
































Microsoft Word - 261-Final.docx


Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 3, Issue 4, 2022 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Heather R. Nesbitt, Graduate Assistant, University of Florida, 310 Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540, Gainesville, FL 32611, 

heather.nesbitt@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5339-8516 
2. Debra M. Barry, Assistant Professor, University of Florida, 1200 N Park Rd, Plant City, FL 33563, dmbarry@ufl.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9579-3872 
3. Kati M. Lawson, Lecturer, University of Florida, 1200 N Park Rd, Plant City, FL 33563, katilawson@ufl.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6271-8120  
4. John M. Diaz, Associate Professor, University of Florida, 1200 N Park Rd, Plant City, FL 33563, john.diaz@ufl.edu,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2787-8759  
30 

 

Best Practices for Mentoring: An Exploratory Study of 
Cooperating Teacher and Student Teacher Perspectives 

 
H. R. Nesbitt1, D. M. Barry2, K. M. Lawson3, J. M. Diaz4 

 
 

  

Abstract 
With nearly one-half of U.S. teachers leaving the profession within the first five years of their career, 
focusing on retention is an ongoing effort. Providing quality mentorship during the student teaching 
internship provides further support to new teachers preparing to enter the classroom. Cooperating 
teachers play a pivotal role in the success of these student teachers. However, little is known about 
the mentoring process between the cooperating teachers and their student teachers. This study 
compares the perspectives of the cooperating teacher and their student teacher on the frequency of 
17 best practices employed by the cooperating teacher during the student teaching experience. The 
results suggest cooperating teachers rate themselves as utilizing 16 of the 17 best practices of a 
cooperating teacher more frequently than their paired student teacher observed. In addition, the 
student teachers rated their observed frequency for five of the 17 best practices employed by their 
mentor teacher between rarely and often, implying potential weaknesses in the preparation of the 
cooperating teacher. Differences between the perceived practices of the cooperating teachers and 
the observed frequencies of these practices by their student teachers warrants further research in 
the preparation and support of cooperating teachers in their roles as mentors. 
 
 
Keywords 

Agricultural education, internship, mentorship, retention, teaching 



Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.261   31 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Attempts at teacher retention occurs through a variety of efforts and programs and is often 
focused on the first years of teaching because 44% of teachers leave the profession within the 
first five years of starting their teaching careers (Ingersoll et al., 2018). Increasing self-efficacy 
during the student teaching experience has been linked to a higher intention to teach, with 
previous research indicating the importance of an effective cooperating teacher (CT) 
relationship as a major component (Edgar et al., 2011; Kasperbauer & Roberts, 2007; Roberts, 
2006; Rocca, 2005). Higher teacher self-efficacy can help to lower teacher burnout and increase 
retention (Swan et al., 2011). Roberts (2006) developed a model for CT effectiveness; however, 
confusion from cooperating teachers as to their exact role during the internship experience 
remains (Dunning et al., 2011; Ganser, 2002). To support the relationship of the CT and student 
teacher (ST), and provide guidance on how to utilize observation, feedback, and appropriate 
mentorship, CTs need be prepared and supported for their role (Young & MacPhail, 2005).   
 
To support the mentor-mentee relationship of the CT and their ST, Korte and Simonsen (2018) 
indicated the need to implement best practices of mentoring. Formalized mentoring should be 
structured during pre-service teacher experiences to support growth and development, as well 
as teacher self-efficacy (Korte & Simonsen, 2018). Previous research indicated that CTs tend to 
shy away from critical feedback and teaching observations overall (Zimpher et al., 1980). 
However, when CTs have been given guidance and training for their role, they are more likely to 
provide quality feedback to student teachers (McIntyre & Killian, 1987). 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
The theoretical foundation for this study was rooted in constructivism, where assumptions are 
made that learners construct their own knowledge through experiences in a variety of social 
environments (Vijaya Kumari, 2014; Vygotsky, 1978). Constructivism posits that students who 
are learning a new skill are more likely to be successful if they are taught by someone advanced 
or experienced in that area. This is further realized by the description of instructional 
scaffolding, where the construction of new ideas can be strengthened and formed with a firmer 
foundation (Oyster & Bobbit, 2020; Seifert & Sutton, 2009). 
 
Higher education institutions are often criticized in this area as they typically elicit only a few 
means for evaluating student perspectives and outcomes within the broader purposes of the 
institution (Burke, 2005). Assessments will often extend beyond measuring knowledge 
acquisition to include behavioral evaluations, assessing the frequency for which students and 
teachers are carrying out certain practices. For example, it is common for assessments to ask 
students and teachers to report current or past participation, frequency, or duration in certain 
activities (Gonyea, 2005).  
 
According to Astin (1993), the main advantage and potential rationale for using self-reported 
data for evaluative purposes in educational context is feasibility. Astin (1993) claimed that self-



Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.261   32 
 

report questionnaires, while exhibiting lower fidelity, have a greater bandwidth to collect data. 
Many times, self-reported data from survey/questionnaires are often the only practical source 
of certain types of information because they are quicker and more economical to implement 
than objective testing or observational studies. One must consider that many desired outcomes 
are difficult to measure empirically, and in cases where measures are available, they are often 
costly and impractical (Gonyea, 2005). 
 
An issue that threatens the credibility of self-reported data is social desirability bias (SDB). SDB 
has the potential to present a challenge in conducting this line of research, including 
cooperating teacher assessments in the context of higher education (Chichekian & Shore, 
2016). SDB is the desire of respondents to edit their responses before communicating such to 
researchers to present themselves in a more positive light (Beretvas et al., 2002). Respondents 
may feel a need to present themselves favorably to the interviewers or researchers to preserve 
their self-esteem (King & Bruner, 2000). SDB can compromise evaluations in one of two ways: 
(a) overreporting of socially desirable behavior (such as performing teaching best practices) and 
underreporting of socially undesirable behavior (e.g., extensive absence), and (b) attenuation, 
inflation, or moderation of relationships between variables (King & Bruner, 2000). This causes 
discrepancies in student and teacher responses and the researchers’ ability to generalize 
results.  
 
The development of effective mentoring programs and models can help to strengthen pre-
service teacher skills and assist in a successful start to a career in teaching (He, 2010). The areas 
of mentorship explored in this study support major tenets of successful mentorship 
characteristics and build on the work of previous research that has identified areas of focus for 
CT effectiveness (He, 2010). Roberts’ (2006) model of cooperating teacher effectiveness 
focused on the areas of teaching/instruction, professionalism, ST/CT relationship, and personal 
characteristics. The area of ST/CT relationship from Roberts’ 2006 study and findings from 
Stewart et al. (2017) make a case for mentoring and its imperative role in the development of 
student teachers. Further advancement of the nuanced understanding of the participation of 
CTs has the potential to help researchers better facilitate the significant role of the CT and the 
development of the next generation of school-based agricultural educators (Clarke et al., 2014). 
 

Purpose  
 
The purpose of this study was to compare the frequency of best practices for mentoring as self-
reported by CTs with the perspectives of their paired STs.  Three objectives guided this study:  
1. Determine the frequency of use of best practices for mentoring behaviors from the 

perspective of CTs. 
2. Determine the frequency of use of best practices for mentoring behaviors from the 

perspective of STs. 
3. Compare the perspectives of CTs and STs for the frequency of best practice mentoring 

behaviors. 
 



Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.261   33 
 

Methods  
 
This exploratory study compared the frequency of best practices for mentoring behaviors of CTs 
and the perspective of these behaviors from the viewpoint of their STs. This study utilized 
survey research methods. The data collected were part of a larger research project that 
explored CT needs for professional support and the use of best practices for mentoring. The 
University of Florida Department of Agricultural Education and Communication instituted a CT 
and ST workshop aimed at developing skillsets and increasing the understanding of 
expectations for both STs and the CTs.  
 
The population for this study included the University of Florida Department of Agricultural 
Education and Communication’s CTs who served in their role during the spring semester of 
2021 (N = 7), as well as the University of Florida’s] STs who were under their supervision for 
that term (N = 7). Data were collected following the conclusion of the 14-week student teaching 
internship. The survey questionnaires were delivered using Qualtrics software. All participants 
were assigned a study identification number to complete paired analysis of the STs and CTs 
responses. Analysis of data was conducted using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 
version 26. Of the seven CTs, six responded to the survey; all seven STs responded to the 
survey. Because of the nature of this comparative study, the data for the unmatched ST were 
not analyzed. 
 
The questionnaire listed 17 best practices for mentoring behaviors in the areas of professional 
support, social support, and role modeling (Table 2). The 17 best practices for cooperating 
teachers used in this study were derived from the work of Alemdağ and Şimşek (2017) and their 
focus on practicum experiences of pre-service teachers, as well as Russell and Russell (2011) 
and the implications for more formal mentoring programs. To ensure content validity, the 
behaviors were vetted by three agricultural education faculty at the University of Florida. The 
construct used in this study was piloted in 2019 with 15 CTs who had served in that role during 
the spring 2019 semester. The construct measured the frequency of use of best practices for 
mentoring and had a Cronbach’s alpha of α =. 82. For the 2021 cohort, this same construct had 
a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .72 for the CT instrument and α =.94 for the ST instrument. The 
respondents were asked to rate the frequency of use of the behavior utilizing a frequency scale 
with response options of (1) always, (2) often, (3) sometimes, (4) rarely, and (5) never. The only 
variation in the instruments for the CTs and STs was the use of first-person pronouns for CTs. 
Cooperating teachers self-reported on frequency of use of best practices for mentoring 
behaviors that they implemented, while STs reported on their observation of best practices 
mentoring behaviors of their CTs.  
 
Researchers analyzed the overall mean scores for CTs and STs for each of the 17 mentoring 
behaviors. A paired samples t-test was used to analyze the set of matched pairs of data. Using 
histograms as suggested by Lomax and Hahs-Vaughn (2012), all dependent variables were 
distributed normally prior to analysis. The matched samples consisted of the student teacher 



Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.261   34 
 

and the cooperating teacher, who worked together collaboratively during a 14-week student 
teaching spring 2021 internship. 
 

Findings  
 
Objective 1 
Of the seven CT’s surveyed, six responded. Participants had an average rating of 1.52 (SD = .67). 
This shows that cooperating teachers perceived that they exhibited best practices for 
mentoring an average between often and always (see Table 1). Of the 17 best practices for 
mentoring behaviors, cooperating teachers rated themselves significantly lower for two 
behaviors, i.e., the use of observational data as the basis for feedback sessions (M = 2.17, SD = 
.75) and encouragement of the student teachers to maintain active memberships in  Florida 
Association of Agricultural Educators (FAAE), National Association of Agricultural Educators 
(NAAE), and Florida Association for Career and Technical Education (FACTE) (M = 2.83, SD = 
1.17) (see Table 2). It is important to note that the standard deviation for encouragement of the 
student teachers to maintain active memberships in FAAE, NAAE, and FACTE was larger than 
1.0, which reflects a broader range of responses from participants.  
 
Table 1 
 
Cooperating Teacher and Student Teacher Frequency of Best Practices for Mentoring Behaviors. 
Respondents n M SD 
Cooperating Teachers 6 1.52 .67 
Student Teachers 6 1.79 .80 

Note. The ratings on the scale were (1) always, (2) often, (3) sometimes, (4) rarely, and (5) 
never. 
 
  



Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.261   35 
 

Table 2 
 
Cooperating Teacher’s Frequency Scores for Perceived Demonstration of Best Practices for 
Mentoring Behaviors. 
Behavior  n M SD 
Encouraged the student teacher to maintain active memberships in 

FAAE, NAAE, and FACTE 6 2.83 1.17 

Used observational data as the basis for feedback sessions  6 2.17 .75 
Communicated openly with my student teacher/intern  6 1.67 .82 
Involved my student teacher in all of my roles as a teacher  6 1.67 .52 
Discussed strategies for effectively managing time, 

priorities/projects, and email  6 1.67 .82 

Provided weekly comprehensive feedback on performance in an 
uninterrupted setting  6 1.50 .55 

Encouraged the student teacher to take the lead in evaluating their 
teaching  6 1.50 .84 

Made an effort to introduce my student teacher to the school 
community  6 1.50 .55 

Discussed effective student discipline strategies with my student 
teacher for maintaining a productive learning environment  6 1.50 .55 

Shared approaches for effectively managing the administrative 
aspects of teaching, including building effective relationships 
with administrators and other teachers  

6 1.50 .55 

Communicated regularly with my student teacher/intern  6 1.33 .52 
Supported my student teacher’s effort by staying attuned to their 

mindset, attitude, and well-being  6 1.33 .52 

Talked to my student teacher about how to become an excellent 
teacher through all phases of their career  6 1.33 .82 

Made an effort to help my student teacher develop positive views 
of teaching  6 1.17 .41 

Coached my student teacher on strategies for developing a positive 
rapport with students  6 1.17 .41 

Shared my approaches for SAE program development and 
supervision  6 1.00 0 

Shared my philosophy for FFA advising  6 1.00 0 
Note. The ratings on the scale were (1) always, (2) often, (3) sometimes, (4) rarely, and (5) 
never. 
 
Objective 2 
All seven student teachers responded to the survey, but for the purposes of this study and 
alignment of responses for the paired t analysis, one student teacher was removed from the 
data set. Respondents had an average rating of 1.79 (SD = .80) for their observation of 
mentoring best practices. Overall, the frequency observed by student teachers was closest to 
often (see Table 1). When reviewing individual best practices, there were five that had a mean 



Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.261   36 
 

score between 2.00-4.00 (see Table 3), indicating a frequency between rarely and often. The 
following behaviors were included in that range of 2-4: shared approaches for SAE program 
development and supervision; shared philosophy for FFA advising; shared approaches for 
effectively managing the administrative aspects of teaching, including building effective 
relationships with administrators and other teachers; encouraged the student teacher to 
maintain active memberships in FAAE, NAAE, and FACTE; and discussed strategies for 
effectively managing time, priorities/projects, and email. Three CT behaviors had standard 
deviations larger than 1.0, indicating a broader range of participant responses: encouragement 
to maintain active memberships in FAAE, NAAE, and FACTE, sharing approaches for SAE 
program development, and sharing philosophies for FFA advising. 
 
Table 3 
 
Student Teachers’ Frequency Scores for Observed Best Practices of Mentoring Behaviors 
Demonstrated by their Cooperating Teachers. 
Behaviors   n M SD 
Encouraged to maintain active memberships in FAAE, NAAE, and FACTE  6 3.83 1.48 
Shared their approaches for SAE program development and supervision  6 2.00 1.10 
Shared their philosophy for FFA advising  6 2.00 1.27 
Shared their approaches for effectively managing the administrative 

aspects of teaching, including building effective relationships with 
administrators and other teachers.  

6 2.00 .89 

Shared strategies for effectively managing time, priorities/projects, and 
email.  6 2.00 .63 

Involved me in all of my roles as a teacher  6 1.83 .75 
Talked to me about how to become an excellent teacher through all 

phases of their career 6 1.83 .98 

Discussed effective student discipline strategies with me for maintaining a 
productive learning environment 6 1.83 .75 

Was attuned to my mindset, attitude, and well-being 6 1.67 .41 
Encouraged to take the lead in evaluating my own teaching 6 1.67 .41 
Made an effort to introduce me to the school community 6 1.67 .82 
Coached me on strategies for developing a positive rapport with students 6 1.67 1.21 
Communicated regularly with me 6 1.50 .55 
Provided weekly comprehensive feedback on performance in an 

uninterrupted setting 6 1.50 .55 

Made an effort to help me develop positive views of teaching 6 1.50 .55 
Communicated openly with me 6 1.33 .52 
Used observational data as the basis for feedback sessions 6 1.33 .52 

Note. The ratings on the scale were (1) always, (2) often, (3) sometimes, (4) rarely, and (5) 
never. 
 
 
 



Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.261   37 
 

Objective 3 
When comparing the perspectives of the cooperating teachers and student teachers, the 
cooperating teachers had an overall slightly higher frequency for their self-reporting of best 
practice mentoring behaviors (M = 1.52, SD = .67) than the student teachers who would have 
received the mentoring and observed these behaviors (M = 1.79, SD = .80) (see Table 1). Only 
one instance occurred of an overlap in lower frequency behaviors from both groups, indicating 
agreement that the behavior was not implemented at a high frequency. The behavior at an 
equally low frequency included the encouragement of the student teacher to maintain active 
memberships in FAAE, NAAE, and FACTE (see Table 2 & 3).  
 
A paired samples t-test was conducted to determine if a difference existed in the mean scores 
of the cooperating teachers’ frequencies and the mean scores of the paired student teachers. 
Descriptive statistics in Tables 4 and 5 show missing data for Pair 4. This was due to the same 
reported responses by cooperating teacher and student teacher for both the self-reported and 
observed best practices mentoring behaviors. The t-test was run to determine if a significant 
difference existed within pairs (see Table 6). One paired sample was removed from the data set 
because of matching responses. The results indicated that the reported frequency for best 
practice mentoring behaviors were statistically significantly different for Pair 3 (t = -2.135, df = 
16, p = .049), and Pair 5 (t = -3.246, df = 16, p = .005). Effect size was calculated as d = .37. Using 
Cohen’s (1988) guidelines, this is a small effect size. 
 
Table 4 
 
Paired Samples Statistics for Cooperating Teachers’ and Student Teachers’ Frequency of Best 
Practices for Mentoring Behaviors. 
 M n SD SE 

Pair 1 CT1 1.41 17 .51 .12 
ST1 1.88 17 .99 .24 

Pair 2 CT2 1.77 17 .66 .16 
ST2 1.70 17 .99 .24 

Pair 3 CT3 1.24 17 .56 .14 
ST3 1.65 17 .86 .21 

Pair 4 CT4 1.41 17 .51 .12 
ST4 1.00 17 .00 .00 

Pair 5 CT5 1.35 17 .61 .15 
ST5 2.41 17 1.23 .30 

Pair 6 CT6 1.94 17 1.14 .20 
ST6 2.00 17 .75 .18 

Note. CT = Cooperating Teacher; ST = Student Teacher 
 
 
 
 
 



Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.261   38 
 

Table 5 
 
Paired Samples Correlations for Cooperating Teachers’ and Student Teachers’ Frequency of 
Best Practice Mentoring Behaviors 
  n Correlation P 
Pair 1 CT1 & ST1 17 .23 .38 
Pair 2 CT2 & ST2 17 .56 .02 
Pair 3 CT3 & ST3 17 .44 .08 
Pair 4 CT4 & ST4 17 . . 
Pair 5 CT5 & ST5 17 .04 .87 
Pair 6 CT6 & ST6 17 .44 .08 

Note. CT = Cooperating Teacher; ST = Student Teacher 
 
Table 6 
 
Paired Samples t-Test for Cooperating Teachers’ & Student Teachers’ Frequency of Best Practice 
Mentoring Behaviors 

  

Paired Differences 
t df Sig. (2-

tailed) M SD SE 
95% Confidence Interval 

Lower Upper 

Pair 1 CT1 
ST1 -.47 1.00 .24 .99 .05 -1.93 16 .07 

Pair 2 CT2 
ST2 .06 .83 .20 -.37 .48 .29 16 .77 

Pair 3 CT3 
ST3 -.41 .80 .19 -.82 .00 -2.13 16 .05 

Pair 5 CT5 
ST5 -1.06 1.34 .33 -1.75 -.37 -3.25 16 .01 

Pair 6 CT6 
ST6 -.12 1.05 .26 -.66 .42 -.46 16 .65 

Note. CT = Cooperating Teacher; ST = Student Teacher. 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations  
 
This study begins to provide a better understanding into the mentor-mentee relationship 
between the cooperating teachers and student teachers. First, the cooperating teachers felt 
successful in their implementation of the behaviors after receiving training prior to the mentor 
experience as supported by the constructivist foundation of the study (Vijaya Kumari, 2014; 
Vygotsky, 1978). However, the cooperating teachers’ self-reported data could potentially be 
explained by their desirability to look successful when completing the survey questionnaire 
(i.e., SDB) (Beretvas et al., 2002). Based on literature about self-reported data, regarding the 
mentoring they received, student teachers’ perceptions may provide a more accurate 
representation of what has occurred (Beretvas et al., 2002; Goneya, 2005).  



Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.261   39 
 

 
Our recommendation for cooperating teachers is to self-assess their use of the 17 best practice 
behaviors before, during, and after each experience with a student teacher. Cooperating 
teachers should ideally incorporate best practices at a high frequency when mentoring student 
teachers, striving to make the time for formal observations, as well as regular feedback and 
reflection time with their mentees. We recommend that the university faculty who partner with 
cooperating teachers take the time to assess potential gaps in the knowledge and 
understanding of best practices for mentoring student teachers. Once identified, these gaps 
could help provide teacher educators with guidance on how to adjust professional 
development to meet the needs for the preparation and support of cooperating teachers.  
 
We recommend that similar studies be conducted with a larger sample size and recognize the 
findings from this study are not generalizable due to the small sample size and lack of random 
selection of participants. The needs of the cooperating teachers may vary according to current 
practices being implemented as well as the experiences of the cooperating teachers. It would 
be helpful to partner with other institutions to implement similar professional development 
and support measures to gain a richer perspective. In addition to collecting survey data, we 
recommend the use of observational data to gain a more robust view of the mentoring 
experience from both perspectives. Exploring the perspectives of cooperating teachers through 
interviews would help researchers obtain additional insight into how teachers implement 
mentorship best practices. Gaining a deeper understanding on ways that cooperating teachers 
are actively mentoring student teachers could help researchers clarify best practices for future 
cooperating teachers.  
 
We are currently conducting interviews to better grasp how cooperating teachers specifically 
implement best practices for mentoring student teachers during the internship experience. 
Additional research should be conducted to explore additional ways to support the 
implementation of best practices that are being utilized less in the student teaching experience. 
Furthermore, research regarding the differences between cooperating teachers’ and student 
teachers’ perceptions is needed to better understand why student teachers observed less 
practices than the cooperating teachers perceived they used. This type of research could also 
provide insight on potential needs to modify current mentoring models in teacher education. 
Young & MacPhail (2005) stressed the importance of preparation and support of cooperating 
teachers, and results from this exploratory study may provide some guidance for teacher 
educators toward their needs regarding student teacher mentorship. 
 

Acknowledgements 
 
We would like to thank the Florida cooperating teachers and student teachers who participated 
in our study. Author Contributions: H. Nesbitt - analysis, writing-review & editing; D. Barry - 
investigation, analysis, writing-original draft, review & editing; K. Lawson - writing-review and 
editing; J. Diaz - writing-original draft. 
 



Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.261   40 
 

References 
 
Alemdağ, E., & Şimşek, P. Ö. (2017). Pre-service teacher’s evaluation of their mentor teachers, 

school experiences, and theory-practice relationship. International Journal of 
Progressive Education, 13(2), 165–179. https://ijpe.inased.org/makale_indir/244 

 
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass 
 
Beretvas, S. N., Meyers, J. L., & Leite, W. L. (2002). A reliability generalization study of the 

Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 
62(4), 570-589. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316402128775021 

 
Burke, P. J. (2005) The sociology of education and work. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 

501-502. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2005.00080_3.x   
 
Chichekian, T., & Shore, B. M. (2016). Preservice and practicing teachers’ self-efficacy for 

inquiry-based instruction. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1236872. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1236872   

 
Clarke, A., Triggs, V., & Nielsen, W. (2014). Cooperating teacher participation in teacher 

education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 84(2), 163-202. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313499618 

 
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Elsevier Inc. 
 
Dunning, C., Meegan, S., Woods, C., & Belton, S. J. (2011) The impact of the COPET programme 

on student PE teachers’ teaching practice experiences. European Physical Education 
Review, 17(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X11413182 

 
Edgar, D. W., Roberts, T. G., & Murphy, T. H. (2011). Exploring relationships between teaching 

efficacy and student teacher – cooperating teacher relationships. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 52(1), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.01009 

 
Ganser, T. (2002). How teachers compare the roles of cooperating teacher and mentor. The 

Educational Forum, 66(4), 380–385.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720208984858 
 
Gonyea, R. M. (2005). Self-reported data in institutional research: Review and 

recommendations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2005(127), 73-89. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.156 

 
He, Y. (2010). Strength-based mentoring in pre-service teacher education: A literature review. 

Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 17(3), 263-275. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13611260903050205 



Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.261   41 
 

 
Ingersoll, R. M., Merrill, E., Stuckey, D., & Collins, G. (2018). Seven trends: The transformation of 

the teaching force – Updated October 2018. CPRE Research Reports. 
https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/108 

 
Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for 

beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research 
81(2) 201-233. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311403323 

 
Kasperbauer, H. J., & Roberts, T. G. (2007). Changes in student teacher perceptions of the 

student teacher-cooperating teacher relationship throughout the student teaching 
semester. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(1), 31-41. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.01031    

 
King, M. F., & Bruner, G. C. (2000). Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of validity testing. 

Psychology & Marketing, 17(2), 79-103. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-
6793(200002)17:2%3C79::AID-MAR2%3E3.0.CO;2-0  

 
Korte, D. S., & Simonsen, J. C. (2018). Influence of social support on teacher self-efficacy in 

novice agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(3), 100-123. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.03100 

 
Lomax, R. G., & Hahs-Vaughn, D. L. (2012). An introduction to statistical concepts (3rd ed.). 

Routledge. 
 
McIntyre, D. J., & Killian, J. E. (1987). The influence of supervisory training for cooperating 

teachers on preservice teachers’ development during early field experiences. The 
Journal of Educational Research, 80(5), 277–282. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40539638 

 
Oyster, B., & Bobbit, J. (2021). The use of constructivism in agricultural and physical education. 

Empowering Research for Educators, 4(1). 
https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/ere/vol4/iss1/3/   

 
Roberts, T. G. (2006). Developing a model of cooperating teacher effectiveness. Journal of 

Agricultural Education, 47(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.03001 
 
Rocca, S. J. (2005). Predicting preservice agriculture teachers' intentions to teach utilizing person 

inputs, contextual influences, teacher efficacy, and outcome expectations (Publication 
No. 3178030). [Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations & 
Theses Global. https://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/01/00/03/00001/rocca_s.pdf 

 
Russell, M. L., & Russell, J. A. (2011). Mentoring relationships: Cooperating teachers' 

perspectives on mentoring student interns. Professional Educator, 35(1), 21. 
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ988202.pdf 



Nesbitt et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i4.261   42 
 

 
Seifert, K., & Sutton, R. (2009). Educational psychology (2nd ed.) [ebook]. Global Text Project 

2009. https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/Educational-Psychology.pdf   

 
Stewart, J., Lambert, M. D., Ulmer, J. D., Witt, P.A., & Carraway, C. L. (2017). Discovering quality 

in teacher education: Perceptions concerning what makes an effective cooperating 
teacher. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(1), 280-299. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.01280 

 
Swan, B. G., Wolf, K. J., & Cano, J. (2011). Changes in teacher self–efficacy from the student 

teaching experience through the third year of teaching. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 52(2), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.02128 

 
Vijaya Kumari, S. N. (2014) Constructivist approach to teacher education: An integrative model 

for reflective teaching. Journal on Educational Psychology, 7(4), 31-40. 
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1098640.pdf  

 
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. 

Harvard University Press. 
 
Young, A., & MacPhail, A. (2015). Standing on the periphery: Cooperating teachers’ perceptions 

and responses to the role of supervision. European Physical Education Review, 21(2), 
222–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X14557582 

 
Zimpher, N. L., deVoss, G. G., & Nott, D. L. (1980). A closer look at university student teacher 

supervision. Journal of Teacher Education, 31(4), 11-15. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718003100405 

 
 
 
© 2022 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


