Journal of Education for Teaching

International research and pedagogy

ISSN: 0260-7476 (Print) 1360-0540 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20

Educative mentors? The role of classroom teachers

in initial teacher education. A New Zealand study

Helen Trevethan

To cite this article: Helen Trevethan (2017) Educative mentors? The role of classroom teachers in
initial teacher education. A New Zealand study, Journal of Education for Teaching, 43:2, 219-231,
DOI: 10.1080/02607476.2017.1286784

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.1286784

Published online: 16 Feb 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1361

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 11 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjet20
Journal of Education for Teaching, 2017
VOL. 43, NO. 2, 219–231
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.1286784

Educative mentors? The role of classroom teachers in initial

teacher education. A New Zealand study
Helen Trevethan
College of Education, University of Otago College of Education, Dunedin, New Zealand

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Classroom experience is an important part of initial teacher education Received 9 January 2016
(ITE) and the teachers who work with student teachers in schools have Accepted 1 September 2016
a significant impact on learning in this context. While many studies KEYWORDS
have documented what the role of these teachers should be, it is also Initial teacher education;
important to consider how the role is conceptualised by the teachers practicum; educative
themselves. This qualitative study compares the views of New Zealand mentoring
primary school teachers with that of an ITE provider. The findings
show some differences among the teachers and significant differences
between classroom teachers’ interpretations of their role and the
expectations of the ITE provider. Teacher interpretations are firmly
held and there is more work to be done to explore understandings
of educative mentoring and so develop a coherent shared vision of
roles in the practicum community.

Introduction
School-based experiences are generally agreed to be an integral part of learning to be a
teacher but it is clear that simply being in a school on practicum is not sufficient for effective
student teacher learning (Grudnoff 2011). Internationally much attention has been given to
how to improve the practicum for a long time – in Australia (Vick 2006), in the UK (Bolam
1977) and in the USA (Zeichner 1986). Vick (2006) outlined the history of practicum problems
in Australia and England and concluded that many of the problems of the practicum are
enduring and deeply ingrained in the ‘practicum context, pedagogy and activities’ (Allen,
Ambrosetti, and Turner 2013, 109). Some teachers in schools regard the staff at provider
institutions as out of touch with reality and preoccupied with theory at the expense of
practice (Toomey et al. 2005). This perceived ‘gap’ between teacher education providers and
schools appears to be at the heart of many practicum problems (Ramsay 2000).
In New Zealand as early as 1990 Battersby and Ramsay wrote that:
Trainees have developed a mind-set which places theory in one compartment and practice in
another. The structure of the Teachers’ Colleges, the patterning of school-based experiences
and the nature of those experiences, the nature of the knowledge presented within teachers’
college courses, and an emphasis on a non-critical and non-reflective approach to in-school
training all reinforce the dichotomy between theory and practice. (26)

CONTACT  Helen Trevethan  helen.trevethan@otago.ac.nz

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
220   H. TREVETHAN

More than 10 years later Grudnoff and Tuck (2003) found that there were still differences of
opinion about the purpose of teacher education between schools and pre-service providers
in a ‘mismatch between preparation and practice’ (35). Other New Zealand studies (for exam-
ple, Grudnoff 2011; Sanders 2009) argue for a greater understanding of the work of mentor
teachers in order to optimise learning opportunities for student teachers.
This exploratory New Zealand study was undertaken by an academic employed in ITE at
a New Zealand University. It was developed in response to concerns about practicum, as an
opportunity to listen to mentor teachers, to explore their experiences and to understand
their realities. It was framed by the understanding that exemplary ITE programmes are those
with a shared view of good teaching where the school experience and campus work are
aligned (Zeichner 2010). The research was to be a starting point in a process aimed at
improving understandings between schools and the University ITE provider to support more
effectively the work that teachers do with student teachers, and to add to the international
literature about educative mentoring.
Le Cornu and Ewing (2008) suggest that there are three orientations to the practice of
learning to teach, namely the ‘traditional view’, the ‘reflective view’ and the ‘learning com-
munities’ view. Each perspective is premised on different understandings of the purpose of
practicum, brings different implications for the role of the teacher and uses different nomen-
clature for their role (Le Cornu 2015). In this article the term ‘mentor teacher’ is used as a
general term for teachers who work with student teachers.

The traditional model

The dominant model for teaching practice in New Zealand and elsewhere has long been
the ‘triad’ (Bullough and Draper 2004; Slick 1998). The traditional triadic model has three
members: a student teacher, hosted by a teacher (cooperating, supervisor or mentor teacher),
visited by a staff member (supervisor, faculty advisor) from the initial teacher education (ITE)
provider institution (Zeichner 2002). In triadic practicum settings, student teachers are placed
in classes for various periods of time and are usually hosted by one teacher who is also
responsible for teaching a class of children. Traditionally, a visiting staff member from the
ITE provider visits the classroom to observe a student teacher working with children.
This traditional practicum relies heavily on the classroom teacher to model how to teach
so that the student teachers can reconstruct those practices (Orland-Barak and Hasin 2010).
The structure is hierarchical and students are ‘recipients’ of teacher knowledge. It is predi-
cated on the belief that teaching is a craft which can be learned from an expert practitioner,
on the understanding that practice is at the heart of a teacher’s work (Ball and Forzani 2009).
Timperley (2013) uses the term ‘routine expert’ (7) to describe teachers who see teaching
and learning to teach in this way and notes that this approach is problematic because it
does not encourage examination of the efficacy of teacher practices. The traditional practi-
cum model has been increasingly challenged, resulting in the development of alternative
models of practicum and changes to the roles of the participants.

The teaching as reflective practice model

From a reflective viewpoint the purpose of teacher education is to support the student
teacher to become a resilient, reflective practitioner (Ethel and McMeniman 2000; Stegman
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING   221

2007). The reflective model of practicum is based on the premise that teaching is more than
a learned craft and suggests that learning to teach requires the development of ‘a set of
dispositions … about teaching, children and the role of the teacher’ (Hammerness et al.
2005, 387). Student teachers should be preparing for the uncertainties of the future and
developing a range of personal reflective abilities and attributes which will allow them to
respond to various situations as they arise, rather than replicating the ways of the past
(Korthagen 2004; Timperley 2013). Grudnoff and Tuck (2003) label this the ‘critical interven-
tionist’ model (33) and suggest that it encourages student teachers to engage in critical
reflection and to question the status quo.
This view brings different expectations of teachers which can be described as a change
from ‘supervision’ to ‘mentoring’ (Le Cornu and Ewing 2008). Reflective practice requires a
deeper level of thinking and conversation in the practicum than the traditional model.
Mentoring suggests a degree of collaboration and the facilitation of continuing reflective
conversations. Mentor teachers should support student teachers to develop their own
personal philosophy of teaching and to set and achieve personal goals rather than following
the teacher model without question. Teachers who mentor in this way need to be skilled
reflective practitioners who can articulate their own philosophy of teaching and be open to
challenge and change.

The learning in partnership model

From a partnership perspective, learning about teaching and learning to teach are
collaborative endeavours, dedicated to improving practice within the community (Le Cornu
2010). The Oxford internship scheme (McIntyre and Hagger 1993) is one early manifestation
of this view and professional development schools in the USA (Darling-Hammond 2012) are
another. These were developed to bring the practicum community together to learn with
and from each other, with a view to transformation and improved teaching practices (Valencia
et al. 2009). The essence of this model is understanding that close relationships and
collaboration are valuable for both teacher and student teacher learning.
When learning to be a teacher is seen as cooperative activity, the teacher role is that of a
trusted colleague within a learning community rather than a supervisor. Because mentoring
is presented in different ways in the literature, the term ‘educative mentoring’ was introduced
to teacher education to describe this role and to distinguish it from mentoring in general
(Feiman-Nemser 2001; Schwille 2008). Educative mentoring reflects Vygotsky’s learning the-
ory that knowledge construction requires scaffolded support which is timely and relevant
to the individual (Schwille 2008), where the classroom is a site of inquiry, and teachers are
also learners who need to think about ‘how to develop principled teaching practice’ (Langdon
2014, 38). Thus, a teacher who is acting as educative mentor for a student teacher will be
willing and able to interrogate, explain and justify their practices and to engage in reciprocal
learning relationships.
Educative mentoring is consistent with the view of teachers as ‘adaptive experts’ (Timperley
2013, 4) who engage in ‘teaching as inquiry’ as described in the New Zealand Curriculum
(Ministry of Education 2007, 35). An educative mentor establishes the prior conceptions,
skills and knowledge of the student teacher and provides learning opportunities through
experiences and professional conversations, which support and challenge student
teachers to ask questions and grow. Wang and O’Dell (2002) use the phrase ‘knowledge
222   H. TREVETHAN

transformation’ to describe this approach where the relationship is ‘asymmetrical but col-
laborative’ (Richter et al. 2013, 168). In research related to mentoring beginning teachers,
the New Zealand Teachers’ Council (2011, 10) stated that educative mentoring occurs when
‘an experienced colleague provides dedicated time to a provisionally registered teacher to
guide, support, give feedback and facilitate evidence-informed, reflective learning conver-
sations’. In the ITE setting, the educative mentor supports student teacher learning in order
to help them to develop their own philosophies rather than replicating those of the teacher
(McDonald and Flint 2011). Educative mentoring is the conceptual frame for mentoring
adopted by the New Zealand Teachers’ Council (2011), now the Education Council of Aotearoa
New Zealand (2015). The role of the teacher in the practicum is also positioned in this way
by the ITE provider institution in this study. The present paper will investigate whether teach-
ers also position their work with student teachers in this way.

Method
The focus of this article is to ascertain the alignment between teachers’ views and those of
the ITE provider with respect to the work of the classroom teacher with student teachers.
Interviews were selected as the data-gathering tool in order to gain an in-depth understand-
ing of teachers’ perspectives. Similar studies in this area have also used interviews as the
main data-gathering tool (Lind 2004; Russell and Russell 2011). The setting was a mid-sized
urban New Zealand school that hosts student teachers regularly and with whom the
researcher has had a long-standing professional relationship. Fontana and Frey (2000)
emphasise the importance of trust and familiarity with the interviewee for successful inter-
views. In this case, the researcher was very familiar with the school environment and many
of the staff. Teachers were interviewed at the beginning and end of the school year. The
interviews were semi-structured to allow for comparison between individual teachers’
responses, and the questions were given in advance of the interviews. Discourse was collegial
rather than inquisitorial and this was evident throughout the interviews as teachers spoke
openly and freely about their thoughts and experiences.
The research project was divided into two parts. After initial interviews, the first half of
the year featured a school-wide professional development programme for all of the teaching
staff in the school facilitated by the researcher. The focus was on working with student
teachers. It involved online discussions of readings from mentoring literature, and individual
and group face-to-face meetings with the researcher. The purpose of this activity was to
raise awareness of the mentor teachers’ role and to initiate reflection on the different ways
the role can be interpreted and enacted. In the second half of the year individual teachers
were asked to reflect on their practice, and were offered the opportunity to address an area
of professional interest and focus on something that they wished to strengthen, with support
from the researcher (Trevethan 2014). This was intended as a koha (gift) in acknowledgement
of their participation in the research, but also provided interesting information about their
professional development preferences. Final interviews were conducted at the end of the
year.
Nine teachers participated in the year-long research project. Two teachers left the school
mid-year and material from their initial interviews is included in this paper so there were a
total of 11 initial interviews and 9 final interviews. The participants had a wide range of
mentoring experience, from a beginner to a veteran of 20 years. All of the participants were
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING   223

actively involved with student teachers for sustained periods during the year of the study.
Teachers who were working on the Graduate Diploma of Teaching Primary programme
hosted one student for six months made up of two days a week and sustained blocks, and
then another student for the second six months. Those involved in the final year of the
undergraduate programme had one student for one day a week and blocks throughout the
year.
Grounded Theory (Glaser 2001), informed the data analysis with initial coding of the
interviews according to emerging themes. Analysis occurred throughout the study as an
inductive process, using a constant comparison method to code the data (Glaser and Strauss
1967). As themes emerged and re-emerged from teachers’ statements about their work as
mentors, those which related to their perceptions of their role were collated and analysed.
Predominant in teachers’ descriptions of their work in the practicum were comments about
relationships and the actions involved in their work.

Findings
The teachers indicated that three aspects of their role were of most significance to them.
These were: building relationships, providing feedback and modelling practice. This section
is arranged according to these three predominant themes. Data from both the initial and
final interviews are used to support the findings. Findings from all 11 of the teachers who
were part of the professional development in the first half of the year are included in the
analysis, with pseudonyms used to maintain confidentiality.

Building relationships
Personal relationships are an important aspect of working with student teachers. When
asked in initial interviews to identify their strengths as mentor teachers, seven of the eleven
teachers referred to their care and support of student teachers. The metaphors which they
used to describe their work revealed their approaches to mentoring (Kim and Danforth
2012). Clare described herself as a ‘mother hen’ and the student teachers she had worked
with in the past as ‘chicks’, suggesting that she brings a parental perspective to her work.
Anne said that she was ‘protective’, while Nick was concerned that student teachers needed
to maintain their well-being and achieve ‘life balance’ by not working too hard. These teachers
saw their relationships in terms of shielding student teachers from the trials and demands
of teaching. Providing a caring environment has potential benefits because student teachers
need to feel safe in order to learn and explore (Stanulis and Russell 2000). However, over-
protective hierarchical relationships can also be detrimental if they compel student teachers
to reproduce the status quo and/or protect them from challenges that could be learning
opportunities (Tang and Fan 2003). Some student teachers can use tension as a catalyst for
learning, suggesting that mentors need to be able to establish a suitable mix of support and
challenge for each student teacher.
Diane referred to her relationships with student teachers as a partnership in her initial
interview, but it was clear from her comments that this was not a partnership of equals when
she stated:
224   H. TREVETHAN

I’ve always looked at it as a partnership because I think that sharing your classroom with another
person, it has to be, it has to be a positive experience, you have to both want to do it or else it’d
be hell on earth, because really, there’s nothing worse than watching someone stuff up your class.
Diane’s view of partnership was about sharing ‘her’ class. She also said that if she has a
student teacher who thinks they know it all, she sits them down like a child in her class and
says, ‘Listen, you are here to learn’. She appeared to have a hierarchical view of her role which
is not consistent with the educative mentoring model. Her comments also showed that her
focus was on ensuring that student teachers maintain the practices that she has instigated.
This is in contrast to the educative mentoring position that features trust, respect, reciprocity
and transformative practice: with Ferrier-Kerr (Ferrier-Kerr 2009, 790), educative mentoring
relationships should be developed carefully with ‘reciprocal commitment to each other’s
development and professional learning’.
Five teachers did allude to the importance of honesty and respect when working with
student teachers. Kelvin said that listening to a student teacher was part of his role because
it is one of the ‘many different ways of finding out how another person is’. Getting to know
his student teachers well was very important to him. David and Irene felt that they supported
student teachers to set goals for themselves and to be active participants in their learning.
David also commented that he was committed to ‘letting them reflect, not me telling them’
indicating an understanding of student teacher individuality, embodied in a commitment
to work ‘with’ student teachers rather than working ‘on’ them. Barry’s comments illustrated
this well:
When things go wrong in their lesson and we’ve planned it together … I’ve got to take respon-
sibility for that as well … and go through that. If we’ve identified something that they need to
work on and it’s still going wrong, then we probably need to develop some other strategies to
think again.
The use of the term ‘we’ implied a degree of collaboration between teacher and student
teacher and respect for them as people. Tania was interested in how she was seen by student
teachers from the start of the year and focused her professional development project on
exploring this. In her final interview, she reported that her student teacher had reminded
her that ‘students have different styles to us, like we talked a lot about that because he had
a very relaxed teaching style as opposed to me. And he’s so true to himself and I admire him
for that’. She also said that she treated her final year student teacher as a ‘colleague … I called
it our class’. However, she still saw her role as ‘giving feedback on how well or how successful
things went and what would they do differently’. There were teachers who were personally
inclined towards working cooperatively with student teachers but overall they did not see
student teachers as professional colleagues.
This research was not intended to investigate and measure specifically the effect of a
professional development initiative. However, over the year of the study, some teachers
became more aware of their work as a reciprocal relationship with an emphasis on partner-
ship, which may have been stimulated by the professional development in the first half of
the year. Teachers showed that they appreciated the knowledge that student teachers
brought to the practicum and that they supported student teachers to critique and select
from the practices that they have observed rather than following them all, but there were
few references to learning from student teachers. Thus Barry summed up the role of the
mentor teacher as:
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING   225

taking a student teacher, observing them teach and fine tuning the skills that they bring into
the classroom, building on the knowledge where they’ve got weaknesses, and letting them
develop their own teaching experience and practice. Each student is different when they come
into the classroom, they come in with different experiences, different curriculum knowledge …
And then letting them take whatever they see within my teaching and adopting it and using it
for their own … my way is only one way of teaching
This view positions the student teacher as the learner and the mentor as the expert.
Although there were exceptions and some signs of change over time, most teachers
explained their relationships with student teachers in ways that were different from that of
an educative mentor. Both at the beginning and at the end of the year the majority of the
teachers understood their role as holders of knowledge rather than co-learners facilitating
questioning and inquiry into improvements to practice (Langdon and Ward 2015).

Providing feedback
Providing feedback was the most commonly identified aspect of working with student teach-
ers. In the final interviews, seven of the nine teachers who were involved in the research in
the second half of the year stated that giving feedback was central to their role. This finding
is consistent with much of the research literature, which shows that teachers perceive this
as central to their work and something they feel most comfortable with (Beck and Kosnik
2000; Kwan and Lopez-Real 2005). Teacher participants indicated that they understood giving
feedback in terms of an experienced teacher observing a novice student teacher working
with a class and commenting on how to improve the student teacher’s performance after
the event, that is giving advice. This became very evident when five teachers focused their
individual professional development projects on developing systems for reporting, coordi-
nating and managing written feedback. From an educative mentoring perspective, feedback
is more related to encouraging student reflection and inquiry rather than reporting and
dispensing advice. Feedback is seen as a professional conversation where the contributions
of both parties are valued and where opportunities for reciprocity or ‘mutual mentoring’ are
recognised (Stanulis and Russell 2000). When asked what she had learned about her role
over the year of the study Naomi said:
I think it’s actually more, not only as a model, but it’s got to be two-way for them to give us
feedback, I mean before I thought it was me doing everything … you know just watch me and
learn from me … I think now that I feel I can ask them ‘What do you think I should be doing?’
She had developed an increased awareness of the contribution of the student teacher,
shifting her view from supervisor and protector to a more collaborative and less hierarchical
interpretation of the role. However, the other teachers in this study spoke about feedback
in terms of them ‘giving’ and student teachers ‘receiving’ and thus were not engaged in
educative mentoring.

Modelling practice
The expectation that teachers who mentor student teachers will exhibit exemplary behaviour
and practice was widespread among the participants. Anne said that being a ‘professional
role model’ was a significant part of her role. Naomi’s focus was modelling behaviour man-
agement and how to teach groups. Barry, on the other hand, referred to role modelling as
226   H. TREVETHAN

showing student teachers professional behaviour, such as being ‘organised with your
resources so that you are modelling that behaviour to them … because they will feed off
you’. For these teachers role modelling meant showing student teachers how to do things
as they did them.
Role modelling also meant remaining up-to-date and demonstrating good teaching
practice. For example, Tania said that teachers need to ‘know the curriculum’, and several
teachers commented that mentors need to be familiar with current practices and resources.
Diane, who had a lot of experience of working with student teachers, warned that teachers
should not ‘bumble along here and teach a class and never change the way you are … you
need to be up with current practice. You can’t be an old fogey’. Maintaining a positive attitude
to continuing to learn, in order to grow and develop as a teacher, was something that many
of these participants said was important for mentoring.
However, not all of the teachers in this study saw themselves in the role of ‘expert’. In his
initial interview David said that in his view this was not realistic, adding that it was more
important to make student teachers aware that they were in a real classroom and ‘it’s not
going to be perfect’. He said that he makes a point of telling his student teachers that he is
not the greatest teacher in New Zealand and that we all make mistakes and change. In his
final interview, Kelvin appeared to agree with David as he summarised his position by
stating:
if you’re honest with your strengths and weaknesses, don’t be shy about that, you will find,
unless you’ve got an idiot on the other end, your student teacher rates that … they don’t have
to be perfect and you’re certainly not.
He also said that there had been debate among the teaching staff on this point and that
some other teachers thought that the classroom teacher in ITE should be ‘a professional
person, who is a neutral figure to a degree, that’s showing a variety of skills, where at the
end of the day they can point somebody to the skills they need to get’. From the beginning
of the year David and Kelvin were both of the opinion that it was more important to be
reflective and honest, than an exemplary practitioner. In her initial interview Irene said that
although mentors should be strong teachers, ‘some teacher strengths aren’t in maybe paper-
work and things like that but they’ve got other skills they bring’. She said that teachers are
all different and have strengths and weaknesses, but that they all have things to offer student
teachers. Effectively, these teachers were challenging the notion of the teacher as expert
practitioner and the apprenticeship view of learning to teach. In return they were offering
openness, support and acceptance of student teacher mistakes, recognising that teaching
is challenging, even for them.
Student teachers do expect their host teachers to model best practice (Haigh and Ward
2004). The research literature also supports the view that teaching expertise is an important
consideration when selecting classroom teachers to mentor student teachers (Cameron
2009). On the other hand, good teaching does not guarantee that teachers will be good
mentors. Many teacher education researchers assert that effective mentor teachers should
be successful practitioners with a strong pedagogical base McDonald 2004; Orland-Barak
and Hasin 2010), but being a model teacher is not sufficient to ensure success as a mentor
(Gardiner 2009). Educative mentoring requires more than that, demanding a complex array
of dispositions, knowledge and skill. This work is professionally and personally challenging
in many ways (Schwille 2008). As educative mentors, teachers examine student teacher
actions and also the thinking behind those actions (Zanting, Verloop, and Vermunt 2001),
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING   227

and the practicum provides opportunities for collaborative inquiry, testing new ideas and
professional conversations (Schulz 2005).

Discussion
The main finding from this study is that although these teachers were able to describe their
role with confidence, overall their descriptions were not congruent with the ITE provider’s
view of their role as educative mentors. Conflicting views about the purpose of the practicum
and about how to learn to teach are core issues that impact on student teachers, causing
stress and compromising their learning. If teaching is viewed as a learned craft, then the
practicum is an opportunity for student teachers to learn how to do what works from an
expert. Alternatively, teaching can be seen as transformative practice focused on exploring
alternatives to enhance educational outcomes for children. None of the teachers in this study
indicated that their mentoring role might include working with student teachers to improve
children’s learning. Their focus was more on the technical than the transformative aspects
of teaching. Educative mentoring, underpinning the ITE provider’s views of student teacher
learning on the practicum, is premised on transformative practice.
For a long time, in New Zealand, most classroom teachers received little or no preparation
for their work in ITE programmes (McDonald 2004; Russell and Russell 2011) and little support
from ITE providers (Ell 2011). All of the teachers in this study attributed their understanding
of the mentor role to their experiences as teachers, of being mentored as student teachers
and to their earlier work as mentors. Their interpretations were personal constructions. This
accounts for the range of ways the role was perceived, evident in the differences of opinion
about the teacher as expert, and the different degrees of collaboration seen as desirable by
the teachers. The professional development in the first half of the year included sharing the
conceptual framework for the programme where the role of the teacher was presented as
educative mentor, yet in final interviews all of the teachers except Naomi said that the project
had confirmed what they already knew. Despite the exposure to new ideas in the first part
of the study, it appears that most of the teachers were not sufficiently engaged, challenged
or unsettled to consider their role in new ways. Ideas which have remained unexplored and
unchallenged stay firmly entrenched. Supporting teachers who are learning to mentor is
challenging and requires engagement with each teacher to create opportunities to recon-
struct their identity and to ‘free themselves from the idiosyncratic practices they may have
developed over the years’ (Jones and Straker 2006, 182). As Claire said, working with student
teachers can become an ‘automatic thing that you can slip into quite quickly when you do
it year after year’.
In the past, classroom teachers have not had any significant input into the conceptual
development of ITE programmes, yet learning to be a teacher is very dependent upon the
work that these teachers do. This paper highlights the need for closer relationships between
schools and ITE providers sustained over time, to share understandings and expectations.
The divide between ITE providers and schools must be challenged and recognised as a
barrier to student teachers’ ability to come to terms with the complexities of teaching.
Conversations about what each partner can contribute, and what we expect of each other
as members of the ITE community is essential. Successful student teacher learning appears
to be less dependent on teacher modelling and feedback than it is on the relationships,
beliefs and attitudes of the people involved. A central concern of this study was that mentors’
228   H. TREVETHAN

work had been reinterpreted over time by the ITE provider in New Zealand to maximise the
learning potential of the professional experience component of ITE, without communication
or consultation with the teachers themselves. Challenges arise when ITE programmes
encourage student teachers to engage in critical reflection on current practices but students
are placed with teachers who do not see the practicum in that way. Assessment requirements
and the need for compliance in order to succeed are such that some student teachers may
have to abandon their understandings of their role and their own views about teaching in
order to survive and pass (Leshem 2012).

Conclusion
This study was limited to 11 teachers but the teachers were representative of many others,
as prior to the study they had no more and no less induction for their role than any others
involved with the ITE provider, even though the ITE provider had worked with this school
over many years. In the current climate in New Zealand where the provision of ITE pro-
grammes is again under scrutiny, it is even more vital that there are shared understandings
of the purpose of practicum and the roles of the participants. Without significant and sus-
tained engagement in thinking about mentoring possibilities teachers will continue to do
what they have always done (Jones and Straker 2006). The process of developing those
understandings is challenging and there is risk in ‘training’ teachers to act in accordance with
the ITE view of their role without genuinely engaging with and respecting their views and
the work that they do. Classroom teachers must have a clear understanding of, and com-
mitment to, both the framework upon which the teacher education programme is built and
their role, so as to enable student teachers to learn in an environment of mutual respect and
emotional safety. It is important to build and maintain a shared vision of the purpose of the
school-based component of ITE to avoid student teachers having to negotiate conflicting
expectations from the campus and the classroom. Educative mentoring is the model cur-
rently seen as ‘best’ mentoring practice, but the principles of collaboration and consultation
between schools and ITE providers appear indisputable.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References
Allen, J. M., A. Ambrosetti, and D. Turner. 2013. “How School and University Supervising Staff Perceive
the Pre-service Teacher Education Practicum: A Comparative Study.” Australian Journal of Teacher
Education 38 (4): 108–128.
Ball, D. L., and F. M. Forzani. 2009. “The Work of Teaching and the Challenge for Teacher Education.”
Journal of Teacher Education 60 (5): 497–511.
Battersby, D., and P. D. K. Ramsay. 1990. “Practice Teaching in New Zealand: Policies, Practices and
Problems.” South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 18 (1): 19–26.
Beck, C., and C. Kosnik. 2000. “Associate Teachers in Pre-service Education: Clarifying and Enhancing
Their Role.” Journal of Education for Teaching 26 (3): 207–224.
Bolam, R., 1977. Innovation and the Problem-Solving School. Reorganising Education: Management and
Participation for Change. London: Sage.
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING   229

Bullough, R. V., and R. J. Draper. 2004. “Making Sense of a Failed Triad: Mentors, University Supervisors,
and Positioning Theory.” Journal of Teacher Education 55 (5): 407–420.
Cameron, M. 2009. Lessons from Beginning Teachers: Challenges for School Leaders. Wellington:
New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Darling-Hammond, L. 2012. Powerful Teacher Education: Lessons from Exemplary Programs. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. 2015. Guidelines for Induction and Mentoring and Mentor
Teachers. Wellington: Education Council.
Ell, F. 2011. “Teacher Education in New Zealand.” Journal of Education for Teaching 37 (4): 433–440.
Ethel, Ruth G., and Marilyn M. McMeniman. 2000. “Unlocking the Knowledge in Action of an Expert
Practitioner.” Journal of Teacher Education 51 (2): 87–101.
Feiman-Nemser, S. 2001. “Helping Novices Learn to Teach: Lessons from an Exemplary Support Teacher.”
Journal of Teacher Education 52 (1): 17–30.
Ferrier-Kerr, J. L. 2009. “Establishing Professional Relationships in Practicum Settings.” Teaching and
Teacher Education 25 (6): 790–797.
Fontana, A., and J. H. Frey. 2000. “The Interview: From Structured Questions to Negotiated Text.”
Handbook of Qualitative Research 2 (6): 645–672.
Gardiner, W. 2009. “Rudderless as Mentors: The Challenge of Teachers as Mentors.” Action in Teacher
Education 30 (4): 56–66.
Glaser, B. G. 2001. The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted with Description. Mill
Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Grudnoff, L. 2011. “Rethinking the Practicum: Limitations and Possibilities.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education 39 (3): 223–234.
Grudnoff, L., and B. Tuck. 2003. “Learning about Teaching, Learning While Teaching, and Becoming a
Teacher.” English Teaching 2 (1): 33–42.
Haigh, M., and G. Ward. 2004. “Problematising Practicum Relationships: Questioning the ‘Taken for
Granted’.” Australian Journal of Education 48 (2): 134–148.
Hammerness, K., L. Darling Hammond, J. Bransford, D. Berliner, M. Cochran-Smith, M. McDonald, and
K. Zeichner. 2005. “How Teachers Learn and Develop.” In Preparing Teachers for a Changing World:
What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do, edited by Linda Darling-Hammond and John Bransford,
358–389. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jones, M., and K. Straker. 2006. “What Informs Mentors’ Practice When Working with Trainees and Newly
Qualified Teachers? An Investigation into Mentors’ Professional Knowledge Base.” Journal of Education
for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy 32 (2): 165–184.
Kim, T., and S. Danforth. 2012. “Non-authoritative Approach to Supervision of Student Teachers:
Cooperating Teachers’ Conceptual Metaphors.” Journal of Education for Teaching 38 (1): 67–82.
Korthagen, F. A. J. 2004. “In Search of the Essence of a Good Teacher: Towards a More Holistic Approach
in Teacher Education.” Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (1): 77–97.
Kwan, T., and F. Lopez-Real. 2005. “Mentors’ Perceptions of Their Roles in Mentoring Student Teachers.”
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 33 (3): 275–287.
Langdon, F. 2014. “Evidence of Mentor Learning and Development: An Analysis of New Zealand Mentor/
Mentee Professional Conversations.” Professional Development in Education 40 (1): 36–55.
Langdon, F., and L. Ward. 2015. “Educative Mentoring: A Way Forward.” International Journal of Mentoring
and Coaching in Education 4 (4): 240–254.
Le Cornu, R. 2010. “Changing Roles, Relationships and Responsibilities in Changing times.” Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education 38 (3): 195–206.
Le Cornu, R. 2015. Key Components of Effective Professional Experience in Initial Teacher Education in
Australia. Melbourne: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership.
Le Cornu, R., and R. Ewing. 2008. “Reconceptualising Professional Experiences in Pre-Service Teacher
Education … Reconstructing the Past to Embrace the Future.” Teaching and Teacher Education
24 (7): 1799–1812.
Leshem, S. 2012. “The Many Faces of Mentor-Mentee Relationships in a Pre-service Teacher Education
Programme.” Creative Education 03 (04): 413–421.
230   H. TREVETHAN

Lind, P., 2004. “The Perceptions of Teacher Education in Relation to the Teaching Practicum.” PhD diss.,
Massey University.
McDonald, L. 2004. “Effective Mentoring of Student Teachers: Attitudes, Characteristics and Practices
of Successful Associate Teachers within a New Zealand Context.” New Zealand Journal of Teachers’
Work 1 (2): 85–94.
McDonald, L., and A. Flint. 2011. “Effective Educative Mentoring Skills: A Collaborative Effort.” New
Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work 8 (1): 33–46.
McIntyre, D., and H. Hagger. 1993. “Teachers’ Expertise and Models of Mentoring.” In Mentoring:
Perspectives on School-Based Teacher Education, edited by D. McIntyre, H. Hagger, and M. Wilkin,
86–102. London: Kogan Page.
Ministry of Education. 2007. The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
New Zealand Teachers’ Council. 2011. Guidelines for Induction and Mentoring and Mentor Teachers.
Wellington: New Zealand Teachers’ Council.
Orland-Barak, L., and R. Hasin. 2010. “Exemplary Mentors’ Perspectives towards Mentoring across
Mentoring Contexts: Lessons from Collective Case Studies.” Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (3):
427–437.
Ramsay, G., 2000. Quality Matters. Revitalising Teaching: Critical times, Critical Choices. Sydney: New
South Wales Department of Education and Training.
Richter, D., M. Kunter, O. Lüdtke, U. Klusmann, Y. Anders, and J. Baumert. 2013. “How Different Mentoring
Approaches Affect Beginning Teachers’ Development in the First Years of Practice.” Teaching and
Teacher Education 36: 166–177.
Russell, M. L., and J. A. Russell. 2011. “Mentoring Relationships: Cooperating Teachers’ Perspectives on
Mentoring Student Interns.” Professional Educator 35 (1): 1–21.
Sanders, M., 2009. “Agent of Change: In-Situ Professional Development for Associate Teachers.” Paper
Presented at the British Educational Research Association, Manchester University, September 2–5.
Schulz, R. 2005. “The Practicum: More than Practice.” Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne
De L'éducation 28 (1/2): 147–167.
Schwille, S. A. 2008. “The Professional Practice of Mentoring.” American Journal of Education 115 (1):
139–167.
Slick, S. K. 1998. “The University Supervisor: A Disenfranchised Outsider.” Teaching and Teacher Education
14 (8): 821–834.
Stanulis, R. N., and D. Russell. 2000. “‘Jumping in’: Trust and Communication in Mentoring Student
Teachers.” Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (1): 65–80.
Stegman, S. F. 2007. “An Exploration of Reflective Dialogue between Student Teachers in Music and
Their Cooperating Teachers.” Journal of Research in Music Education 55 (1): 65–82.
Tang, S., and Y. Fan. 2003. “Challenge and Support: The Dynamics of Student Teachers’ Professional
Learning in the Field Experience.” Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (5): 483–498.
Timperley, H. 2013. Learning to Practise. Auckland: The University of Auckland.
Toomey, R., J. Chapman, J. Gaff, J. McGilp, M. Walsh, E. Warren, and I. Williams. 2005. “Lifelong Learning
and the Reform of the Teaching Practicum in Australia.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education
33 (1): 23–34.
Trevethan, H. 2014. “Associate Teachers in New Zealand: Great Expectations.” Unpublished Doctoral
Thesis, University of Otago.
Valencia, S. W., S. D. Martin, N. A. Place, and P. Grossman. 2009. “Complex Interactions in Student
Teaching: Lost Opportunities for Learning.” Journal of Teacher Education 60 (3): 304–322.
Vick, M. 2006. “‘It’s a Difficult Matter’1: Historical Perspectives on the Enduring Problem of the Practicum
in Teacher Preparation.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 34 (2): 181–198.
Wang, Jian, and S. J. Odell. 2002. “Mentored Learning to Teach according to Standards-based Reform:
A Critical Review.” Review of Educational Research 72 (3): 481–546.
Zanting, A., N. Verloop, and J. D. Vermunt. 2001. “Student Teachers’ Beliefs about Mentoring and Learning
to Teach during Teaching Practice.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 71 (1): 57–80.
Zeichner, K. 1986. “The Practicum as an Occasion for Learning to Teach.” South Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education 14 (2): 11–27.
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING   231

Zeichner, K. 2002. “Beyond Traditional Structures of Student Teaching.” Teacher Education Quarterly
29 (2): 59–64.
Zeichner, K. 2010. “Rethinking the Connections between Campus Courses and Field Experiences in
College- and University-based Teacher Education.” Journal of Teacher Education 61 (1–2): 89–99.