View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Exploring Antecedents of Student Teachers' Emotions during Instructional Experiences: A Situation-Specific Analysis

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Exploring Antecedents of Student Teachers' Emotions during Instructional Experiences: A Situation-Specific Analysis
Language: English
Authors: Eva Susann Becker (ORCID 0000-0001-6080-1481), Tina Hascher, Thomas Goetz, Fritz C. Staub
Source: British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2025 95(1):133-152.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Student Teachers, Student Teacher Attitudes, Psychological Patterns, Student Teaching, Practicums, Diaries, Classroom Environment, Foreign Countries, Anxiety, Teacher Motivation, Emotional Experience
Geographic Terms: Switzerland, Germany
DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12738
ISSN: 0007-0998
2044-8279
Abstract: Theoretical Background: In the area of teacher motivation, the teaching practicum stands out as a pivotal element. The pronounced complexity of teaching during this specific phase may pose an emotional challenge, making the exploration of student teachers' emotions a worthwhile endeavour. Aims: Based on a theoretical model and rooted in a process-oriented perspective, this diary study examines student teachers' discrete emotions, focusing on proximal (cognitive appraisals) and distal antecedents (classroom conditions) during the teaching practicum while accounting for contextual variables. Sample: Data were collected from 178 student teachers in Switzerland and Germany and their 3736 school students. Student teachers conducted a six-lesson-teaching-unit within three-weeks of their obligatory teaching practicum (57% had prior teaching experience) and received different levels of support (coaching by peers or cooperating teachers, subject-didactic materials, usual support). Methods: After three lessons (N = 511), student teachers reported their enjoyment, anger, anxiety and cognitive appraisals (control, value). School students reported on individual perceptions of class discipline and situational interest. Results: Enjoyment was strongly experienced in 80%, anger in 8% and anxiety in 14% of lessons. School students' situational interest and discipline were weakly related to enjoyment and anger, but not to anxiety. Control appraisals were strongly associated with all emotions. The frequent experience of anxiety and its lack of relation to classroom conditions deviate from findings observed in in-service teachers. Relevance: Besides strong positive emotional experiences during the teaching practicum, the observed patterns highlight the necessity for targeted support in navigating emotional complexities during the teaching practicum.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1483429
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHuNMKjiMamcmoaIAfkddpyAAAA4TCB3gYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHQMIHNAgEAMIHHBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDM67ttM7FYTyKddbeQIBEICBmfKux_0hsF5DIAzlrQ4OTv2-b65mxJLDtIesznhAUNB6vN5IsKKSHibsqVFisRR2mjLWmxqCxumN8IgWKtNdMuTWxGfb7TyXAYvD15sgewxzSNYpbeq7lan-0SHMdBPWO2-drkwXQfPbjo5Vw-unxCz72YAfEzrnT92uN8NP0sr6o1viFjuhw57JQQY84hG74lyGjHUFVWG1gQ==
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187948724;6kx02sep.25;2025Sep16.03:13;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187948724-1">Exploring antecedents of student teachers' emotions during instructional experiences: A situation‐specific analysis </title> <p>Theoretical Background: In the area of teacher motivation, the teaching practicum stands out as a pivotal element. The pronounced complexity of teaching during this specific phase may pose an emotional challenge, making the exploration of student teachers' emotions a worthwhile endeavour. Aims: Based on a theoretical model and rooted in a process‐oriented perspective, this diary study examines student teachers' discrete emotions, focusing on proximal (cognitive appraisals) and distal antecedents (classroom conditions) during the teaching practicum while accounting for contextual variables. Sample: Data were collected from 178 student teachers in Switzerland and Germany and their 3736 school students. Student teachers conducted a six‐lesson‐teaching‐unit within three‐weeks of their obligatory teaching practicum (57% had prior teaching experience) and received different levels of support (coaching by peers or cooperating teachers, subject‐didactic materials, usual support). Methods: After three lessons (N = 511), student teachers reported their enjoyment, anger, anxiety and cognitive appraisals (control, value). School students reported on individual perceptions of class discipline and situational interest. Results: Enjoyment was strongly experienced in 80%, anger in 8% and anxiety in 14% of lessons. School students' situational interest and discipline were weakly related to enjoyment and anger, but not to anxiety. Control appraisals were strongly associated with all emotions. The frequent experience of anxiety and its lack of relation to classroom conditions deviate from findings observed in in‐service teachers. Relevance: Besides strong positive emotional experiences during the teaching practicum, the observed patterns highlight the necessity for targeted support in navigating emotional complexities during the teaching practicum.</p> <p>Keywords: appraisal theory; coaching; emotions; mentoring; teaching practicum; teaching quality, teacher</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Student teachers often describe the teaching practicum as the most important element in their teacher education programme and evaluate it positively across different countries and teacher education systems (Hascher et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref1">38</reflink>]; Kakazu & Kobayashi, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref2">51</reflink>]; Smith & Lev‐Ari, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref3">88</reflink>]). However, research indicates that university tutors or mentors rate its effectiveness lower (Perla & Agrati, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref4">72</reflink>]), and actual learning effects vary significantly due to numerous factors, such as the level of support received and its alignment with university coursework (Mok & Staub, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref5">64</reflink>]; Zeichner, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref6">105</reflink>]). Consequently, the high expectations of student teachers regarding the practicum (de Zordo et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref7">25</reflink>]) are not always met, corresponding to negative emotions, stress, or resignation (Hobson et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref8">43</reflink>]; Mahmoudi & ÿzkan, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref9">60</reflink>]; Sjølie & Østern, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref10">87</reflink>]). To reduce drop‐outs during teacher education, it is important to examine motivational‐affective processes during the teaching practicum in order to better design a learning environment that increases self‐efficacy and career choice security (Seifert & Schaper, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref11">84</reflink>]).</p> <p>Taking responsibility for a class and gaining initial experiences as a teacher can be both exciting and frightening. Even a few (negative) peak experiences can influence the overall retrospective assessment of an experience (Alaybek et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref12">2</reflink>]; Fredrickson & Kahneman, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref13">28</reflink>]) and impact decision‐making (Angie et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>]). Research has shown that in an unsupervised teaching practicum, student teachers feel overwhelmed (Ronfeldt & Reininger, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref15">80</reflink>]) and numerous student teachers undertaking an initial teacher preparation programme express a range of negative emotions (Hobson et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref16">43</reflink>]). Recent evaluations from Germany indicate that a significant proportion of student teachers does not feel strengthened after the practicum, with about 15% even questioning their career aspirations (Becker et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref17">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>This article extends previous findings by employing a situational assessment approach and incorporating reports from student teachers and aggregated reports from their classes to evaluate more objective situational demands. While previous studies have primarily focused on self‐reported retrospective assessments of emotions, there is a gap in understanding how specific situational factors (classroom conditions) influence these emotional experiences. By integrating both interpersonal and classroom‐level data, this study aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the emotional dynamics in the teaching practicum. This understanding can help teacher education programmes design interventions and support structures to better prepare and support student teachers during their practicum.</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-3">Teacher emotions</hd> <p>Over the last 25 years, researchers have increasingly recognized the emotional dimension of teaching. There is accumulating scientific evidence that the emotional dimension is worth considering when talking about teaching effectiveness (Burić & Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref18">13</reflink>]; Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref19">29</reflink>]), teacher well‐being (Day & Qing, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref20">22</reflink>]; Hascher & Waber, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref21">40</reflink>]; Nwoko et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref22">67</reflink>]), job satisfaction (Ben‐Ari et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref23">11</reflink>]; Dreer, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref24">27</reflink>]) and turnover intentions (Lee, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref25">56</reflink>]; Li & Yao, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref26">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to the component model of emotion (Scherer & Moors, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref27">82</reflink>]), emotions are multicomponential and have—in contrast to moods—an 'event focus' (Shuman & Scherer, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref28">85</reflink>]), meaning that they have a cause and are triggered by a stimulus. This stimulus is evaluated based on its significance and controllability (cognitive appraisals), which then triggers responses at various levels, including physiological reactions, behavioural tendencies and motor expressions, all contributing to the subjective feeling of the emotion.</p> <p>Adapting this general emotion framework and focusing on cognitive appraisals, Frenzel and colleagues (Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref29">31</reflink>]) developed a theoretical model specifically for teacher emotions in classroom interactions (see also Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref30">29</reflink>]; Frenzel & Stephens, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref31">33</reflink>]; Keller et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref32">52</reflink>]). A key assumption of the model is that the cognitive appraisals of events that occur in the classroom significantly contribute to teachers' emotions. Teacher emotions, in turn, impact their teaching behaviours and student outcomes. In a school context, emotions are potentially elicited by various situations beyond classroom interactions, including administrative tasks, parent‐teacher conferences, and interactions with colleagues or school leadership (Schmidt et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref33">83</reflink>]). Nevertheless, teaching remains the central and most time‐consuming aspect of a teacher's professional life. For student teachers, gaining practical teaching experience is a primary goal during their practicum. Consequently, this study focuses on emotional experiences within classroom interactions, adopting the part of Frenzel's model that deals with the antecedents of teacher emotions.</p> <p>Frenzel's model, informed by various theoretical assumptions, suggests that teachers generally strive for high academic performance, strong student motivation, class discipline and positive relationships with students (Butler, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref34">14</reflink>]; Tschannen‐Moran & Hoy, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref35">96</reflink>]). Classroom events that pertain to these four dimensions are particularly relevant for eliciting emotions. In a qualitative study (de Ruiter et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref36">24</reflink>]), relational or social–emotional student behaviours—such as hostility or aggression towards teachers or peers, lack of discipline or positive interactions like friendly chats or shared jokes—were most frequently cited by teachers as relevant classroom events for both, their positive and negative emotional reactions. Student motivation (engagement or disengagement) was predominantly mentioned if it represented an atypical behaviour for a student. Achievement behaviours (e.g. a student understands the materials after first difficulties, or a student receives a good grade) was mainly linked to teachers' positive emotional reports. This is in line with quantitative findings showing that student misbehaviour is a major cause of teachers' anger and stress experiences (Chang & Davis, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref37">17</reflink>]; Tsouloupas et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref38">97</reflink>]) and that learning successes can evoke joy and pride in teachers (Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref39">29</reflink>]; Pawłowska, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref40">70</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our study focuses on classroom events that student teachers encounter in every lesson, emphasizing factors that are observable within the limited timeframe of a teaching practicum. Specifically, we assess two dimensions: situational interest (as an indicator of student motivation) and discipline (as an indicator of social–emotional behaviour). Both dimensions have been shown in previous studies to significantly relate to teacher emotions (Becker et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref41">8</reflink>]; Becker & Keller, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref42">7</reflink>]; Chang, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref43">16</reflink>]; de Ruiter et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref44">23</reflink>]; Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref45">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>To better understand student teachers' emotional experiences, this study considers both classroom conditions as reported by school students and the student teachers' experiences within the same situations. This dual approach helps to disentangle actual classroom events from teachers' cognitive appraisals. It is not the situation itself that triggers an emotional response, but the teacher's interpretation of it, that is their perceptions and judgements of situational occurrences, which are shaped by individual factors (see e.g. Roseman & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref46">81</reflink>]). The most widely recognized cognitive appraisals related to emotions in an academic context involve the level of controllability of actions and outcomes and the value of these actions and outcomes (Pekrun & Perry, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref47">71</reflink>]). In this study, lesson‐specific classroom conditions reported by the whole class serve as distal antecedents to emotions, while student teachers' control and value appraisals following the lesson are treated as proximal antecedents.</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-4">Emotions in the teaching practicum</hd> <p>The teaching practicum and its conditioning factors for successful learning, as well as its relations to self‐efficacy, and student teachers' professional identity development have been investigated in numerous studies (Huang & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref48">47</reflink>]; Lawson et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref49">55</reflink>]; Mena et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref50">62</reflink>]). However, emotions have so far played a comparatively minor role in this field of research (Porsch, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref51">75</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given the essential role of the teaching practicum in teacher education systems and the high value and expectations student teachers place on it, it is anticipated that student teachers experience strong emotions during this period. Although some quantitative studies have shown that predominantly positive emotions are experienced or expected during the teaching practicum (de Zordo et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref52">25</reflink>]; Timoštšuk et al., [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref53">93</reflink>]), qualitative findings indicate that negative emotions, especially anxiety, are also present and can significantly influence student teachers' perception of the teaching practicum (Hastings, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref54">41</reflink>]; Timoštšuk & Ugaste, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref55">94</reflink>]). Students take on temporary responsibility for a class and often feel inadequately prepared (Hoferichter, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref56">44</reflink>]). Additionally, the complexity of teaching becomes particularly evident during these initial teaching experiences (Sutton & Wheatley, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref57">91</reflink>]).</p> <p>This study focuses on three discrete emotions—enjoyment, anxiety and anger—that have been frequently examined in the context of teacher emotions (e.g. Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref58">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref59">30</reflink>]) and also specifically within the teaching practicum (e.g. Bach & Hagenauer, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref60">4</reflink>]). Enjoyment is inherently tied to teacher motivation and can reinforce a student teacher's commitment to the profession (Li & Yao, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref61">57</reflink>]). Anxiety, on the other hand, often arises in challenging, unfamiliar and uncontrollable situations during the practicum and can diminish teaching effectiveness in the short term and undermine career‐choice security in the long term (Agyapong et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>]; Porsch & Gollub, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref63">76</reflink>]). Finally, anger can emerge when high expectations are unmet or when disruptions and challenges to authority arise within the classroom (Chang, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref64">16</reflink>]). Anger has been shown to impact overall practicum performance negatively (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref65">19</reflink>]). Intense negative emotional experiences characterize or bias the retrospective assessment of events (Gorin & Stone, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref66">36</reflink>]; Timoštšuk et al., [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref67">93</reflink>]). In the context of the teaching practicum, such a bias may negatively influence career decisions (Daniels et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref68">21</reflink>]; Krannich et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref69">53</reflink>]; Wigfield et al., [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref70">103</reflink>]), as student teachers' emotions are related to self‐concept and self‐efficacy (Bach & Hagenauer, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref71">4</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-5">Dual role of student teachers in the teaching practicum</hd> <p>Beyond the anticipation of strong emotions due to high values and expectations associated with the teaching practicum, there are additional reasons why student teachers' emotional experiences may differ from those of in‐service teachers (Ji et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref72">49</reflink>]). Student teachers juggle dual roles as both teacher and student, being in a transitional phase between a student's and a teacher's habitus (Kahlau, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref73">50</reflink>]), a situation that introduces further emotional antecedents. In adapting Frenzel's model, it can be considered that a student teacher—in the role of a student—is also potentially influenced by the actions of mentor teachers (e.g. a school‐based cooperating teacher), similar to how school students are affected by their teacher's instructional behaviours. Mentoring in the teaching practicum serves three main functions: cognitive, relational and affective support (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref74">100</reflink>]). However, an array of studies shows that some mentor teachers may fall short of providing this support, whether due to being 'unavailable' or adopting a 'tough' approach (for an overview, see Thornton, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref75">92</reflink>]). This variability might stem from a lack of formal preparation, as there is often no mandatory programme for mentor teachers. Even where programmes exist, they seldom address emotional support explicitly, and the evidence on the effects of various mentor preparation methods is sparse and underdeveloped (Maxwell et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref76">61</reflink>]). While meta‐analytic findings suggest that cognitive modelling of lesson planning and teaching has small to moderate effects on student teachers' instructional skills (Mok & Staub, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref77">64</reflink>]), there are no accumulated findings regarding mentor teachers' role in providing emotional and psychological support nor their impact on fostering emotional and motivational aspects of teaching. In an exploratory approach, this study aims to examine if and how the support received by formally trained persons shape student teachers' emotional experiences during the practicum.</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-6">The role of previous teaching experiences</hd> <p>A teacher shortage in German‐speaking countries has led to the increased hiring of non‐traditionally certified teachers and student teachers as in‐service teachers (Hascher & Krummenacher, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref78">39</reflink>]; Meyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref79">63</reflink>]; Richter et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref80">78</reflink>]), a trend that can be seen globally (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref81">68</reflink>]; Sutcher et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref82">90</reflink>]). In these positions, student teachers as in‐service‐teachers are faced with demanding tasks and responsibilities such as teaching independently, assigning grades or conducting parent‐teacher conferences (Simonis & Klomfaß, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref83">86</reflink>]). Teaching experiences gained outside formal teacher education programmes are usually not supervised by university mentors and often also not by school‐based cooperating teachers as teacher shortage and high workload has led to the job hiring in the first place (Meyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref84">63</reflink>]). Hence, stress experiences and deprofessionalization are discussed as possible outcomes (Kahlau, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref85">50</reflink>]; Simonis & Klomfaß, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref86">86</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, student teachers working as in‐service teachers have also reported high levels of social support from colleagues, which buffered the negative effects of stress experiences (Meyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref87">63</reflink>]). In such cases, these practical experiences may help reduce unfamiliarity with various classroom situations during the teaching practicum, potentially lowering anxiety and enhancing feelings of control. This may bring student teachers' emotional experiences closer to those of in‐service teachers.</p> <p>The present study aims to explore whether prior teaching experiences outside the formal curriculum influence student teachers' emotions when teaching occurs under the formal guidance of a cooperating teacher.</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-7">The present study</hd> <p>The aim of this study is to investigate the emotions enjoyment, anger and anxiety and the antecedents of these emotions during initial teaching experiences in the teaching practicum. We include distal antecedents of classroom conditions using aggregated reports from the class (school students' reports on class discipline and situational interest) and proximal antecedents using student teachers' self‐reports on cognitive appraisals (sense of control and value). In addition, we are also exploratively investigating the role of contextual variables (previous teaching experiences and support structure) of the teaching practicum.</p> <p>Our research questions are as follows:</p> <p>RQ1: What emotions do student teachers experience during the lessons?</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Hypothesis 1a: Based on previous empirical findings (e.g. Bach & Hagenauer, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref88">4</reflink>] ; Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref89">29</reflink>] ; Ji et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref90">49</reflink>]), we expect that joy is the predominant emotion, followed by anxiety (or nervousness) and anger.</item> <p></p> <item> Hypothesis 1b: Based on intra‐individual research on academic emotions (e.g., Goetz et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref91">34</reflink>] ; Nett & Goetz, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref92">66</reflink>]), we expect between‐lesson‐fluctuations in emotion experiences.</item> </ulist> <p>RQ2: How strongly are the experienced emotions related to the classroom situation and to student teachers' cognitive appraisals</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Based on Frenzel's' model on teacher emotions and previous empirical studies (Becker et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref93">8</reflink>]), we expect,</item> <p></p> <item> Hypothesis 2a: a significant relation between classroom conditions and student teachers' emotions;</item> <p></p> <item> Hypothesis 2b: a significant relation between cognitive appraisals and emotions;</item> <p></p> <item> Hypothesis 2c: that the relation between classroom conditions and emotions is partially mediated by cognitive appraisals.</item> </ulist> <p>RQ3: Which contextual variables are related to students' cognitive appraisals and emotions?</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> We expect heterogeneity among student teachers regarding previous teaching experiences. We exploratively investigate how such experiences relate to emotional experiences and their antecedents. Additionally, we investigate the role of support structures during the teaching practicum by comparing groups of student teachers who received systematically different levels of support (within the framework of a larger intervention study). Since none of the support variations explicitly targeted emotions or emotional support, we do not expect substantial effects on emotions or their antecedents. However, we account for potential intervention effects by including dummy variables for the intervention conditions as covariates in our analyses (see Statistical analysis section).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187948724-8">MATERIALS AND METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187948724-9">Sample</hd> <p>The sample comprised 178 student teachers (68% female, <emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 26.92 years), recruited from four teacher education institutes in Switzerland and Germany. Each student teacher was completing an obligatory teaching practicum in the subject domain German (for 53% it was their first teaching practicum in this domain) and was assigned to a school in rural, suburban or metropolitan areas, covering secondary I and II levels. During the practicum, each student teacher taught a 6‐lesson unit on "written argumentation" in German to 7th–10th graders. Data were also collected from 3736 students (52.1% female, <emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 14.85 years).</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-10">Procedure</hd> <p>The conditions of a teaching placement vary greatly, both between and within institutions. To ensure a minimum of comparability among practicum experiences, they had these common features: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>) They were of at least three weeks in duration, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref95">2</reflink>) were supervised by a cooperating teacher and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref96">3</reflink>) included six lessons of teaching the subject German to a 7th–10th grade class (time span between first and sixth lesson: <emph>M</emph> = 12.21 days, <emph>SD</emph> = 5.95 days). After three out of the six lessons, both student teachers and their classes completed paper‐pencil questionnaires. Student teachers reported on their teaching‐related emotions and cognitive appraisals, while school students documented class discipline and situational interest during the same lessons. Out of 534 expected lessons, 511 lessons were documented by teachers, and 506 by school students, resulting in a strong response rate of 94.75%, which is notable for diary studies.</p> <p>This study was conducted as part of the larger research project COPRA investigating support structures during the teaching practicum, with systematic variations in the support provided to student teachers. Data were collected in three waves from 2016 to 2019. In the first wave (2016–2017), student teachers at four teacher education institutes received the usual support without specific instructions (<emph>n</emph> = 75). In subsequent waves (2017–2019), student teachers were randomly assigned to one of three groups:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Teaching materials with usual support: Participants received non‐binding subject‐specific didactic materials developed by experts alongside general support (<emph>n</emph>  = 33).</item> <p></p> <item> Teaching materials and peer coaching: Participants received didactic materials and peer support from another student teacher trained in Content‐Focused (Peer) Coaching (Kreis & Staub, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref97">54</reflink>]) through a 4‐h workshop (<emph>n</emph>  = 27).</item> <p></p> <item> Teaching materials and coaching by the cooperating teacher: Participants received didactic materials and additional support from a cooperating teacher trained in Content‐Focused Coaching (CFC, <emph>n</emph>  = 49).</item> </ulist> <p>Further information on CFC and a detailed description of the employed intervention can be found elsewhere (Becker & Staub, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref98">9</reflink>]; Staub et al., [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref99">89</reflink>]). Group sizes varied due to institutional constraints, as peer coaching required two student teachers with similar study backgrounds to be placed at the same school. This arrangement was feasible at only two out of four institutions: one in Germany and one in Switzerland.</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-11">Ethics statement</hd> <p>The study adhered to ethical standards by the Federation of German Psychologists Association (2005) and the American Psychological Association (2010). It was approved by the ethics board of the lead university in Switzerland (University of Zurich, approval no. 16.6.7) and by the ministry for science and arts in Bavaria, Germany (approval no. X.7‐BO4106.2016/28/6). Written informed consent was obtained by all study participants.</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-12">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187948724-13">Student teachers' self‐reported emotions</hd> <p>Student teachers' lesson‐related emotions were measured with single items that are based on the Teacher Emotion Scales (Frenzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref100">32</reflink>]) and previously conducted diary studies (Becker et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref101">8</reflink>]). The item prompt was adapted to suit the momentary assessment approach and were formulated as follows: "In this lesson, I enjoyed teaching", "In this lesson I felt angry", "In this lesson I was tense and nervous", and they were rated on a 5‐point intensity scale from (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref102">1</reflink>) not at all to (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref103">5</reflink>) very strongly. Single items are a regular approach in diary studies to reduce invasiveness (Ohly et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref104">69</reflink>]) and have been shown to show reliable results for measures of affective states (Gogol et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref105">35</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-14">Student teachers' self‐reported control and value appraisals</hd> <p>Student teachers' control appraisals were assessed with four items referring to student teachers' general appraisal of control and their perceived instructional competence: General appraisal of control was assessed with previously employed items ("In this lesson, I felt I had everything under control", see Becker et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref106">8</reflink>]) and control over instructional practices was assessed with a modified subscale for understandability from the COACTIV‐study ("In this lesson, I have explained well", see Baumert et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref107">5</reflink>]). Items were rated on a 5‐point Likert scale from (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref108">1</reflink>) strongly disagree to (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref109">5</reflink>) strongly agree and internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's Alpha for each of the three assessment points (Mean <emph>α</emph> =.82).</p> <p>Value appraisals were assessed with three items (Mean <emph>α</emph> =.60), one general value appraisal ("In this lesson it was very important to me to teach well") and two modified items from the COACTIV‐study referring to intrinsic value (e.g. "In this lesson, the subject matter was of great personal importance to me.").</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-15">Student‐reported classroom conditions</hd> <p>Situational interest was assessed using a four‐item measure based on Tsai et al. ([<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref110">95</reflink>]) and items were rated on a 5‐point Likert scale from (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref111">1</reflink>) strongly disagree to (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref112">5</reflink>) strongly agree (e.g. "In this lesson I enjoyed the topic"). The scale showed high internal consistency (Mean <emph>α</emph> =.94). Mean scale scores were calculated and then aggregated at the lesson level, resulting in 506 ratings from <emph>M</emph> = 18.80 school students. This aggregation was justified by sufficient homogeneity among students as indicated by intraclass coefficients (ICC; ICC(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref113">1</reflink>) = .20, ICC(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref114">2</reflink>) = .82), making these scores reliable indicators of classroom conditions (Lüdtke et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref115">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>School students discipline was assessed with a two‐item‐measure based on the COACTIV‐study referring to classroom disruptions and effective use of time (Baumert et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref116">5</reflink>]). Both items were reverse coded before further analyses so that high values indicate high discipline. The scale showed good internal consistency (Mean <emph>α</emph> =.89) and homogenous reports among the students from one class for each lesson (ICC(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref117">1</reflink>) = .20, ICC(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref118">2</reflink>) = .83).</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-16">Student teachers' prior teaching experiences</hd> <p>Student teachers' prior teaching experience was assessed with the single item: "Do you have any teaching experience that was gained outside of the formal teacher education programme?" If they answered yes, they were asked about the duration (in weeks) and the number of lessons taught per week. Among the participants, 96 student teachers reported prior teaching experience (57.20%), ranging from a few lessons to 13 years of experience as a full‐time teacher (range: 2–16,794 lessons, Median = 50 lessons taught outside the formal teacher education programme). Preliminary analyses showed similar correlations between the binary variable "teaching experience" (yes/no) and the amount of experience with our study variables. To simplify the model, we used only the binary indicator of teaching experience (<emph>prev. TExp</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-17">Support structures in the teaching practicum</hd> <p>Dummy variables were used to control and evaluate the relations between the different levels of formalized support that student teachers received during their teaching practicum and our study variables. The baseline assessment (usual support without specific instructions, <emph>UsualSup</emph>) served as the reference group so that three dummies – teaching materials with usual support (<emph>Mat. + UsualSup</emph>), peer coaching (<emph>Mat. + Peer</emph>), coaching by cooperating teacher (<emph>Mat. + Coach</emph>) were entered as Level‐2 covariates.</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-18">Statistical analysis</hd> <p>All analyses were conducted in <emph>Mplus</emph> version 8.2 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref119">65</reflink>]–[<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref120">65</reflink>]) using robust maximum likelihood estimation. The collected data represent a nested data structure with three repeated measurements (Level 1: <emph>N</emph> = 511 lessons) within persons (Level 2: <emph>N =</emph> 178 student teachers). ICCs were calculated using intercept‐only models in <emph>Mplus</emph> to determine the percentage of variance attributable to both levels of analysis (Hox et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref121">45</reflink>]; Woehr et al., [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref122">104</reflink>]). To account for the nested structure, we analysed our data, which included both observed and latent variables, using multilevel structural equation modelling (<emph>MSEM</emph>). We employed concurrent models at both the within and between levels. Within‐person effects can be interpreted as being controlled for their between‐level variation (Preacher et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref123">77</reflink>]).</p> <p>Missing data for our study variables ranged from 5.2% to 7.5%. As the missing data were not related to our study variables, we employed full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation, which assumes that data are missing at random (MAR) and utilizes all available data to derive parameter estimates. For all analyses, a <emph>p</emph>‐value of <.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance. Model fit was assessed using the following indices: chi‐square, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (<emph>RMSEA</emph>), Comparative Fit Indes (<emph>CFI</emph>) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (<emph>SRMR</emph><subs>within</subs>). We followed conventional cut‐off criteria, that is <emph>CFI</emph> values ≥ 0.90 or ≥ 0.95 and <emph>SRMR</emph> and <emph>RMSEA</emph> scores lower than.08 reflect an acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref124">46</reflink>]; Little, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref125">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>To examine the factorial structure of our measures, we conducted multilevel confirmatory factor analysis. The results indicated that the four‐factor model, which distinguishes between class discipline, class motivation, student‐teacher control and student‐teacher value, provided a significantly better fit to the data compared to a two‐factor model (with classroom conditions and appraisals), Δ<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref126">10</reflink>) = 511.53, <emph>p</emph> < .001. The four‐factor model demonstrated a good fit to the data: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref127">118</reflink>) = 246.34, <emph>RMSEA</emph> = .05, <emph>CFI</emph> = .96, <emph>SRMR</emph><subs>within</subs> = .05, thereby supporting the discriminant validity of the constructs.</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-19">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187948724-20">Student teachers' emotions in the practicum</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics and ICCs are displayed in Table 1. The results confirm <emph>Hypothesis 1a</emph>, that is enjoyment was the most intensely experienced emotion among student teachers (<emph>M</emph> = 4.07), followed by anxiety (<emph>M</emph> = 2.25) and anger (<emph>M</emph> = 1.79). A frequency analysis further revealed that in 79.9% of the lessons analysed, student teachers reported intense enjoyment (≥ 4 on a five‐point scale), while intense anxiety/nervousness and anger were reported in 14.1% and 7.8% of the lessons, respectively. Supporting <emph>Hypothesis 1b</emph>, ICCs show that the majority of variance in all three emotion experiences was between lessons. The highest fluctuation between‐lessons was found for enjoyment (ICC<subs>between</subs> = .29, i.e., 71% of variance lies between lessons) and anger (ICC<subs>between</subs> = .30) followed by anxiety (ICC<subs>between</subs> = .44).</p> <p>1 TABLE Descriptive statistics, ICCs and intercorrelation of all study variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="left">1</th><th align="left">2</th><th align="left">3</th><th align="left">4</th><th align="left">5</th><th align="left">6</th><th align="left">7</th><th align="left">8</th><th align="left">9</th><th align="left">10</th><th align="left">11</th><th align="left">12</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1. ST anger</td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.47<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.82<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.79<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.35<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.29<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.37<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.10</td><td align="char" char=".">.10</td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−.14</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2. ST anxiety</td><td align="char" char=".">.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">−.47<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.81<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.08</td><td align="char" char=".">−.13</td><td align="char" char=".">.09</td><td align="char" char=".">.12</td><td align="char" char=".">−.08<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.02</td><td align="char" char=".">−.11<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.32<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">3. ST enjoyment</td><td align="char" char=".">−.44<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.82<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.71<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.40<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.40<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.09</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">−.12<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4. ST control</td><td align="char" char=".">−.40<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.37<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.50<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.47<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.25<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.14</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td><td align="char" char=".">−.13</td><td align="char" char=".">−.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">5. ST value</td><td align="char" char=".">−.11</td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.28<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.25<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6. Class motivation</td><td align="char" char=".">−.17<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.06</td><td align="char" char=".">.20<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.50<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.00</td><td align="char" char=".">.21<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">7. Class discipline</td><td align="char" char=".">−.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.27<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">8. Mat. + Coach</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char="." /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">9. Mat. + Peer</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">10. Mat. + UsualSup</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">11. UsualSup</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">12. Prev. TExp.</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">M</td><td align="char" char=".">1.79</td><td align="char" char=".">2.25</td><td align="char" char=".">4.07</td><td align="char" char=".">3.83</td><td align="char" char=".">3.98</td><td align="char" char=".">3.58</td><td align="char" char=".">3.84</td><td align="char" char=".">0.26</td><td align="char" char=".">0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.19</td><td align="char" char=".">0.40</td><td align="char" char=".">0.58</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Var</td><td align="char" char=".">1.01</td><td align="char" char=".">1.24</td><td align="char" char=".">0.70</td><td align="char" char=".">0.38</td><td align="char" char=".">0.39</td><td align="char" char=".">0.21</td><td align="char" char=".">0.21</td><td align="char" char=".">0.19</td><td align="char" char=".">0.31</td><td align="char" char=".">0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.24</td><td align="char" char=".">0.26</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Min</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">1.75</td><td align="char" char=".">1.50</td><td align="char" char=".">2.09</td><td align="char" char=".">2.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Max</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5.00</td><td align="char" char=".">4.55</td><td align="char" char=".">4.87</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td><td align="char" char=".">1.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">ICC</td><td align="char" char=".">.30</td><td align="char" char=".">.44</td><td align="char" char=".">.29</td><td align="char" char=".">.38</td><td align="char" char=".">.49</td><td align="char" char=".">.71</td><td align="char" char=".">.63</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">N</td><td align="char" char=".">485</td><td align="char" char=".">483</td><td align="char" char=".">487</td><td align="char" char=".">489</td><td align="char" char=".">488</td><td align="char" char=".">495</td><td align="char" char=".">495</td><td align="char" char=".">178</td><td align="char" char=".">178</td><td align="char" char=".">178</td><td align="char" char=".">178</td><td align="char" char=".">167</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: <emph>N</emph> = 178 student teachers, number of lessons = 511; all within‐variables 1–7 were rated on 5‐point‐Likert‐Scales. Between‐variables 8–12 are dummy coded (1 = yes). Below the diagonal are the within correlations with group‐mean‐centred predictors to depict intra‐individual correlations. Above the diagonal are the between correlations at the person level.</p> <ulist> <item>2 * <emph>p</emph> < .05.</item> <item>3 ** <emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187948724-21">Antecedents of student teachers' emotions</hd> <p>To examine <emph>Hypothesis 2a</emph>, that is the relationship between classroom conditions (reported by school students) and student teachers' emotions, we conducted three <emph>MSEM</emph>, one for each emotion (enjoyment, anxiety and anger). Classroom conditions were modelled as two latent variables—class motivation and class discipline—at both the within‐ and between‐person levels. While our primary interest was in within‐person relationships, modelling at both levels allowed us to account for between‐person variations. The standardized coefficients and explained variance at the within‐person level are presented in Table 2.</p> <p>2 TABLE Student teachers' emotions predicted by classroom conditions (within‐level).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Classroom conditions</th><th>Enjoyment</th><th>Anger</th><th align="left">Anxiety</th></tr><tr><th><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left">SE</th><th><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left">SE</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Class motivation</td><td align="char" char=".">.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td><td align="char" char=" ">−.10</td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Class discipline</td><td align="char" char=".">.20<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td><td align="char" char=" ">−.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td><td align="char" char=".">−.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td></tr><tr><td align="left">R<sup>2</sup></td><td align="center">.08<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">.04</td><td align="center">.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 <emph>Note</emph>: Independent variables were modelled as latent variables. Classroom conditions were correlated with each other. All relations were modelled on the within and between level. <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> refers to the explained variance on the within level. Model fit for the respective models was as follows: Enjoyment: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 66.22, df = 24, <emph>p</emph> = .00, <emph>RMSEA</emph> = .06, <emph>CFI</emph> = .98; <emph>SRMR</emph><subs>within</subs> = .03; Anger: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 70.41, df = 24, <emph>p</emph> = .00, <emph>RMSEA</emph> = .06, <emph>CFI</emph> = .98, <emph>SRMR</emph><subs>within</subs> = .03; Anxiety: <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 53.01, df = 24, <emph>p</emph> = .00, <emph>RMSEA</emph> = .05, CFI = .99, <emph>SRMR</emph><subs>within</subs> = .02.</item> <item>5 * <emph>p</emph> < .05.</item> <item>6 ** <emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> </ulist> <p>Overall, the relationships between classroom conditions and student teachers' emotions were weak. Notably, there was no significant relationship between classroom conditions and anxiety. The strongest relationship was observed for enjoyment, where classroom conditions explained 8% of the variance at the within‐person level. However, for anxiety and anger, the explained variance at the within‐person level was not significant. Hence, <emph>Hypothesis 2a</emph> is only partially confirmed.</p> <p>To assess <emph>Hypothesis 2b</emph> and <emph>Hypothesis 2c</emph>, that is the role of cognitive appraisals, we conducted three additional <emph>MSEM</emph> models (full model), again one for each emotion. Classroom conditions and cognitive appraisals were modelled as two latent variables each, with the latent factors allowed to correlate. The model was specified so that classroom conditions predicted student teachers' appraisals, which in turn predicted their emotions. As we assumed partial mediation, we tested for direct and indirect effects of classroom conditions on student teachers' emotions at the within‐level. To control for between‐level variation of our study variables, we employed a concurrent model at Level 2 that also included our covariates (context variables, i.e., prior teaching experiences and level of support). The structural model of the MSEM is depicted in Figure 1, while the results are shown in Figures 2–4.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/02sep25/bjep12738-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12738-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Figural representation of the multilevel structural equation models (full model) with both level of analysis and covariates depicted." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/02sep25/bjep12738-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12738-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Classroom conditions and cognitive appraisals predicting teacher enjoyment with partial mediation. MSEM—within persons; regression coefficients for the latent variables are shown and standard coefficients between the latent and manifest variables. Estimates at the dependent variable represent explained within‐level variance (R2). *p < .05. **p < .01. *p < .05. **p < .01. Total/total indirect effect from class motivation to enjoyment (βdirect = .19, p = .00; βindirect = .19, p = .01), total/total indirect effect from class discipline to enjoyment (βdirect = .20, p = .01; βindirect = .05, p = .46). p‐values are reported because bootstrap‐CIs are not available in two‐level‐models in Mplus." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/02sep25/bjep12738-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12738-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Classroom conditions and cognitive appraisals predicting student teacher anger. MSEM—within‐persons; regression coefficients for the latent variables are shown and standard coefficients between the latent and manifest variables. Estimates at the dependent variable represent explained within‐level variance (R2). *p < .05. **p < .01. Total/total indirect effect from class motivation to anger (βdirect = −.15, p = .07; βindirect = −.08, p = .18), Total/total indirect effect from class discipline to anger (βdirect = −.14, p = .03; βindirect = −.11, p = .09). p‐values are reported because bootstrap‐CIs are not available in two‐level‐models in Mplus." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/02sep25/bjep12738-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12738-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Classroom conditions and cognitive appraisals predicting student teacher anxiety. MSEM—within‐persons; regression coefficients for the latent variables are shown and standard coefficients between the latent and manifest variables. Estimates at the dependent variable represent explained within‐level variance (R2). *p < .05. **p < .01. Total/total indirect effect from class motivation to anxiety (βdirect = −.08, p = .24; βindirect = .02, p = .85), Total/total indirect effect from class discipline to anxiety (βdirect = −.04, p = .55; βindirect = −.17, p = .11). p‐values are reported because bootstrap‐CIs are not available in two‐level‐models in Mplus." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Student teachers' anger, anxiety and enjoyment were significantly predicted by control appraisals, partially supporting <emph>Hypothesis 2b</emph>. Teachers who reported a higher sense of control over their instructional practice within a lesson also reported more enjoyment (<emph>β</emph> = .25, <emph>p</emph> < .01) and less anger (<emph>β</emph> = −.56, <emph>p</emph> < .01) and anxiety (<emph>β</emph> = .75, <emph>p</emph> < .01). Conversely, value appraisals, which reflect the importance student teachers place on the lesson content and their desire to deliver a good lesson, were not significantly related to any of the emotions. Explained variance at the within‐level increased from 0% to 31% for anxiety, 4% to 28% for anger and 8% to 47% for enjoyment when appraisals are included.</p> <p>Results from direct and indirect effects indicate that appraisals partially mediated the relationship between classroom conditions and emotions, which is in line with <emph>Hypothesis 2c</emph>. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to the weak relationship between classroom conditions and student teachers' negative emotions.</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-26">Relations to student teachers' previous teaching experiences and support structures during th...</hd> <p>To evaluate RQ3, we first considered between‐person correlations (Table 1) that indicated that student teachers who received <emph>usual support</emph> at their school experienced less intense anxiety (<emph>β</emph> = −.11, <emph>p</emph> < .05) but also reported lower levels of enjoyment (<emph>β</emph> = −.12, <emph>p</emph> < .05) compared to the three other groups. Student teachers who were coached by a trained cooperating teacher reported higher value appraisals during teaching (<emph>β</emph> = .13, <emph>p</emph> < .05). Those coached by a trained peer reported lower levels of anxiety (<emph>β</emph> = −.08, <emph>p</emph> < .01) and their classes demonstrated higher motivation (<emph>β</emph> = .21, <emph>p</emph> < .01). Furthermore, previous teaching experiences correlated with lower levels of anxiety (<emph>β</emph> = −.29, <emph>p</emph> < .01) and higher levels of control appraisals (<emph>β</emph> = .22, <emph>p</emph> < .01).</p> <p>Since we had no specific hypotheses regarding the role of contextual variables, they mainly served as covariates in our full model (see Figure 1). We evaluated the standardized coefficients for the intervention groups on classroom conditions, appraisals and emotions separately. Results mainly matched those obtained from bivariate correlations. At the person‐level (between‐level), student teachers with previous teaching experiences reported slightly higher control appraisals (<emph>β</emph> = .20, <emph>p = </emph>.06) and lower anxiety (<emph>β</emph> = −.19, <emph>p</emph> < .05) throughout their teaching practicum. Students that were coached by a formally trained cooperating teacher reported higher anxiety scores (<emph>β</emph> = .24, <emph>p</emph> < .05) and school students being taught by a student teacher who participated in the peer‐coaching‐group, reported higher motivation scores (<emph>β</emph> = .25, <emph>p</emph> < .01).</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-27">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The current study offers insights into the emotional experiences of student teachers during their practicum, highlighting that the teaching practicum is not a universally positive experience. Approximately 14% of the lessons were marked by intense nervousness, a figure that suggests feelings of being overwhelmed among some student teachers. This frequency of intense nervousness is notably higher than that reported by experienced teachers (Frenzel, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref128">29</reflink>]), indicating that student teachers face emotional challenges during teaching more often.</p> <p>The presence of anxiety, while somewhat concerning, might also serve as a catalyst for growth, prompting student teachers to recalibrate their expectations and identify areas for professional development. It is unrealistic to expect a completely anxiety‐free teaching practicum; instead, the goal should be to manage and learn from these emotions. Previous research has linked emotional experiences, both positive and negative, to the development of self‐efficacy among student teachers (Bach & Hagenauer, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref129">4</reflink>]). Self‐efficacy, or the belief in one's ability to succeed, has been found to relate to the commitment to the teaching profession and intention to quit among student teachers (Chesnut & Burley, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref130">20</reflink>]; Pfitzner‐Eden, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref131">73</reflink>]; Westphal et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref132">102</reflink>]). Therefore, it is essential that the emotions experienced during the practicum are productively addressed through reflective practices.</p> <p>While a main goal of formal coaching and mentoring‐approaches is to offer emotional support (Hobson et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref133">42</reflink>]; Lawson et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref134">55</reflink>]), our study showed that this is not always the case. On the contrary, student teachers that were coached by a formally trained cooperating teacher reported even higher anxiety levels throughout their practicum. Our training for cooperating teachers and peer students is based on CFC (for more information see Becker et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref135">10</reflink>]; Kreis & Staub, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref136">54</reflink>]) which emphasizes joint lesson planning in a dialogic style. This approach provides student teachers with a setting where they can discuss teaching‐related questions more openly, without the strong evaluative component typically present in post‐lesson conferences. However, joint lesson planning may inadvertently increase pressure on student teachers to perform well during the actual lesson. To address this, trust‐building measures and a clear rationale for joint lesson planning should be more strongly integrated into the training. Moreover, the training as implemented in this study did not explicitly target emotional outcomes or strategies for managing emotions; a limitation shared by other prominent coaching and mentoring programmes (Bradbury, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref137">12</reflink>]; Vermunt et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref138">99</reflink>]). Future coaching models could benefit from incorporating components that offer emotional support and help student teachers develop effective coping strategies for managing their emotions.</p> <p>An important finding in that regard is that the emotions experienced by student teachers during the practicum were only weakly related to school students' academic behaviours during lessons. Instead, emotions were more strongly predicted by student teachers' individual appraisals, particularly their sense of control. This suggests that student teachers might adopt an internal attention focus, focusing less on external classroom dynamics. This finding is in line with eye‐tracking studies focussing on student teachers' attention allocation (Chaudhuri et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref139">18</reflink>]; van den Bogert et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref140">98</reflink>]). Guided reflection sessions, whether with peers or cooperating teachers, could therefor aim to categorize emotional experiences and discuss possible regulation strategies, such as cognitive reappraisal (Denny & Ochsner, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref141">26</reflink>]; Gross, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref142">37</reflink>]). Future research should explore effective interventions in the practicum setting that strike a balance between exposing student teachers to the complexities of teaching and reducing overwhelming anxiety. If our findings replicate in other studies, it may also be necessary to adapt the theoretical model on the antecedents of teacher emotions for the group of student teachers in the teaching practicum. Emotions seem to be elicited by more or other variables as proposed in the theoretical model.</p> <p>Despite the valuable insights provided by this study, several research gaps remain. For example, little is known about how the emotional challenges faced during student teaching affect long‐term teaching competence and career outcomes. Our study only accompanied student teachers over a relatively short period of time (3 weeks). It would be interesting to investigate how these emotional experiences change over time in longer‐lasting field experiences. A previous study from Germany with pre‐ and post‐measurements already showed that anxiety decreases over the course of a 6‐month teaching practicum (Porsch & Gollub, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref143">76</reflink>]). Also, our study shows that student teachers with teaching experiences gained outside of formal teacher education programmes, experience less anxiety. Longitudinal studies with repeated momentary assessments throughout the practicum could assess if the relations between situational demands and emotion experiences develop over time and capture intraindividual differences in practicum experiences (Jähne et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref144">48</reflink>]). Additionally, more research is needed on how student teachers can effectively manage their emotions during their practicum. Understanding these dynamics could lead to improvements in preparing student teachers for the emotional challenges of the teaching profession.</p> <p>Finally, the relationship between teachers and school students is crucial in the context of teacher emotions. Our study did not assess relational variables, as the student teachers were all relatively new to their classes. Interventions that foster the relationship between student teachers and school students—such as allowing more time for cultivating emotional bonds (Romo‐Escudero et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref145">79</reflink>]) or focusing more explicitly on school students experiences in pre‐ and post‐lesson reflection, as it is suggested in lesson‐study approaches (Cajkler et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref146">15</reflink>]; Vermunt et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref147">99</reflink>])—may be helpful in strengthening the connection between student teachers and their school students in the classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-28">Strengths and limitations</hd> <p>This study employed a situational sampling approach, which allowed for the collection of real‐time data on student teachers' emotional experiences. This method provides a more accurate depiction of emotions as they occur in natural settings, as opposed to relying solely on retrospective self‐reports, which are prone to recall bias. Additionally, this approach offers insights into the variability of emotions over time and across different situations, enhancing our understanding of the dynamics of emotional experiences.</p> <p>A further strength of this study is the inclusion of data from multiple sources. By focusing on classroom conditions as perceived by school students, rather than relying exclusively on student teachers' self‐reports, the study reduces the risk of inflated correlations due to common method variance (Podsakoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref148">74</reflink>]). This approach also enhances the ecological validity of the findings, offering a more comprehensive view of the classroom environment and its impact on emotions in a sample of student teachers who may not yet possess a fully developed professional vision of classroom events (Weber et al., [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref149">101</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, the study is not without limitations. The analysis focused on within‐person relationships, but with only three measurements per person, the study falls short of the recommended number of observations for diary studies, which typically suggest five daily measures with 100 participants (Ohly et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref150">69</reflink>]). With such a low number of measurements, we may have not captured diverse teaching situations. The number of student teachers with no variation between the three measurement occasions for a specific study item ranged between 20% (for the item "I was satisfied with my own performance in this lesson" to capture control appraisals) and 48% (for the item "In this lesson it was very important to teach well" to capture value appraisals).</p> <p>Another limitation is the heterogeneity of our sample, particularly in terms of prior teaching experiences and practicum formats. Over half of the student teachers reported teaching experience outside formal teacher education programmes, yet the specifics of these experiences remain largely unknown. Furthermore, practicum structures varied across institutions, ranging from intensive 3‐week units to part‐time commitments spread over a semester. While focusing on a 3‐week unit enhanced comparability, this variability may still limit the generalizability of our findings. Future research should consider more homogeneous sampling or conduct subgroup analyses to explore how different practicum conditions and prior experiences influence experiences during the teaching practicum.</p> <p>Finally, the short scale used to assess value appraisals demonstrated low internal consistency, which may have affected the reliability of the findings related to this construct. The standardized coefficients for the relation between value appraisals and enjoyment (<emph>β</emph> = .33, <emph>p</emph> = .06) and anxiety (<emph>β</emph> = .43, <emph>p</emph> = .30) were in the expected direction, suggesting a potential trend that may not have reached statistical significance due to a high standard error and limited sample size. Future studies should employ situational approaches with more frequent measurement occasions and refine the assessment tools to enhance reliability and statistical power.</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-29">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>The findings of this study underscore the complexity of emotional experiences during the teaching practicum and highlight the need for targeted support and interventions to help student teachers navigate these challenges. The study calls for future research to explore interventions that balance the demands of teaching with the need to support student teachers' emotional well‐being, ultimately contributing to more effective teacher education programmes.</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-30">AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS</hd> <p> <bold>Eva Susann Becker:</bold> Writing – original draft; methodology; validation; visualization; writing – review and editing; software; formal analysis; project administration; data curation. <bold>Tina Hascher:</bold> Conceptualization; funding acquisition; writing – review and editing; resources; project administration; supervision. <bold>Thomas Goetz:</bold> Writing – review and editing. <bold>Fritz C. Staub:</bold> Conceptualization; funding acquisition; writing – review and editing; supervision; resources; project administration.</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-31">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [grant number 100019L_159505] and the German Research Foundation [grant number 275350288]. We thank the student teachers and cooperating teachers for their participation and valuable input in this study. We also like to thank the COPRA‐project team members that supported and guided our study: Dr. Dorit Bosse, Dr. Miriam Grüning, Dr. Julian Kempf, Dr. Alois Niggli, Dr. Sibylle Rahm, Daniela Rupp, and Dr. Anja Winkler. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-32">CONFLICTS OF INTEREST</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0187948724-33">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>Data are available upon request from the corresponding author.</p> <ref id="AN0187948724-34"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref62" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Agyapong, B., Obuobi‐Donkor, G., Burback, L., & Wei, Y. (2022). Stress, burnout, anxiety and depression among teachers: A scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 (17), 10706. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710706</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref12" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alaybek, B., Dalal, R. S., Fyffe, S., Aitken, J. A., Zhou, Y., Qu, X., Roman, A., & Baines, J. I. (2022). All's well that ends (and peaks) well? A meta‐analysis of the peak‐end rule and duration neglect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 170, 104149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104149</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref14" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Angie, A. D., Connelly, S., Waples, E. P., & Kligyte, V. (2011). The influence of discrete emotions on judgement and decision‐making: A meta‐analytic review. Cognition and Emotion, 25 (8), 1393 – 1422. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.550751</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref60" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bach, A., & Hagenauer, G. (2022). Joy, anger, and anxiety during the teaching practicum: How are these emotions related to dimensions of pre‐service teachers' self‐efficacy? Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 12 (2), 295 – 311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s35834‐022‐00343‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref103" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baumert, J., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Dubberke, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Kunter, M., Löwen, K., Neubrand, M., & Tsai, Y.‐M. (2009). Professionswissen von Lehrkräften, kognitiv aktivierender Mathematikunterricht und die Entwicklung von mathematischer Kompetenz (COACTIV): Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente [The professional knowledge of teachers, cognitively activating math lessons and the development of mathematical competence (COACTIV): Documentation of the scales]. Max‐Planck‐Institut für Bildungsforschung.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref17" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Becker, E. S., Berninger, I., Kampert, A., Maas, D., & Maiworm, J. (2023). Lehrkräftemangel [Teacher shortage]. ZfL Discussion Paper, 4, 3 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref42" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Becker, E. S., & Keller, M. M. (2022). "Ich fand die Unterrichtsstunde interessant – du etwa nicht?" Heterogenität im situationalen Interesse und Zusammenhänge mit Klassen‐ und Unterrichtsmerkmalen ["This lesson was interesting—don't you agree?" Heterogeneity in situational interest and correlates to class‐ and lesson‐specific factors]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 25 (2), 405 – 425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618‐022‐01091‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref41" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Becker, E. S., Keller, M. M., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., & Taxer, J. L. (2015). Antecedents of teachers' emotions in the classroom: An Intraindividual approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 635. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00635</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref98" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Becker, E. S., & Staub, F. C. (2018). Fortbildung im Fachspezifischen Unterrichtscoaching: Ein Werkstattbericht zur Gestaltung einer Blended‐Learning‐Lernumgebung [A professional development program on content‐focused coaching – Design of a blended learning environment]. In C. Reintjes, G. Bellenberg, & G. Im Brahm (Eds.), Mentoring und Coaching als Beitrag zur Professionalisierung angehender Lehrpersonen [Mentoring and coaching for teacher professionalization] (pp. 85 – 102). Waxmann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Becker, E. S., Waldis, M., & Staub, F. C. (2019). Advancing student teachers' learning in the teaching practicum through Content‐Focused Coaching: A field experiment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 83, 12 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.03.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ben‐Ari, R., Krole, R., & Har‐Even, D. (2003). Differential effects of simple frontal versus complex teaching strategy on teachers' stress, burnout, and satisfaction. International Journal of Stress Management, 10 (2), 173 – 195. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072‐5245.10.2.173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bradbury, L. U. (2010). Educative mentoring: Promoting reform‐based science teaching through mentoring relationships. Science Education, 94 (6), 1049 – 1071. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20393</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burić, I., & Frenzel, A. C. (2023). Teacher emotions are linked with teaching quality: Cross‐sectional and longitudinal evidence from two field studies. Learning and Instruction, 88, 101822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101822</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler, R. (2012). Striving to connect: Extending an achievement goal approach to teacher motivation to include relational goals for teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (3), 726 – 742. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028613</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cajkler, W., Wood, P., Norton, J., & Pedder, D. (2013). Lesson study: Towards a collaborative approach to learning in initial teacher education? Cambridge Journal of Education, 43 (4), 537 – 554. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.834037</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chang, M.‐L. (2013). Toward a theoretical model to understand teacher emotions and teacher burnout in the context of student misbehavior: Appraisal, regulation and coping. Motivation and Emotion, 37 (4), 799 – 817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031‐012‐9335‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chang, M.‐L., & Davis, H. A. (2009). Understanding the role of teacher appraisals in shaping the dynamics of their relationships with students: Deconstructing teachers' judgments of disruptive behavior/students. In P. A. Schutz & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotions research: The impact on teachers lives. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chaudhuri, S., Muhonen, H., Pakarinen, E., & Lerkkanen, M.‐K. (2022). Teachers' focus of attention in first‐grade classrooms: Exploring teachers experiencing less and more stress using Mobile eye‐tracking. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66 (6), 1076 – 1092. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2021.1958374</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, J. (2019). Efficacious and positive teachers achieve more: Examining the relationship between teacher efficacy, emotions, and their practicum performance. The Asia‐Pacific Education Researcher, 28 (4), 327 – 337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299‐018‐0427‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chesnut, S. R., & Burley, H. (2015). Self‐efficacy as a predictor of commitment to the teaching profession: A meta‐analysis. Educational Research Review, 15, 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels, L. M., Clifton, R. A., Perry, R. P., Mandzuk, D., & Hall, N. C. (2006). Student teachers' competence and career certainty: The effects of career anxiety and perceived control. Social Psychology of Education, 9 (4), 405 – 423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218‐006‐9000‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Day, C., & Qing, G. (2009). Teacher emotions. Well being and effectiveness. In P. A. Schutz & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotions research: The impact on teachers lives (pp. 15 – 31). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Ruiter, J. A., Poorthuis, A. M. G., Aldrup, K., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2020). Teachers' emotional experiences in response to daily events with individual students varying in perceived past disruptive behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 82, 85 – 102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.08.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Ruiter, J. A., Poorthuis, A. M. G., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2019). Relevant classroom events for teachers: A study of student characteristics, student behaviors, and associated teacher emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102899</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Zordo, L., Hagenauer, G., & Hascher, T. (2019). Student teachers' emotions in anticipation of their first team practicum. Studies in Higher Education, 44, 1758 – 1767. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1665321</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denny, B. T., & Ochsner, K. N. (2014). Behavioral effects of longitudinal training in cognitive reappraisal. Emotion, 14 (2), 425 – 433. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035276</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dreer, B. (2024). Teachers' well‐being and job satisfaction: The important role of positive emotions in the workplace. Educational Studies, 50 (1), 61 – 77. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.1940872</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredrickson, B. L., & Kahneman, D. (1993). Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (1), 45 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022‐3514.65.1.45</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frenzel, A. C. (2014). Teacher emotions. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink‐Garcia (Eds.), Handbook of emotions in education (pp. 494 – 519). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frenzel, A. C., Fiedler, D., Marx, A. K. G., Reck, C., & Pekrun, R. (2020). Who enjoys teaching, and when? Between‐ and within‐person evidence on Teachers' appraisal‐emotion links. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1092. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01092</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Stephens, E. J., & Jacob, B. (2009). Antecedents and effects of Teachers' emotional experiences: An integrative perspective and empirical test. In P. A. Schutz & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotions research: The impact on teachers lives (pp. 129 – 148). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Durksen, T. L., Becker‐Kurz, B., & Klassen, R. M. (2016). Measuring teachers' enjoyment, anger, and anxiety: The Teacher Emotions Scales (TES). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 148 – 163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.05.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frenzel, A. C., & Stephens, E. J. (2013). Emotions. In N. C. Hall & T. Goetz (Eds.), Emotion, motivation, and self‐regulation: A handbook for teachers (pp. 1 – 56). Emerald.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goetz, T., Keller, M. M., Lüdtke, O., Nett, U. E., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2019). The dynamics of real‐time classroom emotions: Appraisals mediate the relation between students' perceptions of teaching and their emotions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112, 1243 – 1260. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000415</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gogol, K., Brunner, M., Goetz, T., Martin, R., Ugen, S., Keller, U., Fischbach, A., & Preckel, F. (2014). "My questionnaire is too long!" The assessments of motivational‐affective constructs with three‐item and single‐item measures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39 (3), 188 – 205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.04.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gorin, A. A., & Stone, A. A. (2001). Recall biases and cognitive errors in retrospective self reports: A call for momentary assessments. In A. Baum, T. A. Revenson, & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of health psychology (pp. 405 – 413). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410600073</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gross, J. J. (2014). Emotion regulation: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3 – 20). Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hascher, T., Cocard, Y., & Moser, P. (2004). Forget about theory – practice is all? Student teachers' learning in practicum. Teachers and Teaching, 10 (6), 623 – 637. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354060042000304800</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hascher, T., & Krummenacher, I. (2024). Gesundheit und Resilienz von Studierenden des Lehrberufs. Ein Einblick mit spezifischen Bezügen zum Studium in der Schweiz [Health and resilience of preservice teachers. Insights into the current state of theory and research with a specific focus on teacher preparation programmes in Switzerland]. Beiträge zur Lehrerinnen‐ und Lehrerbildung, 42 (1), 6 – 19. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:29809</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hascher, T., & Waber, J. (2021). Teacher well‐being: A systematic review of the research literature from the year 2000–2019. Educational Research Review, 34, 100411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100411</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hastings, W. (2004). Emotions and the practicum: The cooperating teachers' perspective. Teachers and Teaching, 10 (2), 135 – 148. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354060042000187991</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring beginning teachers: What we know and what we don't. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25 (1), 207 – 216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hobson, A. J., Malderez, A., Tracey, L., Giannakaki, M., Pell, G., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2008). Student teachers' experiences of initial teacher preparation in England: Core themes and variation. Research Papers in Education, 23 (4), 407 – 433. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701809825</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoferichter, F. (2019). Stressbewältigung durch Mentoring bei Lehramtsstudierenden im Schulpraktikum [Coping with student teachers' stress during the teaching practicum through mentoring practices]. Journal für LehrerInnenbildung, 19 (3), 98 – 104. https://doi.org/10.35468/jlb‐03‐2019_10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hox, J. J., Moerbeck, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2018). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (3rd ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, X., & Wang, C. (2024). Pre‐service teachers' professional identity transformation: A positioning theory perspective. Professional Development in Education, 50 (1), 174 – 191. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2021.1942143</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jähne, M. F., Dehne, M., Klaß, S., & Gröschner, A. (2022). Basic needs satisfaction during a teaching practicum: An intraindividual perspective on preservice teachers' motivation and interindividual associations to mentoring. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 12 (2), 195 – 216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s35834‐022‐00353‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ji, Y., Oubibi, M., Chen, S., Yin, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2022). Pre‐service teachers' emotional experience: Characteristics, dynamics and sources amid the teaching practicum. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 968513. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.968513</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahlau, J. (2023). (De‐)Professionalisierung durch Schulpraxis. Rekonstruktionen zum Studierendenhabitus und zu studentischen Entwicklungsaufgaben. [(De‐)professionalisation through school practice. Reconstructions of the student habitus and student development tasks] Klinkhardt. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:25848</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kakazu, K., & Kobayashi, M. (2023). Student teachers' development through a first‐time teaching practicum and challenges: A qualitative case study approach. Journal of Education for Teaching, 49 (3), 401 – 415. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2022.2104629</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keller, M. M., Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Hensley, L. (2014). Exploring teacher emotions: A literature review and an experience sampling study. In P. W. Richardson, S. A. Karabenick, & H. M. G. Watt (Eds.), Teacher motivation: Theory and practice (pp. 69 – 82). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krannich, M., Goetz, T., Lipnevich, A. A., Bieg, M., Roos, A.‐L., Becker, E. S., & Morger, V. (2019). Being over‐ or underchallenged in class: Effects on students' career aspirations via academic self‐concept and boredom. Learning and Individual Differences, 69, 206 – 218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.10.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kreis, A., & Staub, F. C. (2017). Kollegiales Unterrichtscoaching. Ein Instrument zur praxissituierten Unterrichtsentwicklung [Content focused peer coaching. A tool for lesson development situated in teaching practice]. Carl Link.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawson, T., Çakmak, M., Gündüz, M., & Busher, H. (2015). Research on teaching practicum – A systematic review. European Journal of Teacher Education, 38 (3), 392 – 407. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.994060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, Y. H. (2019). Emotional labor, teacher burnout, and turnover intention in high‐school physical education teaching. European Physical Education Review, 25 (1), 236 – 253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x17719559</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, R., & Yao, M. (2022). What promotes teachers' turnover intention? Evidence from a meta‐analysis. Educational Research Review, 37, 100477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100477</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Reliability and agreement of student ratings of the classroom environment: A reanalysis of TIMSS data. Learning Environments Research, 9 (3), 215 – 230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984‐006‐9014‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahmoudi, F., & ÿzkan, Y. (2016). Practicum stress and coping strategies of pre‐service English language teachers. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 494 – 501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.067</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maxwell, B., Káplár‐Kodácsy, K., Hobson, A. J., & Hotham, E. (2024). Effective mentor training, education and development: A qualitative multilevel meta‐synthesis. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 13 (4), 422 – 440. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE‐07‐2023‐0068</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mena, J., Peinado, C., & Hernández, I. (2023). Pre‐service Teachers' self‐efficacy beliefs on their role as teachers during the practicum. In D. Mifsud & S. P. Day (Eds.), Teacher education as an ongoing professional trajectory: Implications for policy and practice (pp. 71 – 96). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐031‐28620‐9_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer, A., Richter, E., & Kempert, S. (2024). Student teachers as in‐service teachers in schools: The moderating effect of social support in the relationship between student teachers' instructional activities and their work‐related stress. Teaching and Teacher Education, 146, 104633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104633</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mok, S. Y., & Staub, F. C. (2021). Does coaching, mentoring, and supervision matter for pre‐service teachers' planning skills and clarity of instruction? A meta‐analysis of (quasi‐)experimental studies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 107, 103484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103484</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 – 2017). Mplus user's guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nett, U. E., & Goetz, T. (2011). Coping with boredom in school: An experience sampling perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36 (1), 49 – 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nwoko, J. C., Emeto, T. I., Malau‐Aduli, A. E. O., & Malau‐Aduli, B. S. (2023). A systematic review of the factors that influence Teachers' occupational wellbeing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20 (12), 6070.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2021). Education at a glance 2021. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/b35a14e5‐en</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational research. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9 (2), 79 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866‐5888/a000009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pawłowska, B. (2020). Pride in Teachers' everyday work. Conditions and contexts. Qualitative Sociology Review, 16 (1), 28 – 48. https://doi.org/10.18778/1733‐8077.16.1.03</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pekrun, R., & Perry, R. P. (2014). Control‐value theory of achievement emotions. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink‐Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 120 – 141). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perla, L., & Agrati, L. S. (2023). Online practicum effectiveness: Investigation on Tutors' and student‐Teachers' perceptions pre/post‐pandemic. Education in Science, 13 (12), 1191. https://<ulink href="http://www.mdpi.com/2227‐7102/13/12/1191">www.mdpi.com/2227‐7102/13/12/1191</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pfitzner‐Eden, F. (2016). I feel less confident so I quit? Do true changes in teacher self‐efficacy predict changes in preservice teachers' intention to quit their teaching degree? Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 240 – 254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.‐Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879 – 903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.88.5.879</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porsch, R. (2018). Emotionen in der Lehrerinnenbildung [Emotions in teacher education]. In M. Huber & S. Krause (Eds.), Bildung und emotion [Education and emotion] (pp. 269 – 287). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐658‐18589‐3_15</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porsch, R., & Gollub, P. (2018). Angst zu unterrichten bei Lehramtsstudierenden vor und nach dem Praxissemester [Teaching anxiety among student teachers before and after a practical semester]. In L. Pilypaitytė & H.‐S. Siller (Eds.), Schulpraktische Lehrerprofessionalisierung als Ort der Zusammenarbeit (pp. 237 – 245). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐658‐17086‐8_17</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15 (3), 209 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richter, D., Huang, Y., & Richter, E. (2024). Ungleichheiten in der Lehrkräfteversorgung: Eine Analyse zur Verteilung qualifizierten Lehrpersonals auf Schulen mit unterschiedlicher Schülerschaft und verschiedenen sozio‐ökonomischen Kontexten [Inequalities in the supply of teaching staff: An analysis of the distribution of qualified teaching staff across schools with different student bodies and socio‐economic contexts]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 27 (6), 1491 – 1517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618‐024‐01271‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Romo‐Escudero, F., Guzmán, P., & Romo, J. (2023). Teachers' emotions: Their origin and influence on the teaching‐learning process. In P. Fossa & C. Cortés‐Rivera (Eds.), Affectivity and learning: Bridging the gap between neurosciences, cultural and cognitive psychology (pp. 351 – 375). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐031‐31709‐5_19</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ronfeldt, M., & Reininger, M. (2012). More or better student teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education, 28 (8), 1091 – 1106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roseman, I. J., & Smith, C. A. (2001). Appraisal theory. Overview, assumptions, varieties, controversies. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnson (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 3 – 19). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scherer, K. R., & Moors, A. (2019). The emotion process: Event appraisal and component differentiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 719 – 745. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐psych‐122216‐011854</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt, J., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., Möller, J., & Kunter, M. (2017). What makes good and bad days for beginning teachers? A diary study on daily uplifts and hassles. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 85 – 97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.09.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seifert, A., & Schaper, N. (2018). Die Veränderung von Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen und der Berufswahlsicherheit im Praxissemester. In J. König, M. Rothland, & N. Schaper (Eds.), Learning to Practice, Learning to Reflect? Ergebnisse aus der Längsschnittstudie LtP zur Nutzung und Wirkung des Praxissemesters in der Lehrerbildung (pp. 195 – 222). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shuman, V., & Scherer, K. R. (2014). Concepts and structures of emotions. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink‐Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 13 – 36). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203148211.ch2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simonis, L., & Klomfaß, S. (2023). Ins kalte Wasser: Wie Lehramtsstudierende ihre Tätigkeit als Vertretungslehrkräfte für ihre Professionalisierung relevant setzen [Into the deep end: How student teachers use their work as substitute teachers for professional development]. In D. Behrens, M. Forell, T.‐S. Idel, & S. Pauling (Eds.), Lehrkräftebildung in der Bedarfskrise: Programme – Positionierungen – Empirie [Teacher education in times of demand crisis: Programs – positions – empirical studies] (pp. 156 – 171). Klinkhardt.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sjølie, E., & Østern, A. L. (2021). Student teachers' criticism of teacher education – Through the lens of practice architectures. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 29 (2), 263 – 280. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2020.1729842</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, K., & Lev‐Ari, L. (2005). The place of the practicum in pre‐service teacher education: The voice of the students. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33 (3), 289 – 302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660500286333</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Staub, F. C., West, L., & Bickel, D. (2003). What is content‐focused coaching? In L. West & F. C. Staub (Eds.), Content‐focused coaching, transforming mathematic lessons (pp. 1 – 17). Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sutcher, L., Darling‐Hammond, L., & Carver‐Thomas, D. (2019). Understanding teacher shortages: An analysis of teacher supply and demand in the United States. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27, 35. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3696</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sutton, R. E., & Wheatley, K. F. (2003). Teachers' emotions and teaching: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 15 (4), 327 – 358.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thornton, K. (2024). Mentoring preparation in educational contexts: A review of the literature. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 13 (4), 441 – 456. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE‐07‐2023‐0069</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Timoštšuk, I., Kikas, E., & Normak, M. (2016). Student teachers' emotional teaching experiences in relation to different teaching methods. Educational Studies, 42 (3), 269 – 286. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2016.1167674</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Timoštšuk, I., & Ugaste, A. (2012). The role of emotions in student teachers' professional identity. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35 (4), 421 – 433. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2012.662637</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsai, Y.‐M., Kunter, M., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). What makes lessons interesting? The role of situational and individual factors in three school subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (2), 460 – 472. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.100.2.460</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen‐Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17 (7), 783 – 805. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742‐051x(01)00036‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsouloupas, C. N., Carson, R. L., Matthews, R., Grawitch, M. J., & Barber, L. K. (2010). Exploring the association between teachers' perceived student misbehaviour and emotional exhaustion: The importance of teacher efficacy beliefs and emotion regulation. Educational Psychology, 30 (2), 173 – 189. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410903494460</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van den Bogert, N., van Bruggen, J., Kostons, D., & Jochems, W. (2014). First steps into understanding teachers' visual perception of classroom events. Teaching and Teacher Education, 37, 208 – 216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.09.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vermunt, J. D., Vrikki, M., van Halem, N., Warwick, P., & Mercer, N. (2019). The impact of lesson study professional development on the quality of teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 81, 61 – 73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.02.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, X., Husu, J., & Toom, A. (2025). What makes a good mentor of in‐service teacher education?—A systematic review of mentoring competence from a transformative learning perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 153, 104822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104822</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weber, K. E., Gold, B., Prilop, C. N., & Kleinknecht, M. (2018). Promoting pre‐service teachers' professional vision of classroom management during practical school training: Effects of a structured online‐ and video‐based self‐reflection and feedback intervention. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 39 – 49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.08.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Westphal, A., Schulze, A., Schlesier, J., & Lohse‐Bossenz, H. (2024). Who thinks about dropping out and why? Cognitive and affective‐motivational profiles of student teachers explain differences in their intention to quit their teaching degree. Teaching and Teacher Education, 150, 104718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104718</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield, A., Battle, A., Keller, L. B., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Sex differences in motivation, self‐concept, career aspiration, and career choice: Implications for cognitive development. In A. McGillicuddy‐De Lisi & R. de Lisi (Eds.), Biology, society, and behaviour. The development of sex differences in cognition (pp. 93 – 124). Ablex.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woehr, D. J., Loignon, A. C., Schmidt, P. B., Loughry, M. L., & Ohland, M. W. (2015). Justifying aggregation with consensus‐based constructs: A review and examination of cutoff values for common aggregation indices. Organizational Research Methods, 18 (4), 704 – 737. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115582090</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college‐ and university‐based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61 (1–2), 89 – 99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Eva Susann Becker; Tina Hascher; Thomas Goetz and Fritz C. Staub</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref149"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1483429
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Exploring Antecedents of Student Teachers' Emotions during Instructional Experiences: A Situation-Specific Analysis
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Eva+Susann+Becker%22">Eva Susann Becker</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6080-1481">0000-0001-6080-1481</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tina+Hascher%22">Tina Hascher</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thomas+Goetz%22">Thomas Goetz</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fritz+C%2E+Staub%22">Fritz C. Staub</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Psychology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Psychology</i></searchLink>. 2025 95(1):133-152.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Teachers%22">Student Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Teacher+Attitudes%22">Student Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Teaching%22">Student Teaching</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Practicums%22">Practicums</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Diaries%22">Diaries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Environment%22">Classroom Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anxiety%22">Anxiety</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Motivation%22">Teacher Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Experience%22">Emotional Experience</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Switzerland%22">Switzerland</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Germany%22">Germany</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjep.12738
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-0998<br />2044-8279
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Theoretical Background: In the area of teacher motivation, the teaching practicum stands out as a pivotal element. The pronounced complexity of teaching during this specific phase may pose an emotional challenge, making the exploration of student teachers' emotions a worthwhile endeavour. Aims: Based on a theoretical model and rooted in a process-oriented perspective, this diary study examines student teachers' discrete emotions, focusing on proximal (cognitive appraisals) and distal antecedents (classroom conditions) during the teaching practicum while accounting for contextual variables. Sample: Data were collected from 178 student teachers in Switzerland and Germany and their 3736 school students. Student teachers conducted a six-lesson-teaching-unit within three-weeks of their obligatory teaching practicum (57% had prior teaching experience) and received different levels of support (coaching by peers or cooperating teachers, subject-didactic materials, usual support). Methods: After three lessons (N = 511), student teachers reported their enjoyment, anger, anxiety and cognitive appraisals (control, value). School students reported on individual perceptions of class discipline and situational interest. Results: Enjoyment was strongly experienced in 80%, anger in 8% and anxiety in 14% of lessons. School students' situational interest and discipline were weakly related to enjoyment and anger, but not to anxiety. Control appraisals were strongly associated with all emotions. The frequent experience of anxiety and its lack of relation to classroom conditions deviate from findings observed in in-service teachers. Relevance: Besides strong positive emotional experiences during the teaching practicum, the observed patterns highlight the necessity for targeted support in navigating emotional complexities during the teaching practicum.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1483429
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1483429
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjep.12738
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 133
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Student Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Teaching
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Practicums
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Diaries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Anxiety
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Switzerland
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Germany
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Exploring Antecedents of Student Teachers' Emotions during Instructional Experiences: A Situation-Specific Analysis
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Eva Susann Becker
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tina Hascher
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thomas Goetz
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fritz C. Staub
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-0998
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2044-8279
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 95
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1