Mentoring with research-based tools—A holistic approach

ABSTRACT

Mentoring aimed at professional development of preservice teachers (PTs) in teacher education is a complex practice. The use of tools has potential to enhance mentoring practices; however, research on using tools in mentoring is often focused on applying a single tool. This qualitative study analyses two dyads of mentor and PT’s structured and holistic mentoring with tools. The tools were developed to elicit PTs’ diverse needs in practicum; the three tool-packages build on a a) simulator-based tool, b) response-based tool, and c) video-based tool. Further, the theory of practice architecture (TPA) provided a frame to understand mentoring practices with the holistic use of tools as interplay among cultural – discursive, material – economic, and social – political arrangements. The findings indicate that tools prefigure participants’ talk as well as how they act and relate to each other and the tools. This paper presents new insight on how tools can enhance quality in mentoring.

KEYWORDS:

• Tools for mentoring
• practicum
• preservice teachers
• mentors
• practice architecture theory
• teacher education

This study investigates the use of research-based tools in mentoring practices during practicum to enhance teacher preparation. The importance of research-based teacher education to improve teacher preparation is often highlighted both by researchers and policymakers (European Commission, 2007; La Velle, 2022; Reuter & Leuchter, 2023). Researchers call for teacher education institutions to frame mentoring in a stronger manner theoretically and for teacher education institutions to contribute to quality in mentoring (Aspfors & Fransson, 2015; Hoffman et al., 2015). The mentoring of preservice teachers (PTs) by school-based mentors is recognised as essential to prepare PTs for the teaching profession (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Orland-Barak & Wang, 2021). However, it is challenging for mentors to prepare PTs through mentoring, and the mentoring practice is a field in which the focus in the last few years has been on qualifying mentors for the purpose and to provide newly qualified teachers with an induction to the teaching profession with the help of mentors (Hobson et al., 2009; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). Mentoring is considered a complex practice (Brondyk & Searby, 2013; Payne & Huffman, 2005) and also the learning-to-teach situation for PTs is complex, as they have to navigate both the campus and practicum expectations (Opfer & Pedder, 2011). To address the complexity and elevate the quality of mentoring, both mentor education and providing mentors with quality resources for their work have the potential to improve the quality of mentoring (Aspfors & Fransson, 2015; Nesje & Lejonberg, 2022).

For example, it is found that tools as a supplement in mentoring provide structure to mentoring conversations (Goldshaft et al., 2022; Hunskaar & Gudmundsdottir, 2023). However, the use of tools in mentoring practices is often rather random and not governed by holistic approaches (Nesje & Lejonberg, 2022). This study is designed to contribute to the field of mentoring and teacher education with knowledge regarding holistic approaches to tool-based mentoring. We do this by introducing three tool packages to be used consecutively throughout an eight-week practicum as well as by an in-depth investigation of mentoring practices in two dyads of mentors and PTs. The three tool-packages include a digital simulator tool (Arvola et al., 2018) that elicits the PT’s preferred approach to the teacher role, a digital response tool that aligns PTs self-reports about teacher competencies (Baumrind, 1971/1991) with pupils’ responses and a video tool (Kang & van Es, 2019) where PTs explore a development goal based on results from the simulator tool. All three tool-packages include guides for use and conversation templates to apply in the follow up mentoring conversations. The following research question guided our study: What characterises mentoring practices with the use of tools in a holistic approach to mentoring in practicum in teacher education? To frame the study, we take a stance in the current literature regarding mentoring practices and efforts to enhance quality in mentoring. Reflection, theory use, context sensitivity, and mentor support are highlighted as essential focus areas to drive quality mentoring. We introduce the theory of practice architecture (TPA) as both a theoretical stance and an analytical tool before we present and discuss findings in light of the TPA.

Mentoring practices and efforts to enhance quality in practicum mentoring

To understand and contribute to enhancing the quality of mentoring, researchers have for instance identified mentor roles (Crasborn et al., 2011; Hennissen et al., 2008), highlighted the interconnectedness between mentor and mentee roles (Ambrosetti & Dekkers, 2010), and investigated how mentors view their mentees (Van Ginkel et al., 2018). Drawing a conceptual map of predominant mentoring approaches from existing literature is also promoted as a means of developing a better understanding of mentoring (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Upon identifying different approaches, Kemmis et al. (2014) found three diverse approaches to mentoring of newly qualified teachers in three different countries. The archetypes were characterised as mentoring as supervision, support, and collaborative self-development, typical but not exclusive to a specific country. Tonna et al. (2017) described a reflective practitioner approach focusing on development and found how such an approach challenges traditional hierarchies in mentoring. Moreover, Mena et al. (2016) investigated the impact mentoring has on PTs’ knowledge and found how diverse types of mentoring interactions – an approach with written dialogue journaling, regular mentoring conferences, and stimulated-recall conference with video – led to different knowledge generation for PTs in practicum.

Another approach to mentoring is suggested by Orland-Barak and Wang (2021), who synthesised reviews of empirical literature on mentoring of PTs and conceptual literature on mentoring of teachers. Identifying four different approaches – personal growth, situated learning, core practice, and critical transformative – the authors propose to use the four in an integrated approach. Together, such research identifies both a multiplicity of mentoring approaches and reveals the complexity of mentoring. Moreover, mentoring is expected to relate both to demands from the teaching profession and be adapted to mentees’ individual needs (Orland-Barak & Wang, 2021).

Mentoring has been expected to encourage PTs’ reflection on their practice (Hobson et al., 2009). Researchers indicate how reflection in teacher education is considered important, but the term reflection is elusive in this context (Singh et al., 2019). Nurturing and fostering reflection is challenging in this field (Hatton & Smith, 1995). Nevertheless, the idea of the reflective practitioner (Schön, 1983) has been considered significantly higher in teacher education, as ‘there is a clear expectation that during their studies student teachers will engage in practices that enable reflection both as a process and as an outcome’ (Toom et al., 2015, p. 320). Another aspect of teacher education that also pertains to mentoring is the divide between the theoretical stance of the teacher education institution and the more practice-oriented schools (Korthagen, 2010). If this gap is bridged, PTs can experience coherence in their teacher education programmes (Canrinus et al., 2017). However, it can be challenging for mentors to remain up to date on the latest research and PTs curriculum and integrate these in mentoring. Teachers as opposed to those engaged in the medical profession, for example, are less likely to remain updated on the latest research in their field (Lejonberg et al., 2018).

The above account highlights a diversity of extant mentoring approaches that mentors adopt or that researchers propose, emphasizing the complexity of mentoring. When faced with mentoring complexity and expectations from different quarters, mentors have been found to resort to anecdotal experiences and intuition rather than developing a mentoring practice that is reasoned and informed (Becher & Orland-Barak, 2016; Langdon, 2017; Orland-Barak & Wang, 2021). However, it is timely to ask how research can be known and made accessible to mentors for them to develop reasoned and informed practices. We look to Cain et al. (2019), who proposed how grounding research in education lies in the potential to enhance the quality of teaching by anchoring teachers’ ways of thinking. Consequently, how teachers choose to do things can be grounded in theory, thereby making their practice less dependent on their personal experiences. We assume this to be applicable to teachers who mentor as well, and integrating tools into their mentoring practices is one means for mentors to access research that can support their practices.

Supporting mentors’ thinking and performing adaptively is essential to accommodate the need for contextualised mentoring practices (Orland-Barak & Wang, 2021). Consequently, introducing mentors to research-based tools targeted to school-based mentoring can be a means of supporting mentors in their work with mentees’ professional development. Nesje and Lejonberg (2022) present a variety of tools with assumed potential to contribute to professional learning. Simulations, for example, are found to have the potential to contribute to bridging the gap between theory and practice in teacher education (De Coninck et al., 2019). Moreover, video use is found to inspire PTs’ reflection (Körkkö et al., 2019). However, the described complexity of mentoring also indicates that tools need to be flexible and used with care to enhance the quality of mentoring in PTs’ practicum. To understand mentoring complexity, we turn to the TPA as both a theoretical stance and analytical tool.

The theory of practice architecture

Developed to counterbalance trends in education preoccupied with standards and assessment (Schatzki, 2014), the TPA offers an ontological view of practice to reveal how practices are shaped and mediated (Mahon et al., 2016). According to Kemmis et al. (2014), education has a dual purpose: on the personal side it prepares individuals for living well and on the social side it contributes to societies and communities. The TPA can be applied to make the complexity of a current practice visible, both with regard to what shapes a practice and what enhances and constrains it. According to Wilkinson (2021), practices take place on a site, emphasizing the specificity in contrast to the more general context of the term. Thus, site is understood as a place where the life world of education ‘transpires’ (Schatzki, 2014, p. v). Within specific sites, practices are prefigured and shaped through arrangements, as exemplified below; arrangements constitute the practice architecture on a specific site (Kemmis et al., 2014). Moreover, practices are guided by an overarching project, the goal of the practice, which would be the answer to ‘What are you doing’ if you asked the participants (Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 226). Supporting PTs professional development in practicum could be an example of such a project.

According to the TPA, a practice is constituted of sayings, doings, and relatings that correspond to three dimensions – semantic space, physical-time space, and social space. In the semantic space, the participants’ sayings are enabled or constrained by cultural-discursive arrangements that are found in or brought to a site, like language and ideas. In the physical time – space dimension, the doings of the participants are enabled or constrained by the material – economic arrangements which are found or brought to a site, such as objects, and spatial arrangements. In the social dimension of solidarity and power, the participants’ relations to each other and the world are enabled or constrained by social-political arrangements, which are found or brought to the site, like relationships among people (Kemmis et al., 2014).

The TPA is typically employed to understand and interrogate practices to possibly change them, ascertain how we can do things better, and ‘create new possibilities and opportunities’ that are important questions in educational practices in the twenty-first century (Mahon et al., 2016, p. 1). As such, the use of the TPA can be understood as a normative approach to practice, as change is inherent in it. The TPA has been applied to understanding existing mentoring practices in terms of different aspects of the teaching profession, like new teachers’ induction through mentoring (Heikkinen et al., 2018; Jacobsen & Lejonberg, 2024; Lejonberg & Hatlevik, 2022). Investigating mentors’ use of discursive observation tools, Goldshaft et al. (2022) found how these provide structure to school-based mentoring conversation practices. Moreover, Pennanen et al. (2020) investigated participants in teachers’ peer group mentoring and their perceptions of the ideal mentor and mentee and found how these reflected ideas regarding the social aspect. Heikkinen et al. (2018) researched the practices of new teachers’ induction in two different countries to investigate what is good mentoring. These research focuses illustrate how TPA serves to reveal how practices are found to be shaped by arrangements on the site. The above-mentioned identification of three archetypes of mentoring of new teachers in three different countries by Kemmis et al. (2014) illustrate that the TPA is suitable for a holistic understanding of practices. However, Heikkinen et al. (2018) propose that a practice cannot simply be moved from one place to another, as mentoring is situated at a particular site.

The normative approach of the TPA aligns with our introduction of research-based tools in school-based mentoring, which is an endeavour to enhance the quality of mentoring. The focus of our investigation is mentoring practices with the use of tools in a holistic approach. Such an approach adds to our knowledge on the use of multiple tools in mentoring. We believe that the TPA aids in understanding what characterises school-based mentoring from a structured and holistic perspective using research-based tools, which will be elaborated upon below.

Research-based tools

The research-based tools analysed here were developed in a project aimed to enhance quality in practicum through mentoring at the University of Oslo (UiO, 2023). Designed around three data collection tools, they comprise a) a decision simulator tool, b) a response tool, and c) a video tool; all these tools can be accessed or downloaded online. The three tools constitute three tool packages that in addition to the outcome from the data collection tool encompass structures with components as guides for use, templates facilitating reflection and conversation with mentor and peers, suggested additional reading and highlight development of personal learning goals to enhance coherence in usage through a holistic approach.

All data provided by the tools are in PTs , and PTs decide to whom, what, and how they want to share this data, and prior to the video recording the PTs complete a course in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Mentors get access to guides and templates for conversations, and they can take the decision simulator. Mentors may help facilitate collection of the anonymised response from the pupils for the response tool and assist collecting consent forms for video recording in class as well as doing the actual recording of the video footage.

In the decision simulator, based on Arvola et al. (2018), the PT is presented with different challenging scenarios that are likely to occur in a classroom; the PTs are required to make choices whose alternative answers are connected to teacher role traits that correspond to authoritarian, authoritative, democratic, and compliant approaches, based on Baumrind (1971/1991. The choices made by the PT eventually generate an overview of the selected approaches to the teacher role that are to be elaborated upon in mentoring.

The response tool combines self-reports from the PTs and pupils’ responses through an electronic survey entered online on topics assumed to denote effective teaching. Based on Tripod’s 7Cs framework (Ferguson & Danielson, 2015; Kuhfeld, 2017; Wallace et al., 2016), the PTs and pupils both report on teacher competencies: caring, conferring, captivating, clarifying, consolidating, challenging, and classroom management. Responses are aligned, visualised, and followed up on with guides for elaboration and reflection, and exploration of the tool’s outcome grounds PTs’ choice of the development goal in their teaching practice to be elaborated upon with the video tool.

The video tool consists of a video recording application that the PTs can download to ensure GDPR, as well as guides for preparing, conducting, and elaborating on practice videos individually, with peers, and with the mentor (Kang & van Es, 2019; UiO, 2020). The PTs are encouraged to use insights from the response tool to choose a development goal to enhance their teaching competencies. From the video recording, the PTs select a clip representative for their development goal to be elaborated on in mentoring.

Methodology and data collection

The data investigated in this qualitative study was extracted from a larger corpus, consisting of 14 observed and video-recorded mentoring conversations with the use of tools and 12 follow-up interviews with 5 mentors and 7 PTs in the spring and autumn semesters of 2021. Participants were purposefully sampled (Cohen et al., 2017) among PTs and mentors from partner schools to the university. The PTs who accepted the invitation were at the time placed in secondary schools, with teaching practice in two subjects along with a peer. All participants were offered to try out the three tool-packages; however, due to the COVID-19-pandemic, not all participants tested all the tools and not all follow-up conversations were conducted nor recorded and observed among the participants who used the entire range of tools. From this corpus, in order to capture characteristics of mentoring practices with the use of tools in a holistic approach, we selected two dyads of mentors and PTs who used all three tool-packages consecutively during their practicum with follow-up conversations for this study. Thus, six mentoring conversations that followed-up on the use of each of the three tools for each dyad in a total of 277 minutes of video-taped conversations became the primary data. The conversations took place in the autumn of 2021, during the PTs eight-week practicum. The fist author observed and recorded the conversations. Five of six mentoring conversations were observed physically and recorded, while one conversation was conducted on Zoom due to pandemic restrictions. In addition, semi-structured interviews of 175 minutes with the two PTs and the two mentors constituted the secondary data. These were integrated where pertinent in the discussion to elaborate on findings and moreover to bring in the participants' perspectives in addition to the observation data. The interviews were conducted by the first author and recorded on Zoom.

The two PTs attended a five-year teacher education programme and had experienced two group practicums earlier in their third and sixth semesters. The investigated practicum is the longest one in the programme – a period of eight weeks in the PTs’ seventh semester. Mentor-mentee matches in the practicum were based on the criteria of the PTs teaching subject corresponding to that of the mentor’s. The mentors were both currently engaged in mentor education and had one to three years of experience with mentoring. The study was approved by the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (SIKT) and participants could withdraw any time (Cohen et al., 2017). Table 1 below provides an overview of characteristics of the two dyads.

Table 1. Overview of the characteristics of the two mentoring Dyads.

Dyad	School	Teaching subject in focus	Mentor characteristics	PT characteristics
Dyad I M1 and PT 1	Upper secondary school in rural area with ca 1300 pupils and 250 teachers.	Spanish	Female, one year of mentoring experience, and undergoing mentoring education.	Female, teaching experience from practicum.
Dyad II M2 and PT2	Upper secondary school in the city with 650 pupils and 50 teachers.	German	Male, three years of mentoring experience, undergoing mentoring education.	Female, one year of teaching experience in addition to the practicum experiences.

Analysis

In a first effort to employ a holistic perspective to familiarise ourselves with the material on mentoring with tools, we read through the transcribed mentoring conversations and the interviews. Familiarising ourselves with the data, we noticed how the tools appeared to influence the conversations throughout in terms of what was talked about, how it was talked about, and how actors related to each other and the artefacts in the conversations. Having gained this insight, we searched for a theoretical approach pertinent to understanding practices in a holistic manner and in the context they are a part of. The situated nature of the TPA framework and its embracing of practices as interrelated with arrangements was an approach we believed added to our insight on mentoring conversations as an interplay between tools and actors. To structure the analysis, a table of invention from the TPA was first used as a heuristic (Kemmis, 2022) to guide the analysis of the data material and second as inspiration for presenting the findings.

Having familiarised ourselves with the data material, we continued the analysis in a step wise approach, inspired by thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006); however, the categories/codes in the material were given by the TPA framework. Based on the notions of sayings, doings, and relatings from the TPA, we coded the material based on whether it illustrated tools understood as cultural – discursive arrangements as potential influencers on the ways of talking and thinking, material – economic arrangements as potential influencers on ways of acting, or social – political arrangements as potential influencers of ways of relating to people and artefacts. In this process, the labels sayings, doings, and relatings served to identify the characteristics of practices in the empirical data.

Next, data that highlighted the three codes were further investigated in a process where we looked for characteristics of different aspects related to the sayings, doings, and relatings evident in the practices in the material. The characteristics were then divided into sub-categories. The sub-categories were applied and consequently adjusted in a process of trying them out on the empirical material and adjusting where necessary to ensure they were representative of the data. Table 2 below displays the codes and sub-categories.

Table 2. Utilised categories and sub-categories.

Category	Sub- category	Definition/conversation characteristics
Sayings: Practices related to thinking and talking. Relevant to illuminate how actors think and talk	Use of terms	Use of research-based terms from the tools.
	Talk about tool themes	Talk about themes highlighted in the tools.
	Exploration of tool components	Talk characterised by exploring the components highlighted in tools.
	Challenge beliefs	Talk characterised of confirmation or challenging of beliefs.
Doings: Practices related to action/work. Relevant to illuminate what actors do with tools	Structuring of conversation	Conversation characterised by being in line with structure implied in the tools.
	Use of tool content	Conversation characterised by use of questions and words in the tools.
	Sharing of results	Conversation characterised of use of data gathered with the tools.
Relatings: Practices related to relations. Relevant to illuminate relations between actors, and actors and tools	Mentee empowerment	Conversation characterised by active mentee roles.
	Co-operation	Conversation characterised by mentees and mentors co-operating.
	Tool assessment	Conversation characterised by perceived possibilities and challenges related to the tools.

Findings

The two investigated dyads are both characterised by the extensive use of tools. However, dyad 1 differed from dyad 2 in terms of the approach towards the usage being more in line with the suggested structure (elaborated on in the presentation of doings) and wording (elaborated on in the presentation of sayings) of the tools. In dyad 2, the suggested structure was approached more creatively and the tools appeared to inspire both structure and content; however, the components of the tools (guides for reflection and conversation) are generally adjusted and wordings rephrased. In the following account, we present the findings in accordance with the analytical categories, based on Kemmis (2022) to elaborate on the holistic approach to mentoring with tools.

Sayings

Categorizing sayings in the material, we looked for practices related to thinking and talking and identified four such categories. The first illustrates how theory-based terms – such as the four approaches to the teacher role (authoritarian, authoritative, democratic, and compliant) from the simulator tool or the seven aspects of effective teaching (caring, conferring, captivating, clarifying, consolidating, challenging, and classroom management) from the response tool – appear in conversations. In general, the empirical material reveals a rather extensive use of these terms. The following example illustrates how mentor and mentee utilise a term from the simulator tool to discuss the approaches to teaching, illustrating how precise terms from the tools can facilitate thinking and talking: ‘I feel that I manage the class because they listen to me, but also that I listen to them, I feel like I … ’ (PT2). The mentor completes her sentence: ‘You make room for the pupils’ voices. That you are not authoritarian’ (M2). Similarly, terms supplied in the response tools that denote aspects of effective teaching are frequently used, as the following quote illustrates: ‘The pupils report I am good at clarifying’ (PT2). PTs also apply tool terms in their development goals, for example, to ground the use of the video tools: PT1 selected consolidation as her development goal and PT2 selected captivate. In addition, both video-based conversations are characterised by being subject-specific, as the dyads elaborate on aspects specific to the subject. For example, PT1’s selected video clip showing a pupil conjugating a Spanish verb on the blackboard as a consolidation of the lesson inspired targeted conversation among mentor and PT on Spanish verbs.

The second sub-category identified talk regarding themes highlighted in the tools. In general, conversation contents were aligned with the topics suggested in tools. As mentioned earlier, there was an observed difference between the dyads in this matter. M1 used wordings directly from the tools, while talk in dyad 2 revealed adjusted wordings to a larger extent. For example, the response tool disclosed how pupils reported that PT2 was good at managing the class, and the mentor confirms her class management mastery: ‘When something is not right, you address the situation and take responsibility’ (M2). The PT replies: ‘That’s the way it is. Like taking pupils’ views and ideas into consideration’ (PT2). However, topics of importance to the actors, like upcoming tests for the pupils and formal evaluation of the PTs’ teaching competence were also evident in the material, illustrating how there is leeway to elaborate on and discuss other topics, even when embracing extensive use of tools.

The third sub-category highlights talk characterised by exploring the components introduced in the tools, like a shift in perspective to explore pupils’ understanding. This appears rather frequent in the material, particularly in the response tool. For example, dyad 2 discusses care-one of the competencies highlighted and defined in the response-tool – by elaborating on how to develop and sustain relations to pupils. M2 explains how he builds relations through the teaching subject, while his colleague who mentors the PT in her other subject, builds relations in the social arena. The mentor then asks the PT, ”Are you like the other teacher, or do you integrate your subject teaching and the relational?” (M2). ‘I think I am like your colleague. I think it is difficult, you want the relations to be good. But it can be at the cost of the pupil’s learning’ (PT2). The mentor challenges the mentee to elaborate on her thoughts on building relationships in the social arena, and they discuss how they think it important not to be a buddy to the pupils, but to be a teacher who draws clear lines and focuses on pupil learning. Moreover, in the video tool, such exploring by using tool components enables an in-depth examination. Dyad 2 uses the accompanying guide to the video tool as a means to explore pupils’ perspective: ‘From what we have seen, one of the questions was about … what do you think the pupils see?’ (M2). Prompted by the mentor, the mentee follows up by taking on the pupils’ perspective regarding how she thinks they experienced her teaching in the video.

The last category is talk characterised by exploring or challenging beliefs, and this appears less frequent in the material. After using the decision simulator, PT1 explains her results related to the teacher role to the mentor: ‘The authoritative, I got that three times, then two democratic, and once I got compliant.’ The mentee expresses that she believes authoritative is an accurate description of her as a teacher, while compliant is not. However, the mentor challenges her twice to elaborate on her choice that resulted in the simulator characterising her as compliant. The second time she does this is by insisting, ‘But what do you think about the compliant?’ (M1). The PT replies by explaining what she experienced in the simulator, ‘I was thinking, I was a bit unsure, I wanted to think about it’ (PT2), referring to her decision regarding how to act in one of the scenarios. The mentor follows up by saying, ”So, then you were classified as compliant in the simulator, but you were thinking to take action after reflecting?” (M1). The mentee confirms simply with ”yes” (PT1). This conversation excerpt illustrates the mentor’s stepwise approach to challenging the PT’s pondering on her actions to illustrate that while the teacher’s role is intense in nature, waiting to act or taking time to think in a classroom can be interpreted as being compliant.

Doings

Findings coded as doings are related to actions or work that illuminate what mentors and mentees do with the tools in the mentoring conversations. Here, we identified three sub-categories. The first identifies conversation that assume structures that correspond to those implied in the tools. Overall, the PTs prepared for conversations by collecting outcomes from the tools as preparation for mentoring, like the preferred teacher role in the simulator. The response tool and the video tool involved other actors. The response tool required the pupil’s feedback and the video tool required pupil’s consent before filming and mentors to record the video. In general, mentoring sessions begin by PTs inviting mentors to examine outcomes from the tools or watch the video clip. However, there are exceptions; the conversation based on the decision simulator for dyad 2 began by PT2 realizing she should have prepared in advance, upon which both she and her mentor entered the simulator online. The following conversation was led by the PT who both answered and explored the self-reflection component of the tool, but they did not use the template suggested for the actual conversation. Conversations in dyad 1 are characterised by being in line with the structures suggested by the tools. However, although more adapted, these structures are also recognisable in dyad 2’s conversations. The consolidation of the mentoring conversations is similar, even though the approaches are different. Both dyads appear to end the conversations when they experience that they had spent sufficient time on the tools; however, the time span varies, dyad 1, for example, spent 40 minutes on discussing the video, while dyad 2 spent 19 minutes.

The second sub-category is about the use of content from the different tool components, like questions and topics introduced in the tools. Characteristically a reading out of questions from the tools, rephrasing them or by elaboration or exploration of topics highlighted in the tools. All conversations were characterised by including tool content. For example, M1 follows the order of the questions in the discursive tool, occasionally rephrasing it like a direct question (‘What did you experience that you mastered in the video clip’) and at other times reading the question/thematical suggestion out loud (‘What resources did the preservice teacher draw upon when experiencing mastering a situation?’). Elaboration on content is exemplified in dyad 1 after the above referred excerpt regarding how PT1 scored compliant on a scenario in the decision simulator because she wanted time to think. The dyad elaborates upon and discuss for approximately ten minutes about how the scenario involving pupils being late for class could have potentially played out if she acted instead. They then proceed to discuss how this is not a challenge in their Spanish class. In PT1’s other practicum class, however, this is a problem and they explore how the PT can address this challenge.

The last sub-category focuses on the sharing of results from the tools. Because the PTs have ownership to and sole access to the outcomes, they choose whether and how to show them to their mentors, upon which the dyad decide how proceed to use the outcomes. In the two dyads, mentees initiate sharing of outcomes typically at the beginning of the conversation by adjusting PC screens so the two can look at the outcomes or videos. An example of this is PT2 sharing outcomes from the response tool saying: ‘You can see for yourself. It’s not something secret. This is what it looks like.’

Relatings

Relatings are practices realised in the medium of solidarity and power and illustrate relationships between actors or between actors and relevant aspects of the world, such as tools used in conversations. This category has three sub-categories: the first is practices interpreted as expressions of mentee empowerment. Throughout the material, PTs initiate the structure of conversations by bringing the dyads’ attention to the tools, as they are the ones who have both collected the outcomes from the tool and are the owners of them. For example, PT2 says ‘Let me get my screen shot,’ referring to the charts from the response tool. The theoretical grounding of the tools in the accessible reading resources are found to potentially empower the mentees. In dyad 1, when discussing the decision simulator, M1 asks about the categories of the different teacher roles displayed on her PC screen: ‘There is one authoritarian and?’ In response, PT1 turns M1’s PC around to view it and to explain the theoretical terms that she knows from the guides and the additional reading resources and which gives her an upper hand in the situation. The mentees’ access to theory/knowledge of the terms can challenge traditional ideas regarding mentors experiences and insights as superior, as described by Garza et al. (2019).

The second sub-category is denoted as co-operation understood as conversation characterised by mentees and mentors co-operating and helping each other, for example, to interpret and use resources presented by tools. This occurred frequently in the conversations. In dyad 2, after PT2 has accessed her screenshot, she explains how she had some technical problems with the response tool. Her response froze so that she appeared to score herself higher for a few of the items than she actually did; she expresses concern that this will appear like she has little insight into her competencies, particularly when they are compiled with the pupils’ responses. The mentor replies, ‘It is exciting to see what we get from the response tool … we will just have to compensate for it. What did the pupils report?’ Here, the mentor suggests they can still use the outcome of the tool to anchor relevant discussions regarding her teaching competencies, and they resolve this by the mentee filling in verbally to compensate for the errant scores in the compilation.

The last sub-category is tool assessment, understood as conversation characterised by the participants expressing perceived possibilities and challenges related to the tools. Generally, the conversations indicate that once eventual technical obstacles have been handled, the tools were easy to integrate into conversations and provided opportunities for reflection and going into the depths of themes from the tool components. However, in dyad 2, they met twice about the video tool, and only the second time the video was accessible from the application. The mentor asks the PT whether the video will be ready soon, the PT replies ‘Let’s hope so,’ as she is waiting for technical assistance to access it online after having edited it according to GDPR. This can be pertinent to understand tool-driven practices in light of the notion of power, illustrating mentees’ empowered role as owners of outcomes and control over when it can be used. However, the quote also illustrates how the use of tools can entail transfer of power out of the mentoring dyad if technological challenges appear.

Discussion

The presented findings demonstrate the characteristics of practicum mentoring with research-based tools; the decision simulator tool, the response tool, and the video tool. In mentoring conversations in practicum, the project (Kemmis et al., 2014) could typically be understood as supporting the PTs’ professional development. In this study, we introduced tools for mentoring to enhance such effort. For the actors; mentors and PTs, however, attempting to use the tools in their mentoring conversations could be a more accurate description of how they perceived the project. By contrasting these alternative perceptions of underlying projects, the TPA helps us illustrate and become aware of a possible challenge related to the investigated design – the introduction of tools can both enhance and challenge the primary goal of mentoring. Awareness of such possible challenges in a project is also addressed by M2 in the interview. He reported that though he found the tools very useful, the tools might add complexity to an already complex mentoring practice. Such insight is also supported by extant research (Brondyk & Searby, 2013; Payne & Huffman, 2005).

Denoting the tools as arrangements in accordance with the TPA served to reveal how the tools grounded in theory and research appear to prefigure the observed sayings and implies that tools mould actors’ thinking and speech. Proof of this is found in the PTs and mentors actively using and referring to terms concerning the different teacher roles (authoritarian, authoritative, democratic, and compliant) from the decision simulator, and terms from the response tool, like consolidate in dyad 1 and captivate in dyad 2, terms that were followed up in the video tool conversations. Consequently, research is both directly and indirectly visible in practice with tools and corroborates how Cain et al. (2019) proposed research can inform teachers’ actions and practices.

The usage of tool terms could be pertinent to developing an accurate professional language. In the video tool, the PTs are encouraged to take on and reflect on the pupils’ perspective. This indicates an aspect of the tools as providers of terms and perspectives relevant to explore and going into depth of teaching practices. Moreover, in the interviews the PTs explain how they prepared for mentoring by exploring the vocabulary on teacher competencies accompanying the response tool. Earlier research has indicated that mentors perceive it to be challenging to employ theory in mentoring (Lejonberg et al., 2018), and mentors may perceive research-based language as a barrier (Andreasen, 2023). Our findings, however, imply that tools can be a leverage to integrate theoretical terms in mentoring practices.

Focusing on doings drew our attention to activities that we interpreted as being enabled by the tools and how the participants worked with tools. From the findings, the tools appear to prompt activities and actions, both before and during mentoring conversations. The interviews illuminate how the tools afford the two PTs’ preparation to mentoring by conducting the decision simulator, self-reporting, attending a four-hour GDPR course, collecting responses in the response tool, and collecting consent for video recording. Mentors tried out the decision simulator and engaged in video recording. In sum, the doings prompted by the tools prefigured and gave structure to conversations, access to research- and theory-based questions and themes to drive conversations and individualized PT results that could be shared with the mentors. Preparing and using tools in the mentoring conversations also draw on resources like technological assistance and time, which implies that it can constrain other aspects that should be encompassed in mentoring or limiting the range of approaches to mentoring that mentors may want to apply.

Examining relatings indicated how tools can influence the interconnectedness between actors and actors and tools. As both mentors and PTs take the simulator, the tool becomes a common reference used in investigation of different approaches to the teacher’s role. Such an interplay between the actors themselves and the tools can be understood as a co-creation of new practices. Such features also become visible, for example, when PTs shared their results or videos with the mentors. This approach to understanding practices can be seen as a move away from the practitioner’s traditional way of thinking and referring to practice as individualised and towards a systemic view on practice by acknowledging the complexity of human interaction (Kvernbekk, 2014). This demands a shift in understanding from ‘my practice’ to ‘our practice’ (Kvernbekk, 2014, p. 198).

Focusing on relatings also illuminated how the use of tools demand mentors and mentees to relate to new components outside the dyad. When the mentor and PT come across technical issues, they helped each other out, but mentees also consulted technicians at the university when they encountered technical issues they were not able to solve at school. Such practices can hamper the primary project of contributing to mentees’ professional development. However, such practices can also prompt co-operation and mentee empowerment. Moreover, interview data indicate how tools can drive mentee empowerment, which relates to well-known challenges of mentors’ perspectives being the ones promoted in mentoring (Garza et al., 2019). M2 addresses how the use of tools can aid symmetry and help enhance conversation on promoting mentees’ perspectives:

It was a bit of a challenge for me as a mentor to which degree I should intervene and say what I think and then there are her reflections. We maybe managed to find a middle way by aid of the tools. Because that is one of the things I still find challenging, how much should you mentor on the PT’s premises and how much should you set the agenda yourself. I think that is difficult in the role as a mentor. And with the tools, then I skipped that conflict. Because there is a lot to discuss from what we see. We have some outcomes, we have something tangible.

(M2)

This finding of a middle way together, is corroborated by PT2, who reported in the interview that using the tools gave her more time to speak in the conversations than she usually did, pointing out ‘Teachers like to talk, you know’ (PT2).

Limitations

For all categorisations as in this analysis, there are challenges related to oversimplification. Grounding the understanding of our empirical data in the TPA notions of sayings, doings, and relatings calls for care related to interpretation of the categorisations. For example, both observations of what the participants did and what they said provide insight into what was categorised as relatings. When the actors interact with words, use body language, and use the tools, like when they sit beside each other during a mentoring conversation and watch a video, it can all be interpreted in light of sayings, doings, and relating. This implies that the categories are enmeshed; however, for the purpose of identifying the characteristics of mentoring with tools, they were examined separately.

Another challenge relates to how we interpret the occurrence of components from the tools in the data, as we cannot be certain that these components are found in the conversations because of the use of the tools. We are aware of uncertainties related to research designs as the one presented here. However, this contribution assumes that such an occurrence could be real. Questions posed by mentors during conversations like ‘what do you notice now in your recorded teaching video that you did not see before’ are clear indications of rephrased questions from the resources in the video tool. A question like ‘what would you like to develop in your teaching?’, however, is found in the accompanying tool guides, at the same time it is a question likely to be posed in mentoring that aims at professional development for PTs. The identified mentee empowerment or co-operation of PT and mentor are not necessarily prompted by the tools. In this matter, the interviews have been valuable as secondary data, exemplified by M2’s above elaboration on his reflection on how mentoring with tools differ from his usual mentoring without tools.

Conclusion

We investigated what characterises mentoring practices with the use of tools in a holistic approach to practicum mentoring. The findings indicate how due to their set up and content, tools prefigure the sayings, doings, and relating of PTs and mentors. The outcomes from the decision simulator, the response tool, and the video tool with their accompanying components comprising the tool packages provided structure to the following up conversations. Moreover, the tool components allowed for elaboration upon and follow-up on the different aspects of the interconnected tools over time; thus, mentoring with tools appears to offer a holistic approach to mentoring. However, future research could examine how the different tools interplay with and build upon each other.

The investigated tools are flexible, enabling the actors to critically adjust their usage in accordance with their professional judgement. How flexible or rigid tools should be to serve the intended purpose of enhancing mentoring, however, could be investigated in future research. The presented evidence also indicates that using the investigated tools demands GDPR-training, and draws on resources like technological support, thus further research could examine mentees and mentors’ experienced relevance of using different sets of tools to identify whether what they gain with tools is rewarding.

By introducing and focusing theoretical concepts, encourage PTs’ reflection on different aspects of their teaching practice, facilitating matching the PTs conception of their own teaching with both mentors’ and pupils’ conceptions and by challenging mentees on taking the pupils’ perspective, the tools appear to inspire going into depth. Mentoring with tools thus potentially provides new perspectives in practicum mentoring. Applying research-based tools in mentoring presents a means for research and theory to have a bearing on mentoring practices. Thus, tools can be a leverage to change and present new building blocks to a new architecture of mentoring practices. Moreover, the study reveals that introducing tools in practicum mentoring can contribute to answering calls for teacher education institutions to contribute to mentor preparation and creating a stronger theoretical framework for mentoring.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Forskningsrådet (The Norwegian research Council) under Grant (283536).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the The Research Council of Norway [283536].