Conference Agenda

For some years now, the discourse on professionalization theory has been revitalized by explanations and reflections on the teacher habitus (Helsper 2018, 2019). In his concept Helsper has mapped the importance of school biography and family milieu for the later genesis of the teacher habitus. Following this theory, school experiences form a first “silhouette of a teacher habitus” (Helsper 2018, 125) or "raw forms and images of the teacher" (Kramer and Pallesen, 2019, p.81), including orientations towards school, teachers and learning that are mostly implicit and not reflected.
Thinking this theoretical idea further, as we do in our project „Mentor teachers as teacher trainers – identifying the requirements for a dual Professional task“, we postulate the connection between one's own teacher training experience and the development of a teacher trainer habitus. In doing so, we are following a research desideratum, because so far there are only a few reconstructive studies that empirically examine the mentor teachers‘ implicit orientations and understanding of training (Leineweber 2022, Zorn, 2020, Kosinar & Laros, 2019, Fraefel, Bernhardsson-Laros & Bäuerlein, 2018). Their results illustrate the differences in training between the mentor teachers which range from demonstration to enabling experience, from close support to co-constructive cooperation.
In our project we try to find out more about the biographical backgrounds that lead to these different ideas and implicit orientations. Our own preliminary interview studies with 12 mentor teachers in primary schools confirm a connection between their own experiences with mentor teachers during their training, whose approach is set as a positive and negative counter-horizon (e.g. forms of giving feedback, helping in difficult situations, preparing lessons etc.). These experiences served as a blueprint for their own training activities (Laros et al., i.p.). Considering that mentor teachers during internships are of great importance for the teacher students, and that their orientations influence future teachers immensely (Oelkers, 2009) it is all the more important to set an eye on these relations.
In our current project, the sample of the experienced mentor teachers is part of a larger sample in a project consisting of two sub-studies. As a second research interest we try to find out to what extent the orientations of experienced mentor teachers were connected to their teacher habitus. We examine experienced mentor teachers (N = 12) through interviews and different training situations (1. lesson debriefing, 2. lesson planning, 3. feedback and assessment) that were audiographed.
In our presentation, we will first introduce the theoretical concept of the teacher habitus by using a model (Kosinar, 2023) to better describe the connections of the different habitus figures (Helsper 2018) and processes. Two contrastive cases will be introduced to show how the connections to one's own teacher training experience become empirically verifiable and visible. With the results, we strive for concrete insights into the influence of training experiences and put them in relation to the concepts of the university. As mentioned, the orientations of the mentor teachers are very different, but also very stable, as Leineweber (2022) found in a longitudinal study. This is followed by questions about the quality of training and opportunities to reflect on one's own action-guiding orientations and norms.

The aim of this study is to get a deeper understanding of how Norwegian school-based mentors experience collaboration in field practice. Teacher education takes place at two learning arenas: campus and practice schools (Dahl et al., 2016). A close collaboration between these arenas is crucial for pre-service teachers´ professional development (Lillejord & Børte, 2014; Munthe et al., 2020; Zeichner, 2010). “Third space” is used when the activity with the involved parts is described (Zeichner, 2010). A successful third space involves actors with different competencies that are willing to merge their cultures (Zeichner, 2010). Despite good intentions, both national and international studies shows that pre-service teachers struggle to find coherence between the arenas (Canrinus et al., 2017; Smith, 2016; Ulvik et al., 2021).

Also, in Norway the weak coherence has been offered attention, and several changes have been done to improve Norwegian teacher education (Klemp & Nilssen, 2017). One example is when the Norwegian government in 2010 decided that school-based mentors should have at least 15 European Credit Transfer Credits [ETC] in mentoring to be qualified as teacher educators in schools (Ministry of Education and Research, 2016). Another example is that the school-based mentor, campus-based mentor, and principals together are responsible for assessing the pre-service teachers (Ministry of Education and Research, 2010). In addition, national guidelines for partnerships for stable and mutually developing collaborations between school and university are developed (Ministry of Education and Research, 2017).

Guided by the research question How does school-based mentors experience collaboration in field practice? this case study is a contribution to get insight of the situation of school-based mentors at two study programs at one university in Norway. A mixed method approach gave insight in how the participants experienced the collaboration in field practice. The factor analysis revealed four factors of importance: general attitudes towards the schoolyear, being part of a field-based practice school, the assessment, and the collaboration with the university. These factors give directions for the discussion, where the qualitative results contribute with in-depth information of what the school-based mentors think will help reducing the gap. First: the school-based mentors were experienced, both as teachers and school-based mentors. Most of them worked at schools with two or more school-based mentors. They were overall satisfied with their own effort, and they highly valued their own mentoring competence. Nevertheless, less than half of them had the required ECTs in mentoring. Second: The results revealed a broad variation on how the school-based mentors experienced collaboration about field practice at their schools. While some described tight collaboration with their colleagues preparing for field practice, others longed for school-leaders that could prioritize being leader of a practice school.

Third: Even if they were standing alone with the assessment, they did not critically evaluate the situation. The participants found this part of the job easy. Fourth: the collaboration with the university. This category consists of two parts: collaboration with administrative tasks and the campus-based mentor. Even if a major part of the participants were satisfied with the information they received, the results were clear that there is no collaboration between campus and the school-based mentors. Campus controls which and when information is delivered, and the school-based mentors become passive recipients. In addition, the school-based mentors also put attention on technological programs that are used in field practice, highlighting the importance of programs that should be easily accessible. The results showed a variation of how the school-based mentors collaborated with campus-based mentors. If the collaboration with campus-based mentor should work out, this person must be interested in field practice and have a relationship with the pre-service teachers.

In the context of the Swiss single-phase pre-service teacher training, student teachers transition into working as fully qualified primary and secondary classroom teachers after three and five years of studies respectively. Internships in schools form the central basis of their practical experience for their future teaching and are accompanied by mentor teachers, who play a crucial role in students’ professional development. On the other hand, mentor teachers must navigate their various professional roles and balance their obligations to their schools and the teacher education institutions, which is a complex situation.

For quite some time now, The Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education (EDK) has been calling for a paradigm shift that leaves the concept of “master and apprentice” behind and focuses on a co-constructive and scientific-based approach to the collaboration between mentor-teacher and intern (Leder, 2011). Depending on the canton and university, new mentor teachers complete specific qualification programs, which prepare them for their new professional role and strive to initiate this paradigm shift. Nevertheless, empirical studies (Fraefel, Bernhardsson-Laros, Bäuerlein, 2017, Leineweber, 2022) show that most participants tend to reproduce traditional practices of mentor teaching. This may be related to the fact that their implicit orientiations are deeply anchored in individual biographical experiences and thus not easily malleable.

This is where our SNF-funded research project “Mentor teachers as teacher trainers” (PraLeB) comes into play as a longitudinal study aimed to reconstruct such implicit orientations. New mentor teachers (N=20) from two Swiss universities are followed over a period of several years from the beginning of the qualification program during several phases of accompanying internships. xxx

In our contribution we will look at (future) mentor teachers at different points in time as they take on a second professional role as teacher trainers – in addition to their first professional role as classroom teachers. Using contrastive case studies, we will first shed light on mentor teachers’ retrospective biographical experiences during their own pre-service training as students: What do they refer to as central for their own professional development? What role models in terms of mentor teachers guide their thinking? We will give an insight into their preconceptions and anticipated role of themselves as mentor teachers before they start working with interns for the first time. What is their understanding of professional development? What do they expect from students and what benefits do they expect for themselves? We will then reconstruct their first experiences as new mentor teachers. What do they see as crucial in their first experiences with students? In what ways were their expectations challenged?

In our discussion we will outline connections that can be drawn between their own biographical experiences with mentor teachers and their newly experienced professional role. We will reconstruct in what ways their existing frames of thinking were confirmed as well as challenged during their first experiences working with students.