Irish Educational Studies

ISSN: 0332-3315 (Print) 1747-4965 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ries20

Lesson observation, professional conversation and

teacher induction

Cathal de Paor

To cite this article: Cathal de Paor (2019) Lesson observation, professional

conversation and teacher induction, Irish Educational Studies, 38:1, 121-134, DOI:
10.1080/03323315.2018.1521733

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2018.1521733

Published online: 21 Sep 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1232

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ries20
Irish Educational Studies, 2019
Vol. 38, No. 1, 121–134, https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2018.1521733

Lesson observation, professional conversation and teacher induction

Cathal de Paor*

Faculty of Education, Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, Ireland

(Received 1 September 2017; accepted 16 August 2018)

Induction programmes for newly-qualified teachers generally involve some

combination of four interlocking components: a mentoring system; an expert
system; a peer system and a self-reflective system (European Commission 2010).
One activity that is commonly used in the mentoring system is lesson
observation. This article presents a comparative analysis of post-observation
conversations held by two mentor-teacher dyads as part of teacher induction in
Ireland. The analysis focuses on how both mentors support the teachers in the
construction of their professionality. Doing so requires the right blend of
professional, social and personal support, and depends on a high level of
awareness and expertise on the part of the mentor. The article identifies certain
key differences in the approaches of both, asn makes the case that this kind of
analysis offers much potential for the professional development of mentors.
Key words: mentoring; lesson observation; conversation; teacher induction

Introduction
Teacher induction is now recognised as a crucial part of the continuum of teacher edu-
cation (OECD 2005). The guide for policy-makers published by the European Com-
mission on the establishment of coherent induction programmes identifies four
interlocking components: a mentoring system; an expert system; a peer system and
a self-reflective system (European Commission 2010). These systems are designed to
collectively meet the three types of needs which newly-qualified teachers (NQTs) are
identified as having: personal, social and professional.
The mentoring of an NQTs by a more experienced colleague known as a mentor is
a significant component in comprehensive induction programmes (Britton et al. 2003;
Bartell 2005). Writing in an American context, Portner (2008) identifies four overlap-
ping approaches that may be needed as part of mentoring: entering into a relationship;
assessing teacher needs; coaching; and guiding. According to Portner, coaching is the
most important as it brings all four approaches together, placing the responsibility for
decision-making with the teacher. The mentor as an expert ‘who has the answers’ can
have its place, but teachers must develop the capacity and confidence to make their
own decisions (Portner 2008; Zachary 2011) This enables them to actively construct
their own professionality or professional identity (Evans 2008).This is also a key
insight in the concept of ‘accompagnement’ as portrayed in French-language research
(Donnay and Charlier 2006). Like mentoring, such an ‘accompaniment’ may involve

*Email: cathal.depaor@mic.ul.ie
© 2018 Educational Studies Association of Ireland
122 C. de Paor

different approaches according to the needs of the situation. Paul identifies three
different registers in her discussion of accompaniment: ‘lead’, ‘guide’ and ‘escort’
with the mentor moving between these as the need arises (Paul 2004, 309). The man-
agement of the interaction in post-observation conversations between mentors and
teachers is the focus of the current study. This is all the more important from an
Irish point of view given the launch of a new model of teacher induction. While the
study was conducted in an earlier, and different context, the issues continue to be rel-
evant as schools transition to the new model.

Context: teacher induction

In Ireland, following a number of years as a pilot project since 2002, teacher induction
was made mandatory for all teachers in 2010. A new induction programme known as
Droichead was subsequently trialled on a pilot basis between 2013 and 2016, leading
to the launch in 2017 of a new Integrated Professional Induction Framework (Teach-
ing Council 2017). As conveyed in its title (based on the Irish word for ‘bridge’), Droic-
head emphasises the continuity between initial teacher education and teacher learning
throughout the professional lifespan (Teaching Council 2017).
In the school-based strand of Droichead, the NQT is supported by a mentor and
by other colleagues who form a Professional Support Team (PST). The mentor is an
experienced teacher nominated by the school principal to carry out this additional
role with support from the National Induction Programme for Teachers (NIPT).
Mentors participate in an initial training programme, along with additional pro-
fessional development in subsequent years, while in the new induction programme,
provision has been made for the professional development of all members of the PST.
Droichead can be categorised as being firmly in the non-evaluative induction
space, being ‘fundamentally about the NQT’s professional journey and the process
of their induction’ (Teaching Council 2017, 5). Once the process has been successfully
completed, a joint declaration by the teacher and PST paves the way for the induction
condition to be removed and for the teacher to be granted full registration. It is envi-
saged that Droichead will be the professional induction programme for all NQTs by
2020/2021, thereby resulting in a move away from the more traditional form of induc-
tion introduced in 2010, which took place alongside the process of teacher inspection
(or probation) carried out by the Inspectorate.

Theoretical framework: professional didactics

In order to examine the interaction in post-observation conversations, the study uses a
line of enquiry opened by Vinatier (2009), drawing on Vergnaud’s theory of conceptual
fields (1996) together with interactional linguistics (Kerbrat-Orechionni 1992). Verg-
naud’s theory draws on Piaget’s (1974) ‘scheme’ in cognitive theory in explaining
human behaviour. As presented by Vinatier (2009), schemes comprise four elements,
beginning with the goals which the person wishes to achieve in a given situation.
The second element, the ‘rules-of-action,’ guides decisions on what action to take
based on the pertinent information available. The third element, the ‘operational
invariants,’ relate to the knowledge used in the action, including ‘theorems-in-
action’ (propositions held to be true) and ‘concepts-in-action’. Finally, the ‘inferences’
enable the transfer and if necessary, adaptation of schemes from one situation to the
 Irish Educational Studies 123

next. Taken together, this constitutes a personal theory to guide a person’s behaviour.
It leads to behaviour that is consistent or invariant for the same class of situations
across different contextsy.
An analysis of the schematisation behind a mentor’s personal threory can therefore
reveal how s/he understands the role of supporting the NQT’s learning. It provides the
basis for the use of ‘professional didactics’ in the professional development of mentors,
whereby they reflect on their schematisation and use the new insights to develop their
practice (Pastré, Mayen, and Vergnaud 2006).
The study draws upon a model developed by Vinatier (2013) for examining three
different dimensions in the interaction between mentors and NQTs – epistemic, prag-
matic and relational (EPR). The epistemic dimension examines the kind of knowledge
engaged in the conversation. A useful categorisation has been developed by Altet
(2008) for this purpose: curriculum content (‘savoirs à enseigner’); methodologies
(‘savoirs pour enseigner’); classroom management (‘savoirs sur enseigner’), and
finally, knowledge-of-practice (‘savoirs des pratiques’) which draws on the previous
three types, combining them with personal theories of teaching, including beliefs
and values.
The pragmatic dimension relates to the management of the discussion, for
example, how the conversation is structured, and how it progresses between discussion
topics, etc. Finally, the relational dimension is examined principally by reference to the
power relations (‘rapports des places’) (Kerbrat-Orechionni 1992). This necessarily
will also deal with pragmatic issues, i.e. how the interaction is managed and negotiated
between both parties, for example, in the choice and sequencing of discussion topics,
the opening and closing of discussion ‘episodes,’ and the use of the discursive space,
e.g. whether both speak for a similar amount of time, etc. It also includes an examin-
ation of the subjective positioning of both parties, e.g. how both parties manage risks
to their ‘face’ or public image that they will want to defend from any injury in the
social interaction (Goffman 1973). Keeping face is a necessary condition in the inter-
action, requiring the parties to position themselves along an axis of consensus/conflict
and proximity/distance using politeness strategies (Kerbrat-Orechionni 1992).
All three dimensions in the EPR (Vinatier 2013) model are necessary to contribute
to the construction of the professionality of the NQT. The way in which the mentor
manages the interaction with regard to these dimensions in supporting the construc-
tion of the NQT’s professionality is the focus in this study

Methodology
The research draws on more extensive doctoral research carried out on teacher induc-
tion in France and Ireland (de Paor 2012). The current article focuses on the pro-
fessional conversation held by two mentor-teacher dyads (A and B) in Ireland only.
Participants were chosen on a ‘convenience’ basis (Miles and Huberman 1994),
using no particular criteria apart from their willingness to participate. With assistance
of the National Induction Programme for Teachers (NIPT), the researcher contacted a
number of mentors, until the participation of the required number was secured,
making sure that the NQTs were also agreeable. Teacher A taught a group of senior
infants, mostly around five-years of age, in an Irish-medium school in Dublin, while
Teacher B worked in a class of mostly seven-year old children (second class) in a
rural school.
124 C. de Paor

Ethical approval for the study was addressed within the University of Nantes. The
approach was informed by the need to minimise any intrusion in the relationship
established by the teacher and mentor during the induction year. Post-observation
conversations may be stressful events particularly for the teacher whose teaching
has just been observed and who is already dealing with the various challenges associ-
ated with entry into the profession (Kelchtermans and Ballet 2002). Informed consent
was obtained and assurances of confidentiality and anonymity were given. All parties
understood that they could withdraw from the study at any time. In the case of each
dyad, a voice recorder was given to the mentor who recorded the post-observation con-
versations. Thee recordings were then collected and transcribed with the resulting tran-
scripts then being emailed to the participants. The transcripts provided the basis for
further separate meetings involving the researcher. The conversations took place
sometime in the first school term as indicated in Table 1. In line with the usual
NIPT procedures, each dyad met before the lesson observation to agree a focus for
both the observation and for the conversation that was to follow immediately
afterwards.
Table 1 shows the date of the lesson observation for each of the dyads, the dur-
ation of the observation and post-observation conversation in terms of minutes.
The number of words spoken, in total as well as individually by both parties
were also calculated based on the transcripts. The final column gives the average
speed of the interaction b the number of words spoken divided by the number
of minutes.
Italicised text in parentheses is speech that was uttered by one person while the
other person continues to speak, resulting in both speaking at the same time. The
symbol ‘/’indicates an interruption, whereby one person’s interjection has occasioned
the other person to stop speaking. Square brackets indicate that some text has been
omitted from the original transcript for the purposes of presentation here. The extracts
from Dyad A have been translated into English from the original Irish, while dyad B
spoke in English.

Results
The results comprise certain quantitative results followed by ananalysis of some con-
versations. Of course such a limited set of results cannot possibly represent the full
extent and nature of the interaction that took place over the course of the year. Nor
is it necessarily representative of the induction practice that takes place more generally

Table 1. Details of post-observation conversations.

Duration

Lesson Words Mentor Teacher Word per

Dyad Date observ. Conversation spoken speech speech minute

A 10/12/ 45 27 5627 2658: 47% 2969; 53% 208

09
B 18/12/ 40 21 5228 2969; 57% 2259; 43% 248
09
 Irish Educational Studies 125

in Ireland. Nonetheless, the results illustrate certain tendencies that could provide the
basis for further research using a more extensive sample.
The transcripts were divided by the researcher into a number of ‘episodes’ focusing
on specific topics. Each episode is entitled below along with a division of the discursive
space.

Knowledge – dyad A
In the case of Dyad A, the teacher taught a lesson in mathematics on 2D shapes using
a shape recognition game followed by a group activity. The agreed focus for the obser-
vation had been the teacher’s time management in the lesson, and her use of group
work. This focus was linked to her decision to teach a lesson in which there was a sub-
stantial group activity, likely to raise classroom management issues.
Classroom management is one of the suggested topics in the NIPT mentor’s hand-
book for lesson observation, along with lesson objectives, structure, teacher communi-
cation, and time management. An additional ‘other’ categoryincludes various topics
such as assessment, methodologies and differentiation.
The results (Figure 1) show that while mentors are advised to pick three or four
topics for discussion on any one occasion, in the conversation being reported here,
the mentor raises each of them in turn. The first episode begins with the mentor invit-
ing the teacher to recall once again the lesson objectives (1). The next two episodes
focus on issues relating to classroom and time management (2 and 3). Episode 4
focuses on the organisational difficulties encountered in the group activity, followed
by a discussion on the organisation and layout of the resources for the groups (5).
In the next episode, the teacher’s voice is discussed (6), this also being one of the
suggested topics in the handbook. The discussion then moves to the lesson conclusion
and the assessment of the children’s learning (7). The conversation concludes with a
discussion on the clarity of the teacher’s instructions (8), and how the classroom
space was organised (9). Overall, the results show a major focus on classroom manage-
ment issues, particularly relating to time, children’s behaviour, and organisation of the
group work.

Figure 1. Episodes and division of discursive space in Conversation A.

126 C. de Paor

Relations – dyad A
As for the relational dimension, an important indicator is the division of talk between
both parties (Kerbrat-Orechionni 1992). Figure 1 shows that the share of the words
spoken is fairly evenly divided, with the mentor speaking 48% overall. An analysis
also shows that the mentor takes responsibility for opening and closing all episodes,
i.e. posing the initial question or prompt, and inviting the teacher to respond, as the
first extract below illustrates.
The following extracts from Dyad A show how the knowledge and relational
dimension interact. The mentor is careful to put the teacher at ease from the outset,
and begins with a non-threatening request to recall the lesson objectives. The
teacher responds that the children were to learn to identify 2D shapes and to do so
using an active learning approach.
Given the agreed focus on classroom management, the mentor draws attention to
this very early in the conversation, adding that the teacher’s intended use of ‘active
learning’ should not lead to disorder (line 5). However, her use of ‘super’ (line 9) in
her own judgement of the lesson can be viewed as a politeness strategy, used to com-
pensate for any criticism that may have been perceived by the teacher, and avoid a
threat to the other person’s face (Goffman 1973).

3. M : […] can you explain once more the lesson objectives that you had set ?
4. T : […] that the children know how to identify the shapes […] and that they
enjoy this kind of approach, rather than sitting in their desks looking at
shapes […], that they move, and are hands-on (yes), somewhat.
5. M : Yes, of course, that is what you mean, that the lesson is active. And that
there isn’t too much disruption, that there is order to it […] OK, let’s move
on, let’s talk about, how the lesson went. Euh, me, I found it super because
you began at the start, euh, I thought it was super, you see, you revised from
the previous lesson […]

The mentor then asks the teacher for her views on various aspects of the lesson, and on
classroom management issues especially. It is clear that the mentor had reservations
about the excessive length of the lesson introduction, asking the teacher for her
views on the introduction at different times during the interview. Each time, the
teacher responded by giving her views, but without referring to its length.’ It suggests
a ‘rule of action’ on the mentor’s part whereby, if it is necessary to highlight a weakness
in the lesson, then the teacher should be invited, in a non-judgemental way, to give her
views on this first, so that she may herself identify the weakness without the mentor
having to do so. Because this doesn’t yield the intended response, the mentor finally
focuses the teacher’s attention directly on the duration of the introduction, by referring
explicitly to the time on the clock.

31. M : Yes, good, look, it was, what, perhaps, 11.25, when you began, and 11 :45
when you got to there, the middle of the lesson. I was thinking that amounts to
20 min from the start. What do you think?
32. T : I know, but […] I was trying to have them all participate, but it is possible
that I gave, that I wasn’t strict enough there.
33. M : That’s it.
 Irish Educational Studies 127

34. T : I should have said, ‘Listen, you will have a chance to do it tomorrow’ […]
35. M : But they were enjoying themselves, and just to say it formally, you know,
keep the lesson introduction shorter, but it worked for you there. […]

Having delivered her message regarding the need for a shorter introduction, she com-
pensates for any possible threat to the teacher’s face, using a politeness strategy to note
that the children were ‘enjoying themselves’ and that it ‘worked’ nonetheless.
Towards the end of the conversation, and as the mentor moves through each of the
topics from the mentor’s handbook, questions about assessment and pedagogy are
raised, as for example, when the mentor asks the teacher, ‘is there anything else you
could have done to finish the lesson?’ (70). (As a concluding activity, the teacher had
asked the children to draw a robot using 2D shapes.) She follows with a question on
how the teacher might assess the learning, were she to teach the lesson again, and
responds with approval agrees when the teacher suggests a worksheet.
The fact that the exchanges deal mostly with the organisational aspects of the
lesson reflects the agreed focus and the fact that the lesson involving a substantial
group activity. However, avoiding a more detailed discussion of the lesson in terms
of what the children learned is also deliberate on the part of the mentor, as she con-
firmed later in an interview with the researcher. In her view such a focus would
amount to being evaluative, something that would threaten her relationship with the
teacher: ‘It is entirely different, because if you start that, you will lose the person,
you know, you are there to observe. It is not my role as a mentor’. In terms of pro-
fessional didactics, it is a ‘proposition held as a truth’ by the mentor. The relationship
with the teacher is fundamental, and she will avoid any topic or approach that might
threaten it.

Knowledge – dyad B
As with the first dyad, Dyad B also met before the observation and agreed to focus on
two issues: how to manage the correction of children’s work during class time, and any
suggestions on other ways to assess children’s learning. Teacher B also opted to use a
maths lesson for observation, based on the use of estimation in the subtraction of
numbers with two digits, and beginning with a group game using oral maths problems.
The children then carried out written exercises, while the teacher corrected the work,
giving extra help to certain children.
It is noteworthy that Dyad B address fewer topics than Dyad A – even if this may
be partly explained by the fact that their conversation is six minutes shorter. Mentor B
begins by addressing the first agreed focus, the correction of children’s work in class
(1). The teacher belives that this occupies her time unduly, with the result that children
who complete the activity early are left waiting. The mentor advises the teacher to set
up an early-finishers activity and also suggests having the necessary resources available
more readily for children to use as they correct their work (2). The mentor then moves
to the second agreed focus by giving some ideas on formative assessment, for example,
using children’s self-correction and a template for observing children’s work (3). Soon
after, the teacher tries to raise issues about the problematic behaviour of one particular
child. In response, the mentor urges the teacher to emphasise group co-operation,
rather than focusing on the behaviour of an individual child (4). This leads to a
128 C. de Paor

Figure 2. Episode and division of discursive space in Conversation B.

more in-depth discussion on reinforcing positive behaviour, where, for example, the
mentor suggests an individual star chart (5) (Figure 2).

Relations – dyad B
What is striking in Conversation B, is the manner in which classroom management
and organisational issues are integrated with the other three types of knowledge ident-
ified earlier (Altet 2008): curriculum knowledge, knowledge relating to pedagogy and
assessment, and finally, knowledge relating to teacher values and beliefs about
teaching.
The mentor starts with a reminder that correction of childrens’ work should only
be used where it serves a learning objective. There is therefore from the outset in the
conversation greater attention given to assessment, not just from an organisational
point of view, but with regard to its purpose for supporting children’s learning. In
other words, the mentor tries to link the practical organisation of assessment to
how it supports teaching and learning. She then gives various ideas to help in mana-
ging the correction, for example, the children correcting their own work with a red
biro. This also shows a link to issues of pedagogy, i.e. ‘assessment as learning,’
rather than treating it in isolation as a classroom management issue.

17. M. Your focus is correction (yeah) […] what I would maybe suggest to you is to
see maybe what place of any given day are you going to devote to correction
(yeah) and, mmm, does it serve the objective you are trying to achieve, and if it
doesn’t, then leave it for later or leave it for another time. (Right) Now there
might be merit also in training them, themselves, how to actually correct
with the red pen […]
18. T. /They do all their own correcting like that (great) and the only thing, well,
see, it probably would work if I get them working, and then at the end, when
everybody is finished (that’s it), that’s (everybody’s at it), because they’re well
able to correct.
19. M. To have their early finishers cards (yeah and it means), they’re working
through, and you let everybody finish, and then most people you know,
show me hands, (yeah) everybody finished (who’s up for whatever number
or) […]
 Irish Educational Studies 129

In the next extract the mentor continues with other practical organisational advice,
i.e. having the required resources to hand to help with the correction. Again, the
emphasis is on exploiting the correction for children’s learning, as a teaching
opportunity.

17. M: […] I thought also that, that it was very, very good that you had, they had
access to the resources, you know you had your big hundred square, and when
you saw straight away that, that **** wasn’t getting it you know (yeah) you
were able to, show me the tens (yeah), show me where, where the tens, and
he got it straight away, […] but what maybe I might suggest to you is that
before you start an activity (that they get) instead of launching in (yeah)
that you’d say to them, now for this activity, we might need (this, this and
this), and that they’d have everything then. […] And then start.
18. T. /Yeah because it is the ones who need them, know they need them at this
stage (exactly), they automatically.
19. M. /Exactly, they don’t have to be saying, Can I get the hundred square, and
interrupting you (yeah) working with another child. […]

She continues by emphasises the importance of involving the children orally as she
corrects the work, again linking the organisation of correction of children’s work
with assessment, i.e. linking classroom management with pedagogy, learning and
assessment.

27. M: […] And even with your quiz master (yeah) reiterate, now what are the
rules for here? Can somebody remind us all again […] So that you’re reiterating
how this works (yeah yeah, so then it’s clear to them) so it’s clear to them. The
other thing I’d say about the rounding as well, don’t be afraid to get them
talking. I know your focus was getting the (yeah) activity completed, you
know, what I’d say is encourage them to explain why. Why do we round?
(yeah) So you’re using your language.
28. T. /Yeah so, I suppose I, I did that the last day (yeah) [T. laughs] and it went on
[…]
29. M. /Well then confine them (yeah) in one sentence, «can you explain to me […]
30. T. /Ok, because the, the, they’re well able to go, see, and then that’s it (go off
task) I was more, I was kind of going, «oh God, if they start», we could
spend two or three minutes and I might end up doing five or six examples.
31. M. /Well you might need to confine them down (yeah) or before you ask the
question. «Now I’m only going to take three hands, the first three hands
up» […]

This means that by the time the mentor starts the discussion on the second agreed
focus, formative assessment, she has already addressed various issues relating to
this, and she can therefore use the conversation to reinforce earlier points. Her key
message is that the teacher can use assessment more formatively throughout the
activity, rather than relying on the correction of children’s work at the end.

49. M. Now with your assessment, you were basing it mainly on am, your teacher
correction (yeah, yeah), you know, am.
130 C. de Paor

50. T. /Or just questioning

51. M. /It might be no harm (yeah), it might be no harm to, to do the kind of
‘thumbs up,’ you know, ‘thumbs up, are we all happy now? »‘[…] so you
just get instant feedback (so you’re getting some of their self-assessment),
self-assessment going as well (Ok). So, training them in to, being able to, to
kind of assess their own work, […]

Staying with the second focus, the mentor also advises the teacher to use classroom
observation. The teacher replies that she already uses this, but the mentor suggesting
that she simplify the template.

Relations: place and positioning – dyad B

Similar to Mentor A, Mentor B takes care to use politeness strategies in order to mini-
mise injury to the teacher’s face. There is a plentiful use of positive politeness strategies
such as hedging, for example, use of ‘maybe,’ ‘might,’ ‘perhaps.’ The mentor offers
advice, but wants to do so in a way that does not oblige the teacher to adopt it.
The volume of talk for each of the episodes is generally quite evenly divided
between mentor and teacher, suggesting that no one party dominates the conversation.
However, an interesting aspect in Conversation B is its speed. The high number of
words spoken by Dyad B per minute (248, as opposed to 208 in the case of Dyad
A) can be attributed to both mentor and teacher in Dyad B being more inclined to
interrupt the other, as indicated in the use of italicised words in the extracts, for
example, to make a point, or steer the discussion in a certain direction. A willingness
to interrupt the speed of another is an indicator of symmetry in the power relations,
showing that each party is prepared to interrupt, where she deems it necessary.

Discussion
While the differences observed in how both mentors manage the interaction are depen-
dent on the specifics of both situations, involving two different teachers with particular
needs, they also represent different understandings about what mentoring entails.
The relational dimension is foremost in the work of both mentors. The rules of action
are geared towards avoiding conflict, prioritising consensus, and building the confidence
of the teachers. Their approach follows the advice of Bubb who urges mentors not to
hesitate to ‘shower with praise’ (Bubb 2005, 61). The learning relationship is symmetri-
cal, as illustrated for example, by an even share of the dialogue. As for the kind of knowl-
edge mobilised, there is clearly an emphasis on issues relating to classroom
management, this of course being the need identified by both teachers in advance.
Teacher A wished to learn more about her use of group work and time management,
while Teacher B had a difficulty around making best use of time in correcting children’s
work in class. This reflects how classroom management causes much concern to begin-
ning teachers throughout the world (OECD 2005), with Ireland being no exception
(Killeavy and Murphy 2006). It also reflects the recommendation in the new Droichead
induction programme that, ‘the NQT should be encouraged to teach in an area where
they feel their learning need is greatest’ (Teaching Council 2017, 5).
Similarly, an evaluation of the Droichead pilot project found that professional con-
versations between the NQTs and the PSTs, ‘mainly centred on teaching methods,
 Irish Educational Studies 131

classroom management and how the NQT was coping’ (Smyth et al. 2016, 73). In that
evaluation, mentors also noted that the greatest improvement reported in NQTs’ pro-
gress over the course of the year (based on working with 84 NQTs) was in relation to
classroom management, teaching methods and creating a positive learning environ-
ment (151).
An important point however, which the conversations here highlight, relates to
how classroom management may be understood, and how it may be discussed in a
way that is integrated with, rather than separate from issues of pedagogy. Classroom
management has been likened to a gestalt combining several aspects of the teacher’s
work, including reflection, managing student behaviour, and the ability to provide
engaging instruction (Hansen and Childs 1998). According to this view, therefore, tea-
cher’s classroom management is best approached, not in isolation from pedagogy and
assessment, but rather in combination. This may involve a certain alternation or
hopping back and forth in the conversation, i.e. sometimes focusing on classroom
management in a restricted sense (relating to behavioural issues and organisation),
and sometimes in a more holistic sense, involving issues relating to pedagogy and
teacher beliefs.
This raises questions about the kinds of knowledge that characterise teacher con-
versation in schools. As noted, Mentor A was reluctant to focus unduly on issues relat-
ing to the assessment of children’s learning, in case it would be deemed obtrusive by
the teacher or threaten her confidence. And yet, Mentor B was able to do so, with
no apparent adverse consequences.
This analyisis of the mentoring conversations recalls the notion of ‘semantic space,’
described as that nature of professional dialogue, constituting tone, choice of words,
routines of dialogue, and balance of participation in conversation (Lofthouse and
Hall 2014). Semantic space interacts with organisational structures, physical spaces,
and relationships. Schools, like any places of work are places in which certain forms
of speech are promoted or encouraged, and where othersare discouraged or made
impossible (Kegan and Lahey 2001).
To return to the EPR model, the configuration for both conversations in this
study is characterised by a certain concern for the relational dimension. The episte-
mic dimension is focused on classroom management issues, but Conversation B does
this in a way which integrates pedagogy and assessment of children’s learning. Fur-
thermore, while correction might normally be associated with ‘assessment of learn-
ing,’ mentor B emphasises its use as ‘assessment for learning’, i.e. where teachers,
‘use evidence about students’ knowledge, understanding and skills to inform their
teaching’ (NSW 2017).’ In fact, this mentor also manages to emphasise correction
as ‘assessment as learning,’ where students become their own assessors, and where
they, ‘monitor their own learning, ask questions and use a range of strategies to
decide what they know and can do, and how to use assessment for new learning’
(NSW 2017).
Returning to the three postures of leading, guiding and escorting (Paul 2004), the
results show that these are manifest to varying degrees. The interaction also points to
the balance required by mentors between following ‘their own project’ (assimilation)
and the ‘teacher’s project’ (differentiation) (Donnay and Charlier 2006). If this
balance is disregarded, there may be a danger of ‘absorption in the other’, whereby
a weakened mediation by the mentor fails to provide the conditions necessary for effec-
tive teacher professional development.
132 C. de Paor

Successfully managing the interaction requires the learning relationship to be

maintained (relational dimension), the post-observation conversation to reach a suc-
cessful conclusion (pragmatic dimension), and the NQT to learn (epistemic dimen-
sion). The challenge is to bring these into productive tension, so that the experience
can be professionally developmental for the teacher. Both mentors face questions
and dilemmas in how to best manage the conversation with regard to addressing
the teaching and learning issues, while avoiding any adverse consequences for their
relationship with the teacher.
This raises issues in the professional development of the metors themselves. This is
particularly relevant from an Irish point of view, as suggested in the evaluation of the
Droichead pilot study, where the roles and responsibilities of the PST members varied
between schools (Smyth et al. 2016, 78). Differences were also noted in the kinds of
topics discussed in post-observation conversations. While this may reflect the
varying needs of the NQTs concerned, each working in particular situations, it is
worth maintaining attention on this aspect of mentoring practices. This is essential
in order to ensure that the appropriate blend of support is provided – professional,
social and personal (European Commission 2010).
One final difference in the approach used by both mentors relates to the list of
topics given in the Mentor’s handbook. The results here show that Mentor A does
not use the mentor’s handbook in the way intended, given that she addresses all of
the suggestions given (even though a maximum of four is recommended).
This can be linked to a distinction between ‘artefact’ and ‘instrument’ (Rabardel
1995). The artefact is the universal part of the resource, existing independently from
how someone may use it as an instrument in a given situation. In other words, the
instrument is the artefact being used in a given situation by a professional. Through
a process of ‘instrumental genesis,’ the mentor builds a mental scheme for determining
her behaviour in using the artefact. The schematisation may enable her to shape the
artefact profitably as an instrument, or on the other hand, the artefact may actually
constrain the activity. In the case of Mentor A, it appears as if the decision to cover
all of the suggested topics may have prevented a more focused examination of particu-
lar topics with the NQT, for example, linking classroom management with the attend-
ant pedagogical issues. Addressing too many disparate topics may have the effect of
distracting the NQT from the important messages. While filling the conversation
with less important conversation may have the benefit of keeping the conversation
going, (e.g. as conversation fillers or transition points), it may contribute little to
teacher learning. This further shows therefore how an analysis of post-observation
professional conversation could be used as a form of professional development for
mentors, so that they are attuned to how available resources can be best exploited.

Conclusion
This study offers some insight into post-observation conversations taking place in
teacher induction in Ireland. Although undertaken on a small scale, it offers some rel-
evant issues for consideration.
This is particularly relevant from an Irish point of view, given the launch of the new
Droichead induction framework (Teaching Council 2017). Lesson observation is a key
feature of Droichead, including observations by the NQT of more experienced tea-
chers’ practice, as well as observation of the NQT’s practice by the PST. The task
 Irish Educational Studies 133

for those supporting teacher learning is to be aware of the resulting tensions and dilem-
mas, as they strive to create the optimum conditions for teacher learning. This requires
the right blend of support, taking account of the needs of the teacher, but also the inte-
grated nature of teacher knowledge, as illustrated in the discussion on classroom
management.
The theoretical framework used, i.e. professional didactics, could play a useful part
in this process, providing the necessary concepts and tools for mentors and experi-
enced colleagues to become more aware of their own knowledge-in-action or ‘connais-
sances-en-actes’ (Vinatier 2009) as they engage with NQTs. This can be a powerful
source of learning for the mentors themselves. Making such schemes of thought expli-
cit, is the first step in understanding them, and ultimately transforming them.

Notes on contributor
Dr Cathal de Paor is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Education, Mary Immaculate College,
Limerick. The article is based on his doctoral research carried out in the University of Nantes.

References
Altet, M. 2008. “Rapport à la formation, à la pratique, aux savoirs et reconfiguration des savoirs
professionnels par les stagiaires.” In Conflits de savoirs en formation des enseignants, edited by
Ph. Perrenoud, M. Altet, C. Lessard, and L. Paquay, 91–105. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
Bartell, C. 2005. Cultivating High-Quality Teaching Through Induction and Mentoring.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Britton, E., L. Paine, D. Pimm, and S. Raizen. 2003. Comprehensive Teacher Induction. Boston,
MA: Kluwer Academic.
Bubb, S. 2005. Helping Teachers Develop. London: Paul Chapman.
de Paor, C. 2012. “Modalités d’accompagnement des enseignants débutants et construction de
la professionnalité: comparaison entre la France et l’Irlande.” Doctoral thesis., Université de
Nantes.
Donnay, J., and E. Charlier. 2006. Apprendre par l’analyse de pratiques. Namur: Éditions du
CRP et Presses universitaires de Namur.
European Commission. 2010. Developing Coherent and System-Wide Induction Programmes
for Beginning Teachers, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/
policy/school/doc/handbook0410_en.pdf
Evans, L. 2008. “Professionalism, Professionality and the Development of Education
Professionals.” British Journal of Educational Studies 56 (1): 20–38.
Goffman, E. 1973. La mise en scène de la vie quotidienne: La présentation de soi. Paris: Minuit.
Hansen, J., and J. Childs. 1998. “Creating a School Where People Like to be.” Educational
Leadership 56: 14–17.
Kegan, R., and L. Lahey. 2001. How the Way we Talk can Change the Way we Work: Seven
Languages for Transformation. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.
Kelchtermans, G., and K. Ballet. 2002. “The Micropolitics of Teacher Induction. A Narrative-
Biographical Study on Teacher Socialisation.” Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (1): 105–120.
Kerbrat-Orechionni, C. 1992. Les interactions verbales, Tome 2. Paris: A. Colin.
Killeavy, M., and R. Murphy. 2006. National Pilot Project on Teacher Induction; Report on
Phase 1 and 2, 2002–2004. Dublin: Department of Education and Science.
Lofthouse, R., and E. Hall. 2014. “Developing Practices in Teachers’ Professional Dialogue in
England: Using Coaching Dimensions as an Epistemic Tool.” Professional Development in
Education 40: 758–778. doi:10.1080/19415257.2014.886283.
Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
NSW. 2017. “Assessment for, as, and of Learning.” New South Wales Standards Authority.
https://syllabus.nesa.nsw.edu.au/support-materials/assessment-for-as-and-of-learning/
134 C. de Paor

OECD. 2005. Teachers Matter Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Paris:
OECD.
Pastré, P., P. Mayen, and G. Vergnaud. 2006. “La didactique professionnelle.” Revue française
de pédagogie 154: 145–198.
Paul, M. 2004. L’accompagnement : une posture professionnelle spécifique. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Piaget, J. 1974. Réussir et comprendre. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Portner, H. 2008. Mentoring New Teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Rabardel, P. 1995. Les hommes et les technologies. Paris: Armand Colin.
Smyth, E., P. Conway, A. Leavy, M. Darmody, J. Banks, and D. Watson. 2016. Review of the
Droichead Teacher Induction Pilot Programme. Dublin: Economic and Social Research
Institute. https://www.esri.ie/pubs/BKMNEXT303.pdf.
Teaching Council. 2017. Droichead: The Integrated Professional Induction Framework.
Maynooth: Teaching Council. http://www.teachingcouncil.ie/en/_fileupload/Droichead-
2017/Droichead-The-Integrated-Professional-Induction-Policy.pdf.
Vinatier, I. 2009. Pour une didactique professionnelle de l’enseignement. Rennes: PUF.
Vinatier, I. 2013. Le travail de l’enseignant. Une approche par la didactique professionnelle.
Bruxelles: De Boeck.
Zachary, L. 2011. The Mentor‘s Guide: Facilitating Effective Learning Relationships. New York:
Jossey-Bass.