Keywords

1 Introduction

The first lessons which pre-service biology teachers give in school are mentored by experienced biology teachers – called ‘biology mentor teachers’ (BMTs) or ‘mentors.’ These placements are called ‘practical experience settings’, ‘year of practice’, or, in our case, ‘practical exercises in school’. This is the first time where pre-service biology teachers need to apply their professional knowledge in the complex teaching situation. Biology mentor teachers help pre-service biology teachers develop into reflective practitioners (Schön, 1983).

What we know is that a good teacher does not necessarily have to be a good biology mentor teacher. As experts, mentors must make tacit knowledge explicit again (Bromme & Jucks, 2014), bring this knowledge profitably into conversations (Ellis et al., 2020; Kreis, 2012), and develop an appropriate mentor role (Crasborn et al., 2011; Hennissen et al., 2008). A serious weakness of biology teacher training is that only a few projects and even fewer studies (Elster, 2008; Nestler et al., 2022) exist that focus on the task to train experienced biology teachers to become mentors.

In 2015, a SWOT analysis of teacher training in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania revealed this deficient lack of BMT training. Afterwards, a BMT training with one focus on subject-specific mentoring was created and introduced. One major focus of the mentor training was to support pre-service biology teachers in teaching Scientific Inquiry.

This paper is part of a larger design-based research study (e.g. Reinmann, 2022; van den Akker, 1999) accompanying this process and opening the field of research on BMT training. In the first design-cycle, we aimed to connect and compare the designed mentor training to previous research on mentoring and mentor training. The impact on teaching quality is reported in Nestler et al. (2022). We conducted this present study to evaluate the mentoring quality and content of the mentoring dialogues before and after BMT training.

The first aim of this paper is to describe our theoretical advancements to connect the generic view on mentoring quality with biology-related mentoring. Therefore, in the theoretical background, we report on previous studies regarding BMT training, describe how we adapted the tetrahedron model (based on Prediger et al., 2017), and define the core concepts, considering mentoring quality and the content of mentoring dialogues.

The second aim of this study is to report and discuss the results of evaluating mentoring quality and the content of mentoring dialogues.

2 Theoretical Background and Research Question

Barnett and Friedrichsen (2015) point out that mentoring can improve the professional knowledge of pre-service biology teachers. They focus on pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as part of professional knowledge (Baumert & Kunter, 2006; Shulman, 1986). Furthermore, there is a growing number of quantitative and qualitative studies describing the impact of mentoring on the professional development of pre-service teachers (e.g. Hobson et al., 2009; Kindall et al., 2017; Nguyen & Parr, 2018). However, as noted by Shulman (1986), we do not have specific domains of biology mentors’ knowledge for teachers’ professional knowledge.

Additionally, only a few researchers have addressed biology-related mentoring (Barnett & Friedrichsen, 2015; Elster, 2008; Wischmann, 2015; Nestler et al., 2022). Barnett and Friedrichsen (2015) report on a case study of educative mentoring to support pre-service biology teachers, yet they do not mention training for mentors at all. Elster (2008) describes subject-related mentor training for biology mentors, while focussing on mentoring for innovative gender-proofed practices in biology teacher training. Wischmann (2015) then did research on mentoring dialogues with six pre-service biology teachers. In summary, apart from these, there is no broad scientific field of BMT research with common methods and instruments.

The range of concepts associated with this area of research thus makes it a very complex field.

2.1 The Tetrahedron Model for a BMT Training

To arrange the concepts needed, we adapted the tetrahedron model for a BMT training (Nestler & Retzlaff-Fürst, 2020; Nestler et al., 2022) from the three-tetrahedron model for content-related professional development research (Prediger et al., 2017; Prediger, et al., 2019; Roesken-Winter et al., 2021).

Prediger et al. (2017) highlight one of many advantages of their three-tetrahedron model: Researchers can focus on single points, the connections between points of one tetrahedron and the connections between different tetrahedrons. We recreated this for our specific case, deducing tetrahedrons for biology teacher placements, BMT training, and the connected topic of teaching Scientific Inquiry (Fig. 21.1).

Fig. 21.1
A model framework explains the components of biology education. It includes 3 interconnected tetrahedrons for Mentor Education, Teacher Education, and Teaching Biology.

The tetrahedron model of biology education

Full size image

The three tetrahedrons of teaching biology, biology teacher training, and BMT training are interconnected because every lower tetrahedron is the subject of the tetrahedron above. Having a closer look, biology-related mentoring shows itself to be the connection between biology mentor teachers, biology pre-service teachers and the biology-related subject of the mentoring. To keep our focus on developing biology-specific BMT training, we therefore include ‘biology’ in every one of these three points of the tetrahedron. In the studied units, our biology mentors should support pre-service biology teachers in teaching lessons with experiments and living animals.

Therefore, in our case, we can adapt the model for the subject of Scientific Inquiry (Fig. 21.1).

Teaching biology requires professional knowledge of biology teachers (Coe et al., 2014; Förtsch et al., 2016). This includes content knowledge (CK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and pedagogical knowledge (PK) (Baumert & Kunter, 2006; Shulman, 1986).

The PCK of biology teachers, in turn, includes two of many more parts: teaching Nature of Science (NOS; Dittmer & Zabel, 2019; Paul et al., 2016) and teaching Scientific Inquiry (SI; Nerdel, 2017).

However, there is no given set of biology mentor knowledge (MK) or skills to support pre-service biology teachers in teaching scientific inquiry. For example, one review-study about biology mentor teachers’ skills was published in 2020 (Ellis et al., 2020) – but it only contains generic MK. Additionally, this study was published 3 years after our study was conducted, but it lacks a focus on subject-specific aspects of mentoring.

Furthermore, as we know from Kirkpatrick (1959) and in relation to it from Lipowsky (2010), learning is only the second level of success of training programmes. However, an impact of BMT training on biology-related mentoring quality in the biology teacher placement would be the third and thus higher level of influence.

The lack of research and suitable instruments to test biology-related MK and the higher level of evaluation of mentor training leads us to biology-related mentoring quality.

2.2 Mentoring Quality

We define mentoring quality as the connection between the biology mentor teacher and pre-service teacher (Fig. 21.1). Most studies exclude the subject of the mentoring, learning goals and the specific learning of the mentees (e.g. Kreis, 2012). The biology-specific study of mentoring (Wischmann, 2015) describes the mentoring and the connection to a specific content. However, since there is no established field of biology-related mentoring quality with empirical evidence, we can only focus on mentoring quality as a generic concept. With this qualitative approach, we follow the theoretical framework of Michelsen et al. (2022) by defining concepts as mental constructs and their importance for teaching and learning. This includes mainly the relationship between mentor and mentee, as well as their dialogues. In the tetrahedron model (Fig. 21.1), this is illustrated by the connection between the points of the mentor and the pre-service teacher. The subject of the professional experience setting is discussed in Sect. 21.2.3 as the content of mentoring dialogues.

These insights serve as the basis of our two-part research question:

  • What effect does BMT training have on mentoring quality and the content of mentoring dialogues?

Since there are many generic studies, not only on the (generic) quality of mentoring, but also on the training of mentors, we can focus on studies that combine these. Hennissen et al. (2011, p. 1049) trained mentors and reported ‘shifts in their frequency of use of distinct skills’. Previously they published their work on mentors’ roles and skills for mentoring dialogues (Crasborn et al., 2008) based on video analyses. Similarly, Kreis & Staub (2011) conducted extensive research on content-focussed coaching. Following this, Kreis (2012) trained mentors to use specific coaching techniques associated with better learning of pre-service teachers. This list of mentor training may be extended with the addition of the work of Langdon & Ward (2015), Cooke (2018) and Beutel & Spooner-Lane (2009).

We follow Crasborn’s, Hennissen’s, Staub & Kreis’s understanding of mentoring quality because of their extensive work. Mentoring quality in this case includes two dimensions: The biology mentor teachers create a situation of co-constructive development of the lessons (Kreis, 2012), while the pre-service biology teachers have the chance to submit their own ideas to the discussions (Crasborn et al., 2008; Hennissen et al., 2011).

Based on the research on mentoring quality (Crasborn et al., 2008; Hennissen et al., 2011; Kreis, 2012), our first hypothesis is: The quality of mentoring increases after the BMT training. This hypothesis describes the main connection between the BMT training and the mentoring as such.

Biology mentor teachers and pre-service biology teachers may vary in their assessment of mentoring quality. Mentor teachers often underestimate their share in the mentoring dialogues (Hennissen et al., 2011). Additionally, the BMT training may have an impact on the assessment of mentoring quality by biology mentor teachers because they are sensitised to mentoring quality. Therefore, our second hypothesis is: Observers vary in their assessment of mentoring quality.

Additionally, in doing so, we avoid the often-described problems of self-assessment (Carter & Dunning, 2008).

2.3 Content of Mentoring Dialogues and Professional Knowledge of Biology Teachers

If we want to ensure that BMT training has a biology-related impact, focussing on the content of mentor dialogues may be one way to achieve this. The subject of mentoring dialogues is a challenging field of research, since it is attached to several conditions: First, the pre-service biology teachers give their first lessons. Mentoring needs to be adapted to the concrete situation and challenges of the pre-service teacher in their individual development. For example, a lesson on ecology can result in mentoring dialogues about classroom management, training scientific inquiry or the connections between plants and fungi. Mentoring has to be adapted to the specific situation. Therefore, standardisation of the content of mentoring dialogues is limited. Second, dialogues connect different aspects of teaching, which makes it hard to differentiate between pedagogical and didactics aspects. Third, the complex connection between universities and schools results in a limited scope for action. For example, focussing on teaching scientific inquiry in the field of genetics is nearly impossible from a practical perspective.

The studies that focus on content knowledge are often studies using recordings of mentoring dialogues. Strong & Baron (2004), for instance, stated that only 2% of the topics of mentoring dialogues were part of the content knowledge (CK). Crasborn et al. (2011) analysed mentoring discussions and discovered that only 7% of the topics discussed represented the subject matter. We are very uncertain whether these low percentages also apply to the mentoring dialogues in our specific case.

As mentioned above, increasing professional knowledge of pre-service teachers should be one aim of mentoring (Barnett & Friedrichsen, 2015). With the conditional limitations in mind, we followed Wischmann (2015) and asked for the dimensions of professional knowledge of teachers as content of mentoring dialogues which should include content from biology (CK) and teaching biology (PCK). Our third hypothesis addresses this instant and refers to the biology-related content of mentoring dialogue: Subject-specific parts of mentoring dialogues increase after the BMT training.

Moreover, we need to focus on the perspectives of biology mentor teachers and pre-service teachers. Distinguishing between their respective views, we developed our fourth hypothesis: Observers vary in their assessment of the content of mentoring dialogues.

3 Research Design and Method

Design-based research (e.g. Reinmann, 2022) recognises the circumstance that research in the educational field is very much shaped by the concrete system, making it sometimes difficult to generalise the findings. As pictured in the tetrahedron model (Fig. 21.1), BMT training connects three levels of training: teaching biology, teacher education, and mentor training. Our research design is based on the concrete BMT training and the limitations of our educational system affecting this mentor training.

We follow the design-based research methodology and address these limitations with a clear description of the training and situations in Sects. 21.3.1 and 21.3.2, so that subsequent teacher trainers can adapt their training. In the following subsections (Sects. 21.3.3 and 21.3.4), the method and data analysis are provided.

3.1 Teacher Training of Pre-service Biology Teachers and Practical Exercises in School

In the year of the study, in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, about 30 pre-service biology teachers were supported each semester in placements organised by the head of biology teacher education. This pre-service biology teacher placement is called ‘practical exercises in school’. Five pre-service biology teachers in their fifth semester took turns in teaching biology. They were supported over one semester by one out of seven biology mentors. The lessons given at this stage were the very first biology lessons of pre-service teachers in practical exercises in school. Mentors responsibly supported pre-service teachers in preliminary discussions. The given lesson was discussed with all pre-service teachers during debriefing. Although these lessons were the first ones for pre-service biology teachers, there was a focus on biology-related content in mentoring dialogues with reference to the second hypothesis.

3.2 Biology Mentor Teacher Training (BMT Training)

In this federal state, BMT training is designed for every active biology mentor teacher in this part of biology teacher education. This study is an interventional study without a control group because there are no more (comparable) pre-service biology teachers or biology mentors who are in the same educational system.

The BMT training (Fig. 21.2) took place between the winter semester and the summer semester as described by Nestler et al. (2022, 132): ‘This qualification involved an overall workload of 90 h (45 h general, 45 h biology-related) for biology mentors (N = 7, age: M = 42.3).’ Design principles of the general mentor training (45 h) are described by Malmberg et al. (2020). During the 2017/18 winter semester, the mentors supported 25 pre-service teachers (11 women, 10 men, four without information; age M = 25.6) in practical exercises in school. The BMT training was implemented during the semester break. During the summer semester 2018, the mentors supported 28 pre-service teachers (16 women, 10 men, two without information, age M = 23.4).

Fig. 21.2
A model framework explains the interconnections between Mentor Training and Research Design. The mentor has knowledge of M K, C K, P C K, and P K. In teacher education, preliminary discussion, debriefing, and biology lessons occur in the winter and summer semesters.

Mentor training and research design

Full size image

The BMT training (Fig. 21.2) is designed to support mentoring for scientific inquiry: After a brief introduction to scientific inquiry as part of the BMT training, the participants observed the milk snake Lampropeltis triangulum. They acted out a preliminary discussion of one biology lesson by taking the different roles of biology mentor teachers, pre-service biology teachers and observer. In these discussions, they used conversational techniques as mentioned by Kreis (2012) and Hennissen et al. (2011). Afterwards, they reflected on their application of these techniques. On another day, they carried out experiments together with a professor of genetics, as mentioned in Nestler et al. (2022).

3.3 Method

The main objective of this research is to evaluate the quality of BMT training and connect it to previous research on mentoring quality and the content of mentoring dialogues. Only when connecting these research fields are we able to derive design principles that constitute the field.

Therefore, in the first design cycle, the BMT training was conducted between practical exercises in school in the winter and summer semester (Fig. 21.2: Mentor Training and Teacher Training).

To answer the research question, the quality of mentoring and content of mentoring dialogues was evaluated during the winter semester prior to mentor training, as well as during the summer semester right after the BMT training (Fig. 21.2 Research).

Mentoring Quality was evaluated with a self-created questionnaire as a reaction to a lack of suitable research instruments. Within the questionnaire, we designed a six-item scale of mentoring quality based on the findings of Crasborn et al. (2008), Hennissen et al. (2011) and Kreis (2012) (e.g. ‘The atmosphere in this meeting was constructive’ or ‘Pre-service teacher had the opportunity to address their questions and concerns’). This scale has a high internal consistency (α = .848) and was intentionally kept short to avoid survey fatigue.

Regarding the second part of our concept of biology-related mentoring quality, the content of mentoring dialogues was assessed with the help of three single items, i.e. ‘Content knowledge was discussed in the conversation’ (for content knowledge), ‘Pedagogical content knowledge was discussed in the conversation’ (for pedagogical content knowledge), and ‘Pedagogical knowledge was discussed in the conversation” (for pedagogical knowledge). All items were rated on a 6-level scale, ranging from 1 (do not agree) to 6 (agree).

3.4 Data Analysis

60 participants filled out 633 questionnaires to assess mentoring quality and the content of the mentoring dialogues. The participants were the seven biology mentor teachers and their 53 pre-service biology teachers, who are mentioned in Sect. 21.3.2. The programme SPSS was used to analyse the data. To validate the hypotheses, we used Mann-Whitney U tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

4 Findings

We discovered that the biology mentor teachers were curious during the BMT training and gave good feedback, which is level one of successful training (Kirkpatrick, 1959; Lipowsky, 2010).

4.1 Mentoring Quality

In general, mentors and pre-service teachers reported that mentoring quality was higher than the expected mean value of the scale (Fig. 21.3).

Fig. 21.3
A double bar graph plots the mentoring quality for preliminary discussion, debriefing, and in total during the winter and summer semesters. The quality in the winter and summer semesters for preliminary discussion is 5.31 and 5.51 and for debriefing is 5.28 and 5.54 respectively.

Mean mentoring quality for preliminary discussion and debriefing before and after the mentor training. *p < .001

Full size image

To assess the impact of our BMT training, our first hypothesis was as follows: The quality of mentoring increases after the BMT training. The mean values for the quality of mentoring increased after mentoring training (Fig. 21.3). To test for significant differences, a Mann-Whitney U test was run. There was a significant difference for the overall measurement (z = −4.030, p < .001, r = .16) and debriefing (z = −4.253, p < .001, r = .19). The analysis did not indicate a significant result for preliminary discussions (z = −.705, p = .481). Overall, these results support our hypothesis but have a small effect size.

4.2 Views on Mentoring Quality by Different Observers

These results call for a closer look at our second hypothesis: Observers vary in their assessment of mentoring quality. Table 21.1 shows the descriptive statistics for the quality of mentoring. All groups of participants rated the mean mentoring quality higher after BMT training (summer semester 2018) than before. Interestingly, mentors generally perceived mentoring quality lower than pre-service biology teachers. Applying Mann-Whitney U tests for preliminary discussions indicates significant differences between observers during the winter semester (z = −2.917, p = .004, r = .32) and the summer semester (z = −3.827, p < .001, r = 0.46). However, our results for debriefing paint a different picture: For the winter semester, the Kruskal-Wallis test reveals no significant differences for observers. Surprisingly, while mentors do not rate mentoring quality much higher (+ 0.06), pre-service teachers (+0.29 & +0.31) in fact do. Overall, the Kruskal-Wallis test evidenced significant differences between the mentors and the observing pre-service teachers (z = −5.395, p < .001, r = .54), with a strong effect. On the contrary, between the mentors and the pre-service biology teachers responsible for the lesson (z = −5.026, p < .001, r = .39), only a medium effect could be detected. These differences are not found between both pre-service biology teachers groups. It is interesting to note that BMT training may have an impact on mentoring quality, although mentors do not have to necessarily see this effect. Overall, our results support our second hypothesis.

Table 21.1 Sample size (n), means (M) and standard deviation (SD) for mentoring quality
Full size table

4.3 Content of Mentoring Dialogues

A Mann-Whitney U test was calculated to examine the third hypothesis: The subject-specific parts of mentoring dialogues increase after BMT training (Fig. 21.4). The mean values for all content of conversation between mentors and mentees increased after the mentoring training, except for the PCK in the preliminary discussion. These increases were statistically significant, but had small effect sizes for all parts of conversations for the overall measure (CK: z = −4.015, p < .001, r = .16; PCK: z = −2.527, p = .011, r = .10; PK: z = −4.271, p < .001, r = .17) and debriefing (CK: z = −4.251, p < .001, r = .20; PCK: z = −3.323, p = .001, r = .15; PK: z = −4.557, p < .001, r = .21). Again, no significant differences between the estimations of the observers were found for the preliminary discussions (CK: z = −.640, p = .522; PCK: z = −.713, p = .476; PK: z = −.722, p = .470). Our results show slight indications of support for our third hypothesis. However, we must note that after the BMT training, general content of conversation also grew.

Fig. 21.4
A double bar graph plots the content knowledge of mentors during the winter and summer semesters. The content knowledge of P C K is the highest in total, preliminary discussion, and debriefing in both semesters, while for C K it is the lowest.

Mean ratings of content knowledge (CK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and pedagogical knowledge (PK) *p < .001

Full size image

4.4 Views on the Content of Mentoring Dialogues by Different Observers

Further analyses for our fourth hypothesis: Observers vary in their assessment of the content of mentoring dialogues are illustrated in Table 21.2. In preliminary discussions, significant differences in estimating topics in content knowledge (CK) were found in the winter semester (z = −2.106, p = .035, r = .23), as well as a larger effect in the summer semester (z = −3.821, p < .001, r = .46). As we can see in Table 21.2, the assessment continues to diverge during the summer semester. Regarding our second hypothesis, there is not only no significant increase of topics in content knowledge in preliminary discussions, but also a wider gap in the estimation after the BMT training in this field of professional knowledge.

Table 21.2 Sample size (n), means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for specific parts of conversations
Full size table

The Kruskal-Wallis test for debriefing during the winter semester did not reveal significant differences in the content of the conversations (p = .101). In the summer semester, these differences were found for content knowledge (CK) with a medium effect between mentors and pre-service teachers responsible for the lesson (z = −4.225, p < .001, r = .42), and between mentors and observing pre-service biology teachers (z = −4.819, p < .001, r = .37). Furthermore, in the summer semester we could find a weak effect in the estimation of the content of mentoring dialogues in pedagogical content knowledge between mentors and observing pre-service teachers (z = −2.422, p = .046, r = .24). Therefore, referring back to our third hypothesis, the significant differences in the debriefing are driven by the estimation of the pre-service teachers. Consequently, our second hypothesis needs to be re-evaluated. Nevertheless, our results support our fourth hypothesis.

5 Discussion

All the biology mentors for these specific pre-service biology teacher placements called practical exercises in school were trained to an up-to-date level by the department didactics of biology at the University of Rostock. Regarding the few studies on biology mentors training (Barnett & Friedrichsen, 2015; Elster, 2008; Nestler et al., 2022), this is a first success.

5.1 The Tetrahedron Model of Biology Education

Our first aim was to describe our theoretical advancements to connect the generic view on mentoring quality with biology-related mentoring. In Chap. 2, Theoretical Background, we pointed out the difficulties in the field of BMT training. The adaption of the tetrahedron model (Prediger et al., 2017) shows the interdependencies between the three levels mentor training, biology teacher training, and teaching biology. Thus, the adapted model shines a light on the underdeveloped field of subject-related mentoring. While mentoring quality is generally well researched (Kreis, 2012; Hennissen et al., 2008), content knowledge, for example, is a marginalised topic of mentoring dialogues (Crasborn et al., 2011; Strong & Baron, 2004). We therefore require the existence of a coherent concept of biology-specific mentoring quality. Initially, we have to focus on generic mentoring quality and CK, PCK and PK as content of mentoring dialogues in order to approach such a concept.

Future studies can use the tetrahedron model to describe new BMT training. Additionally, this model can be specified for different areas of the professional development of pre-service biology teachers creating a coherent concept of biology teacher training. For every subject and field of research in didactics of biology education the question remains: How can we train the biology mentor teachers to support the pre-service biology teachers in this specific area of professional development?

5.2 Mentoring Quality

In our case, we were interested in the generic quality of mentoring. Overall, the high mean values of mentoring quality show a satisfactory support for our pre-service biology teachers. We saw that the pre-service biology teacher rated the mentoring quality even higher than the biology mentor teachers. Our biology mentor teachers were good biology mentor teachers before the BMT training and even better thereafter.

Therefore, mentoring quality increased after performing the BMT training. This supports our first hypothesis. Additionally, these results are consistent with previous research (Kreis, 2012). BMT training seems to be a satisfactory way of improving biology teacher training.

Surprisingly, the biology mentor teachers are more careful than the observing pre-service teachers. Therefore, our mentor training could have an impact on practical experience settings without the mentors realising it. The different mean values support the hypothesis of Kreis (2012) that preliminary discussions and debriefings have different effects. Further research on these differences is needed. The questionnaire of mentoring quality is characterised by consistency and is therefore appropriate for this study, in which different concepts such as teaching quality (Nestler et al., 2022) and mentoring quality are connected. Prospectively, a comparison with data of videotaped mentoring dialogues could improve the quality of this questionnaire.

In the future, more research is needed on different aspects of mentoring quality related to biology-specific mentoring. The views of different observers should be part of these studies.

5.3 Content of Mentoring Dialogues

The tetrahedron model of biology education leads to the different challenges of subject mentoring – which, in our case, is biology. One of the challenges lies in linking the three levels of mentor training, teacher training and biology teaching, all of which are difficult to research.

After our BMT training, we saw an increase in every area of professional knowledge. However, biology mentor teachers are considerably more cautious in assessing it, and the increase is driven by the pre-service biology teachers. At first glance, our findings do not support the low shares of content knowledge in mentoring dialogues (Crasborn et al., 2011; Strong & Baron, 2004). A second glance, however, reveals that this might be a methodical difference between videotaped sessions and the assessment performed by means of questionnaires.

In summary, our BMT training is compatible with previous research on mentoring quality and – by focussing on biology – progressively enhances this field of research. We know that mentoring dialogues are important for the professional development of pre-service teachers (Kreis, 2012). If we want to ensure that mentoring dialogues have an impact on PCK and CK, we need to train biology mentor teachers to focus on these areas of professional knowledge. This is a major desideratum in biology teacher training.

5.4 Limitations

Following the argumentation of design-based research (Reinmann, 2022), this study provides small to no evidence for a generic view on a BMT training. The differences in the structure of teaching biology, practical experience settings, and possible BMT training may have a huge impact on the results. Absence of a control group, different pre-service teachers in the winter and summer semester, and the brevity of questionnaires add further factors to these limitations.

Additionally, we cannot redo this study in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania because our group of biology mentor teachers for the practical exercises in school is now trained. A larger study including more states or countries would change the initial conditions on all levels: teaching biology, teacher training, and mentor training. While this is challenging, we support Prediger et al. (2017) in their request to describe this potential chain of impacts (or effects), and assess them with a quantitative or mixed-method approach. This complements the previous qualitative work of Wischmann (2015), Barnett and Friedrichsen (2015) and many other researchers.

In summary, our quantitative data on the possible impact of the BMT training shows the need for more theoretical, empirical, and practice-oriented developments in this core field of biology teacher professionalisation.

5.5 Conclusion

The current study is one of the first studies in BMT training. In combination with our previous study on BMT training (Nestler et al., 2022) and its impact on teaching quality, we have obtained initial indications of level 3 behavioral change (mentoring quality) and level 4 changing results (teaching quality) (e.g. Kirkpatrick, 1959; Lipowsky, 2010). In the course of the study, we acquired empirical support for the given feedback of one mentor trainee: ‘The training ensured a better structure and debriefing sessions and an improvement in the way we talk to students, as well as a better understanding of the students’ initial situation.’

Our research emphasizes the need for more BMT training. The pre-service teacher placements are one of the few curricular opportunities for biology teacher training to apply content and pedagogical content knowledge, and to improve biology-related teaching skills. This paper sheds light upon this and possible chains of effects.