Student teaching is a powerful formative experience for special education teacher candidates. Crucial to candidate success in student teaching is the effectiveness of their mentor teacher. However, the role of mentor teacher does not occur in a vacuum and context factors into the quality of the experience. A growing body of research indicates that a placement school’s working conditions may also contribute to candidate outcomes. Yet, prior research provides little insight into how these elements may interact and relate to candidates’ development. This study investigates this potential relationship and the ways in which they may shape candidate development. Results suggest mentor teachers’ available planning time and collaborative relationships with general education colleagues are important working conditions in supporting relationships between mentors and candidates, candidate development, and candidates’ future career plans. Implications and future directions for mentorship research are discussed.
BastianK. C.PattersonK.CarpenterD. (2022). Placed for success: Which teachers benefit from high-quality student teaching placements?Educational Policy, 36(7), 1583–1611.
2.
BettiniE.CrockettJ.BrownellM.MerrillK. L. (2016). Relationships between working conditions and special educators’ instruction. Journal of Special Education, 50, 178–190.
3.
BettiniE.CummingM. M.O’BrienM. K.BrunstingN.MaalavikaR.SuttonR.ChopraA. (2020). Predicting special educators’ intent to continue teaching students with emotional or behavioral disorders in self-contained settings. Exceptional Children, 86(2), 209–228.
4.
BillingsleyB.BettiniE. (2019). Special education teacher attrition and retention: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 697–744.
5.
BillingsleyB.BettiniE.MathewsH.McLeskeyJ. (2020). Improving working conditions to support special educators’ effectiveness: A call for leadership. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43, 7–27.
6.
BillingsleyB.BettiniE.DematthewsD.BurnsE. M. (2022). Special education teachers’ social contexts. In McCrayE.BettiniE.BrownellM. T.SindelarP. T. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Special Education Teacher Preparation (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003297093
7.
BrantlingerE.JimenezR.KlingerJ.PugachM.RicheardsonV. (2005). Qualitative Studies in Special Education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205
8.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
9.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2012). Thematic analysis. In CopperH.LongP. M., D. L.PanterA. T.RindskopfD.SherK. J. (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Qunatitiative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
10.
BrunstingN. C.BettiniE.RockM.CommonE.A.RoyerD. J.LaneK. L.XieF.ChenA.ZengF. (2022). Working conditions and burnout of special educators of students with EBD: Longitudinal outcomes. Teacher Education and Special Education, 46(1).
11.
BrunstingN. C.StarkK.BettiniE.LaneK. L.RoyerD. J.CommonE. A.L. RockM. (2024). Self-efficacy, burnout, and intent to leave for teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 49(2), 75–90.
12.
ClarkeA.TriggsV.NielsenW. (2014). Cooperating teacher participation in teacher education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 84(2), 163–202.
13.
CobbP.BowersJ. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15.
14.
CookL. (2007). When in Rome . . .: Influences on special education student-teachers’ teaching. International Journal of Special Education, 22(3), 118–130.
15.
CrottyM. J. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage.
16.
FlodingM.SwierG. (2012). Legitimate peripheral participation: Entering a community of practice. Reflective Practice: Formation and Supervision in Ministry, 31, 193–204.
17.
GoelL.JohnsonN.JunglasI.IvesB. (2010). Situated learning: Conceptualization and measurement. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 8(1), 215–240.
18.
GoldhaberD.KriegJ.NaitoN.TheobaldR. (2020). Making the most of student teaching: The importance of mentors and scope for change. Education Finance and Policy, 15(3), 581–591.
19.
GoldhaberD.KriegJ.TheobaldR. (2020a). Effective like me? Does having a more productive mentor improve the productivity of mentees?Labour Economics, 63, 101792.
20.
GoldhaberD.KriegJ.TheobaldR. (2020b). Exploring the impact of student teaching apprenticeships on student achievement and mentor teachers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(2), 213–234.
21.
GoldhaberD.RonfeldtM.CowanJ.GratzT.BardelliE.TruwitM. (2022). Room for improvement? Mentor teachers and the evolution of teacher preservice clinical evaluations. American Educational Research Journal, 59(5), 1011–1048.
22.
GrahamB. (2006). Conditions for successful field experiences: Perceptions of cooperating teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1118–1129.
23.
HoffmanJ. V.WetzelM. M.MalochB.GreeterE.TaylorL.DeJulioS.Khan VlachS. (2015). What can we learn from studying the coaching interactions between cooperating teachers and preservice teachers? A literature review. Teaching & Teacher Education, 52, 99–112.
24.
KraftM. A.LyonM. A. (2024). The rise and fall of the teaching profession: Prestige, interest, preparation, and satisfaction over the last half century (EdWorkingPaper No. 22-679). Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.
25.
KriegJ. M.TheobaldR.GoldhaberD. (2016). A foot in the door: Exploring the role of student teaching assignments in teachers’ initial job placements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38, 364–388.
26.
LaveJ.WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
27.
LekoM. M.BrownellM. T. (2011). Special education preservice teachers’ appropriation of pedagogical tools for teaching reading. Exceptional Children, 77(2), 229–251.
28.
LekoM. M.CookB. G.CookL. (2021). Qualitative Methods in Special Education Research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 36(4), 278–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12268
29.
MathewsH. M. (2021). Developing a theory of program vision as professional socialization in special education teacher preparation. Teacher Education & Special Education, 46(1), 5–25.
30.
MathewsH. M.WeissM.McKenneyN.SilvaR. (2024). Coherence in special education teacher preparation: Developing sustainable professional identities. In McCrayE.BettiniE.BrownellM. T.SindelarP. T. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Special Education Teacher Preparation (2nd ed., pp. 392–411). Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003297093
31.
MatskoK. K.RonfeldtM.Greene NolanH.KluganJ.ReiningerM.BrockmanS. L. (2020). Cooperating teacher as model and coach: What leads to students teachers’ perceptions of preparedness?Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 41–62.
32.
McLeskeyJ.BarringerM.-D.BillingsleyB.BrownellM.JacksonD.KennedyM.LewisT.MaheadyL.RodriguezJ.ScheelerM. C.WinnJ.ZieglerD. (2017, January). High-leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center.
33.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldanaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
34.
NagroS. A.deBettencourtL. U. (2017). Reviewing special education teacher preparation field experience placements, activities, and research: Do we know the difference maker?Teacher Education Quarterly, 44(3), 7–33.
35.
O’BrianM.StonerJ.AppelK.HouseJ. (2007). The first field experience: Perspectives of preservice & cooperating teachers. Teacher Education & Special Education, 30(4), 264–275.
36.
O’BrienK. M.NagroS. A.BinkertG. D.SzocikK.GerryM. (2024). Field experiences in special education teacher preparation: A review of the literature. Teacher Education and Special Education, 47(1), 5–25.
37.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.CollinsK. (2007). A Typology of Mixed Mehtods Sampling Designs in Social Science Research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281–316. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2007.1638
38.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
39.
RobertsC. A.BenedictA. E.ThomasR. A. (2014). Cooperating teachers’ role in preparing preservice special education teachers: Moving beyond sink or swim. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49(3), 174–180.
40.
RonfeldtM. (2021). Links among teacher preparation, retention, and teaching effectiveness. National Academy of Education Committee on Evaluating and Improving Teacher Preparation Programs. National Academy of Education.
41.
RonfeldtM.ReiningerM. (2012). More or better student teaching?Teaching & Teacher Education, 28(8), 1091–1106.
42.
RupparA.KurthJ.BubashS.Lockman TurnerE. (2023). A framework for preparing to teach students with extensive support needs in the 21st century. Teacher Education and Special Education, 46(1), 26–43.
43.
SayeskiK. L.PaulsenK. J. (2012). Student teacher evaluations of cooperating teachers as indices of effective mentoring. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(2), 117–130.
44.
StakeR. (1995). Case study research. Sage.
45.
St. JohnE.GoldhaberD.KriegJ.TheobaldR. (2021). How the match gets made: Exploring student teacher placements across teacher education programs, districts, and schools. Journal of Education and Human Resources, 39(3), 261–288.
