Mentoring student teachers within Ireland’s further education and training sector

Abstract

This study explores the lived experiences of initial teacher education (ITE) mentors in the further education and training (FET) sector in Ireland. The literature suggests mentors support the professional formation of student teachers. However, mentoring relationships seem highly variable. At present the voice of mentors is underrepresented within Irish research. This interpretivist phenomenological analysis (IPA) study is based on semi-structured interviews with four mentors, and was underpinned by Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, field, and capital. The findings suggest mentors perform wide ranging functions to support their student teacher, but not all mentors report actually benefit from performing the role.

Keywords

mentor mentoring initial teacher education further education and training sector student teacher

Introduction

This study explores the lived experiences of initial teacher education (ITE) mentors within the further education and training (FET) sector in Ireland. Overall, the aim of this Interpretivist Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) study, is to build a clearer picture of current mentoring practices in this context. The study applies Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, field, and capital as a lens to analyse the experiences of the mentors. It is hoped this analysis will enable a deeper understanding of the lifeworld of mentors.

Under the Education and Training Boards Act of 2013, the FET sector became a distinct and official sector in the Irish education system. However, the origins of this sector can be traced back as far as 1889. “The term ‘further education’ embraces education and training which usually occurs outside of post-primary schooling, but which is not part of the third-level system…” (Teaching Council, 2011, p.2). FET learners include school leavers, lifelong learners, and returners. To cater for the needs of these various groups, the range of courses are broad, spanning apprenticeships, traineeships, post leaving certificate courses, and community and adult education.

Educators in the FET sector in Ireland have diverse qualifications. Some have completed ITE programmes in further education, while others have post-primary teacher qualifications, or unqualified teacher status (Grummel & Murray, 2015). Completion of an ITE programme is required to obtain qualified teaching status. The Teaching Council of Ireland has published comprehensive guidelines, including student teacher placements.

A key aspect of ITE teaching placements, is the role of an experienced teacher who voluntarily supports the student teacher. At present in Ireland, this role is informal, unpaid, and performed without the support of national mentor training. Recently, this role was renamed Treoraí, the Irish language word for Guide, and replaces the previous term, Co-operating Teacher (Teaching Council, 2021). As alluded to by some, these terms include elements of the role, but do not necessarily encompass the more modern and collaborative nature of how experienced teachers currently support student teachers (Clarke, Trigger, & Nielsen, 2014). Indeed, Clutterbuck (2004) includes the function of Guide as one of four mentoring behaviours. As such, this study recognises the expansive developmental role of the experienced teacher, acting not just as a Guide, but as a Mentor.

The purpose of this study was to gain a deep insight into the experiences of mentors in Ireland’s FET sector. Thus far, Irish research has neglected this role. By collecting first-hand accounts from the mentors, this study contributes to the broader literature on mentor education.

Literature Review

Mentoring concepts

Although mentoring is not a new concept, the literature presents a range of interpretations, leading to an absence of consensus (Klasen & Clutterbuck, 2002; Savory & Glasson, 2009). Contributing to the confusion, are the many other developmental roles with overlapping behaviours such as a supervisor (Rose & Best, 2005), coach and counsellor (Klasen & Clutterbuck).

While mentoring can be a one-to-one relationship (Megginson & Clutterbuck, 1995), others report non-traditional mentoring forms including group, intrateam, and interteam mentoring (Ragins & Kram, 2008). The literature suggests that a mentor may be older, more experienced, or even a peer. Indeed, an individual may have one or multiple mentoring relationships at any one time (Higgins & Kram, 2001). Mentoring relationships may be informal or formal and may be influenced by policy and culture (Clutterbuck, 2004).

Considering the field’s lack of shared understanding, it seems essential to outline and define a mentoring concept as “…an internally coherent set of beliefs about the goals, sources and nature of mentored learning to teach…” (Van Ginkel, Verloop, & Denessen, 2016, p.4). To elaborate on this definition, the subsequent section delves into mentoring concepts within teacher education and beyond.

Developmental Mentoring

Developmental mentoring emerged from Europe. It prioritises the personal growth of the mentee, while also providing career support (Klasen & Clutterbuck, 2002). Megginson and Clutterbuck (1995, p.13) define this form as “off-line help from one person to another in making significant transitions in knowledge, work or thinking”. This definition highlights several crucial elements within their conceptualisation of developmental mentoring. Firstly, mentors are chosen in connection to their experience, rather than seniority. This shift from hierarchical relationships reduces the power imbalance between the mentor and the mentee. Hence, they describe mentoring as “off-line”. Mentoring is a form of “help” which encompasses many functions. These are performed by the mentor, in response to both the personal and professional needs of the mentee. Mentoring is “one person to another” rather than a group situation. And finally, “significant transitions” refers to the exchange system within the relationship, which is mutually beneficial in developmental mentoring.

Clutterbuck identified four approaches associated with this form of mentoring: coach, networker, guardian, and counsellor. Developmental mentoring is the combined application of these approaches (2004). In addition, Clutterbuck categorises mentoring based on collaboration, which he measures against two dimensions. On one hand, Clutterbuck defines the relationship in terms of Who’s in charge? (p.15). This is depicted as a continuum from directive, where the mentor is in charge, to non-directive, whereby the mentor is reactive to the mentee’s needs. Clutterbuck suggests that an effective developmental mentoring relationship is associated with highly proactive mentees.

The second dimension identified by Clutterbuck, defines the mentoring relationship in terms of the individual’s needs (2004, p.16). This dimension encompasses both intellectual and emotional needs, from stretching to nurturing. Relationships that prioritise learning and challenge are at the stretching end of the spectrum, while those that emphasize support are at the nurturing end. Clutterbuck argues, a successful mentoring relationship fulfils both needs and allows for mutual learning opportunities.

Sponsorship Mentoring

Sponsorship mentoring, which originated in North America, is a form of career-orientated support. This type of mentoring is typically a senior and older mentor assisting the protégé. Kram’s (1983) research identified two overarching functions performed by the mentor: career and psychosocial. Ragins and Kram’s (2008) research illustrates how certain mentoring relationships emphasise one function, while others encompassed both. This notion that a mentoring relationship may address only one type of mentee need, is incongruous with developmental mentoring.According to Klasen and Clutterbuck (2002), Kram’s findings suggest coaching relationships rather than mentoring.

Mentoring in Teacher Education

Mentoring relationships vary in terms of mentor functions and levels of collaboration in the field of teacher education (Clarke et al., 2014). Towards the lowest end of the collaboration continuum, is the Classroom Placeholder. The mentor leaves the classroom assuming the student teacher will learn by immersion, with minimum collaboration. Further along the continuum, is the Supervisor of Practica. Here the mentor proactively manages the relationship and learning is one directional from the mentor to the student teacher. Next, along the continuum, is the Teacher Educator. Mentors encourage student teachers to connect theory with practice, in this conception both the mentors and student teachers learn from the process.

In the context of teacher education, Clarke et al., (2014) also identified a range of functions performed by mentors, which they classified into eleven categories of participation. One category is the Conveners of Relation, where the mentor develops a meaningful relationship with the student teacher, while simultaneously supporting the student teacher in establishing relationships with other teachers. Another category is Abiders of Change, here mentors welcome a student teacher into their classroom by sharing practices and students. However, facilitating these changes can be emotionally challenging for the mentor.

Mentoring in Teacher Education in Ireland

Research conducted within the Irish compulsory sectors i.e., primary and post-primary, report that mentors play a vital role in the professional formation of student teachers (Hall, Murphy, Ní Áingléis, & Rutherford, 2019; O’Grady, Guilfoyle, & McGarr, 2018). Currently, individual ITE providers are responsible for developing and delivering mentor education. However, recent research indicates inconsistencies in how the mentor role is executed and understood. Encapsulating this variance, O’Sullivan and Ó Conaill’s (2022) study found the mentor role was influenced and shaped by personal understandings and past experiences. They found the absence of national mentor training led to a mismatch between policy reform and current mentoring practices. Likewise, Farrell (2020) found Irish mentors are willing but underprepared to perform all elements within this multifaceted role. A study commissioned by the Teaching Council of Ireland (Hall, Murphy, Rutherford, & Ní Áingléis, 2018), found that only half of mentors were aware of relevant national policies.

Feedback in the mentoring process has also proven challenging. Hall et al., 2019 found feedback was highly valued by student teachers. However, the informal nature of the mentor role seems to have led to inconsistencies in this feedback (Hall et al., 2018; O’Sullivan & Ó Conaill, 2022). Within the compulsory sectors, mentors are willing to give placement tutors feedback about the student teacher, but only when asked (Hall et al., 2018). This situation reminds us of the voluntary nature of the mentor role in Ireland. And, as such, demands cannot be made of mentors.

In the Irish context, mentoring relationships are evidently positive, (Hall et al., 2018). However, there is also research that illustrates how some relationships are, in fact, dysfunctional. Young and MacPhail’s (2016) study found mentors experienced personality clashes, unmotivated student teachers, and conflict due to differences in role perceptions. Similarly, other studies have found student teachers are closed to observations and feedback (Farrell, 2020; O’Sullivan & Ó Conaill, 2022). So, while national policies specifically refer to observations and feedback (Teaching Council, 2013; 2021), we see in practice mentors cannot perform these functions without permission from the student teacher.

Mentoring within ITE in the FET sector

Mirroring the compulsory sectors in Ireland, mentors in the FET sector are viewed as an important support for student teachers. Mellon’s (2023) study found mentors in the Irish FET sector perform a wide range of functions, from co-teaching, observations, modelling practices, to supporting and evaluating planning. Aside from professional developmental functions, this study found mentors assist student teachers with their social needs. Likewise, Husband’s (2020) study found mentors reinforce both the practical and cultural learning of student teachers. This study also found unmanageable workloads can hamper a mentor’s capacity to effectively support student teachers.

Within the Irish context, it is essential to highlight that while the Teaching Council of Ireland (2021) encourages mentors to perform observations, they are not part of the assessment process. Importantly, this non-evaluative role diverges from some other countries. In the UK, mentors typically carry out assessments against the UK Teacher Standards and complete a report for the Higher Education Authority. Tyrer’s (2022) study found mentors can at times feel uncomfortable performing the assessor role, which is guided by standards and proformas, as it may misalign with their personal conception of mentoring, a finding mirrored in the study by Orland-Barak and Klein (2005).

This evident disjuncture between mentoring concepts and how mentors perform the role has been explored comprehensively (Manning & Hobson, 2017). Significantly, this study found the evaluative function of UK mentors leads to judgemental rather than developmental mentoring. Indeed, feedback was found to be delivered via a transmission method, allowing little reflection or input from student teachers. Unsurprisingly, Manning and Hobson advocate for this evaluative function to be revoked. Others too have questioned whether asymmetrical mentoring relationships compliment the philosophy of developmental relationships (Savory & Glasson, 2009; Tyrer, 2022).

Mentoring in the Irish FET context is built on a foundation of trust and respect (Mellon, 2023). Yet conversely, this study also identified pockets of judgemental mentoring, a finding which is also reflected in the Irish compulsory sectors (O’Grady et al., 2018). In fact, it seems some mentors in Ireland, like in the UK, give strong advice rather than encouraging reflection (Mellon, 2023; O’Grady et al., 2018). Indeed, Tyrer (2022) argues limited time may be the root cause for these one-sided conversations, a finding also echoed in Mellon’s (2023) study.

Re-enforcing the connection between time poor mentors, and poor mentoring, Savory and Glasson’s (2009) study recognised the under-resourced nature of the mentor role. This sometimes led to minimal mentoring and as such, recommended the allocation of time and meaningful mentor education. Similar studies have found mentors enact their role without sufficient preparation or training (Cunningham, 2004; Husband, 2020; Manning & Hobson, 2017; Tyrer, 2022). Ingleby and Hunt’s (2008) study found the mentor role was underdeveloped and viewed as a bureaucratic task rather than a professional role. They therefore argued the ill-definition of the role, led to mentors being unaware of their own training needs.

Theoretical Framework

Within this study, Bourdieu’s (1990) interconnected social concepts of habitus, field, and capital are used as a theoretical framework to support the interpretations of the mentors’ experiences and suggest explanations for attitudes, behaviours, functions, motivations, needs, and relationships (Thomas, 2013). Habitus relates to the practices which are continually produced unconsciously by agents in the field. Habitus is structured and shaped by the collection of past practices of previous generations, these structures in turn shape the present and future actions of agents within the field (Bourdieu, 1990). Doxa are the behaviours that feel natural and have been accepted as legitimate truths by the agents within the field. Bourdieu likens social spaces with fields. Bourdieu viewed fields as having two poles, cultural capital, and economic capital. Bourdieu suggests the value of any capital depends on social recognition. Bourdieu recognises how an individual can amass economic capital quickly, conversely symbolic capital is accumulated over time and becomes embodied within the agent (Bourdieu, 2006).

Within this study, the trio of thinking tools are used as a lens to support the analysis and exploration of the mentor role and how actions and beliefs impact social reproduction and change. It is envisioned the findings will make visible the invisible doxa of the agents in the field and highlight field-habitus clashes. Based upon the review of relevant literature, it is evident that the mentor role is unclear and under-resourced. Immersion within the lifeworld of FET mentors would enable the identification of specific avenues in which to better address the desires and needs of FET mentors.

Methodology

To address the research question, a small-scale exploratory Interpretivist Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) study was carried out to explore the lived experiences of mentors in the FET sector in Ireland. This interpretivist approach compliments research in the social sciences as phenomenology seeks to explore the phenomenon rather than explain it (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). To adequately enter the lifeworld of the participants, qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews. This study was granted ethical approval from the institute’s ethics committee.

Participants

This study used a snowball strategy to identify the mentor participants, this approach is recognised as particularly suited to qualitative studies, as samples are purposive and therefore focus on transferability rather than generalisability (Bryman, 2008). This recruitment strategy yielded five participants who met the study’s inclusion criteria. However, one participant dropped out due to a lack of time. Although four is a small sample size, Smith and Osborn (2007) maintain three participants in an IPA study is a large enough sample for patterns of similarities and differences to be seen, but small enough for the data analysis to be manageable. Table 1 outlines participants’ backgrounds.

Table 1

Participants’ Backgrounds

Participants Pseudonyms	Teaching qualification	Number of years teaching	Number of FET settings taught across	Number of student teachers mentored
Alex	Postgraduate - Further Education	15	1	3
Charlie	Higher Diploma - Further Education	24	2	3
Frankie	Higher Diploma - Further Education	7	2	2
Joe	Postgraduate - Post Primary Education	25	1	3

Data Collection

IPA studies are committed to understanding the lived experiences of a person. In line with this principle, qualitative data was gathered through semi-structured interviews, which is the most common method of data collection for IPA studies (Smith et al., 2009). The four participant interviews were conducted between March and May 2023. Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes which is in line with IPA recommendations (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014). Based on the research question, an interview schedule was developed. This included four biographical questions and six open-ended questions, which were broad but also directive enough to focus the interviewee on a “concrete and singular experience” (Høffding & Martiny, 2016, p.551).

Data Analysis and Trustworthiness

Through an iterative and inductive cycle of analysis, IPA exposes meaningful themes within cases, and identifies convergence and divergence across an entire data set (Smith & Osborn, 2007). Following each interview, the audio was repeatedly played, and the transcript was repeatedly read (Smith et al., 2009). Then the interview data was coded and categorised chronologically using MAXQDA qualitative software. After which, explanatory comments were added alongside each code. Next, the coded segments were re-organised and grouped into emergent themes as recommended by Smith et al. This approach reduced the volume of data, to focus on the participant’s voice.

The themes were then represented in a schematic map before being written up, after which the relevancy and relationship of each theme was considered in the context of the whole data set (Smith et al.) The three final superordinate themes are presented in the findings section. To support the credibility and dependability of the study, several validity checks were employed. Firstly, a peer debriefer was used to provide an external review on the inquiry process (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Secondly, member checking was utilised to complement the interpretivist nature of this study, as the participants' reality is only known to themselves (Birt, Scott, Cavers, Campbell, & Walter, 2016).

Findings

Three overarching themes emerged:

Willingness to mentor

Each participant confirmed their mentoring journeys began in a similarly casual manner by being “asked” to “take on” a student teacher. Frankie’s motivations to mentor stemmed from a sense of under-preparedness as a student teacher. For Frankie, mentoring is an opportunity to “alleviate” student teachers from suffering by sharing “pitfalls”. Charlie also reflects on “mistakes” made while training and views placement as a “learning curve”. Charlie describes student teachers as an “extra pair of hands” and also mentions mentoring is an opportunity to “give back”.

To know that I helped in some way, not just mould her [student teacher], but give her the independence and the confidence to actually go on and be a good teacher.

Although Charlie is keen to “impart that bit of empathy and understanding” to the next generation, encouraging student teachers to develop their own style of teaching also seems important to her. On the other hand, the notion of “newness” motivates both Alex and Joe to mentor. Joe takes a college-wide perspective, while Alex views it more personally, and mentioned enjoying seeing “new faces” within the college.

Having [a] trainee teacher around the place as a fresh face, which was sort of a nice thing to have...I always…jump at the chance of it.

Alex’s reference to “fresh” and “new” supports the notion of a young student teacher and even contemporary teaching practices. Similarly, Joe associate’s student teachers with newness, and alludes to the fact the college staff are aging so placement is viewed as a “recruitment bed”.

Someone new …new conversations, new ideas, someone with a different up-to-date approach…there’s a lot of positives for also the college...it wasn’t just that we were going to be…giving, we were also going to be on the receiving side.

Joe indicates an awareness of the work associated with facilitating student teachers. However, Joe sees how the college would be “receiving” too. Both Alex and Joe agree that mentoring student teachers has impacted their personal teaching practices in terms of technology advancement. According to Alex, student teachers keep them “up-to-speed” with technology. In contrast, Frankie and Charlie mentioned how they often support the technology skills of their student teachers.

The mentors described opening their doors to being observed by the student teachers, some mentioned team-teaching, while others outlined the resources they shared and made for their student teachers. According to Frankie and Joe, it would seem, this notion of an open mindset and collaborative practices is not shared amongst all educators within the FET sector. Frankie explains “you'll meet people who absolutely will not share the resources, forget it! [Hand raised to illustrate a stop motion]. Which is wrong!”. In contrast to these colleagues, Frankie shares “everything”. Joe repeatedly mentioned having to “sell the benefits” of student teachers to colleagues. Joe likens the process to “going around the houses begging”. By seeking permission, Joe reminds us of the voluntary nature of the role.

I kind of get the vibe pretty quickly as to who’s open to it, or where the door was slightly opened, or where the door was firmly closed.

Joe considers whether this reluctant attitude stems from being observed. Joe expresses feeling “anxious” while being observed by a student teacher, “certainly, for the first couple of weeks”. However, it seems for Joe, the benefits the college receives by facilitating student teachers outweighs this emotional toll.

It's difficult to know why some are very much against it… But there is obviously apprehension. There’s another person in the room who’s looking and sizing up and evaluating what I’m doing.

In contrast to the privacy and isolated teaching practices experienced by Joe and Frankie, Alex describes a situation where a colleague left the college “her expertise sort of went out the building”. Alex remembers reaching out to the ex-colleague to share resources. According to Alex “teachers rely on one another for help”. It seems in Alex’s experience colleagues openly share practices. This open collaboration also seems to influence how Alex looks upon observations. Rather than being threatened, Alex views observations as an opportunity to get an outsider’s perspective to improve teaching practices.

It's just no harm for that set of eyes to make you sort of evaluate what you’re doing…because if you’re continually just year after year…there’s a capacity of things to get stale or…too comfortable.

Charlie also described a supportive working environment, where colleagues give one another “backing”, this seems to influence how Charlie supports student teachers.

I always say, look, give me a ring. I have no problem if I don't know, I'll find out.

In fact, this career “backing” seems to extend beyond placement. Indeed, Charlie has supported student teachers to secure teaching contracts by giving recommendations and references. Like Charlie, Alex also mentioned supporting a student teacher with employment contracts after placement had finished.

The mentor - placement tutor connection

During the interviews, three of the mentors recall their placements during ITE. Alex, Charlie, and Frankie are registered FET teachers with the Teaching Council of Ireland, whereas Joe is registered as a post-primary teacher. As such, Joe’s understanding of placement and the placement tutor role might differ from the others.

Joe mentioned the placement tutor was “out to observe and evaluate”, Frankie explained the placement tutor carries out an “assessment”, Charlie understood the placement tutor’s role was to “monitor” and “mark”, and Alex remarked the placement tutor was “observing”. From these comments we can see that all the participants understood the placement tutor’s role had an evaluative function. Alex explained the student teacher would typically mention when the placement tutor was “coming out”. Similarly, Joe found out about an observation by being “copied” into an email. According to these accounts, placement visits seem to be the main collaborative opportunity for mentors and placement tutors.

Alex recalls the triadic “interactions” alongside the student teacher, and the placement tutor, which contrasts with the experiences of the others. Alex describes them as “the three of us sitting around the table”. According to Alex, these triadic chats were “just coffee”, “very informal”, “very supportive”, “very cordial”, and tended to revolve around the student teacher getting a job. Alex feeds into this supportive and cordial ambiance by confirming how “great” the student teacher was doing. Alex remarked how the placement tutor did not specifically “ask” for an update on the student teacher’s progress. It seems although these interactions are informal, Alex’s behaviour is guided by the placement tutor’s expectations.

I don’t remember…getting the impression that part of her [Placement Tutor’s] job was to get a sense from me how he [Student Teacher] was doing. You know, because that would have required her to ask me, maybe separately.

Frankie also described an equally relaxed and informal “sit down chat” with a placement tutor. This was a chance for Frankie to confirm how “great” the student teacher was doing. Similarly, Charlie described a cordial but limited interaction with a placement tutor. In Charlie’s experience, feedback was not within the mentor’s “remit”.

I would sort of say hello, how are you and… have a chat with him [Placement Tutor] in the staff room, but it wouldn't be very [in-depth], I would have given feedback to [my colleague] if you know what I mean, it's out of my remit.

However, Joe’s first experience with a placement tutor was vastly different. According to Joe, the placement tutor “simply went to the student teacher’s classes”. It would seem Joe was prepared and expecting to meet the placement tutor.

I just want to make sure all is right in that they’re in the room. I didn’t even go near the room…I don’t want to add to her [Student Teacher’s] stress by checking in or anything, so I left it to them.

In contrast to the first visit, Joe points out that the second placement tutor made “a point of meeting me”. Echoing the other mentor’s accounts, we see the encounter is only “short”. However, we note that within this account Joe was “asked” for an opinion about the student teacher’s progress. Previously, Alex had assumed that collaboration was not on the placement tutor’s agenda. Alex, Frankie, and Charlie’s chats with the placement tutors appear to discuss the placement on a general level and seem to focus on the positive aspects only. Similarly, Joe mentioned that although the encounter was short, the placement tutor wrote a “positive report”, so we can assume Joe also focused on the student teacher’s strengths.

It was a short encounter… I could have been rushing to class... possibly for five minutes. He [Placement Tutor] just explained who he was and what he was doing… asked how she [Student Teacher] was getting on…thanked us…went to the student teacher, came back afterwards and was quite happy.

Alex spoke about a struggling student teacher but did not recall meeting the Placement Tutor. Alex contemplated, if an opportunity had presented itself to communicate the concern, would it have been taken? The mere idea of giving negative feedback makes Alex feel “uncomfortable”, as the comments could possibly “influence” the student teacher’s “mark”.

Mentoring: an extension of the teacher role

Even though the mentors met the study’s inclusion criteria, they all expressed a slight apprehension and questioned the validity of their experiences. Before being asked to mentor, Alex admitted to not being aware of the role. When asked about mentor role expectations, Alex compared it with teaching “guiding someone…imparting something”. Frankie also admitted being unclear about the mentor role “I don’t even know what the role is”. Again, similarly to Alex and Frankie, role uncertainty is echoed within Joe’s account, “there was no support as in what to expect”. In the absence of training or even a “process”, Frankie draws on past experiences “I’ve just lived through it”. Charlie recalled receiving an email from a colleague with regards to mentoring a student teacher “for a couple of classes”. It seemed this colleague was Charlie’s main source of placement information.

[My colleague] would ring me and ask me, how she [Student Teacher] got on, what she was doing, was everything OK, and that was it.

Instead of being critical about the lack of support and training, Joe seems to accept that figuring out how to “accommodate” student teachers fell within the role. Alex’s experience paints a similar picture to the others. Alex was “left...to my own devices” and confirmed learning the role “through practice and through actually performing the role”. However, like Charlie, Alex’s colleague “clearly laid out” the fundamentals of placement.

Frankie wanted to know the remit and expectation of the role “hand me a process... so I know I’ve covered everything”. In contrast, Alex felt support was not required to perform the role and did not consider it was “something necessarily that required a whole lot of…background reading”. Alex gets the “nuts and bolts” about the placement from the student teachers, as does Joe. Charlie also seems satisfied to get a similarly basic picture of placement from a colleague. Alex did not want to be “too dismissive” of the role, but emphasised it was additional to the teaching role, and as such Alex had a limited capacity to consider its full expanse.

But this was just the reality of the situation…you have your full-time job of your own, you don’t necessarily put as much thought into everything that you should.

Frankie described informal interactions with student teachers “I don’t say I have an official check-in, let’s put it that way”. Joe also described “very, very casual” interactions such as a “conversation on a corridor” or a “how you getting on” in the staffroom. Similarly, Frankie also uses chance meetings in the “hallway” or informal chats in the staffroom. Charlie openly tells the student teachers “my phone is always on”. Like Charlie, Frankie also seems happy to arrange brief and informal out-of-hours interactions when asked by the student teacher.

You know, if it’s a case of they’ve to hang on for an hour for me or I have to hang on for an hour for them, that’s fine.

Once again, the casual and informal nature of the relationships are echoed in Alex’s account. Similarly, to the other mentors, Alex allows the student teachers to “lead” and “guide” the direction of the relationship. Alex discussed the “sit down” chat with student teachers at the end of each lesson, and was keen to point out, they were not meetings, they were “informal” and “organic” chats. Like the other participants, Alex seemed almost compelled to emphasize their unplanned and undocumented nature.

I don’t want to overstate the level of planning…it just felt like an organic way to go about the relationship…rather than just finishing the class and walking out.

Although Alex’s interactions with the student teachers are casual and informal, they have a clear purpose, they relate to the student teacher’s learning, and they are not left to chance.

Discussion and Conclusion

The research reveals the mentors in this study are willing and intentional role models. In line with wider mentoring research, their motives can be broadly categorised into others-orientated, self-orientated, and at times both (Van Ginkel et al., 2016). Several of the mentors saw mentoring as a chance for professional development (Clarke et al., 2014), while others viewed mentoring as their opportunity to influence and support the next generation of teachers, a need widely recognised within mentoring theories (Kram, 1983). Other studies have related these motivations to the creation and flow of cultural capital for both the student teacher and mentor (Betteney, Barnard, & Lambirth, 2017). A common self-orientated motivation within the literature relates to credibility amongst colleagues (Young & MacPhail, 2016). However, this did not emerge in the study.

This research also illustrates how mentors motivate those around them to open their minds and classrooms by informally mentoring student teachers. Within the literature, this function is termed Conveners of Relation (Clarke et al., 2014). These informal mentoring networks support collaborative practices, two-way professional development, and networking (Hallam, Chou, Hite, & Hite, 2012). In line with Bourdieu’s social concepts, mentors may be viewed as agents of change as they encourage the flow of capital. Of note, the mentors in this study do not allude to developing practices within their mentor role, as opposed to their teaching role.

The mentors’ open mindset seems to be encapsulated within Clarke et al.’s (2014) function Abiders of Change. However, the mentors’ accounts also highlight a lingering resistance to open practices and change amongst some colleagues. This notion of privacy and isolated teaching practices is reflected within some Irish and international teaching literature (Kirkby, Moss, & Godinho, 2016; Teaching Council, 2015). In Bourdieusian terms, this seems to reflect the field-habitus conflict often found near the borders of fields (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).

The findings show that some mentors, but not all, associate developments in their teaching practices with mentoring student teachers. A two-way exchange of knowledge is strongly associated with developmental mentoring (Clutterbuck, 2004; Manning & Hobson, 2017). However, this two-way learning was not experienced by all, which suggests some relationships could be classified as sponsorship mentoring.

This research highlights how collaboration within the mentor – placement tutor dyad seems to revolve around the placement visit, a visit which is typically arranged between the student teacher and the placement tutor rather than amongst the triad. The broader research highlights minimum interaction and collaboration within the mentor-placement tutor dyad (McDonough, 2018; O’Grady et al., 2018), with some finding interactions are brief due to a lack of professional shared language (Farrell, 2020). Others found busy timetables led to inconsistent interactions between the pair (Hall et al., 2019).

This research illustrates how mentors seem unsure of their role during placement visits and therefore let the placement tutor lead the interactions. The mentors have a clear, albeit limited understanding of the placement tutor role. Like the findings of Hall et al., (2018), they universally perceive the placement tutor role as observer and assessor, this nomos forms a boundary line between the two roles. At times during these interactions, the mentors are willing to cross the boundary line by giving feedback to the placement tutor when asked (Hall et al., 2018). We also note this feedback is general and confirmatory (Clarke et al., 2014). It is clear the mentors are keen to engage with placement tutors, but do not wish to contribute to the grading process (Hall et al., 2019). This dissonance is an example of what Bourdieu termed hysteresis, a time lag between placement tutor’s grading in isolation and the transgressive collaborative practices between the mentor and the placement tutor.

This research found FET teachers are casually asked to mentor rather than being formally interviewed. Underlying this informal selection process is the doxic assumption that good teachers make good mentors. However, many studies contest this and instead recommend mentor education to prepare for the role (Hall et al., 2018; Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, & Tomlinson, 2009; Leshem, 2014; McDonough, 2018). The mentors are at times uncertain about the role, and yet, in line with other research, not all the mentors considered training a necessity for this role (Ingleby & Hunt, 2008; Leshem, 2014). This attitude assumes mentoring is a task that is intuitive to experienced teachers. In the absence of training, the FET mentors construct the role through on-the-job learning, an understanding of the placement tutor’s role, through their relationship with the student teacher, and in line with Tyrer’s (2022) research, some base it on their past firsthand experiences of ITE. However, these isolated practices may lead to mentors reproducing cultures that are misaligned with current policy, and potentially even result in the suppression of the professional identity of student teachers (O'Grady et al., 2018).

The findings illustrate that mentoring within the FET sector is strongly associated with the nurturing behaviours of a counsellor or confidante, rather than stretching behaviours of a coach or assessor (Clutterbuck 2004; Kennedy, 2005). In line with other research, when proactively sought, the mentors give casual, friendly, undocumented, and non-evaluative feedback (Hall et al., 2018). Some attribute the casual and friendly feedback with timetabling issues (Leshem, 2014; Savory & Glasson; 2009; Tyrer, 2022; Young & MacPhail, 2016). Others found mentors perceive their role differently to student teachers, and do not view these functions as the norm within their role (Ingleby & Hunt, 2008; Mellon, 2023; Young & MacPhail, 2016). As a result, these casual and friendly relationships are closely aligned with transmission rather than a transformative professional developmental model, which may result in a lack of challenge for student teachers (Clarke et al., 2014; Kennedy, 2005; Mellon, 2023). In Bourdieusian terms, the Irish FET mentors may be working under the doxic assumption that the non-evaluative function of the mentor is to provide informal, unwritten, and supportive feedback. The notion of being critical of the student teacher’s practice may be perceived as the role of the placement tutor only. Viewed through Bourdieu’s framework, this absence of critical thinking may represent a time lag before it is viewed as legitimate practices within the role.

Implications for Policy and Practice

As with most educational and social science research, there are implications for policy and practice. This study has found that not all mentors associate the process with self-development in terms of their teaching practices or indeed their mentoring practices. To counter-act this one-way flow of knowledge, mentors should receive mentor education. An area of focus within the training should be developmental versus instrumental mentoring conceptions (Manning & Hobson, 2009), as mentors with a developmental mentoring conception tend to view themselves as a learner in the mentoring process (Van Ginkel et al., 2016). This training, would in turn, reduce the number of mentors developing their practices in isolation (Tyrer, 2022), and may potentially lead to the development of communities of practices (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). In line with other research, mentor education should explore the tensions within mentoring relationships, and coping strategies to minimise the negative side of mentoring for mentors (McDonough, 2018).

This study also illustrates the limited interactions between the mentor and placement tutor. Although these encounters are largely positive, they are lacking in genuine professional dialogue. A remedy to this situation might be in the form of partnership sessions, which aim to develop democratic school-university learning communities (Farrell, 2020). These sessions would comprise of mentors, placement tutors, lecturing staff, principals and even student teachers. The sessions could outline the roles of each partner, consider how roles have changed, explore future collaboration opportunities, and in line with other research, discuss the aims of the ITE programme (Ingleby & Hunt, 2008; Lucas, Nasta, & Rogers, 2012). Alongside partnership sessions, it seems important to enhance collaboration opportunities within placement visits. In particular, the triadic conversation explored within the findings seems to be a useful route to expand upon.

This study also shows how the mentor role is untimetabled and additional to a teacher’s hours. The informal nature of the role in Ireland seems to have led to mentoring relationships that are casual, and positive, but lacking in challenge for student teachers. This additional workload may cause mentors to experience the negative side of mentoring (Hobson et al., 2009; Husband, 2020). In line with other research, before selecting mentors, a principal should consider who is both willing and able (Hallam et al., 2012). An individual’s ability to perform a role includes skills, disposition, and availability (Savory & Glasson, 2009; Tyrer, 2022).

In conclusion, this small-scale IPA study found ITE mentors in the FET sector in Ireland are eager and willing to mentor student teachers for a multitude of reasons. However, it seems the mentor role is currently viewed as an extension of the teacher role rather than a professional role in its own right. Mentors are untrained when entering this vital role. Robust mentor education is required for mentors to explore the full expanse of this multifaceted role. Also, it appears the mentor-placement tutor connection needs an upgrade to develop the professional identity of mentors and support student teachers more effectively.

Limitations and Future Research

A key limitation of this IPA study is the number of participants, also it is limited to one country and one sector of education. However, small participant numbers are in keeping with the IPA axial commitment to idiography. A point to note within IPA studies is that participants are not necessarily representative of the population. As such, findings are cautious and should not be generalised to the larger population (Harré, 1979, as cited in Smith et al., 2009, p.29). However, by situating the findings within wider mentoring literature, their transferability across the FET sector has been strengthened (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Future research might investigate how mentoring relationships evolve and impact both the mentee and mentor beyond placement.

References

Betteney

Barnard

Lambirth

(2018). Mentor, colleague, co-learner and judge: using Bourdieu to evaluate the motivations of mentors of Newly Qualified Teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education , 41(4), 433-447.

Birt

Scott

Cavers

Campbell

Walter

(2016). Member checking: a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative health research, 26(13), 1802-1811.

Bourdieu

(1990). The logic of practice . Stanford university press.

Bourdieu

(2006). The Forms of Capital. In Education, Globalization and Social Change. H. Lauder, P. Brown, JA Dillabough, & AH Halsey (eds). Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu

Wacquant

(1992). An invitation to Reflexive Sociology , Paris: Seuil.

Bryman

(2008). Social Research Methods . Oxford University Press.

Clarke

Triggs

Nielsen

(2014). Cooperating teacher participation in teacher education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research , 84(2), 163-202.

Clutterbuck

(2004). Everyone needs a mentor . Kogan Page Publishers.

Creswell

J. W.

Creswell

(2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches . SAGE.

10.

Cunningham

(2004). Some have mentoring thrust upon them: the element of choice in mentoring in a PCET environment. Research in Post-Compulsory Education , 9(2), 271-282.

11.

Farrell

(2020). Co-operating teachers: The untapped nucleus of democratic pedagogical partnerships in initial teacher education in Ireland. Education Research and Perspectives , 47, 131-156.

12.

Grummell

Murray

M. J.

(2015). A contested profession: employability, performa-tivity and professionalism in Irish further education. Journal of Educational Administration and History , 47(4), 432-450.

13.

Hall

Murphy

Ní Áingléis

Rutherford

(2019). Mentoring and assessing student teachers on school placement: Integrating theory and practice. Education Research and Perspectives , 46, 75-107.

14.

Hall

Murphy

Rutherford

Ní Áingléis

(2018). School placement in initial teacher education . University College Cork

15.

Hallam

P. R.

Chou

P. N.

Hite

J. M.

Hite

S. J.

(2012). Two contrasting models for mentoring as they affect retention of beginning teachers. NASSP bulletin , 96(3), 243-278.

16.

Higgins

M. C.

Kram

K. E.

(2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A develop-mental network perspective. Academy of management review , 26(2), 264-288.

17.

Hobson

A. J.

Ashby

Malderez

Tomlinson

P. D.

(2009). Mentoring beginning teachers: what we know and what we don’t. Teaching and Teacher Education , 25, 207-216.

18.

Høffding, S., & Martiny, K. (2016). Framing a phenomenological interview: What, why and how. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences , 15(4), 539–564. 10.1007/s11097-015-9433-z

19.

Husband

(2020). The role of mentors in supporting the professional learning of lecturers in further education colleges in Scotland and Wales. Research in Post-Compulsory Education , 25(1), 42-67.

20.

Ingleby

Hunt

(2008). The CPD needs of mentors in post‐compulsory Initial Teach-er Training in England. Journal of In‐Service Education , 34(1), 61-74.

21.

Kennedy

(2005). Models of continuing professional development: A framework for analysis. Journal of in-service education , 31(2), 235-250.

22.

Klasen

Clutterbuck

(2002). Implementing mentoring schemes . Routledge.

23.

Kirkby

Moss

Godinho

(2017). The devil is in the detail: Bourdieu and teachers’ early career learning. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education , 6(1), 19-33.

24.

Kram

K. E.

(1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal , 26(4), 608-625.

25.

Leshem

(2014). How do teacher mentors perceive their role, does it matter? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 261-274.

26.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry . SAGE.

27.

Lucas

Nasta

Rogers

(2012). From fragmentation to chaos? The regulation of initial teacher training in further education. British educational research journal , 38(4), 677-695.

28.

Manning

Hobson

A. J.

(2017). Judgemental and developmental mentoring in further education initial teacher education in England: Mentor and mentee perspectives. Research in Post-Compulsory Education , 22(4), 574–595.

29.

McDonough

S. L.

(2018). Inside the mentors’ experience: Using poetic representation to examine the tensions of mentoring pre-service teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 43(10), 98-115.

30.

McGuinness

Bergin

Kelly

et al. (2014). Further education and training in Ireland: Past, present and future . Dublin: The Economic and Social Research Institute.

31.

Megginson

Clutterbuck

(1995). Mentoring in action: A practical guide for managers . London: Kogan Page Publishers.

32.

Mellon

(2023). Lessons from the road less travelled: Student Teachers’ and Newly Quali-fied Teachers’ Experiences of Mentoring in the Irish Further Education and Training Sector. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education. 10.1108/IJMCE-10-2022-0089

33.

O'Grady. E., Guilfoyle, L., & McGarr, O. (2018). “Biting one’s lip” and “distancing”: ex-ploring pre-service teachers’ strategies in dysfunctional professional relationships. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education , 46(4), 369-383.

34.

Orland-Barak

Klein

(2005). The expressed and the realized: Mentors’ representations of a mentoring conversation and its realization in practice. Teaching and Teacher Education , 21(4), 379–402. 10.1016/j.tate.2004.05.003

35.

O'Sullivan. M., & Ó'Conaill, N. (2022). ‘You’re Kind of taking this Person Under Your Wing…’: The Experiences of Co-operating Primary Teachers in Engaging with Student Teachers during School Placement in the Midwest of Ireland. All Ireland Society for Higher Education (AISHE) , 14(1), 1-21.

36.

Pietkiewicz

Smith

J. A.

(2014). A practical guide to using interpretative phenomeno-logical analysis in qualitative research psychology. Psychological Journal , 20(1), 7-14.

37.

Ragins

B. R.

Kram

K. E.

(2008). The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice . SAGE.

38.

Rose

M. L.

Best

D. L.

(Eds.). (2005). Transforming practice through clinical education, professional supervision and mentoring . Elsevier Health Sciences.

39.

Savory

Glasson

(2009). Improving Mentoring for Part-Time Trainee Teachers in Further Education Colleges in the South West. Teaching in Lifelong Learning , 1(1), 36-42.

40.

Smith

J, A.

Osborn

(2007). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.) Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Methods .

41.

Smith

J. A.

Flowers

Larkin

(2009). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research . (2nd edition). SAGE.

42.

Teaching Council. (2011). Further Education: General and Programme Requirements for the Accreditation of Teacher Education Qualifications . https://www.teachingcouncil.ie/en/publications/ite-professional-accreditation/further-education-general-and-programme-requirements-for-the-accreditation-of-teacher-education-qualifications.pdf

43.

Teaching Council. (2013). Guidelines on School Placement . https://www.teachingcouncil.ie/en/publications/ite-professional-accreditation/guidelines-on-school-placement.pdf

44.

Teaching Council. (2015). Review of the Droichead Teacher Induction Pilot Programme . https://www.teachingcouncil.ie/en/publications/research/documents/esri-research-on-the-droichead-process.pdf

45.

Teaching Council. (2021). Guidelines on School Placement . Revised March 2021. https://www.teachingcouncil.ie/en/publications/ite-professional-accreditation/school-placement-guidelines-updated-march-2022.pdf

46.

Thomas

(2013). How to do your research project; A guide for students in education and applied social studies . (2nd edition). SAGE.

47.

Tyrer

(2022). Untangling the complexity of mentoring feedback practices in post-compulsory initial teacher education in the UK. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 1-14.

48.

Van Ginkel

Verloop

Denessen

(2016). Why mentor? Linking mentor teach-ers’ motivations to their mentoring conceptions. Teachers and teaching , 22(1), 101-116.

49.

Wenger

Snyder

W.M.

(2000). Communities of practice: the organisational frontier. Harvard Business Review , 78(1), 139-145.

50.

Young

A. M.

MacPhail

(2016). Cultivating relationships with school placement stakeholders: The perspective of the cooperating teacher. European Journal of Teacher Education , 39(3), 287-301.