Conference Agenda

Across European scholarship, there is sustained recognition of a policy shift towards more practice-based models of initial teacher education (ITE) (Czerniawski et al., 2019; Gorman & Furlong, 2025; Murray et al., 2019; Skourdoumbis, 2017; Towers & Maguire, 2023). ITE policy within the Republic of Ireland (RoI) has explicitly aligned with this trajectory (Department of Education, 2023). Céim: Standards for Initial Teacher Education (Teaching Council, 2020) and Guidelines on School Placement (Teaching Council, 2013, 2021), two regularity policies for ITE, have led a drive in extending placements on all ITE programmes in the RoI. HEIs are required to have 30 weeks of school placement for undergraduate 4-year programmes and 24 weeks of school placement for postgraduate 2-year programmes. A national review of school placement in the RoI has flagged that this shift has significantly intensified the organisational and staffing demands associated with placement provision (Hall et al., 2018), with pressures exacerbated by the absence of a formalised HEI-school partnership model in ITE (Gorman & Furlong, 2025). Under Teaching Council policy (2020, 2021), HEIs are required to have placement tutors involved in school placement. These duties include observing student teachers’ practice, engaging in professional dialogue, and making summative judgements aligned with HEI standards. International research consistently highlights that while this work is critically important for student teacher development, it can be complex and emotionally demanding (Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2000; Haigh et al., 2013; Zeichner, 2021). Furthermore, and mirroring international trends, placement work within Irish HEIs (particularly universities) is undervalued within academic workload models and career structures, thus contributing to an increased reliance on part-time staff (Sugrue & Solbrekke, 2017; Zeichner, 2021). This part-time cohort consists mainly of retired teachers, principals, and former teacher educators. European research on teacher shortages has documented the growing re-engagement of retired teachers as a policy response to workforce pressures (Flores, 2025; Resch, 2025). While this literature has largely focused on classroom teaching, it also raises important questions for ITE, where retired educators also play a substantial role in placement activity.

Against this backdrop, this paper is guided by the following research question:

1. How do retired teachers and principals make sense of their post-retirement engagement in school placement activity?
2. What does their involvement reveal about the sustainability of contemporary ITE placement models in the RoI?

These questions invite analysis of how retired educators interpret their roles, identities, and responsibilities in placement work, while also examining what the growing reliance on retired educators suggests about the organisation and resourcing of school placement within ITE.

This paper conceptualises placement work as a form of post-retirement professional practice and draws on theoretical insights from retirement studies. In particular, the paper is informed by Wang and Shultz’s (2010) theoretical framework, which theorises retirement as a non-linear process shaped by individual decision-making, adjustment over time, career development, and organisational practices. Wang and Shultz (2010) conceptualise retirement as an individual decision-making process, foregrounding agency and motivation. The framework conceptualises retirement as an adjustment process involving the renegotiation of roles, authority, and work practices. Wang and Shultz also frame retirement as a career development stage rather than a period of withdrawal. From this perspective, retired work constitutes a distinct late-career role, where authority is derived from accumulated experience and professional judgement rather than formal position. Finally, the framework foregrounds organisational and policy dimensions, conceptualising retirement as a human resource issue shaped by recruitment practices and short-term contractual arrangements. This perspective is particularly salient given the flexible and often precarious arrangements through which retired placement tutors are engaged in Irish HEIs, raising questions about recognition, support, and long-term sustainability.

Teaching practicums offer student teachers authentic opportunities to explore the nature of teaching, apply knowledge developed during their studies, and assess their suitability for the profession prior to formal entry into the workforce.. Time spent in classrooms— working closely with school-based teacher educators (SBTEs) and engaging in supported reflection on teaching experiences—are consistently identified as among the most critical elements of teacher preparation (Andreassen et al., 2019; Clarke et al., 2014). In many countries, student teachers now spend more time in schools during their training than in previous decades (Darling-Hammond, 2017). As a result, the role of SBTEs—who guide teacher candidates’ learning through a dynamic interplay of “showing and telling, asking and listening” (van Ginkel et al., 2016, p. 101)—has become increasingly central to teacher preparation.

Despite their pivotal role, SBTEs—also referred to as cooperating, mentor, or collaborating teachers—remain conceptually underdefined and often contested within teacher education research and practice (Rakes et al., 2023). SBTEs occupy a dual position as both first-order practitioners, responsible for teaching pupils, and second-order practitioners, responsible for educating future teachers (Murray & Male, 2005). This duality generates inherent tensions and may impede the development of a coherent teacher educator identity, which has been shown to be crucial for effectiveness in the role (Andreassen et al., 2019). While prior research has examined how SBTEs are prepared and supported to manage these tensions (Parker et al., 2021), considerably less attention has been paid to how they are recruited. This gap is striking, given that the recruitment of SBTEs—alongside targeted professional learning—has been identified as a key lever for ensuring the quality of future teacher education (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Heikonen et al., 2017).

This study addresses this omission by examining the role of mentoring expertise in the recruitment of SBTEs. The study is situated in Finland, a context internationally recognised for its research-based initial teacher education and long-standing tradition of university-affiliated teacher training schools. In these schools, SBTEs are recruited specifically for positions that combine classroom teaching with the mentoring of student teachers during supervised practicums. Because mentoring is an integral component of the role from the outset, this study asks: What role does mentoring expertise play in the recruitment of school-based teacher educators in Finnish teacher training schools?

By addressing this question, the study contributes to two underdeveloped areas of scholarship: research on teacher recruitment, which remains limited (Klassen & Kim, 2019), and literature on teacher educators, which has “focused primarily on how they perceive themselves as professionals” (Richter et al., 2021, p. 1). By foregrounding employer perspectives, the study deepens understanding of SBTE work and offers insights into recruitment practices that have previously been described as “haphazard” (Parker et al., 2021, p. 66).

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role played by university-based teacher educators [UBTEs] in the students’ practical training in schools, when collaborating with students and school-based teacher educators [SBTEs]. This paper does so through following research question: How do inexperienced university-based teacher educators describe their own role when faced with the field of practice, by taking part in the student's development in practice?

A close connection between the theoretical knowledge taught at universities and the practical training that takes place in school classrooms is considered essential for high‑quality teacher education in international policy documents (European Union, 2014; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2019). Similarly, both international and Norwegian research on teacher education emphasizes the importance of a close and reciprocal relationship between universities and schools (Zeichner, 2010; Smith, 2016). However, Zeichner (2021) argues that such partnerships are often idealized because underlying power relations remain unidentified, and Manton and colleagues (2021) note that their long-term sustainability has not been sufficiently established in research. Therefore, Norwegian strategies argue that enhancing a close collaboration between UBTEs, SBTEs and students is important to improve such partnerships (Cochran-Smith et al., 2020).

In the Norwegian context, the university holds the final responsibility for students’ practical training in schools, which underscores the UBTE’s role in facilitating collaboration between UBTEs, SBTEs, and students. However, the UBTE role includes multiple responsibilities, and little training is typically provided to prepare for them (MacPhail et al., 2019). Consequently, new and inexperienced UBTEs express a need for stronger support systems and more systematic preparation for fulfilling the role (Kalgraf & Lindhardt, 2018; Langørgen & Smith, 2018). At the same time, research on the UBTE role is often based on descriptions provided by SBTEs and students, while the perspectives of UBTEs themselves are less frequently represented (Manton et al., 2021).

Even though research and policy emphasize the need for close collaboration between UBTEs, SBTEs, and students during practical training, studies have identified several challenges within the triad. Nguyen (2009) describes ongoing negotiations of power relations, Klemp and Nilssen (2017) point to unclear roles and communication difficulties, and Valencia et al. (2009) highlight tensions between the members of the triad. At the same time, the UBTE role involves taking on multiple responsibilities in relation to students’ practice, such as coach, gatekeeper, and broker (Dengerink et al., 2015). Together, these findings illustrate the complexity of enacting the UBTE role in school-based training and show that establishing a close triad collaboration is not easily recontextualised in practice.

Bernstein (2000) has developed a theoretical framework for understanding the relationships between agents and discourses in pedagogic practices, and how relations of power and control are in play within these relations. Central to his theory is the concept of the pedagogic device, which explains how the educational system is structured through rules and procedures that regulate educational practice and communication. A key aspect of this theory is the notion of a recontextualising field, which comprises recontextualising agents and functions. In this paper, the role of the UBTE is examined as a recontextualising agent within the triad collaboration. This perspective enables an analysis of how relations of power and control are in play within the triad, and thereby offers insight into what characterizes the role of the UBTE in practice.

The supervised teaching practice period is internationally known as one of the most crucial and challenging elements for student teachers’ professional development in teacher education (Caires et al., 2012; A. Clarke et al., 2014). The teaching practice periods are arenas for bridging the theory–practice gap (Mankki et al., 2025), and for the students’ commitment to the teaching profession (Kantonen et al., 2020; Sandvik et al., 2019). The supervising teachers guides the teaching practice, act as role models for teaching, and provides support and constructive feedback on students’ lesson planning and teaching (A. Clarke et al., 2014; Huong et al., 2025). Therefore, school-based supervising teachers have a central role in teacher education when supporting student teachers in their professional development, but to support students, they must be secure in their own professional identity (Hudson, 2013).

We know from prior studies that tension affect the professional identity development (Williams et al., 2012) and school-based supervising teachers experience tensions related to their dual professional identities as teachers and teacher educators (Andreasen et al., 2019). Previous research also indicate that school-based supervisors tend to prioritise their teacher role over their teacher educator role (Sandvik et al., 2019). While this is understandable, it still challenges the role of supporting students’ professional development. Therefore, the aim of this research was to enrich the understanding of practice supervision from school-based supervising teachers’ point of view, by examining their conceptions about the supervision process in terms of content and experienced tensions. In addition, supervision orientations (Vehviläinen, 2022) and personal practical theories (Maaranen et al., 2016) were examined as theoretical models for supporting both the supervision process and the challenges that occurred. Vehviläinen (2022) suggest that there are four orientations; teaching orientation, supportive orientation, problem-solving orientation and exploratory orientation, that should be used in a complementary way as they shape supervision actions. The personal practical theories (Maaranen et al., 2016) are a way of accessing beliefs about teaching or supervision and is often seen as a synonym to a professional identity. Supervisor’s beliefs about what good teaching or supervision is, not only affects how the supervision turns out, but the supervisor’s beliefs also influence the student’s beliefs (Valcke et al., 2010), which highlights the relevance of being aware of own beliefs. Overall, research concerning teacher educators’ use of personal practical theories is scarce and needs more research attention overall. To investigate school-based supervising teachers’ views on the supervision process, a socio-dynamic approach (Peavy, 1997) to supervision has been used as a theoretical framework for understanding supervision as an identity-supporting task, regarding both the student teacher’s evolving teacher identity, but also supervising teachers’ own teacher educator identity.