MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411428437 · doi:10.47852/bonviewijce52024651

Organization of Teacher Induction and Mentoring in Malta: School Administrators' Perspectives

2025· article· en· W4411428437 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Bezzina, Benjamin Kutsyuruba

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Changes in Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalteseConceptualizationProfessional developmentSociologyWork (physics)Public relationsPedagogyPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article addresses the area of mentoring of newly qualified teachers (NQTs) from a school administrator's perspective. The research underpinning this study demonstrates the pivotal role that school administrators can play in supporting the induction and possible retention of NQTs from quitting the profession if they engage more directly in the induction and mentoring process. This introductory study on the role that Maltese school administrators play in the induction phase helps to highlight the tensions that exist between policy and practice, between the belief that Maltese school administrators hold in being there to support NQTs and what actually happens in reality. The findings demonstrate how school administrators can enhance the program of support that NQTs are currently receiving, namely, by providing more structured time dedicated to being with the NQTs and teachers, helping in establishing and retaining stronger professional relationships with teachers throughout their careers, and working to strengthen the interconnectedness between initial teacher education, induction, and ongoing professional learning. Received: 26 October 2024 | Revised: 25 March 2025 | Accepted: 4 June 2025 Conflicts of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to this work. Data Availability Statement The data that support this work are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author. Author Contribution Statement Christopher Bezzina: Formal analysis, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Benjamin Kutsyuruba: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.364 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Changes in EducationSame topicCollaborative Teaching and InclusionFrench-language works237,207