MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117034188 · doi:10.3390/educsci16010014

How School Leaders Retain Experienced and Capable Teacher Mentors

2025· article· en· W7117034188 on OpenAlexaff
Gu Qing, K. Leithwood, Sofia Eleftheriadou, Lisa Baines

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNature versus nurtureStructural equation modelingJob satisfactionTeacher inductionTeacher leadershipTurnoverEducational leadershipMultimethodologyTest (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purposes: Teacher turnover has especially negative effects on schools and students when experienced and capable teachers leave. This loss is significant when those teachers also serve as mentors to their less experienced colleagues. This study aimed to advance understanding about how school leaders can positively influence the retention of their school’s teacher mentors. Methodology: The framework for the study reflects a longstanding line of research on successful leadership. Using a cross-sectional research design, evidence was provided by responses to the mentor survey component of a larger four-year study examining the effects on retention decisions of a national induction programme for early-career teachers and their mentors in England. Structural equation modelling was employed to test the direct and indirect effects of school leadership and selected school conditions on mentors’ self-efficacy, well-being and job satisfaction, and ultimately retention decisions. Findings: Developing and retaining teacher mentors was associated with a suite of leadership practices which encourage collaborative cultures, provide coherent high-quality learning opportunities, and ensure what they perceive to be manageable workloads. These organizational conditions nurture the job satisfaction and self-efficacy of experienced teachers enhancing their sense of well-being at work. Implications: Results suggest four sets of guidelines for senior school leaders.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designQualitative
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 venueEducation SciencesSame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207