Teacher shortages represent a growing challenge for education systems worldwide, raising concerns about the sustainability and quality of teaching (UNESCO, 2024). In Europe and internationally, Initial Teacher Education (ITE) has been identified as a key mechanism for strengthening teacher preparedness, resilience, and long-term retention in the profession. Within ITE, practicum experiences play a central role by providing preservice teachers with authentic opportunities to engage in classroom practice. However, these experiences also expose them to institutional complexities and professional demands that often generate the well-documented “reality shock” (Veenman, 1984). In this context, Teacher Self-Efficacy (TSE) emerges as a critical psychological resource supporting motivation, professional learning, and persistence.

Extensive international research demonstrates that TSE is a strong predictor of instructional quality, commitment to teaching, and career continuity (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001; Klassen & Chiu, 2011). Importantly, TSE is particularly malleable during ITE, making practicum a crucial period for its development (Klassen & Durksen, 2014). However, empirical findings across countries remain mixed: some studies report increases in TSE following practicum, others show stability, and some document declines. These inconsistencies suggest that practicum alone does not guarantee positive self-efficacy development and that contextual and relational factors -particularly mentorship- play a decisive role.

Mentorship is widely recognised in European and international teacher education literature as a key support mechanism during practicum (Orland-Barak, 2005, 2014). In many ITE systems, preservice teachers are guided by a mentoring triad composed of the preservice teacher, a Cooperating Teacher (CT), and a University Supervisor (US). While both mentors contribute to professional learning, research has tended to focus more heavily on CTs, with comparatively less attention paid to the role of USs and to how both mentors jointly influence TSE. Moreover, most empirical evidence originates from Europe, North America, and Australia, leaving Latin American contexts underrepresented in the international literature.

Addressing this gap, the present study investigates the following research question: How do the mentorship practices of Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors relate to preservice teachers’ self-efficacy after the final practicum, considering sociodemographic characteristics and key sources of self-efficacy? By focusing on Chilean preservice teachers, this study contributes a Global South perspective to an internationally relevant discussion on mentorship quality and teacher retention, offering comparative insights that complement and extend European research on ITE.

The theoretical framework of the study is grounded in Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986), which conceptualises self-efficacy as beliefs formed through the dynamic interaction of personal, behavioural, and environmental factors. Within this framework, self-efficacy develops through four primary sources: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states. In ITE contexts, mastery experiences are often limited due to preservice teachers’ novice status, increasing the importance of vicarious experiences and verbal persuasion, both of which are closely linked to mentorship practices.

This study adopts the definition of TSE proposed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001), which conceptualises it as teachers’ judgments of their capability to promote student engagement and learning, even under challenging conditions. To operationalise mentorship quality, the study draws on Hudson’s Five-Factor Mentorship Model (2004), which identifies personal attributes, system requirements, pedagogical knowledge, modeling, and feedback as core dimensions of effective mentoring. This model has been empirically validated across diverse international contexts and provides a robust framework for analysing mentor competencies.

By integrating Bandura’s sources of self-efficacy with Hudson’s mentorship framework, this study offers a theoretically coherent and internationally relevant approach to understanding how distinct yet complementary mentoring roles shape preservice teachers’ self-efficacy during practicum. In doing so, it responds to European and global priorities in ITE research concerning mentorship quality, professional learning, and teacher retention.

Methodology This study employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design (Creswell & Clark, 2017) with a cross-sectional approach. The quantitative phase was exploratory and aimed to examine relationships between preservice teachers’ teacher self-efficacy (TSE) and mentorship dimensions associated with Cooperating Teachers (CTs) and University Supervisors (USs). Results from this phase informed the qualitative phase, guiding both participant selection and the development of interview questions to deepen understanding of mentoring experiences related to self-efficacy. Participants and Sampling The quantitative phase included 338 preservice general elementary education teachers from 12 Chilean universities who completed their final professional practicum in 2024. Universities were recruited through non-probabilistic convenience sampling via direct invitations to program authorities. Participating institutions represented public and private universities across Chile’s main geographic regions (North, Centre, and South), providing contextual diversity rather than national representativeness. For the qualitative phase, purposive extreme case sampling was used to identify students with high and low levels of TSE based on quantitative results. Twelve volunteers participated in semi-structured interviews (six with high TSE and six with low TSE) from three universities. Instruments Teacher self-efficacy was measured using the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (Pfitzner-Eden et al., 2014), a 12-item instrument designed for preservice teachers, assessing Instructional Strategies, Classroom Management, and Student Engagement on a 9-point Likert scale. Mentorship quality was assessed with the Mentorship for Effective Teaching Practice Instrument (Ploj et al., 2023), adapted from Hudson’s (2007) IMEC framework. The instrument evaluates five mentorship dimensions: personal attributes, system requirements, pedagogical knowledge, modeling, and feedback. Two parallel versions were used to assess CT (34 items) and US (33 items) mentorship, using a 7-point Likert scale. An ad hoc sociodemographic questionnaire collected background variables (e.g., gender, specialization, practicum context), while a semi-structured interview guide explored participants’ perceptions of modeling and feedback as sources of self-efficacy related to vicarious experiences and verbal persuasion. Procedure and Ethical Considerations Data were collected in late 2024. Participation was voluntary, anonymous, and confidential, with informed consent obtained prior to data collection. The study received approval from the sponsoring university’s Scientific Ethics Committee. Validity and Reliability The mentorship instrument underwent a rigorous cultural adaptation and validation process following Beaton et al.’s (2000) guidelines and international testing standards (APA, AERA, & NCME, 2014). Reliability analyses showed high internal consistency for all mentorship dimensions (α = .87–.96 for CT; α = .84–.94 for US) and excellent reliability for the TSE scale (α = .94).

Conclusions and Findings This study examined the relationship between mentorship practices and preservice teachers’ self-efficacy following the final practicum, integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence. Overall, the findings showed that mentorship contributed significantly to preservice teachers’ TSE beyond sociodemographic and contextual influences. Quantitative analyses indicated that preservice teachers reported higher self-efficacy in Student Engagement and Instructional Strategies than in Classroom Management, suggesting that classroom management remained a key challenge at the end of initial training. Correlational results revealed positive associations between all mentorship dimensions of both CTs and USs and TSE. Hierarchical regression analyses further clarified these relationships. After controlling for sociodemographic and contextual variables, the inclusion of CT mentoring dimensions significantly increased the explained variance in TSE, with CT modeling emerging as a significant positive predictor. Adding US mentoring dimensions produced an additional increase in explained variance, and US modeling also significantly predicted TSE. Feedback, while positively correlated with self-efficacy, did not remain a significant predictor when modeling and other mentoring dimensions were considered simultaneously. Qualitative findings provided insight into the mechanisms underlying these results. Preservice teachers consistently described vicarious experiences derived from observing mentors’ concrete teaching practices as central to strengthening their confidence. CTs were perceived as particularly influential due to their continuous classroom presence and their role as accessible, contextually grounded models. USs contributed to self-efficacy when their guidance combined theoretical expertise with practical examples, but their impact diminished when perceived as disconnected from school realities or lacking disciplinary alignment. Verbal persuasion through feedback also influenced self-efficacy, especially when it was timely, specific, and formative, whereas generic or poorly delivered feedback sometimes undermined confidence. Overall, the findings highlight that preservice teachers’ self-efficacy development during practicum was strongly associated with modeling practices within the mentoring triad, underscoring the importance of coherent and high-quality mentorship in initial teacher education.

References APA, AERA & NCME. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14338-000 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 4(3), 359-373. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359 Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications. Hudson, P. (2004). Specific mentoring: A theory and model for developing primary science teaching practices. European journal of teacher education, 27(2), 139-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760420023015 Hudson, P. (2007). Examining mentors' practices for enhancing preservice teachers' pedagogical development in mathematics and science. Mentoring & Tutoring, 15(2), 201-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760420023015 Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). The occupational commitment and intention to quit of practicing and pre-service teachers: Influence of self-efficacy, job stress, and teaching context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 114-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.01.002. 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 Orland-Barak, L. (2005). Lost in translation: Mentors learning to participate in competing discourses of practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(4), 355-366. https://doi-org.pucdechile.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0022487105279 Orland-Barak, L. (2014). Mediation in mentoring: A synthesis of studies in teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 180-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.011 Pfitzner-Eden, F., F. Thiel, and J. Horsley (2014). “An Adapted Measure of Teacher Self-efficacy for Preservice Teachers: Exploring Its Validity across Two Countries.” Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie 28 (3): 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000125 Ploj, M., Du Plessis, A., & Sorgo, A. (2023). Development and Validation of the ‘Mentoring for Effective Teaching Practicum Instrument’. CEPS Journal, 13(3), 233-260. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and teacher education, 17(7), 783-805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1 UNESCO (2024). Global report on teachers: Addressing teacher shortages and transforming the profession. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/global-report-teachers-addressing-teacher-shortages-and-transforming-profession Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of educational research, 54(2), 143-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170301