Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:30:17 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
01 SES 02 B
Paper Session
| ||
    | ||
01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper Knowing and Acting: The development of professional learning of School Leaders through Mentoring University of WolverhamptonR, United Kingdom Presenting Author:Leadership development in schools play an imperative role in driving school improvement, Hattie (2012) points out that school leadership can make the second biggest impact on learner outcomes in schools. Post- pandemic, school leaders, and in particular senior leaders, are stepping away from leadership roles more often, which highlights the importance of capacity building in leadership (Breslin, 2020). However, due to the challenges in schools, leaders often need to develop their own skills to provide mentoring and coaching support to those they lead (Oberholzer and Boyle, 2024). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This qualitative case study, investigates, how developing school leaders’ ability to mentor future leaders within their schools enable their teams to develop capacity, but also supports teacher retention. The study aimed to investigate this phenomenon, with the aim to understand how mentoring can play a significant role in developing leaders’ professional learning, and their understanding of the professional learning of others, to enable them to support their teams, to help them to make the most of their talents. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews, as well as focus groups, to help evaluate and understand the lived experiences of school leaders as they were developing their mentoring skills, and supporting that of others. The data were thematically analysed drawing on Braun and Clarke’s (2020) 6 phase model. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The data revealed that by engaging in mentoring, and modelling the behaviour leaders wanted to foster in their teams, they were able to not only develop future leaders, but develop strategic leadership practices within their teams, and open a co-constructive professional learning opportunity for future leaders to collaborate with leaders. Modelling, feedback, and continuous support led to significant growth and capacity building of future leaders. The study emphasises that due to the changing conductions in education, mentoring can be a valuable intervention to help take action to develop others to develop as future leaders through their professional learning journeys. References References: Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2). pp.77–101. ISSN 1478–088. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Oxon: Routledge. Oberholzer, L. & Boyle, D. (2023). Mentoring and coaching in education: A guide to coaching and mentoring teachers at every stage of their careers. UK: Bloomsbury 01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper Beyond Support: Mentor Education and the Potential of Teacher Preparation 1: University of Melbourne, Australia; 2: Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway Presenting Author:The purpose of this study is to critically examine the transformative potential of mentor education within teacher preparation programs, moving beyond the conventional framing of mentoring as merely supportive or relational. Drawing on the theoretical frameworks of Biesta (2013) and Freire (1970), we interrogate the ethical, epistemological, and civic dimensions of education, arguing that mentor education must be reconceptualised as a vehicle for democratic renewal and societal change. Biesta’s concept of educational responsibility challenges educators to consider not only the transmission of knowledge and skills but also the cultivation of subjectivity and citizenship. In this light, mentoring is not simply a technical or interpersonal act; it is a moral project that situates mentors as agents of transformation within learning communities. Freire’s dialogic pedagogy further enriches this perspective, emphasizing the importance of critical reflection, dialogue, and praxis in fostering emancipatory educational experiences. By integrating these philosophical foundations, our study positions mentor education as a site for the development of reflective practitioners who are equipped to navigate the complexities of contemporary education and contribute to the broader civic mission of schooling. Despite the increasing emphasis on structured mentoring frameworks and reflective practice, our comparative analysis of mentors from two universities reveals a persistent gap: mentors rarely articulate an understanding of education as a transformative endeavor. This absence underscores the need for mentor education programs that explicitly foreground the purpose of education and empower mentors to enact change at both the individual and societal levels. We contend that such programs must move beyond procedural competence to embrace mentoring’s role in fostering democratic values, ethical engagement, and social transformation. In doing so, mentor education can become a catalyst for reimagining teacher preparation as a process that not only prepares teachers for the classroom but also equips them to participate in the ongoing project of democratic renewal. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employs a qualitative, comparative research design to investigate the impact of mentor education on conceptualizations of mentoring in teacher education. Data were collected from mentors participating in structured mentoring education programs at two institutions: Norwegian University of Science and Technology) and the University of Melbourne. The research sample comprised mentors with varying levels of experience, representing diverse educational contexts and disciplinary backgrounds. Data analysis was conducted using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) reflexive thematic analysis, a method well-suited to capturing the complexity and nuance of qualitative data. This approach involved iterative coding, theme development, and critical reflection, allowing for the identification of patterns and divergences across the two institutional contexts. Thematic analysis focused on key dimensions of mentoring, including reflective practice, relational safety, constructive challenge, theory-practice alignment, and the implementation of structured frameworks. Ethical considerations were addressed through informed consent, confidentiality, and authorised by the respective universities ethics procedures. The comparative nature of the study enabled the exploration of contextual influences on mentor education, highlighting both commonalities and unique challenges faced by mentors in different educational systems. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings of this study underscore the transformative potential of mentor education in teacher preparation, while also revealing critical gaps in the conceptualization of mentoring as a civic and moral endeavour. Structured education programs were shown to deepen mentors’ engagement with reflective practice, dialogic pedagogy, and the ethical dimensions of their role. However, the persistent absence of purpose in mentors’ narratives suggests that current approaches remain limited in scope, often privileging technical competence over democratic engagement. We argue that mentor education must be reimagined to explicitly address the civic mission of education, drawing on the philosophical insights of Biesta and Freire to cultivate mentors as transformative agents. Such a shift requires the integration of ethical reflection, dialogic praxis, and a commitment to societal change within mentoring frameworks. These insights have significant implications for the design of mentor education programs, policy development, and the broader conceptualisation of mentoring’s role in education. Future research should further explore the mechanisms by which mentor education can ensure that mentors are equipped to lead and inspire change within and beyond the classroom. References Biesta, G. (2013). The beautiful risk of education. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper Mentoring as a Professional Safe Space: How Mentor Qualification Shapes Mentoring Styles and Support Practices for Early Career Teachers 1: University of Teacher Education Lower Austria, Austria; 2: University of Teacher Education Vorarlberg, Austria; 3: University of Teacher Education Vienna, Austria; 4: University of Teacher Education Burgenland, Austria Presenting Author:Abstract: Mentoring is internationally regarded as a key professionalisation strategy for supporting early career teachers (ECTs) during their transition into autonomous professional practice (Heikkinen, 2020). Research has consistently highlighted the relevance of mentoring for professional learning, well-being, and retention in the early career phase, while also emphasising that mentoring constitutes a complex and demanding professional practice (Hobson et al., 2009; Carmi & Tamir, 2023). In Austria, mentoring has not only become firmly established as a central element of teacher induction but has increasingly developed into an independent field of professional teacher education (Dammerer et al., 2020). Newly entering teachers complete a mandatory twelve-month induction phase during which they are accompanied by a mentor (Prenzel et al., 2021). The legal framework defines mentoring as a structured form of professional support, including consultation on lesson planning and enactment, joint reflection on teaching and educational practices, and classroom observation. Recent reforms have removed the formal evaluative role of mentors, thereby strengthening mentoring as a primarily developmental and non-assessive practice (Zeilinger & Dammerer, 2024). At the same time, the professional demands placed on mentors have increased considerably. Mentors currently support highly heterogeneous groups of ECTs, including graduates of teacher education programmes, teachers who are still completing their studies while teaching, and individuals entering the profession through alternative or lateral pathways (Dammerer et al., 2025). These conditions challenge mentors to establish supportive relationships that are grounded in professional symmetry and mutual respect (Kraler et al., 2023) while addressing diverse developmental needs (Keller-Schneider, 2022). Due to ongoing staff shortages, it is not always possible to cover the demand for formally qualified mentors. As a result, transitional regulations currently allow teachers without specific mentoring education to be appointed as mentors if they are considered suitable based on professional experience and communicative competence. This situation has intensified discussions about the role of mentor education and its relevance for mentoring quality and professional practice. In Austria, mentors can complete different forms of qualification, ranging from short higher education programmes to comprehensive Master’s-level education in mentoring. These programmes vary substantially in scope and depth, but they share a common orientation towards mentoring as a professional, reflective, and relational practice. In particular, advanced mentor education emphasises counselling competence, professional reflection, communication, and the ability to support learning processes without exerting control. From a theoretical perspective, mentoring quality is closely linked to mentors’ professional orientations and interactional styles. Research on mentoring and professional learning highlights the importance of autonomy-supportive, learning-oriented, and non-directive approaches that create a low-evaluative and trust-based developmental space for ECTs (Frey et al., 2023). In contrast, directive or controlling mentoring practices may limit opportunities for agency, reflection, and professional growth. Against this background, the assumption guiding this study is that mentors’ level of qualification is associated with systematic differences in mentoring styles and forms of support. More specifically, mentors who have completed formal mentoring education are expected to enact more autonomy-supportive and less controlling mentoring practices, thereby shaping mentoring as a reflective professional safe space rather than a supervisory arrangement. This paper addresses this assumption by examining differences in mentoring styles and support practices among mentors with varying levels of qualification working with newly qualified teachers in the Austrian induction system. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Methodology: The findings presented in this paper draw on data collected in 2025 within the nationwide Austrian research project FoNeB (Research Network on Teacher Induction, 2023–2028). The project is designed as a quantitative longitudinal study employing repeated standardised questionnaire surveys of mentors working in the induction phase of teacher education (University Colleges of Teacher Education, 2025). The present analysis focuses on mentoring practices during the induction phase and relies on validated scales capturing mentoring style, mentoring collaboration, and forms of mentoring support. Further differentiated findings from this research programme have already been reported elsewhere (Dammerer et al., 2025; Haas et al., 2026). Addressing an existing research gap, the study examines the following research question: To what extent do mentors with different levels of qualification differ in their mentoring styles and in the forms of support they employ when working with early career teachers (ECTs)? To answer this question, mentors (N = 413) were surveyed using standardised instruments assessing forms of support, opportunities and contents of collaboration, and mentoring style. Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics. Group differences were examined by means of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA), applying a significance level of α = .05. Forms of mentoring support were operationalised using items adapted from Prenzel et al. (2021). Mentoring style was measured following Frey et al. (2023) and differentiated into learning-oriented, autonomy-supportive, and directive dimensions. The topics addressed in mentoring interactions were captured using items based on Brandau et al. (2017). All scales employed a five-point Likert scale. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Conclusions: The findings indicate that mentors’ level of qualification is associated with specific patterns of mentoring practice during the induction phase. In particular, a positive relationship emerges between mentors’ educational background and informal personal exchange without prior arrangement in physical presence. This finding points less to an increase in the overall amount of mentoring and more to differences in the ways mentoring relationships are structured and enacted. Furthermore, mentor education is significantly associated with the form of support “classroom observation: mentee observes the mentor,” with a comparatively stronger effect. This can be interpreted as an indication that formal qualification tends to foster more active and more structured forms of mentoring support. At the same time, overall satisfaction with mentoring remains largely comparable across qualification groups. This suggests that mentor education primarily influences the quality and configuration of mentoring practices rather than general evaluations of mentoring support. Initial findings also point to continuing areas for improvement, both in the organisation of mentoring support and in the perceived opportunities for collaboration. In particular, mentoring-related topics and the availability of time for support emerge as key tension points that are highly relevant to the quality of mentoring during the induction phase. Overall, the results underscore the importance of differentiated mentor qualifications, especially in comparison to mentors working in the induction phase without specific mentoring education. They provide important implications for mentor education and professional development, as well as for the evidence-informed further development of mentoring practices within the Austrian induction system. References Brandau, J., Studencnik, P., Schaupp, H. & Kopp-Sixt, S. (2018). Deutschsprachiges Mentoring-Stil-Inventar mit Fokus auf die Ausbildung von Lehrpersonen. In C. Reintjes, G. Bellenberg & G. im Brahm (Hrsg.), Mentoring und Coaching als Beitrag zur Professionalisierung angehender Lehrpersonen (S. 207–225). Waxmann. Carmi, T., & Tamir, E. (2023). An emerging taxonomy explaining mentor-teachers’ role in student-teachers’ practicum: What they do and to what end? Teaching and Teacher Education, 128, 104121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104121 Dammerer, J., Wiesner, C., & Windl, E. (Eds.). (2020). Mentoring im pädagogischen Kontext: Professionalisierung und Qualifizierung von Lehrpersonen (Wahrnehmen, wie wir bilden: Pädagogik für Niederösterreich, Vol. 10). Studienverlag. https://doi.org/10.53349/oa.2022.a2.120 Forschungsnetzwerk Berufseinstieg. (2023–2028). FoNeB – Der Berufseinstieg im Kontext der Lehrer*innenbildung. https://foneb.weebly.com/ Frey, A., Pichler, S., & Groß Ophoff, J. (2023). Unterstützen, Freiraum geben oder kontrollieren? Mentoring-Stile im Berufseinstieg. Erziehung & Unterricht, 7–8, 546–557. Haas, E., Dammerer, J., Glaeser, P., Rauschenberger, P., & Stipsitz, E. (2026). Mentoring in the induction phase: Effective mentoring for career starters in Austria – A gender comparison. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 14(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v14i1.7978 Heikkinen, H. L. T. (2020). Understanding Mentoring Within an Ecosystem of Practices. In K.-R. Olsen, E. M. Bjerkhot, & H. L. T. Heikkinen (Eds.), New Teachers in Nordic Countries : Ecologies of Mentoring and Induction (pp. 27-47). Cappelen Damm. https://doi.org/10.23865/noasp.105.ch1 Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A. & Tomlinson, P.D. (2009). Mentoring beginning teachers: What we know and what we don’t. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25 (1), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.001 Keller-Schneider, M. (2022). Anforderungen an Mentoratspersonen in der Induktion und der Bedarf an die eigene Professionalisierung. In C. Wiesner, E. Windl, & J. Dammerer (Hrsg.), Mentoring als Auftrag zum Dialog: Professionalisierung und Qualifizierung von Lehrpersonen (S. 133–144). Studienverlag. Kraler, C., Dammerer, J., Haas, C, Schreiner, C. & Wiesner, C. (2023). Professionalisierung durch Mentoring und Mentor*innenausbildung. In, Erziehung und Unterricht. Der Berufseinstieg von Lehrer*innen. Heft 7-8. ÖBV. (S.537-546). Pädagogische Hochschulen Österreichs. (Hrsg.) (2025). Berufseinstieg Lehramt. Beltz Juventa. https://doi.org/10.3262/978-3-7799-8765-9. Prenzel, M., Huber, M., Müller, C., Höger, B., Reitinger, J., Becker, M., Hoyer, S., Hofer, M., & Lüftenegger, M. (2021). Der Berufseinstieg in das Lehramt. Eine formative Evaluation der neuen Induktionsphase in Österreich. Waxmann. Zeilinger, H., & Dammerer, J. (2024). Mentoring zwischen Theorie und Praxis – Professionalisierungsprozesse im Berufseinstieg. In S. Pichler, A. Frey, L. Holzäpfel, F. Lipowsky, & K. Rincke (Hrsg.), Wie viel Wissenschaft braucht Lehrerinnenfortbildung – Wege der Professionalisierung* (S. 122–126). 01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper Towards a Pedagogy of Mentoring Across Professions: Insights from Focus Groups in Medical Education, Teacher Education and Clinical Psychology KU Leuven, Belgium Presenting Author:Mentoring is a favoured practice across many fields. All professional schools, from schools of medicine and education to clinical psychology and legal education are charged with preparing their students for professional practice. This is addressed through extended placements in field settings, with formal mentorship arrangements. Mentoring is typically defined as a dyadic relation between a seasoned expert in the field (the mentor) and a less experienced novice (the mentee) (Kram, 1985; Frei et al., 2010). It is a process in which a mentor sustains ongoing “relationships based on personal caring, emotional support and nurturing” while at the same time also “guiding, instructing, imparting knowledge, and challenging the novice” (Orland-Barak, 2014, p. 180). While the importance of mentored placements, from a programme perspective, is often primarily framed in terms of supporting students in translating theory to practice, there is a lot more at stake. Students are not only inducted into the profession’s core competencies, but also into the identities, values, ethical commitments and related notions of what it means to be a ‘good’ or ‘proper’ professional in their field of study (e.g., a good teacher, a good clinician, or a good lawyer). Making this explicit immediately highlights how complex and volatile mentoring practice is, as it cannot solely rely on instrumental expertise, but inherently involves relational, moral and ethical dimensions.
Existing mentoring research has struggled to adequately reflect these complexities in and through its theoretical and methodological choices. A recent meta-review of mentoring research (van der Kloot et al., 2025) demonstrates a strong focus (and reliance) on individual capacities and attributes of mentors and mentees. Such a focus is also visible in the surge of research on ‘effective mentoring’ (e.g., Crutcher & Naseem, 2015; Goldhaber et al., 2020) and the widespread development of mentor standards (Burns et al., 2016). Moreover, much of the existing research on mentoring remains siloed within professions, with separate networks, publication outlets, theoretical traditions and analytical vocabularies. This represents a missed opportunity for the further development of the pedagogy of mentoring, as many of the issues and challenges encountered in mentoring practice are shared across professions. At the same time, the fragmented state-of-the-art constitutes a missed opportunity for research, as it makes cumulative work more difficult and risks rendering research overly incremental (i.e., devoid from significance or impact). Moreover, confining research empirically to a single reality or setting prevents analytic leveraging of contrasts across professions in view of discovering relationships among mechanisms (theory) (Eisenhart & Graebner, 2007).
Against this backdrop, a large-scall research project on mentoring was initiated in 2021 in Flanders (Belgium) with a twofold ambition: 1) developing the theoretical and methodological resources to theorise mentoring as a relational phenomenon that emerges from the discursive constrains and resources in particular contexts; and 2) operationalising and validating this perspective through a comparative ethnographic case-study of mentoring practice in teacher education and medical education. In the final stage of the project, the outcomes of the ethnographic study were further refined in a series of focus group interviews with a larger number of mentors and students across different professions. This paper focusses on this final, and crucial, stage of the project.
The paper addresses the following questions:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The focus groups reported on in this paper, are part of a larger, multi-stage research project. In the first stage of the project, assumptions around mentoring as a relational, moral and ethical practice (see above) were translated into a discursive perspective, building on earlier work (o.a. Bruneel & Vanassche, 2023). More specifically, we combined insights from positioning theory (o.a. van Langenhove & Harré, 1998) and frame analysis (o.a. Benford & Snow, 2000). Together, these perspectives allow to account for the negation of mentors’ and students’ rights, duties, and relationships, as well as for how expectations and meanings of mentoring are (re)produced in practice. This theoretical-analytical framework subsequently informed ethnographic fieldwork in which seven mentoring dyads from medical education and teacher education were shadowed during an extended placement. This fieldwork informed the development of a guide for semi-structed focus group interviews (Wilkinson, 1998) with a larger number of mentors and students, recruited from medical education, teacher education and the adjoining field of clinical psychology. Focus groups were organised separately for mentors and for students, to avoid power asymmetries and to create a forum in which the perspectives and experiences of each group could be articulated openly. Within each profession, a total of eight to 12 mentors and eight to 12 students participated. The analysis of the focus group data was informed by the theoretical-analytical framework developed in the first stage of the larger project. This entailed close attention to the interaction between processes of positioning (i.e., the negotiation of rights, duties, and relationships) and framing (i.e., constructions of the purposes of and expectations for mentoring). After verbatim transcription, the data were coded inductively (using codes generated from the data by examining participants’ perspectives and experiences) and deductively (using the analytic concepts from the stage 1 framework). Following coding, the analysis proceeded through a nested case-study logic. In a first analytic phase, all mentors, regardless of profession, and all students, regardless of profession, were analysed together. This allowed for the identification of shared mechanisms across mentoring positions. In the second phase, all mentors and mentees within each profession were analysed together, enabling understanding of how these mechanisms were shaped by profession-specific contexts. In a final phase, a cross-case analysis was conducted to identify patterns and contrasts across professions, mentors and students. Memo-writing (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and constant comparison (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) were used to ensure the validity of findings. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Findings will be presented in the form of assertions for action and understanding, drawing on the work of Pinnegar and Hamilton (2009). These assertions are deliberately not formulated as “to-do’s” or “how-to’s”, as such formulations would negate the complexity of mentoring practice that this study aims to speak to. Instead, they function as heuristics for making sense of mentoring practices and for supporting more informed judgements for action. The forms of action addressed concern mentors and students, as well as programme coordinators and researchers committed to mentoring as a relationally sustained practice. 1) Mentoring arrangements enact a powerful hidden curriculum about what counts as a ‘good’ professional. This hidden curriculum is embedded in the structure, organisation and associated artefacts (e.g., portfolio templates, guidance for mentors and mentees) of placements, which privilege particular forms of acting, being and relating, and may unintentionally counteract the kinds of professionals programmes aim to educate. 2) The critical reflection required for students’ professional learning and development depends on a mentoring relationship that balances safety and challenge (see also Berry, 2008). 3) Mentoring relationships mediate not only learning processes (assertion 2), but also the perceived legitimacy of mentors’ expertise and advice. How students frame and respond to mentors’ contributions is shaped by the relational history between mentor and student, and the discursive negotiation of authority and trust. 4) The tension between assessment and support in mentoring is potentially productive for students’ learning and development when embedded in a relationship that adequately balances safety and challenge (assertion 2). Eliminating this tension (e.g., by formally excluding mentors from evaluation) risks obscuring its pedagogical potential. The assertations are elaborated in dialogue with empirical materials and relevant literature, in view of developing core principles of a pedagogy of mentoring that can inform future research and practice across professions. References Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639. Berry, A. (2008). Tensions in teaching about teaching: Understanding practice as a teacher educator. Springer. Bruneel, S., & Vanassche, E. (2023). Conceptualising triadic mentoring as discursive practice: Positioning theory and frame analysis. European Journal of Teacher Education, 46(4), 671-687. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1985456 Burns, R. W., Jacobs, J., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2016). Preservice teacher supervision within field experiences in a decade of reform. Teacher Education and Practice, 29(1), 46-75. Crutcher, P., & Naseem, S. (2016). Cheerleading and cynicism of effective mentoring in current empirical research. Educational Review, 68, 40-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2015.1058749 Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management, 50(1), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888 Frei, E., Stamm, M., & Buddeberg-Fischer, B. (2010). Mentoring programs for medical students: A review of the PubMed literature 2000-2008. BMC Medical Education, 10(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-32 Goldhaber, D., Krieg, J., Naito, N., & Theobald, R. (2020). Making the most of student teaching: The importance of mentors and scope for change. Education, Finance and Policy, 15(3), 581-591. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00305 Kram, K. E. (1985). Improving the mentoring process. Training and Development Journal, 39(4), 40-43. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage. Orland-Barak, L. (2014). Mediation in mentoring: A synthesis of studies in Teaching and Teacher Education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44(1), 180-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.011 Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research. Theory, methodology and practice. Springer. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications. van der Kloot, H., Driessen, E., & Vanassche, E. (2025). From discourses in mentoring literature to discourses in mentoring practice: A critical synthesis of mentoring research. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-2035. van Langenhove, L., & Harré, R. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harré & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action (pp. 14-31). Blackwell. Wilkinson, S. (1998). Focus group methodology: A review. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1(3), 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.1998.10846874 | ||