at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 206e217

Contents lists available

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Does the social working environment predict beginning teachers’ self-efficacyand feelings of depression?

Christelle Devos*, Vincent Dupriez, Léopold PaquayUniversité catholique de Louvain, Department of Psychology and Education, Place du Cardinal Mercier, 10, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 23 February 2011Received in revised form21 September 2011Accepted 23 September 2011

Keywords:Beginning teachersWorking environmentGoal orientationMentorSelf-efficacyDepression

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ32 10 47 43 97; fax:E-mail addresses: christelle.devos@uclouvain.be,

(C. Devos), vincent.dupriez@uclouvain.be (V. Dupriezbe (L. Paquay).

0742-051X/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.008

a b s t r a c t

We investigate how the social working environment predicts beginning teachers’ self-efficacy andfeelings of depression. Two quantitative studies are presented. The results show that the goal structure ofthe school culture (mastery or performance orientation) predicts both outcomes. Frequent collaborativeinteractions with colleagues are related to higher self-efficacy only when the novices are experiencingfew difficulties or work in an environment oriented towards mastery goals. The mere occurrence ofmentoring and meetings with the principal is not related to the outcomes, but the quality of theseactivities predicts them significantly. Conditions increasing the effectiveness of these support activitiesare discussed.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The first years of teaching are a challenging period. Beginningteachers enter a new world, experience an accelerated pace of life,and encounter unexpected situations and challenges. Their ideasabout the profession are confronted with the reality of the class-room, and their emotional well-being can fluctuate wildly. Theymake the genuine experience of the “vulnerability” characterisingthe profession (Kelchtermans, 1996, 2005, 2009) and often facereality shocks (Veenman, 1984). They are likely to experiencedifferent types of difficulties, for example, maintaining classroomdiscipline, fostering students’motivation, assessing students’work,and dealing with parents’ meetings (Britt, 1997; Ganser, 1999;Melnick & Meister, 2008; Veenman, 1984).

However, while the induction period is a nightmare for some, itis a fulfilling experience for others (Hebert & Worthy, 2001). Howcan this be explained?

In addition to the quality of the initial teacher training and thepersonal characteristics of the beginning teachers, the socialworking environment surrounding them (e.g. relationships withthe school principal and colleagues, organisational culture of theschool, mentoring support) is key for understanding how they copewith their induction period. Although the majority of teachers’

þ32 10 47 85 89.devoschristelle@hotmail.com), leopold.paquay@uclouvain.

All rights reserved.

work takes place in the classroom, they often interact with otherprofessionals (e.g. other teachers, teaching assistants, the schoolprincipal), in a particular climate (collaborative or individualistic),which can directly or indirectly influence their feelings, thoughtsand behaviours (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Johnson, Kraft, & Papay,2011; Kardos, 2005; Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002; Weiss, 1999).

Moreover, the social working environment is likely to becomemore prominent in teachers’ experience of their work. On the onehand, collaborativework is increasingly required from them (Levine&Marcus, 2010). For example, in the French-speaking community ofBelgium, teachers in primary schools have a legal obligation to hold60 h per year ofmeetings focussing on reform-oriented pedagogicalpractices (e.g. achievement for all students, attainment of corecompetences, etc.). On the other hand, practices such as mentoringare becoming increasingly popular in order to prevent noviceteachers from feeling isolated (Kardos, 2005). Because of these newinteraction opportunities, how the new teacher gets on with his orher colleagues is becoming increasingly important.

The purpose of this article is therefore to investigate the rela-tionship between a set of variables relating to the social workingenvironment and beginning teachers’ induction-related outcomes.

1. Beginning teachers’ self-efficacy, depression and retention

Beginning teachers e and indeed teachers in general e are ex-pected to experience positive emotionswhendoing theirwork, to beand to feel effective in their teaching, and to remain in theprofession.

C. Devos et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 206e217 207

Planned and effective retention has often been examined inempirical studies (Borman & Dowling, 2008). Results consistentlyshow that, although new teachers have the opportunity to entera stable career path, a significant number of them (around 15%within the first year and 40e50% within the first five years)reconsider their vocational choice and leave the profession early(Allensworth, Ponisciak, & Mazzeo, 2009; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004;Vandenberghe, 2000). This high turnover has a considerable cost,both in financial terms and in terms of school coherence andperformance (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Numerous studies haveinvestigated the factors influencing beginning teachers’ retentionand attrition (see Ingersoll & Strong, 2011, for a review), which ledthese authors to suggest investigating other outcomes.

A factor often considered as an antecedent of persistence andperformance is self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Teachers’ self-efficacyhas been shown to influence their behaviour and their engagementin teaching, as well as their students’ achievement and motivation(see Hoy & Spero, 2005, for a review). Yet, after increasing duringinitial training, teachers’ self-efficacy has been shown to declineduring the first year (Chester & Beaudin,1996; Friedman, 2000; Hoy& Spero, 2005; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Tschannen-Moran &Hoy, 2007). Hoy and Spero (2005) and Chester and Beaudin (1996)found that this change was influenced by the level of supportexperienced by novice teachers. However, Hoy and Spero (2005)specify that little is known as yet about the context characteris-tics that affect self-efficacy (e.g. experiences in the classroom,school characteristics, type of support).

Besides motivational and cognitive outcomes, an increasingnumber of studies in educational psychology are consideringemotional outcomes (Linnenbrink, 2006; Schutz & Pekrun, 2007).Emotions have been found to be powerful mediators betweencontextual factors and behavioural outcomes (Boekaerts, 2007).More precisely, teachers’ emotions have recently been at the heartof several lines of research (Hargreaves, 2005; Kelchtermans, 1996,2005; Leithwood & Beatty, 2008; Nias, 1996; Schutz & Zembylas,2009; van Veen & Lasky, 2005). With regard to beginningteachers, Bullough and Young (2002) stress the extent that internsuse emotional adjectives to describe their experience of teaching.Schutz and Zembylas (2009) suggest that one explanation of thehigh attrition rates among beginners might be “related to theemotional nature of the teaching profession” (p. 3). Further,according to Nias (1996) emotions are tightly linked to cognitionsand to the surrounding social and cultural environment, and “thefiercest of their negative emotions are currently caused by inter-actions with peers or superiors rather than students” (p. 295).

In this study, we will follow this line of work and consider thepossible negative emotions experiencedbynovice teachers.Whereaspositive emotions associated with teaching can be considered asa central indicator of professional fulfilment and a significantpredictor of willingness to continue teaching, we assume thatnegative emotions (i.e. feelings of depression) are likely to turnteachers away from the career (Frenzel, Goetz, Stephens, & Jacob,2009; Schutz & Zembylas, 2009). Depression and burnout amongteachers have frequently been investigated, some studies analysingthe prevalence of these symptoms (e.g. Kovess-Masféty, Rios-Seidel,& Sevilla-Dedieu, 2007) and others examining the factors likely totrigger them (Hagger & Malmberg, 2011; Kim & Kim, 2010). Onlya few studies have considered these symptoms among beginningteachers specifically. However, Schonfeld (1992) stressed thatbeginning teachers are a particularly relevant populationwithwhomto investigate this question, notably because the sample containsteachers who will soon leave the profession in response to adverseschool conditions. In a longitudinal study, he found that workconditions (i.e. continual oroccasional stressors such as overcrowdedclassroomsorunmotivated students, or positive events suchaspraise

from a parent or an administrator) predicted teachers’ depressivesymptoms, independently of their pre-employment symptoms andother risk factors.

Therefore, in line with these previous studies, instead of directlyfocussing on whether novice teachers remain in the profession, wewill examine the factors that predict theirmotivation and emotions,by considering self-efficacy and possible feelings of depression.

2. The social working environment

The social working environment reflects the elements of theworking environment that include interpersonal social interactions.Whereas most studies have focused on one or a limited number ofdimensions (e.g. Allensworth et al., 2009; Kardos, 2005; Weiss,1999), far fewer have addressed these dimensions simultaneously.Johnson et al. (2011) analysed the influence of nine key elements ofthe work environment on 25,135 teachers’ satisfaction, retentionintention and students’ performance. They found that these factorswere strong predictors of the outcomes, even after controlling forstudent demographics and other school and teacher characteristics.The strongest predictors were found to be productive workingrelationships with colleagues, the leadership of the school principaland the characteristics of the school culture. The authors suggestedthat these were “interrelated components of a larger construct esomething we call the social context of teachers’ work” (p. 25).

In our study, we will first consider the intangible backgroundthat surrounds the newcomer, namely the organisational culture ofthe school, which will be examined through its goal structure.Second, because beginning teachers interact with both the prin-cipal and other teachers, we will analyse the role of the principal’spractices and that of the collaborative interactions between thenovice and his or her colleagues. Finally, in addition to thesecomponents of every teacher’s working environment, we will focuson two specific activities aimed at helping novice teachers: thefollow-up meetings with the school principal, and the formal orinformal mentoring relations taking place between an experiencedteacher and the newcomer.

2.1. Goal structure of the school culture

The interactions that new teachers experience with the othermembers of staff are rooted in the organisational culture of theschool, which can be defined as “a system of shared values andbeliefs that produces norms of behaviour and establishes an orga-nizational way of life” (Koberg & Chusmir, 1987, p. 397). Differenttypes of school cultures and their underlying characteristics havebeen identified, as well as their relationship to novice teachers’outcomes (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Kardos, 2005; Ma &MacMillan, 1999; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Rosenholtz, 1989).

These studies have generally considered, on the one hand,cultures that promote collegiality, collaboration, and interdepen-dence, and on the other hand, cultures that create comparison,competition and isolation. A theoretical framework that identifiestwo motivational orientations, covering and going beyond thesetwo tendencies, is the achievement goal theory (Kaplan, Middleton,Urdan, & Midgley, 2002; Marsh, Craven, Hinkley, & Debus, 2003).The orientation towards mastery or performance goals can beconsidered at the individual as well as at the situational level.

At the individual level, amastery-goal orientation is characterisedby the desire tomaster a task, to acquire newknowledge and skills inorder to increase one’s ability, or to improve on past performance.The focus is therefore on the task, which has an intrinsic value.Evaluation is self-referenced.Making efforts is valued and associatedwith increased ability and positive outcomes. Encountering diffi-culties to achieve the task is likely to be considered as a challenge and

C. Devos et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 206e217208

an opportunity to increase one’s competence. Conversely, in aperformance-goal orientation, the purpose is to validate one’s ability,by demonstrating competence or by avoiding demonstrating lack ofcompetence. The focus is on the self, and ability is evaluated bycomparison with others. Making efforts is seen as a sign of lowability, and it is therefore valued to achieve well with little effort.Similarly, failures and setbacks are attributed to a lack of ability,which leads to negative feelings and disengagement from the task(Ames, 1992; Dupeyrat, Escribe, & Mariné, 2006; Elliott & Dweck,1988; Grant & Dweck, 2003; Kaplan et al., 2002; Murayama &Elliot, 2009; Nicholls, 1984). In an integrative perspective, Marshet al. (2003) suggest that most motivational theories are under-pinned by these learning and performance orientations. Thesehigher order factors reflect broader constructs than the initial goalorientations, and include aspects of the work on cooperative,competitive and individualistic orientations (Johnson & Johnson,1985; Owens & Barnes, 1992), and on intrinsiceextrinsic motiva-tion orientations (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

Besides this individual level, these goal orientations can becommunicated to the individuals by their environment (e.g. theclassroom, the school) (see Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006for a review). Goal structure can be defined as “the goal-relatedmessages that are made salient in the achievement setting”, moreprecisely the “various classroom and school-level policies andpractices that makemastery or performance goals salient, as well asthe explicit goal-related messages teachers communicate to theirstudents” (Kaplan et al., 2002, p. 24). It has been investigated bydifferent methods, such as asking the students about the emphasisin their classroom (e.g. “My teacher tells us how we compare toother students”; “In our class, there is a lot of competition amongstudents for good grades”; “In our school, grades and scores are nottalked about”) (Kaplan et al., 2002). Goal structure has been foundto have a direct or indirect effect on students’ achievement-relatedoutcomes (Kaplan et al., 2002; Murayama & Elliot, 2009).

However, goal structure has always been considered with regardto the students. Previous studies always considered how the goal-related messages in the environment relate to students’ work.However, learning and achievement does not only characterisestudents’ work; beginning teachers (indeed, all professionals) arealso achieving complex tasks and continuously learning how to dotheir work and improve their performance. Furthermore, they workin an environmentmade up ofmore experienced colleagues, some ofwhom (e.g. the school principal) are going to evaluate their work.This environmentmay convey a culture oriented towardsmastery orperformance goals, and this is likely to have a strong influence ontheir achievement-related outcomes. Indeed,when arriving in a newenvironment, novice teachers will face the challenges of the “realityshock”, make mistakes, and need to make sustained efforts tosucceed as a teacher. The responses that these novices receive fromtheir work environment are likely to have a great impact on theiremotions and self-efficacy. This will be investigated in our study.

2.2. Collaborative interactions with colleagues

It is assumed that frequent interactions between new teachersand their more experienced colleagues will improve thenewcomers’ integration into the school, interpersonal support andtransmission of information, and therefore increase their well-being and efficacy. For example, Smith and Ingersoll (2004) foundthat having joint planning time with other teachers in their subjectarea, or participating in regularly scheduled collaboration on issuesof instruction, reduced the risk of newly qualified teachers leavingthe profession by the end of the first year.

However, studies have also suggested that various factors caninfluence the effectiveness of these collaborative interactions. For

example, research on organisational learning and student collab-oration suggest that some conditions are necessary for theseinteractions to lead to positive outcomes (Bonami, Letor, & Garant,2010; Levine & Marcus, 2010; Webb, 1989). In research on socio-cognitive conflict, several researchers have investigated how indi-vidual- and situation-related factors influence conflict regulationand its consequences for learning and self-esteem (Buchs, Butera,Mugny, & Darnon, 2004). Quiamzade and Mugny (2001) sug-gested that the competence of the protagonists (in this case thenovice and experienced teachers) and the degree to which thesituation is threatening towards their competence (in this casewhether it is a collaborative or competitive working environment)will trigger different relational dynamics, behaviours andoutcomes. For example, according to this theory, an interactionbetween a “target” with low competence (e.g. a new teacherexperiencing many difficulties) and a highly competent “source”(e.g. an experienced teacher recognised as competent) in a threat-ening situation (e.g. a competitive environment) is likely to reducethe newcomer’s perception of competency and decrease his or herself-esteem, whichmay to lead to disengagement from the task anda mere imitation of the more experienced teacher.

In this study, we will therefore investigate the main effect of thefrequency of collaborative interactions between the beginningteacher and his or her colleagues, as well as the possible moder-ating effect of the newcomer’s perceived level of difficulties and thecharacteristics of the school culture. More precisely, we hypothe-sise that if a new teacher encountering many difficulties (i.e. anincompetent “target”) has frequent collaborative interactions withexperienced teachers that he or she perceives as competent (i.e.competent “sources”) in a threatening environment (e.g. lowmastery-goal structure or high performance-goal structure), it willlead to decreased self-efficacy in the new teacher.

2.3. The school principal: attitude and follow-up meetings

The leader’s, director’s, manager’s or principal’s practices havebeen much studied, in work and social psychology as well as ineducational research (e.g. Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999), and the prin-cipal’s leadership andpractices have been found to predict beginningteachers retention (Allensworth et al., 2009; Corbell, Reiman, &Nietfeld, 2008). The American National Center for Education Statis-tics (1994) identified inadequate support from administrators as themost frequently cited reason teachers gave for leaving the profession(Chester & Beaudin, 1996). In a large-scale study of beginningteachers, Kapadia, Coca, and Easton (2007) found a strong relation-ship between school leadership and new teachers’ experience andplanned retention. Weiss (1999) designed a sound measure ofprincipal’ practices and found them to be related to new teachers’morale, career-choice commitment and planned retention.

A particular form of principal’s support is the follow-up meet-ings that may be held with new teachers. These are regular meet-ings to discuss how the novices are coping with their work, givethem the opportunity to talk about any difficulties they may behaving, ask about possible needs, set objectives, give feedback onthe quality of their work (for example based on classroom obser-vations), etc. This is a formative e not a summative e evaluationprocess (Paquay, 2004). These meetings can be very helpful to theteachers because they specify the principal’s expectations, clarifythe evaluation criteria, allow discussion of problems encounteredin the school, and emphasise the principal’s caring about the newteachers in his or her school. However, only a few studies haveexamined the effects of these activities on novice teachers. Forexample Chester and Beaudin (1996) found that the number oftimes the school principal or other immediate supervisor hadobserved novice teachers’ classroom performance during his or her

C. Devos et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 206e217 209

first months of teaching had a significant positive impact on theteacher’s self-efficacy beliefs.

There is therefore a need to further investigate this aspect. Inthis study, wewill explore the relationship between the occurrenceand quality of follow-up meetings and beginning teachers’outcomes. It has to be noted that this practice is to be distinguishedfrom mentoring, which we describe below. The main difference isthat, whereas follow-up meetings are conducted by the schoolprincipal, mentoring is done by another experienced teacher. Thesetwo actors have different statuses and roles; the first is the teacher’ssuperior and has an evaluation role towards the newcomer,whereas the second is a colleague with no supervisory responsi-bilities. The stakes may therefore be different. Besides, concerningthe principal, we measure on the one hand his or her generalbehaviour and on the second hand how he or she conducts thefollow-upmeetings. Concerning the mentor, wewill consider his orher general attitude towards the novice.

2.4. Mentoring

Induction programmes for beginning teachers are becomingincreasingly common (Kardos, 2005), and mentoring is generally attheir centre. Practices range from rather informal to formalisedsupport offered to the newcomers, and can be designed at differentlevels (e.g. school, district, state, country). Ingersoll and hiscolleagues (Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011) havepresented successive reviews of studies investigating the effects ofthese programmes. They concluded that, collectively, inductionprogrammes have a positive impact on novices and their retention(e.g. Cheng & Brown, 1992; Fuller, 2003; Henke, Chen, & Geis,2000).

However, as Ingersoll and Kralik (2004) pointed out, many ofthese studies suffer from limitations (e.g. small sample sizes, and anabsence of control variables, statistical tests and control groups).Furthermore, some studies conducted on large samples of begin-ning teachers in the U.S. found only a very modest (or evena negative) effect of the presence of mentoring. For example, Smithand Ingersoll (2004) found, on the basis of the School and StaffingSurvey and the Teacher Follow-up Survey (3235 participants), thathaving a mentor had only a limited effect on teacher retention inthe profession. In another large-scale study in thirteen U.S. states(1009 participants), Glazerman et al. (2010) found little differencesin novice teachers’ and students’ outcomes between schools inwhich novices were offered comprehensive teacher induction(treatment group) and those in which they received the district’susual set of induction services (control group) (see Ingersoll &Strong, 2011, for a critical review of this study). Kapadia et al.(2007) evaluated the induction programme implemented in Chi-cago public schools (1735 participants). They found that simplyparticipating in an induction programme had no impact on newteachers’ experiences or their determination to remain in theschool and in the profession. Similarly, on the basis of the NextGeneration of Teachers project, Kardos (2005) observed, using datafrom 486 participants from four states, that the mere presence ofmentoring did not predict new teachers’ job satisfaction. Ingersoll(1997) even found that the existence of a mentor programme intheir schools had a small inverse relationship with these teachers’job satisfaction. These studies suggest that, although mentoringmay potentially have a great impact on beginning teachers, thestatistical effect of its mere presence is modest and not systematic.

In addition to these studies considering the effects of mentoringprogrammes, other studies have taken a deeper look at the men-toring process itself (i.e. the nature and the characteristics of thistype of support). Löfström and Eisenschmidt (2009) identified fiveimportant dimensions of support through interviews: personal

development and professional knowledge support, feedback,collegiality, availability, trust, and reciprocity. Likewise, based oninterviews with novices, Rippon and Martin (2006) identified traitsa mentor should possess (e.g. approachability, teaching credibility,professional knowledge). These characteristics can be grouped intobroader categories, reflecting different approaches to mentoring.Norman and Feiman-Nemser (2005), Orland-Barak and Klein(2005), and Wang and Odell (2007) identified similar sets ofmentoring perspectives, which cover the aspects of mentoringmentioned above: an emotional/therapeutic, an instructional, anda critical/reflective approach. The importance of this reflectivecomponent of mentoring is stressed by Crasborn, Hennissen,Brouwer, Korthagen, and Bergen (2008). They state that “it is notenough for them [the new teachers] to receive instruction, to obtainfeedback, to be given suggestions and to be shown examples ofgood practice. In order to develop as a professional, it is necessaryto be able to reflect on your own behaviour” (p. 500).

To summarise, these studies suggest that, on the one hand, thepresence of mentoring activities has shown positive but sometimesmoderate effects. On the other hand, some studies have tried toidentify important aspects of the mentoring process (e.g. theemotional, the practical/technical, and the reflective components).In this study, we will investigate these two complementary aspectstogether.

2.5. This study

This study is in the line of previous studies that have investi-gated the relationships between dimensions of the social workingenvironment and teachers’ outcomes. Because numerous studieshave considered retention as the criterion variable (Ingersoll &Strong, 2011), this study turns to more immediate indicators ofbeginning teachers’ experience: self-efficacy and feelings ofdepression. This allows us to achieve a better understanding of therelations between the working environment and motivational andemotional variables, which are in turn likely to predict retention.

Elements from two complementary studies are presented. Thesestudies were conducted concurrently on the same population;beginning teachers from the French-speaking community of Bel-gium. In the first study, we start by considering the organisationalculture of the school, and suggest that it can be analysed througha new lens: its mastery versus performance-goal structure. Then,turning our attention to specific actors in theworking environment,we analyse the school principal’s practices and the frequency of thecollaborative interactions that take place between the novice andhis or her colleagues. We not only examine the direct relationshipsbetween these aspects of school life and the outcomes; we also, onthe basis of the socio-cognitive conflict literature mentioned above,explore the factors likely to moderate these relationships, such asthe novice’s perceived difficulties and the goal structure of theschool culture.

In the second study, we turn to two activities that frequently areor could be implemented to help new teachers: follow-upmeetingswith the school principal and formal or informal mentoringsupport. On the one hand, we consider the impact of the mereoccurrence of these activities, and on the other hand, we investigatethe relationships between their quality and characteristics andnovice teachers’ outcomes. In order to isolate the effect of ourvariables of interest, we control for four teacher and school char-acteristics (age, gender, level of teaching and SES of the students) inboth studies.

In the next part of the article, we present the methodology andthe results of the two studies separately, and then integrate theirresults and the lessons that can be learned from them in thediscussion.

C. Devos et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 206e217210

3. Study 1

3.1. Method

3.1.1. Participants and procedureThe participants of this first study were 110 beginning teachers

from the French-speaking community of Belgium. They were intheir first year of teaching, with, on average, 2.9 months of teachingexperience. They were, on average, 22.07 years old (SD¼ 2) and80.9% of the sample were women. They were teaching at theelementary (60.9%) or middle (39.1%) school levels.1 One fifth ofthese teachers (20%) were teaching in schools that receive addi-tional resources from the government because they contain a highproportion of students from low-SES neighbourhoods.

Participants were first contacted at the end of the final year oftheir pre-service training (Bachelor’s degree2); researchers wentinto one of their classes to present the research and collect students’e-mail addresses. In January of the following year, they were senta questionnaire electronically (n¼ 486). Forty one respondentsreplied that they were unable to complete the questionnaire forvarious reasons (e.g. notworking as a teacher), and 110 completed it.This was a response rate of 22.63%. The demographic characteristics(age and gender) of the respondents were similar to those of thenon-respondents (mean age¼ 22.26, SD¼ 2.43; 70.9% women) andto those found in larger international studies (Corbell et al., 2008;Glazerman et al., 2010; Hagger & Malmberg, 2011; Hoy & Spero,2005; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007).

3.1.2. MeasuresFour variables were treated as control variables: the partici-

pants’ age (years), gender (0¼women, 1¼men), the level ofteaching (0¼ primary school, 1¼middle school) and an indicator ofthe socio-economic status (SES) of the students in their school. InBelgium, schools with a high proportion of students coming fromlow-SES neighbourhoods receive more funding from the govern-ment. In this study these schools were coded as 0, in order to reflectthe low-SES level of the students, and the other schools were codedas 1, which indicates a higher SES level.

The following scales were measured in the questionnaire.Participants were asked to evaluate their degree of agreement withthe items on 5-point Likert scales ranging from “completelydisagree” (1) to “completely agree” (5).

3.1.2.1. The school principal’s practices (9 items). The itemsaddressing the principal’s behaviour were taken from Weiss’s(1999) leadership scale and cover aspects such as supporting thestaff, helping with teaching problems, obtaining resources,communicating a strong and positive vision for the school, andensuring that teachers participate in school decisions. When onefactor is extracted by a principal component analysis, all the itemsload on this factor with loadings ranging from .45 to .80. Theinternal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of this scale is a¼ .84.Examples of items on this scale are “The school administration’sbehaviour towards the staff is supportive and encouraging”, and“Teachers in this school are evaluated fairly”.

3.1.2.2. Frequency of collaborative interactions with colleagues(8 items). This scale was designed by Lessard and his colleagues for

1 In Belgium, primary and secondary education both last for six years. Secondaryeducation is divided into two three-year cycles, corresponding to grades 7e9 and10e12.

2 In Belgium, the initial teacher training to attend in order to become a primaryor a middle-school teacher is a Bachelor degree program that lasts three years.

the Survey of Canadian Teachers (Kamanzi, Lessard, & Riopel, 2008).It considers how frequently the participants have various kinds ofinteractions with their colleagues (e.g. discussions on teachingmethods or content, sharing or creating pedagogical material,attending training activities together). For example, one item is“How frequently do you talk about teaching methods with yourcolleagues? (1¼ never; 5¼ very often)”. Principal componentanalysis shows that all the items load on one single factor withloadings ranging from .57 to .75. The internal consistency of thisscale is a (Cronbach’s alpha)¼ .83.

3.1.2.3. Goal structure of the school culture (mastery orientation, 8items; performance orientation, 10 items). This scale examines theextent to which the organisational culture of the school is orientedtowards “mastery” or “performance” goals (see the discussion inthe literature review above). Items were designed by the authors,mostly on the basis of the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales(PALS) (Midgley et al., 2000). PALS are a set of questionnairesdeveloped to examine the goal orientation (mastery, performance-approach or performance-avoidance) of a person, a classroom ora school with regard to students’ achievement. The items takenfrom these scales were modified in order to reflect the masteryversus performance-goal orientation of the school culture withregard to the teachers’ work, and completed by items based on thework of Ames (1992). When two factors are extracted from theseitems with a principal component analysis and a varimax rotation,performance items load on the first factor (a¼ .83) and masteryitems on the second factor (a¼ .80). There is nearly no cross-loadings between the factors. The items and the factor structureare given in the Appendix.

3.1.2.4. Perceived difficulties (10 items). This scale refers to theoverall degree of subjective difficulty being experienced by thebeginning teachers, as well as the degree of difficulty they wereexperiencing with specific activities (e.g., making students learnnew material, managing students’ behaviour in the classroom,experiencing positive relations with students). When one factorwas extracted from these items with a principal component anal-ysis, all the items loaded on the factor with loadings ranging from.54 to .73. Cronbach’s alpha is a¼ .84. Examples are “I experiencefew difficulties with my teaching” (reverse item), “I experiencemore difficulties than other novice teachers”, “Teaching is moredifficult thanwhat I thought”, “I experience difficulties keeping thestudents focused on their work”, and “I experience difficultiesestablishing good relationships with my students”.

3.1.2.5. Feelings of depression (6 items). This scale deals with theextent to which participants have been feeling depressed during theprevious weeks. Items were selected from the Centre for Epidemio-logic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) (Radloff, 1977). The CES-Dmeasures the level of depressive symptoms experienced by peoplein the general population (i.e. people not suffering from a particularpathology).However, someof its items refer to severe symptoms (e.g.“I have crying spells”), whereas others are related to a sadmood (e.g.“I feel sad”). Six of the latter type were chosen to reflect symptomslikely to be modified by external events and not associated withpathological depression. These items are: “I feel depressed”, “I feelhopeful about the future” (reverse item), “I amhappy” (reverse item),“I feel that everything I do is an effort”, “I feel lonely”, and “I feel sad”.The internal consistency of this scale is a (Cronbach’s alpha)¼ .86.Principal component analysis shows that all the items load on onesingle factor, with loadings ranging from �.57 to .90.

3.1.2.6. Self-efficacy (5 items). The self-efficacy dimensionconsiders how confident the participants are about their teaching.

C. Devos et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 206e217 211

Following Bandura’s (1997, 2006) recommendations, the itemswere phrased in terms of can do rather than will do in order toreflect capability and not intention, the object in each statementwas I in order to assess each teacher’s subjective belief about his orher own capability, and the items refer to activities that are chal-lenging for the individual. Principal component analysis shows thatall the items load on one single factor with loadings from .48 to .82.The internal consistency of this scale (Cronbach’s alpha) is a¼ .66.Examples are “I am capable of making students learn new mate-rial”, “I am capable of managing the class group”, and “I am capableof adapting my teaching to the level of the students”.3

3.2. Results

Tables 1 and 2 present the regression analyses4 that examine therelationships between the social working environment variables(principal’s practices, frequency of collaborative interactions withcolleagues, mastery-goal structure, and performance-goal struc-ture) and novice teachers’ feelings of depression (Table 1) and self-efficacy (Table 2). Models 1e4 focus on the predictive power of eachdimension of the working environment independently from eachother, and Model 5 examines the cumulative impact of all thesevariables simultaneously.

It can be seen from these two tables that none of the teacher andschool characteristics (age, gender, teaching level, and SES of thestudents) were statistically significant predictors of beginningteachers’ feelings of depression or self-efficacy.

Over and above these control variables, the goal structure of theschool culture was a significant predictor of both outcomes. Whentaken individually, both the mastery-goal structure (Model 1) andthe performance-goal structure (Model 2) predicted feelings ofdepression and self-efficacy. A mastery-goal structure was nega-tively related to feelings of depression (b¼�.34, p< .001), whereasa performance-goal structure positively predicted it (b¼ .29,p< .01). Conversely, mastery-goal structure was positively relatedto self-efficacy (b¼ .31, p< .01), whereas a performance-goalstructure negatively predicted it (b¼�.26, p< .01). When all thevariables were considered together, these two variables remainedsignificant predictors of both outcomes.

The frequency of collaborative interactions with colleagues wasfound to be negativelye but not significantlye related to beginningteachers’ feelings of depression (b¼�.15, ns), and to have a veryweak relationship with self-efficacy (b¼ .06, ns). This last relation-ship was abnormally weak and likely to hide a moderation effect.Because the degree of perceived difficulty experienced by the newteachers and the goal structure of the school culture were possiblemoderators of this relationship, we used regression analyses toinvestigate these possible interaction effects. In these analyses, thefrequency of the collaborative interactions with colleagues and themoderator variable (perceived difficulties ormastery-goal structure)were considered as predictors, as well as the multiplication productof these two variables, reflecting the moderating effect.

These analyses revealed that, over andabove the role of perceiveddifficulties (b¼�.47, p< .001) and collaborative interactions withcolleagues (b¼ .03, p¼ .76), the interaction product was statisticallysignificant (b¼�.20, p¼ .02). Fig. 15 illustrates this moderationeffect. In an environment where collaborative interactions between

3 In French, these items were worded as “Je suis capable de.”, for example, “Jesuis capable de gérer le groupe classe”, which corresponds to the wording generallyused to measure self-efficacy in French.

4 Linear regression analyses computed in SPSS with the “enter” method.5 Figs. 1 and 2 were plotted using the procedures suggested by Aiken and West

(1991) and Dawson and Richter (2006) (http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.htm).

colleagues were infrequent, beginning teachers who were experi-encingmanydifficulties and thosewhohad fewdifficulties displayeda similar amount of self-efficacy (M¼ 3.52 and M¼ 3.79, respec-tively).However, in anenvironmentwhere collaborative interactionsamong staff members were frequent, the newcomers encounteringmany difficulties reported lower self-efficacy beliefs (M¼ 3.31),whereas those with few perceived difficulties displayed higher self-efficacy scores (M¼ 4.06) than in the environment characterised byinfrequent interactions. In other words, it seems that collaborativeinteractionswith colleagues aremostly useful for beginning teacherswho are doing well and experiencing few difficulties, whereas it canreduce the self-confidence of teachers who are experiencing manydifficulties with their job.

A similar interaction effect was found with mastery-goal struc-ture (see Fig. 2). The interaction product Frequency of collaborativeinteractions�Mastery-goal structure was significant in the regres-sion analysis (b¼ .22, p¼ .01) after controlling for collaborativeinteractions with colleagues (b¼�.08, p¼ .38) and the masteryorientation of the working environment (b¼ .35, p< .001). In anenvironment characterised by little collaborative interactions, thegoal structuremade little difference to thenew teachers’ self-efficacybeliefs (M¼ 3.76 and M¼ 3.60). However, in the case of frequentcollaborative interactions, beginners working in an environmentstrongly oriented towards mastery goals reported a higher sense ofself-efficacy (M¼ 3.89), whereas those working in an environmentnot oriented towards these type of goals reported a lower level ofself-efficacy (M¼ 3.28) than in the environment characterised byinfrequent interactions. In this case, frequent collaborative interac-tion is therefore associated with a lower level of self-efficacy.

To summarise, our first study focused on three dimensions ofthe school working environment that may be considered as“general” because they characterise the working environment ofevery teacher, and do not exclusively apply to beginning teachers.In addition to these dimensions, in an increasing number of schools,specific activities are set up to support the induction of newcomers.These activities are specifically oriented towards helping beginningteachers with their difficulties, providing pedagogical andemotional support, and introducing them to the school’s actors andculture. Such activities need to be taken into account to fullyunderstand the new teachers’ experiences. To this end, our secondstudy (conducted on a similar population and at approximately thesame period as the first study), focused on two activities occurringin some schools in order to support the beginners: follow-upmeetings with the school principal and mentoring support froma more experienced colleague.

4. Study 2

4.1. Method

4.1.1. Participants and procedureThe participants in this second study were 185 beginning

teachers from the French-speaking community of Belgium. Theywere all in their first three years of teaching, with a mean of 13.2months of teaching experience. They were 24.28 years old onaverage (SD¼ 3.14) and 83.2% of the sample were women. Theywere teaching at the primary (51.9%) or the middle (48.1%) schoollevel, and 17.8% were teaching in schools that receive additionalresources from the government because of the high proportion oftheir students coming from low-SES neighbourhoods. These samplecharacteristics are similar to other studies targeting the same pop-ulation (cf. Study 1). A questionnaire was sent to the participants bye-mail, and theywere asked to send it back electronically or by post.The e-mail addresses of the participants were obtained beforehandby contacting schools and educational administrations.

Table 1Summary of regression analyses for social working environment variables predicting feelings of depression (N¼ 110).

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Age �.02 [.79] �.05 [.62] �.02 [.81] �.01 [.94] �.05 [.59]Gender (men) �.10 [.29] �.06 [.56] �.06 [.55] �.07 [.48] �.09 [.34]Teaching level .08 [.41] .14 [.17] .15 [.15] .10 [.31] .10 [.32]Students’ SES �.13 [.19] �.17y [.09] �.19y [.07] �.15 [.14] �.13 [.17]Mastery-goal structure �.34*** [.001] �.33** [.01]Performance-goal structure .29** [.004] .22* [.03]Interactions with colleagues �.15 [.16] .01 [.90]Principal’s practices �.15 [.12] .08 [.49]

Note. The values represent standardised beta coefficients (b). Figures in square brackets are p values.yp< .10; *p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001.

C. Devos et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 206e217212

4.1.2. MeasuresFirst, four variables were included as control variables: partici-

pants’ age (years), gender (0¼women, 1¼men), level of teaching(0¼ primary school, 1¼middle school), and an indicator of thesocio-economic status (SES) of the students in their school (0¼ lowSES, 1¼ high SES).6

Second, the following scales were measured in the question-naire. Participants were asked to evaluate their degree of agree-ment with the items on 5-point Likert scales ranging from“completely disagree” (1) to “completely agree” (5).

4.1.2.1. Mentoring (10 items, n¼ 66). First, participants were askedwhether or not they had received individualised support fromamore experienced colleague (nomentoring¼ 0, mentoring¼ 1). Itwas specified that this kind of support should involve amore or lessformalised pairing between an experienced teacher and a noviceteacher, with the aim of giving the latter pedagogical and emotionalsupport, and that various names might be given to such pairings(e.g. mentoring, tutoring). The participants who answered thisquestion in the affirmative (n¼ 66) were asked to evaluate thequality and characteristics of this support on five-point Likertscales. On the basis of the research presented above (Löfström &Eisenschmidt, 2009; Rippon & Martin, 2006; Wang & Odell,2007), three dimensions of mentoring were assessed: the qualityof the human relationship (4 items) (e.g. “My mentor gives meemotional support”); the quality of feedback (3 items) (e.g. “Mymentor gives me constructive feedback”); and support withreflective thinking (3 items) (e.g. “My mentor helps me to thinkabout my teaching so that I can improve”). When one factor wasextracted with a principal component analysis, all the items loadedon the factor with loadings between .56 and .86. The internalconsistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of this scale is a¼ .92.

4.1.2.2. Follow-up meetings with the school principal (9 items,n¼ 80). Participants were first asked whether they had had anyformative individual meetings with the principal in order to discusshow they were doing with their teaching (no meeting¼ 0; meet-ings¼ 1). Those who answered this question in the affirmative(n¼ 80) were asked about the extent to which these meetings metPaquay’s (2004) ten characteristics of an empowering evaluation,for example, the opportunity to express oneself and to be listenedto, being able to prepare before the meeting, being aware of thecontent of the meeting and the evaluation criteria, and havingobjectives planned at the end of the meeting. An item example is“During the meeting, I had time to express myself”. The Cronbach’salpha of this scale is a¼ .85. When one factor was extracted witha principal component analysis, all the items load on it with load-ings between .54 and .79.

6 See Study 1 to see how this indicator was obtained.

4.1.2.3. Feelings of depression (6 items). This scale is based on theCentre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D, Radloff,1977) and deals with the extent to which participants were expe-riencing feelings of depression during the previous weeks. Itemsare identical to those in Study 1 (see the Method section of Study 1for more information about this scale). The internal consistency(Cronbach’s alpha) of this scale is a¼ .74. Principal componentanalysis shows that all items loaded on one factor with loadingsranging from �.50 to .79.

4.1.2.4. Self-efficacy (5 items). Similarly to Study 1, this scale refersto how confident the participants are with their teaching, and wasdesigned according to Bandura’s (1997, 2006) recommendations.Items are similar to those in Study 1 (see the Method section ofStudy 1 for more details). The internal consistency (Cronbach’salpha) of this scale is a¼ .68. Principal component analysis showsthat all items load on one single factor with loadings from .43 to .75.

4.2. Results

Tables 3 and 4 present the regression analyses (computed inSPSS with the “enter” method) that examine how meetings withthe principal andmentoring predict feelings of depression (Table 3)and self-efficacy (Table 4). In each of the tables, Model 1 shows thepredictive power of (a) the occurrence and (b) the quality of themeetings with the school principal, and Model 2 displays thepredictive power of (a) the occurrence and (b) the quality ofmentoring activities.

First, concerning the control variables, only one significantcorrelation can be identified; the relationship between age andfeelings of depression in the first model (b¼ .24, p< .05). In thisanalysis, the older the beginning teachers were, the more theyexperienced feelings of depression. However, this relationship wasnot found in the other regression models.

Second, we investigated the influence of the mere occurrence ofmentoring practices and follow-up meetings with the principal onthe outcomes. Some 80 out of the 185 participants indicated thatthey had had follow-up meeting(s) with their principal, and 66 hadreceived formal or informal mentoring support. The mere occur-rence of these activities had no significant impact either on the newteachers’ feelings of depression (meetings with principal: b¼ .04,ns; mentoring: b¼�.08, ns), or self-efficacy (meetings with prin-cipal: b¼ .03, ns; mentoring: b¼ .10, ns). However, the quality ofthese activities was significantly related to the outcomes. Thequality of both meetings with the principal and mentoring weresignificant predictors of self-efficacy (b¼ .29, p< .05 and b¼ .36,p< .05, respectively). The quality of the meetings with the principalwas also significantly negatively related to beginning teachers’feelings of depression (b¼�.32, p< .01).

When considering the three sub-dimensions of mentoring(human relationship, feedback and reflective practice) (Table 5), we

Table 2Summary of regression analyses for social working environment variables predicting self-efficacy (N¼ 110).

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Age .003 [.97] .03 [.80] .003 [.98] �.01 [.92] .03 [.76]Gender (men) �.11 [.27] �.15 [.13] �.14 [.17] �.14 [.18] �.11 [.26]Teaching level .003 [.97] �.06 [.58] �.05 [.63] �.03 [.80] .0004 [.99]Students’ SES �.05 [.65] �.01 [.93] .001 [.99] �.02 [.83] �.05 [.61]Mastery-goal structure .31** [.002] .33** [.01]Performance-goal structure �.26** [.01] �.21* [.03]Interactions with colleagues .06 [.54] �.09 [.40]Principal’s practices .13 [.21] �.08 [.51]

Note. The values represent standardised beta coefficients (b). Figures in square brackets are p values.yp< .10; *p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001.

C. Devos et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 206e217 213

can see that they have different patterns of correlations withbeginning teachers’ outcomes. The quality of the human relation-ship between the mentor and the mentee has similar (non-signif-icant) relationships with feelings of depression (r¼�.18, ns) andself-efficacy (r¼ .16, ns). However, the feedback and reflectivepractice dimensions have different relationships with the twooutcomes: they are unrelated to the novices’ feelings of depression,but are significantly correlated with their feelings of self-efficacy(r¼ .30, p< .05 and r¼ .28, p< .05, respectively).

5. Discussion

The aim of this article was to investigate the relationshipsbetween dimensions of beginning teachers’ social working envi-ronment and their feelings of depression and self-efficacy. To thisend, elements from two complementary studies were presented. Inthis section, we will summarise and integrate the results of thesetwo studies, and discuss their implications.

5.1. Teacher and school characteristics

Overall, we found little relationships between teachers’outcomes and characteristics of the teachers (age, gender) and ofthe school (teaching level, students’ SES). The only significantrelationship detected was that between age and depression, butthis relationship only appeared in the second study. Gender wasslightly but non-significantly related to self-efficacy in both studies,women reporting a little more self-confidence than men. Therelationship between teaching level and the outcomes was incon-sistent and non-significant. Finally, in both studies, new teachers inschools serving poor neighbourhoods were found to be slightlymore likely to feel depressed than other novice teachers.

These results are in line with previous studies of the relation-ships between self-efficacy and the characteristics of beginning

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

Infrequent FrequentCollaborative interactions with

colleagues

Self-efficacy

Few Difficulties

Many Difficulties

Fig. 1. Interaction effect of frequency of collaborative interactions with colleagues andperceived difficulties on beginning teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs.

teachers and their schools (Chester & Beaudin, 1996; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). They are also similar to the results observedwith a related outcome, namely job satisfaction (Ma & MacMillan,1999; Stockard & Lehman, 2004). The sizes of these effects aregenerally small (from .05 to .15 on average). Interestingly, Johnsonet al. (2011) observed that the large correlation they foundbetween students’ SES and satisfaction was reduced by 70% whennine dimensions of the work context (including social support,culture, and resources) were taken into account. The inter-relationsbetween the background characteristics and the working envi-ronment therefore appear interesting to further examine.

5.2. The social working environment

The analyses of the influence of the social working environmenton beginning teachers’ outcomes showed interesting patterns ofresults. In the first study we found that the goal structure of theschool culture was significantly related to new teachers’ outcomes.A working environment that values intrinsic motivation, effort andself-referenced progressionwas associated with positive outcomes,whereas an environment that is characterised by comparison,competition, and the need to demonstrate one’s competence or toavoid showing one’s weaknesses was strongly related to negativeoutcomes. This new conceptualisation of organisational culturewasfound to tap into relevant dimensions for the well-being of theteachers and suggests a new way of examining school culture.Further, it extends the work on achievement goal orientationconducted by Midgley and her colleagues (e.g. Kaplan et al., 2002;Midgley et al., 2000). Nevertheless, future studies are needed toreplicate these effects and to improve the instrument. Morespecifically, more work is needed to establish its construct validity(further elaboration of the definition of the goal structure of theschool culture, further discussion on its sub-dimensions), internalvalidity (test of the internal structure in different contexts and

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

Infrequent Frequent

Collaborative interactions with

colleagues

Self-efficacy

High Mastery GoalStructureLow Mastery GoalStructure

Fig. 2. Interaction effect of frequency of collaborative interactions with colleagues andmastery-goal structure on beginning teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs.

Table 3Summary of regression analyses for follow-up meetings with the principal andmentoring predicting feelings of depression (N¼ 185).

Model 1 Model 2

Age .24* [.03] .23y [.09]Gender (men) .06 [.56] .09 [.46]Teaching level �.12 [.30] �.14 [.32]Students’ SES �.08 [.48] �.09 [.50]Meetings with principal (occurrence) .04 [.73]Meetings with principal (perceived quality)a �.32** [.00]Mentoring (occurrence) �.08 [.54]Mentoring (perceived quality)b �.08 [.61]

Note. The values represent standardised beta coefficients (b). Figures in squarebrackets are p values.yp< .10; *p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001.

a n¼ 80.b n¼ 66.

Table 5Correlations between the overall quality and the three sub-dimensions of mentoringand beginning teacher’s feelings of depression and self-efficacy (n¼ 66).

Feelings of depression Self-efficacy

Overall mentoring quality �.11 [.40] .26* [.04]

Sub-dimensionsHuman relationship �.18 [.14] .16 [.21]Feedback �.01 [.96] .30* [.02]Reflective practice �.09 [.47] .28* [.02]

Note. The values represent Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r). Figures in squarebrackets are p values.yp< .10; *p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001.

C. Devos et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 206e217214

countries), and external validity (convergent and divergent validitywith other measures of goal orientation and school culture).

The frequency of collaborative interactions with colleagues wasnegatively but non-significantly related to depression and unrelatedto self-efficacy. This last relationship was found to be moderated bythe level of difficulty being experienced by the new teachers and themastery-goal orientation of the school culture. The frequency ofcollaborative interactions with colleagues was positively related toself-efficacy only when the new teachers were having few if anydifficulties and/or when their working environment was stronglyoriented towards mastery goals. Conversely, frequent collaborativeinteractions with colleagues were negatively related to self-efficacywhen the new teachers were experiencing considerable difficultywith their teaching and/orwhen themastery-goal structurewas low.

This suggests that activities intended to support teachers canhave either a positive or a detrimental effect on beginning teachers’efficacy beliefs, depending on the conditions in which these activ-ities take place. These results support the research on the socio-cognitive conflict area developed in the literature review (Buchset al., 2004), which suggests that the perceived competence ofthe protagonists and the threatening nature of the environmentmay influence the way the collaboration develops. These resultsalso raise questions about the support that needs to be given to newteachers who are encountering difficulties in their job. These arethe neediest teachers, and frequent collaborative interactions withtheir colleagues are likely to make them feel even less confident. Insome schools it is particularly difficult to admit to having problems.Novices are afraid of discrediting themselves if they express theiranxieties, and believe that it could negatively affect their chance ofgaining a long-term position in the school. Particular attentiontherefore needs to be paid to giving these teachers opportunities toexplore their difficulties without feeling judged.

Table 4Summary of regression analyses for follow-up meetings with the principal andmentoring predicting self-efficacy.

Model 1 Model 2

Age .05 [.64] .15 [.29]Gender (men) �.04 [.73] �.07 [.57]Teaching level �.05 [.65] .08 [.56]Students’ SES .05 [.69] .02 [.89]Meetings with principal (occurrence) .03 [.79]Meetings with principal (perceived quality)a .29* [.01]Mentoring (occurrence) .10 [.44]Mentoring (perceived quality)b .36* [.02]

Note. The values represent standardised beta coefficients (b). Figures in squarebrackets are p values.yp< .10; *p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001.

a n¼ 80.b n¼ 66.

Although the relationships between the school principal’spractices and novice teachers’ well-being were positive, they wereweak and statistically non-significant. This finding can be explainedin various ways. First, as we observed with respect to the frequencyof collaborative interactions with colleagues, the relationship maybe moderated by some third variable. For example, the principalmay have an evaluative as well as a formative role (e.g. whendeciding to keep the novice in the school or not), and the way inwhich this role ambiguity is perceived by the newcomer mayinfluence his or her reaction to the help offered by the principal.Second, because the teachers are new to the school and the principalis often busy, they probably do not have a close relationship yet,whichmay lessen the direct influence of the principal’s practices onthe novice. Third, the principal may influence outcomes other thanself-efficacy and feelings of depression, such as intention to remainin the profession and actual retention. For example, although thisresult was not presented in this paper, we found in the first studythat the principal’s practices were significantly related to beginningteachers’ intention to stay in the profession. The role that principal’spractices play in new teachers’ induction therefore seems to becomplex, and there is a need for future studies to examine it further.

The results of Study 1 also suggest that various aspects of thesocial working environment are interrelated. Model 5 in Tables 1and 2, which estimated the impact of all the variables concur-rently, resulted in an attenuation of the size of the coefficients.These findings are similar to those of Smith and Ingersoll (2004),and suggest that participants who received one type of support alsoreceived other types of support, making it difficult to isolate thedifferent effects. This is confirmed by the significant correlationcoefficients between the working environment variables (fromr¼�.25 between the two goal structures to r¼ .54 betweenmastery-goal structure and the principal’s practices). Nevertheless,the collinearity analyses7 indicated that multicollinearity was nota problem, and that the variables could therefore be consideredtogether in the analyses.

In the second study, we found that themere occurrence of formalor informal mentoring and of follow-up meetings with the schoolprincipal were not associated with a significant difference inbeginning teachers’ outcomes. These results are similar to thosepresented in the literature review (Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004; Ingersoll& Strong, 2011; Kapadia et al., 2007; Kardos, 2005). However, wefound interesting relationships between the quality of these activi-ties and new teachers’ outcomes. Whereas meetings with the prin-cipal showed similar relationships with depression and self-efficacy,the quality of mentoring was only significantly related to self-efficacy. Further, although the three sub-dimensions of mentoringwere all positively related to self-efficacy, the relationship was

7 The collinearity indices provided by SPSS were the tolerance indicator and thevariance inflation factor (VIF).

C. Devos et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 206e217 215

stronger with the feedback and reflective practice components thanwith the human relation component. It is therefore worth empha-sising that a warm human relationship between the mentor and thementee, though important, is not sufficient to influence novices’sense of self-efficacy, and that constructive feedback and support forreflective thinking are central components of mentoring practice.

A close examination of the results suggests that both self-efficacy and feelings of depression are relevant indicators toconsider when investigating new teachers’ experience. Bothoutcomes were related to both goal structures. Whereas meetingswith the principal was also associated with both outcomes, men-toring was only associated with self-efficacy. Depression was alsoslightly related to collaboration between teachers. Overall, rela-tionships were slightly stronger with depression than with self-efficacy. A possible explanation for this is that mood is less stablethan self-efficacy and therefore more likely to be influenced by theenvironment. Although feelings of depression are frequentlyignored in studies of new teachers, these results suggest that it isuseful to consider both motivational and emotional indicatorsabout new teachers’ experience. Future studies should investigatethe possible mediating role of these variables on the relationshipbetween working environment and more distant outcomes such asteacher retention and students’ achievement.

Of course, this study is limited in some ways, which need to beaddressed in future work. Because the sample size was modestand the participants were recruited on a voluntary basis, therecould be a selection bias. However, our results are in line withthose from previous larger international studies, and deeperanalyses of our sample and measures (location of the participantson the district, distribution of the variables, and comparison withresults from larger samples) suggested that they are likely to berepresentative of the population. Secondly, Cronbach alphas of theself-efficacy scales were rather low, although all the items loadedon a single factor. This may indicate that the scale taps intodifferent aspects of the job, allowing participants to score high onone aspect and low on another, while still measuring the sameunderlying construct. Finally, the design of this study does notallow the results to be interpreted as causal relations. They need tobe considered alongside with studies that are longitudinal and canexplore the influence of the work environment at Time 1 onteachers’ outcomes measured at Time 2, controlling for theirbaseline at Time 1.

5.3. Induction programme quality and environmental receptiveness

Taking a broader look at this whole set of results leads us tofurther thoughts about the impact of activities designed to supportbeginning teachers. The results on collaborative interactions withcolleagues (Study 1), meetings with the principal, and mentoringpractices (Study 2) reinforce the idea that support activities do notalways have a positive impact (Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005),and that their effect is influenced by their internal qualities, aswell as by the characteristics of the work environment they takeplace in.

On the one hand, these results draw our attention to the role ofthe overall quality and the characteristics of the induction pro-gramme itself. For example, Kapadia et al. (2007) found that mereparticipation in an induction programme had no effect on newteachers’ outcomes (being satisfied with their teaching experienceand looking forward to teaching next year), but that the relationsbetween the level of mentoring received and these outcomes weresignificant. Other authors have stressed the importance of specificcharacteristics of the mentoring process (Martineau, Portelance, &Presseau, 2010). Ingersoll and Kralik (2004) underlined theimportance of the mentor and the mentee being from the same

field (i.e. subject and grade level). Rockoff (2008) found thatnewcomers whose mentor had taught in their school were morelikely to remain in the same school the following year, and that thenumber of hours of mentoring they received predicted theirstudents’ achievement in maths and reading. There is a need formore studies that investigate mentors’ and mentoring pro-grammes’ characteristics so that their full potential for helping newteachers can be realised.

On the other hand, the findings also draw attention to thebroader work environment in which mentoring takes place. Asmentioned in the literature review, Smith and Ingersoll (2004)found that, on its own, mentoring had little effect on newteachers’ attrition rate. However, when new teachers benefitedsimultaneously from four types of support activities (i.e. mentor inthe same field, supportive communication with colleagues,scheduled collaboration time with colleagues, and participation inseminars), the probability of attrition after the first year decreasedsignificantly. Williams, Prestage, and Bedward (2001) showed thatstructured support activities for newly qualified teachers inEngland had more impact in schools where the culture was one ofstructural collaboration than in schools where the culture wasmore individualistic. In our study, we found that the frequency ofcollaborative interactions with colleagues was related to greaterfeelings of self-efficacy only when the working environment wasstrongly oriented towards mastery goals, and that it had a detri-mental effect when this orientation was low. Therefore, like otherresearchers (e.g. Kardos, 2005; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005;Wang, Odell, & Schwille, 2008), we concluded that, in addition tothe quality of the mentor and the mentor-mentee relationship, theefficacy of induction activities will also depend on the receptivity ofthe working environment towards this type of practice.

5.4. Summary and implications for research and practice

To summarise, we found in this study that novice teachers’ self-efficacy and feelings of depression were: (a) strongly related to thegoal structure of the school culture, (b) related to collaborativeinteractions with colleagues only if the novice experience littledifficulties or work in an environment oriented towards masterygoals, and (c) related to the quality of the mentoring support andthe quality of the meetings with the principal, but not to the mereoccurrence of these activities.

These results lead to three implications for practice. Firstly, theystress the importance of taking care of the atmosphere between theteachers. Although the school climate is somewhat abstruse anddifficult to influence, it matters to spend time and attention to itsquality (e.g. with group activities, school leader interventions, etc.).Second, special precautions need to be taken when collaborativeactivities are organised between experienced teachers and noviceteachers experiencing many difficulties in order not to furtherundermine these teachers’ sense of efficacy. Third, when imple-menting mentoring activities, much attention needs to be paid tothe receptivity of the working environment, to the way that theseactivities are implemented (e.g. clear communication to theteachers), and to the characteristics of the program that are likely tomake it effective (e.g. the choice of the mentors, the pairing, theagreement between the novices and the mentors, etc.).

Finally, in terms of future research, this study pleads in favourof (a) further conceptualisations of the working environment interms of goal structure and deeper analyses of the relationshipsbetween these dimensions and teachers’ outcomes, and (b)research investigating the characteristics of the inductionprograms as well as of the surrounding working environment thatare likely to lead to the success of the program and to positiveoutcomes for the novices.

C. Devos et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 206e217216

Appendix

Table A1Loadings resulting from a principal component analysis of the goal structure items.

In my school. Performance goal Mastery goal

It is very important not to look incompetent. .79It is better to hide your weaknesses and mistakes. .72You lose credibility quickly if you fail to do something (e.g. maintain discipline in class). .71 �.30It is important to show others that you are not a bad teacher. .67The most important thing is to cover as much of the curriculum as possible. .65When your work is evaluated (e.g. feedback from a colleague, classroom observation),

everyone quickly knows how good it was..63

I often feel that I am being compared to other teachers. .56It is important to give the impression that you are as good as, or better than, other teachers. .49 �.22There is a competitive climate between the teachers. .45It is particularly impressive if you can perform well without appearing to make much of an effort. .34It is important to think deeply about your work, not just to do it automatically. .80It is very important to learn new things. .79The general opinion is that teaching should be a pleasure. .74My efforts and my progress are recognised. .63What counts most is that students really learn. .61The general opinion is that every teacher can be a good teacher if they try hard enough. .52Working hard at your teaching is appreciated. .50When your work is evaluated (e.g. feedback from a colleague, classroom observation),

it is always done in private..45

Note. Extraction criterion: two factors. Rotation: varimax. Loadings below .20 were omitted.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting inter-actions. Newbury Park, London: Sage.

Allensworth, E., Ponisciak, S., & Mazzeo, C. (2009). The schools teachers leave. Teachermobility in Chicago public schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago SchoolResearch at the University of Chicago. http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php?pub_id¼134 Retrieved from.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 84(3), 261e271.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for creating self-efficacy scales. In T. Urdan, & F. Pajares

(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307e337). Greenwich, CT: Infor-mation Age Publishing.

Boekaerts, M. (2007). Understanding students’ affective processes in the classroom.In P. A. Schutz, & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 37e56). San Diego,CA: Academic Press.

Bonami, M., Letor, C., & Garant, M. (2010). Vers une modélisation des processusd’apprentissage organisationnel à la lumière de trois situations hors normes.[Towards a model of organisational learning processes in three unusual situa-tions]. In L. Corriveau, C. Letor, D. Périsset Bagnoud, & L. Savoie-Zajc (Eds.),Travailler ensemble dans les établissements scolaires et de formation [Workingtogether in schools and training centres]. Brussels: De Boeck.

Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: a meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research,78(3), 367e409.

Britt, P. M. (1997, November). Perceptions of beginning teachers: Novice teachersreflect upon their beginning experiences. Paper presented at the annual meetingof the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Memphis, TN. ERIC docu-ment reproductive service no. ED 415 218.

Buchs, C., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Darnon, C. (2004). Conflict elaboration andcognitive outcomes. Theory into Practice, 43(1), 23e30.

Bullough, R. V., Jr., & Young, J. (2002). Learning to teach as an intern: the emotionsand the self. Teacher Development: An International Journal of Teachers’ Profes-sional Development, 6(3), 417e431.

Cheng, M., & Brown, R. S. (1992). A two-year evaluation of the peer support pilotproject: 1990e1992. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto Board of Education,Research Department.

Chester, M. D., & Beaudin, B. Q. (1996). Efficacy beliefs of newly hired teachers inurban schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 233e257.

Corbell, K. A., Reiman, A. J., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2008). The perceptions of successinventory for beginning teachers: measuring its psychometric properties.Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(6), 1551e1563.

Crasborn, F., Hennissen, P., Brouwer, N., Korthagen, F., & Bergen, T. (2008).Promoting versatility in mentor teachers’ use of supervisory skills. Teaching andTeacher Education, 24(3), 499e514.

Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderatedmultiple regression: development and application of a slope difference test.Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917e926.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in humanbehaviour. New York: Plenum.

Dupeyrat, C., Escribe, C., & Mariné, C. (2006). Buts d’accomplissement et qualité del’engagement dans l’apprentissage: le coût de la compétition. [Achievementgoals and the quality of students’ engagement in initial teacher training: thecost of competition]. In B. Galand, & E. Bourgeois (Eds.), (Se) Motiver à apprendre[Motivate (oneself) to learn] (pp. 63e74). Paris: PUF.

Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: an approach to motivation and achieve-ment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5e12.

Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Stephens, E. J., & Jacob, B. (2009). Antecedents and effects ofteachers’ emotional experiences: an integrated perspective and empirical test.In P. A. Schutz, & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research: Theimpact on teachers’ lives (pp. 129e151). New York: Springer.

Friedman, I. A. (2000). Burnout in teachers: shattered dreams of impeccableprofessional performance. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(5), 595e606.

Fuller, E. (2003). Beginning teacher retention rates for TxBESS and non-TxBESSteachers. Unpublished paper, State Board for Educator Certification, Texas.

Ganser, T. (1999, April). Reconsidering the relevance of Veenman’s (1984) meta-analysis of the perceived problems of beginning teachers. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Mon-treal, Quebec. ERIC document reproductive service no. ED 429 964.

Glazerman, S., Isenberg, E., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Grider, M., et al.(2010). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction. Final results from a random-ized controlled study (NCEE 2010-4027). Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104027 Retrieved from.

Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 541e553.

Hagger, H., & Malmberg, L. E. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ goals and future-timeextension, concerns, and well-being. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3),598e608.

Hargreaves, A. (2005). Educational change takes ages: life, career and generationalfactors in teachers’ emotional responses to educational change. Teaching andTeacher Education, 21(8), 967e983.

Hebert, E., & Worthy, T. (2001). Does the first year of teaching have to be a bad one?A case study of success. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(8), 897e911.

Henke, R. R., Chen, X., & Geis, S. (2000). Progress through the teacher pipeline:1992e93 College graduates and elementary/secondary school teaching as of 1997.Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early yearsof teaching: a comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education,21(4), 343e356.

Ingersoll, R. M., & Kralik, J. M. (2004). The impact of mentoring on teacher retention:What research says. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/50/36/5036.htm Retrieved 15.02.11, from.

Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoringprograms for beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 81(2),201e233.

Ingersoll, R. W. (1997). Teacher professionalization and teacher commitment: Amultilevel analysis. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/97069.pdf Retrieved 01.03.11, from.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1985). Motivational processes in cooperative, competi-tive, and individualistic learning situations. In C. Ames, & R. Ames (Eds.), Theclassroom milieu. Research in motivation in education, Vol. 2 (pp. 249e286). NewYork: Academic Press.

C. Devos et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 206e217 217

Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: new teachersexplain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3),581e617.

Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2011). How context matters in high-needschools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfac-tion and their students’ achievement (Project on the next generation of teachersworking paper). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. http://www.gse.harvard.edu/wngt/papers.htm Retrieved from.

Kamanzi, P. K., Lessard, C., & Riopel, M.-C. (2008). Les enseignants et les enseignantesau Canada: contexte, profit et travail. Enquêtes pancanadiennes auprès desdirections et des enseignants d’écoles primaires et secondaires au Canada. Rapportde recherche pour le projet CRSH ‘Évolution actuelle de l’enseignement primaire etsecondaire au Canada’. [Teachers in Canada: Context, benefits and work. Studieswith principals and teachers from elementary and secondary schools in Canada.Research report for the CRSH ‘current developments in elementary and secondaryeducation’ project]. Montréal: CRIFPE et Chaire de recherche du Canada sur lesmétiers de l’Éducation.

Kapadia, K., Coca, V., & Easton, J. Q. (2007). Keeping new teachers: A first look at theinfluences of induction in the Chicago public schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium onChicago School Research at the University of Chicago. http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php?pub_id¼113 Retrieved from.

Kaplan, A., Middleton, M. J., Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2002). Achievement goals andgoal structures. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns ofadaptive learning (pp. 21e54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kardos, S. M. (2005, April). The importance of professional culture in new teachers’ jobsatisfaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationResearch Association, Montreal, Canada.

Kelchtermans, G. (1996). Teacher vulnerability: understanding its moral andpolitical roots. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3), 307e323.

Kelchtermans, G. (2005). Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy. Teachingand Teacher Education, 21(8), 995e1006.

Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002). The micropolitics of teacher induction:a narrative biographical study on teacher socialisation. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 18(1), 105e120.

Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message. Self-under-standing, vulnerability and reflection. Teachers and teaching: theory and practice,15(2), 257e272.

Kim, Y. H., & Kim, Y. E. (2010). Korean early childhood educators’ multi-dimensionalteacher self-efficacy and ECE center climate and depression severity in teachersas contributing factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5), 1117e1123.

Koberg, C. S., & Chusmir, L. H. (1987). Organizational culture relationships withcreativity and other job-related variables. Journal of Business Research, 15(5),397e409.

Kovess-Masféty, V., Rios-Seidel, C., & Sevilla-Dedieu, C. (2007). Teachers’ mentalhealth and teaching levels. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1177e1192.

Leithwood, K., & Beatty, B. (2008). Leading with teacher emotions in mind. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). Transformational school leadership effects:a replication. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 10(4), 451e479.

Levine, T. H., & Marcus, A. S. (2010). How the structure and focus of teachers’collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching andTeacher Education, 26(3), 389e398.

Linnenbrink, E. (2006). Emotion research in education: theoretical and methodo-logical perspectives on the integration of affect, motivation, and cognition.Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 307e314.

Löfström, E., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2009). Novice teachers’ perspectives on mentoring:the case of the Estonian induction year. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5),681e689.

Ma, X., & MacMillan, R. B. (1999). Influences of workplace conditions on teachers’job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 39e47.

Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., Hinkley, J. W., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Evaluation of thebig-two factor theory of academic motivation orientations: an evaluation ofjingle-jangle fallacies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38(2), 189e224.

Martineau, S., Portelance, L., & Presseau, A. (2010). Le mentorat comme dispositif desoutien à l’insertion professionnelle des enseignants. [Mentoring as a supportfor teachers’ induction]. Retrieved 15.02.11, from. http://www.insertion.qc.ca/cnipe_2/IMG/pdf_LADIPE_Lille_2010.pdf.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work ofhigh school teaching. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structures,student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology,57(1), 487e503.

Melnick, S. A., & Meister, D. G. (2008). A comparison of beginning and experiencedteachers’ concerns. Educational Research Quarterly, 31(3), 39e56.

Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E.,et al. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales (PALS). AnnArbor, MI: University of Michigan. http://www.umich.edu/wpals/manuals.htmlRetrieved 15.02.11, from.

Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2009). The joint influence of personal achievementgoals and classroom goal structures on achievement-relevant outcomes. Journalof Educational Psychology, 101(2), 432e447.

Nias, J. (1996). Thinking about feeling: the emotions in teaching. Cambridge Journalof Education, 26(3), 293.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: conceptions of ability, subjectiveexperience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328e346.

Norman, P. J., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2005). Mind activity in teaching and mentoring.Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(6), 679e697.

Orland-Barak, L., & Klein, S. (2005). The expressed and the realized: mentors’representations of a mentoring conversation and its realization in practice.Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 379e402.

Owens, L., & Barnes, J. (1992). Learning preference scales: Handbook and test masterset: Teachers, students and parents. Hawthorn, Australia: Australian Council forEducational Research.

Paquay, L. (2004). L’évaluation des enseignants: Tensions, paradoxes et perspec-tives. [The evaluation of teachers: tensions, paradoxes and perspectives]. InL. Paquay (Ed.), L’évaluation des enseignants: Tensions et enjeux [The evaluation ofteachers: Tensions and stakes] (pp. 305e322). Paris: L’Harmattan.

Quiamzade, A., & Mugny, G. (2001). Social influence dynamics in aptitude tasks.Social Psychology of Education, 4(4), 311e334.

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3),385e401.

Rippon, J. H., & Martin, M. (2006). What makes a good induction supporter?Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(1), 84e99.

Rockoff, J. E. (2008). Does mentoring reduce turnover and improve skills of newemployees? Evidence from teachers in New York City (NBER working paper no.13868). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13868 Retrieved from.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality andcommitment: implications for teacher induction programs. The ElementarySchool Journal, 89(4), 421e439.

Schonfeld, I. S. (1992). A longitudinal study of occupational stressors and depressivesymptoms in first-year female teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(2),151e158.

Schutz, P. A., & Pekrun, R. (Eds.). (2007). Emotion in education. San Diego, CA:Academic Press.

Schutz, P. A., & Zembylas, M. (2009). Advances in teacher emotion research: Theimpact on teachers’ lives. New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction andmentoring on beginning teachers’ turnover? American Educational ResearchJournal, 41(3), 681e714.

Stockard, J., & Lehman, M. B. (2004). Influences on the satisfaction and retention of1st-year teachers: the importance of effective school management. EducationalAdministration Quarterly, 40, 742e771.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 23(6), 944e956.

Vandenberghe, V. (2000). Leaving teaching in the French-speaking community of Bel-gium: a duration analysis. Education Economics, 8(3), 221e239. http://perso.uclouvain.be/vincent.vandenberghe/Papers/LeavingT_VVDB.pdf Retrieved 15.02.11,from.

van Veen, K., & Lasky, S. (2005). Emotions as a lens to explore teacher identity andchange: different theoretical approaches. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8),895e898.

Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educa-tional Research, 54(2), 143e178.

Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2007). An alternative conception of mentorenovice rela-tionships: learning to teach in reform-minded ways as a context. Teaching andTeacher Education, 23(4), 473e489.

Wang, J., Odell, S. J., & Schwille, S. A. (2008). Effects of teacher induction onbeginning teachers’ teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 132e152.

Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. InternationalJournal of Educational Research, 13(1), 21e39.

Weiss, E. M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year teachers’ morale,career choice commitment, and planned retention: a secondary analysis.Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(8), 861e879.

Williams, A., Prestage, S., & Bedward, J. (2001). Individualism to collaboration: thesignificance of teacher culture to the induction of newly qualified teachers.Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 27(3),253e267.