trust and openness, which are crucial for effective mentoring. According to the theory of ecologies of practices (Heikkinen, 2020), mentoring should ideally function as part of a dynamic, interconnected support system. Yet, the question of whether mentoring can function as a "living system" within hierarchical, policy-driven environments arises.

The quality of the mentoring relationship appears to be a crucial factor: Trainee teachers experiencing high levels of stress and negative work experiences perceive their mentoring relationships as less transparent, fair, trustworthy, and more ambivalent compared to those with lower stress levels and positive work experiences (Maué, Goller, Bonnes, & Kärner, 2024). Furthermore, high-quality mentoring correlates with lower emotional exhaustion and higher job satisfaction (Richter et al., 2013). Also, the quality of mentoring varies depending on the mentors' training and professional development, personal experiences, and characteristics, as well as their level of commitment (Schubarth & Wachs, 2020).

The data collection is being conducted as part of the ninth and tenth Bavarian Graduate Study (BAS) from 2023 to March 2025 (Falk & Reimer, 2018). The targets are graduates of teacher training programs at four universities in Bavaria one year after graduation when most of them are in their teacher training phase. Follow-up surveys examine longitudinal developments one year after the two initial data collections. The online questionnaire evaluates study and internship experiences, trainee entry processes, and support mechanisms related to dropout considerations, as well as educational and demographic backgrounds. Data collection is ongoing, and response rates have not yet been reported but have been approximately 25% historically. A total of 236 participants consented to be re-contacted during the ninth BAS, with 230 invited via email and 6 through postal invitations. Response rates are still unavailable due to the ongoing nature of the survey. The quality of the mentor-trainee relationship is assessed using 16 items adapted from Kärner, Bonnes, Maué, Goller, and Schmidt (2021), which measure key dimensions such as transparency, fairness, trust, and ambivalence. The original items, designed for seminar instructors, were modified for mentors to ensure contextual appropriateness. Social support is assessed through 20 items adapted from the COACTIV-R study, focusing on emotional, informational, and instrumental support, communication partner and observational learning. These items were designed by Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung (2010) and adjusted to address the support of mentors and other people of the support network in the context of thoughts on dropping out. While previous studies have established the validity of the original instruments, the modifications made for this study have not yet undergone empirical testing for validity and reliability. Data analysis is conducted using Stata, with an initial focus on descriptive statistics such as means, frequencies, and cross-tabulations to provide a comprehensive overview of key variables. Multivariate analyses, including logistic and linear regression, are planned to investigate factors influencing thoughts of discontinuation and the role of mentoring relationships. A longitudinal analysis will assess changes over time, focusing on thoughts of discontinuation and social support structures.

Thoughts about discontinuation are prevalent: Of the approximately 550 already surveyed German teacher trainees, 15 have dropped out, and about half have thought about leaving the program. Approximately 84% of trainees report meeting with their assigned mentor about once a week. There is a significant correlation between the quality of the mentoring relationship and the perception of support when trainee teachers have thoughts of discontinuation. Trainees who report a more transparent, fair, trustworthy and less ambivalent mentoring relationship perceive significantly higher levels of emotional, informational, and instrumental support. Furthermore, a positive mentoring relationship correlates with fewer thoughts of discontinuation. However, the data also reveal that mentors are not the primary points of contact for trainees experiencing thoughts of discontinuation. Only 26% of respondents consult their mentors, while official resources such as seminar leaders (16%), other teachers (17%), and counseling services (3%) are used even less frequently. Most respondents rely on peer trainees (63%), friends (53%), and family members (39%). This indicates that mentors might not always be viewed as accessible or helpful, possibly due to their dual roles as mentors and evaluators, along with constraints like time limitations, insufficient training, or a lack of personal compatibility stemming from being assigned externally. However, mentors approached about thoughts of discontinuation offer valuable support in various forms—including emotional, instrumental, informational, learning from the model, and as communication partners—compared to other supportive individuals. It is important to note that these findings are based on preliminary data. After the data collection is completed in March 2025, further analyses, including a deeper investigation of the relationship between mentor characteristics, meeting frequency, and the effectiveness of mentoring, will be conducted. Also, a focus will be on the specific impact of mentoring on the frequency and intensity of thoughts about discontinuation.

Berliner, D. C. (2004). Describing the behavior and documenting the accomplishments of expert teachers. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24(3), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467604265535 Blömeke, S. (2006). Struktur der Lehrerausbildung im internationalen Vergleich. Ergebnisse einer Untersuchung zu acht Ländern. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 52(3). Ellis, N. J., Alonzo, D., & Nguyen, H. T. M. (2020). Elements of a quality pre-service teacher mentor: A literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 92(5), 103072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103072 Falk, S., & Reimer, M. (2018). Die „Bayerischen Absolventenstudien“ (BAS): Ein Instrument zur Qualitätssicherung in Studium und Lehre. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 40(3), 96–107. Gülen, Ș., Müller, K., & Schmid-Kühn, S. M. (2023). Lehramtsstudium – Vorbereitungsdienst – Lehrkräfteberuf, oder? Empirische Analysen aus dem Nationalen Bildungspanel (NEPS). ZeHf – Zeitschrift für empirische Hochschulforschung, 6(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.3224/zehf.v6i2.05 Heikkinen, H. (2020). Understanding mentoring within an ecosystem of practices. In K.-R. Olsen, E. Bjerkholt, & H. Heikinnen (Eds.), New teachers in nordic countries: Ecologies of mentoring and induction (pp. 27–47). Cappelen Damm Akademisk. https://doi.org/10.23865/noasp.105.ch1 Huling-Austin, L. (1992). Research on learning to teach: Implications for teacher induction and mentoring programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 173–180. Kärner, T., Bonnes, C., Maué, E., Goller, M., & Schmidt, V. (2021). Transparenz, Fairness, Vertrauen und Ambivalenz im Vorbereitungsdienst: Entwicklung eines Instruments zur Charakterisierung der professionellen pädagogischen Beziehung zwischen angehenden Lehrpersonen und deren Ausbildungslehrkräften. In E. Wittmann, D. Frommberger, & U. Weyland (Eds.), Jahrbuch der berufs- und wirtschaftspädagogischen Forschung 2021 (pp. 85–104). Verlag Barbara Budrich. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:23409 Maué, E., Goller, M., Bonnes, C., & Kärner, T. (2024). Between trust and ambivalence: How does trainee teachers’ perception of the relationship with their mentors explain how trainee teachers experience their work? Vocations and Learning, 17(2), 219–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-023-09340-z Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung (2010). COACTIV-R: Eine Studie zum Erwerb professioneller Kompetenz von Lehramtsanwärtern während des Vorbereitungsdienstes: Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente für den ersten und zweiten Messzeitpunkt. Unveröffentlichtes Dokument, Berlin. Richter, D., Kunter, M., Lüdtke, O., Klusmann, U., Anders, Y., & Baumert, J. (2013). How different mentoring approaches affect beginning teachers' development in the first years of practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36(2), 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.012 Richter, D., Kunter, M., Lüdtke, O., Klusmann, U., & Baumert, J. (2011). Soziale Unterstützung beim Berufseinstieg ins Lehramt. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 14(1), 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-011-0173-8 Schubarth, W., & Wachs, S. (2020). Praxis im Vorbereitungsdienst. In C. Cramer, J. König, M. Rothland, & S. Blömeke (Eds.), Handbuch Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung (pp. 636–643). UTB; Klinkhardt, Julius.