Teaching Scotland’s Future
Mentoring Pilot Partnership Project
Final Report
November 2013
This report is submitted by
Professor Kay Livingston (University of Glasgow)
and
Lynne Shiach (University of Aberdeen)
in partnership with
Sheila Marr (Aberdeenshire Council)
and
Tracey McGoldrick, Sara Perera and Andrea McIlhatton (North Lanarkshire Council)
On behalf of the partnership we would like to thank all the participants and their
schools for their engagement in the Mentoring Pilot Project and for their willingness to
give of their time at such a busy time of the school year.
2
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary
4
Introduction
10
1.
Aims and Objectives
10
2.
Project Partnership
11
3.
The Project Participants
11
4.
Mentor Development Days and Implementation Processes
12
5.
Evaluation Approach
15
6.
Materials developed
16
7.
Data Gathering and Analysis
16
8.
Key issues to emerge from the data
16
- Strengthening of professional learning through mentoring processes
- Improving focus and structure of mentoring conversations
- Importance of mentor language
- Benefits and challenges of relationships and partnerships
- Importance and challenges of quality assurance
- Limited time available
- Challenging timing of the Mentor Pilot Project
- Impact on pupils’ and other teachers’ learning
- Importance of mentor training and ongoing training
- Sustaining mentoring processes in schools
- Suggestions for taking mentoring forward
17
19
20
22
27
29
30
30
31
32
34
9.
Concluding points
38
10.
References
40
Appendix 1
41
3
Executive Summary
The University of Glasgow working in partnership with the University of Aberdeen, North
Lanarkshire Council and Aberdeenshire Council were invited by Education Scotland in April
2013 to lead a Mentoring Pilot Project with teachers from a selection of primary and
secondary schools.
Project Aims
•
•
•
To develop a strengthened model of professional learning through mentoring
processes
To identify the principles of partnership between schools, local authorities and
universities
To evaluate the impact of the joint development and implementation of a Mentoring
Pilot Project by a partnership of two universities and two local authorities on the
career long professional learning of practitioners
Project Partnership and participants
The innovative project partnership involved the University of Glasgow and the University of
Aberdeen working in partnership with North Lanarkshire Council and Aberdeenshire Council
to implement Mentor Pilot Projects. The two universities worked with both local authorities
and the representatives from the two local authorities coordinated and supported the pilot in
their own authority. Each local authority identified a selection of schools from one of their
school clusters. The North Lanarkshire Council cluster involved one secondary school and
two primary schools. The Aberdeenshire Council cluster involved one secondary school and
three primary schools. The schools varied in size and location. For example, they ranged
from a large secondary school in a central belt urban area with 1352 pupils and a teaching
staff of 97 to a small primary school in a rural area in the north east of Scotland with 35
pupils and 2 teachers including the headteacher. A total of 26 teachers were involved in the
Mentor Pilot Project - 13 teachers in one local authority and 13 in the other. In both local
authorities 7 teachers were secondary teachers and 6 were primary.
As the project concerned mentoring processes to strengthen career-long professional
learning the teachers who were selected to take part represented various stages of a
teaching career. For example, the participants included teachers with many years teaching
experience (e.g. one teacher had been teaching for 35 years) and probationary teachers in
their first year of teaching. The participants also held a variety of promoted posts. For
example, the participants included 4 primary school headteachers, 3 secondary school
deputy headteachers, 1 primary school Principal Teacher, 2 secondary school Principal
Teachers and 1 Chartered Teacher. The participants also taught different subjects in the
secondary schools (Business Education, Maths, Biology, Modern Foreign Languages,
Geography, History, RMPS, Pastoral Care and Additional Support Needs), and different
stages in the primary schools (Primary 2, 6 and 7 and composite P1-3 and P4 - 7).
4
Mentor Development Day and Implementation Processes
All the participants in the project took part in mentor training and were supported in
implementing mentor processes in their own schools. Following discussion with the local
authorities and the schools participating in the project it was agreed that the mentor training
would take place in and out of school. The training was conducted separately in each local
authority but the structure and the design of the mentor development days was similar in
both authorities. Day 1 and Day 3 of mentor development took place in a location outside of
the schools. These two full days of mentor development gave the participants time to focus
on their own professional learning and work with their primary and secondary school
colleagues across their local authority cluster. It provided opportunities to develop a crosssector professional learning community. Day 2 took place in the participants’ own school and
meant that the number of teachers involved in the mentor training was smaller and there was
greater focus on the individual participants’ own career-long professional learning in relation
to their own practitioner enquiry, the pupils in their school and their own development as a
mentor.
The development days were structured around the needs of the teachers, schools and the
two local authorities. The different starting points and context for teachers, schools and local
authorities were recognised. The mentor development was not conducted in abstract rather
it was developed through the participants’ engagement in a practitioner enquiry that was
specific to their own needs as a teacher and the pupils they worked with in their own school.
To ensure that the ownership of the practitioner enquiry rested with the teacher(s) the focus
of the enquiry was identified by the project participants themselves. All the participants
engaged in practitioner enquiry, all acted as mentors and all had the opportunity to be
mentored. This enabled all the teachers involved to develop the knowledge, understanding
and experience of practitioner enquiry and mentoring processes within a partnership context.
At the end of each of the mentor development days an implementation task was set for all
the participants and the next training day started with individual and shared reflection of the
implementation of mentoring processes.
Data Gathering and Analysis
A mixed methods approach was used to collect data to evaluate the project. The approaches
included:
 Interviews with headteachers/DHTs prior to start of the Mentor Pilot Project
 Baseline survey of all participants
 End of Mentor Pilot Project interviews with all the participants
 End of Mentor Pilot Project interviews with headteachers/DHTs
From the data analysis the following key themes emerged:





Strengthening of professional learning through mentoring processes
Improving focus and structure of mentoring conversations
Importance of mentor language
Benefits and challenges of relationships and partnerships
Importance and challenges of quality assurance
5






Limited time available
Challenging timing of the Mentor Pilot Project
Impact on pupils’ and other teachers’ learning
Importance of mentor training and ongoing training
Sustaining mentoring processes in schools
Suggestions for taking mentoring forward
All the participants said the mentoring processes had strengthened their professional
learning in some way. Many of the participants’ comments indicated that their engagement in
mentoring processes had deepened their thinking about learning and teaching. This is an
important finding given the aim of strengthening teachers’ professional learning though
mentoring in the context of career-long professional learning. Comments regarding impact
on the teachers’ practice were noted across the range of participants (from probationers to
teachers with 30+ years of teaching). In some cases the participants said that the training
and engaging in mentoring processes had changed the way they teach. For example,
participant 3SB said, ‘it changed how I think and teach’.
The focus for enhancing the development and improvement of active listening, questioning
and reflection during the training was mentoring conversations in relation to the participants’
own practitioner enquiry. This appeared to be a central factor in the participants’ successful
engagement in the training because the focus of the mentoring conversations was on
developing their own professional learning needs in relation to their own context and their
own pupils. The conversations were not vague or abstract rather they were focused and led
to identification of next steps in teaching and learning.
The majority of the participants specifically identified a positive impact on enhancing the
focus and structure of their professional dialogue following the training. Use of a structured
log and focused mentoring conversations was valued by the participants for its development
of a more analytical and solution-focused approach to thinking about and discussing learning
and teaching. Overall, the response to the training in mentor conversations was very
positive. The majority of the participants said that the training in mentor language selection
and use was very helpful and enabled them to engage in higher order thinking and focus
more deeply on improving learning and teaching. There was a general recognition that this
type of focused learning conversation guided by a mentor ‘is different from the day to day
conversations’ held in school (participant 6PA). It is important to note how valuable the
participants found the training in mentor language for the development of their own thinking
skills and their ability to structure and initiate mentoring conversations with other teachers
and pupils.
Partnerships were at the heart of the Mentor Pilot Project. The evidence suggested that a
strengthening of shared communication and understanding across school, local authority
and university sectors had been achieved, in pursuit of a common goal to support the
improvement of children’s learning. Successful collegiate working was underpinned by the
establishment of effective working relationships and personal and professional
communication. The successful partnership work was founded on reciprocal relationships
and responsive communication. Overall trusting, mutually respectful relationships were seen
as necessary to the achievement of the multi-directional flow of communication required for
strong partnership.
6
Flexibility within the implementation of mentoring processes emerged as a key point in
responses regarding quality assurance, particularly in relation to the choice of mentors within
the context of career-long professional learning. This appeared to link to the importance of
teachers maintaining ownership of the mentoring processes in order to value the mentors
and recognise the role they play in strengthening their professional learning. Despite
reservations about the form of quality assurance there was recognition that it was needed to
ensure that mentoring processes were effectively and consistently implemented.
The biggest challenge that was mentioned by the majority of the participants was time. This
included, time to think, time to reflect, time for a mentor and mentee to analyse pupil work
collaboratively, time to meet to have mentor conversations and time to develop expertise in
mentor conversation, particularly mentor language and use of the structured log. It is
recognised that it is challenging to find ‘a good time’ to carry out a Pilot Project during the
school year and it is not surprising that several participants said that the timing of the project
was not ideal.
The participants commented positively about the quality of the training and they emphasised
the necessity for high quality mentor training in order to strengthen teachers’ career-long
professional learning. In particular, there were strong feelings that there was a need for
ongoing mentor training to ensure that mentoring processes became embedded and
sustained in the day-to-day life of the school. Some were concerned about how mentoring
processes would be implemented across their own school and across schools in Scotland
more generally without training and continued support from the universities and local
authorities. Nevertheless, many participants offered concrete suggestions about what they
could do in their own schools, departments, faculties or stage and saw how the mentoring
skills they had learned were transferable to other key educational priorities such as TLCs
and Professional Update conversations and to facilitate and deepen pupils’ learning through
mentoring processes.
The headteachers of the schools involved in the project also offered suggestions for
sustaining mentoring processes. Similar to the participants they saw the need for high quality
ongoing training for mentors. Also, they echoed the views of many participants saying that
mentoring processes would have to be implemented sensitively within the context of careerlong professional learning. Three of the primary headteachers had already prioritised
mentoring in their planning and recognised the importance of their leadership role in
implementing mentoring successfully. Different challenges were identified in the primary
schools compared to the secondary schools. For example, the challenges of implementing
mentoring in a small rural school with limit access to mentors compared to the introduction of
mentoring in a large urban secondary school with a large number of teachers. This needs
careful consideration to overcome these challenges.
Concluding points

Overall positive response to strengthening of professional learning through mentoring
processes

Strong recognition of the importance of mentor training and the need for ongoing
mentor training within the context of career-long professional learning.
7

Evidence that the participants found the blended approach of professional learning
helpful with some of the mentor training taking place at a location external to the
school with primary and secondary teachers working together and some ‘schoolbased’ training taking place in their own school with greater emphasis on their
individual professional learning in relation to their own needs and those of their own
pupils

Overall positive response to cross department, faculty, stage, school, sector working
– providing opportunities for affirmation and new thinking

Evidence of improvement of teachers’ and pupils’ learning through focused and
structured mentoring conversations

Generally positive response to practitioner enquiry that was guided by a mentor,
solution-focused, flexible and responsive to the needs of individuals and schools

Evidence of teacher understanding that focused mentoring conversations are
different from less formal conversations about learning and teaching held between
teachers

Evidence of mentoring processes building and strengthening trusting relationships
across departments, faculties, stages, schools and sectors

Evidence of desire for professional autonomy and flexible approaches to mentor
selection to support effective professional learning through mentoring processes in
the context of career-long professional learning

Evidence of professional culture which views mentoring as a process relevant to
probationer professional learning but not so easily implemented with experienced
teachers in the context of career-long professional learning without ongoing training
and sensitive implementation

Evidence of the potential benefits of the partnership approach between universities,
local authorities and schools and the mentoring approaches to be used in many
established processes in schools e.g. TLCs, stage and department meetings,
classroom observations as well as challenging practice and stimulating and
supporting the implementation of innovative practices in schools

Evidence that the time available to devote to the practitioner enquiry and mentoring
processes was generally challenging for the participants. This was caused partly by
the timing of the implementation of the Mentor Pilot Project at the end of a school
year. It was a particularly challenging time for the secondary schools when the key
priority for them was the preparation for National 4 and 5 Examinations.
The mentor Pilot Project appears to have been an important step in the development of
structured and focused mentoring processes to strengthen teachers’ professional learning
and impact on pupils’ learning. However, the participants and the headteachers of the
schools involved indicated that further training through partnership between the universities,
local authorities and schools is needed to embed mentoring processes within and across
8
schools. Implementing new initiatives successfully needs a model that pays attention to
developing, consolidating and sustaining mentoring processes in Scottish schools.
It is recommended that work continues with the local authorities and the primary and
secondary schools involved in the Mentor Pilot Project to support them in embedding
mentoring processes across their schools. This would not only enable the local authorities
and the schools to have support and challenge as they take mentoring processes forward for
themselves, it would also provide an opportunity to evaluate the consolidating and sustaining
stages of the implementation of mentoring processes in the context of career-long
professional learning. This moves the evaluation processes on from analysing and reviewing
the initial stages of new mentoring processes to uncovering the lessons to be learned more
generally from local authorities and schools as they embed and strive to sustain these
processes for themselves aided by light touch partnership support.
9
Introduction
The University of Glasgow working in partnership with the University of Aberdeen, North
Lanarkshire Council and Aberdeenshire Council were invited by Education Scotland in April
2013 to lead a Mentoring Pilot Project with teachers from a selection of primary and
secondary schools. The focus of the pilot project was the role of mentoring within the context
of career-long professional learning. The Mentoring Pilot Project is one of the actions taken
as a follow-up to the report of a review of teacher education in Scotland (Donaldson, G.
(2011) Teaching Scotland's Future: Report of a review of teacher education in Scotland.
Edinburgh: Scottish Government). The report of the review highlighted the importance of
mentoring in teachers’ career-long professional learning.
Mentoring is central to professional development at all stages in a teacher's career
and all teachers should see themselves as mentors of not just students and newly
qualified teachers but more generally.
(Donaldson, 2011:98).
This Final Report provides an account of the way the Mentoring Pilot Project was
implemented and evaluated through a partnership between two universities, two local
authorities and their schools. It also provides a more detailed analysis of the participants’
views about the processes and outcomes of the Mentoring Pilot Project and about the
impact on their own professional learning, and their pupils other teachers.
1. Aims and Objectives
Aims
•
•
•
To develop a strengthened model of professional learning through mentoring
processes
To identify the principles of partnership between schools, local authorities and
universities
To evaluate the impact of the joint development and implementation of a Mentoring
Pilot Project by a partnership of two universities and two local authorities on the
career long professional learning of practitioners
Objectives



To take forward recommendations 15, 27 and 3 (See Appendix 1) of Teaching
Scotland’s Future and the Scottish Government’s response to Teaching Scotland’s
Future.
To enhance professional learning and engagement between colleagues in school,
local authority and university
To pilot innovative work practices within schools and local authorities
10
2. Project Partnership
The innovative project partnership involved the University of Glasgow and the University of
Aberdeen working in partnership with North Lanarkshire Council and Aberdeenshire Council
to implement two mentor pilot projects. The two universities worked with both local
authorities and the representatives from the two local authorities coordinated and supported
the pilot in their own authority. Each local authority identified a selection of schools from one
of their school clusters. The North Lanarkshire Council cluster involved one secondary
school and two primary schools. The Aberdeenshire Council cluster involved one secondary
school and three primary schools. The schools varied in size and location. For example, they
ranged from a large secondary school in a central belt urban area with 1352 pupils and a
teaching staff of 97 to a small primary school in a rural area in the north east of Scotland with
35 pupils and 2 teachers including the headteacher.
The planning and implementation of the Mentoring Pilot Project was carried out in
partnership with the local authorities and schools. The selection of the participants and the
design of the mentor development days and the implementation processes were discussed
and agreed in partnership with the local authority staff involved. Visits were made to the
schools prior to the start of the Mentor Pilot Project and discussions were held with the
headteachers in the primary schools and the headteachers and deputy headteachers
(DHTs) in the secondary schools. These meetings ensured school involvement from the
outset and agreement on the mentor development days and tasks. The implementation of
the mentor development days was shared between the university and local authority staff
(each person taking responsibility for parts of the mentor development days according to
their expertise). Ongoing discussion took place between all partners to identify opportunities
and challenges in relation to making the development days and implementation processes
as effect as possible. Discussions were held with the primary school headteachers and the
headteachers and DHTs in the secondary schools at the end of the Mentor Pilot Project to
identify ongoing plans for mentoring in the schools involved.
3. The Project Participants
A total of 26 teachers were involved in the Mentor Pilot Project - 13 teachers in one local
authority and 13 in the other. At the start of the Mentoring Pilot Project a range of baseline
data was collected about the participants. This concerned:









Sector they taught in (primary or secondary)
Post held (e.g. Maths teacher, Primary 2 teacher, DHT)
Number of years teaching
Number of years in promoted post (if applicable)
Number of probationers mentored
Other mentor / mentoring experiences
Experience of being mentored
If they had been mentored was it part of GTCS Induction Scheme
Had they had any mentor training prior to participating in the Mentor Pilot Project (if
yes, how many days?)
11
In both local authorities 7 teachers were secondary teachers and 6 were primary. In North
Lanarkshire Council there were 3 teachers from each of the two primary schools. In
Aberdeenshire Council there were 2 teachers from each of the 3 primary schools. As the
project concerned mentoring processes to strengthen career-long professional learning the
teachers who were selected to take part represented various stages of a teaching career.
For example, the participants included teachers with many years teaching experience (e.g.
one teacher had been teaching for 35 years) and probationary teachers in their first year of
teaching. The participants also held a variety of promoted posts. For example, the
participants included 4 primary school headteachers, 3 secondary school deputy
headteachers (NB. they did not attend all the days and in relation to one of the secondary
schools a different DHT attended on day 1 and day 31), 1 primary school Principal Teacher,
2 secondary school Principal Teachers and 1 Charter teacher.
The participants also taught different subjects in the secondary schools (Business
Education, Maths, Biology, Modern Foreign Languages, Geography, History, RMPS,
Pastoral Care and Additional Support Needs), and different stages in the primary schools
(Primary 2, 6 and 7 and composite P1-3 and P4 - 7).
The participants had different experiences of mentoring prior to participating in the Mentor
Pilot Project. Seven of the participants in one local authority had mentored a probationary
teacher before (6 teachers had mentored 1 probationary teacher and 1 teacher had
mentored 4 probationary teachers). Five of the participants in this local authority had
experience of mentoring either pupils or staff in school and 1 participant had experience of
mentoring outside of school. Five participants in this group had not been mentored
themselves while the other 8 participants had been mentored as part of the GTCS Induction
Scheme. Nine of the participants in this local authority had not received any mentoring
training prior to their involvement in the Mentoring Pilot Project. Four of the participants had
received training (3 had received up to 5 days training and 1 had received between 6 and 10
days training.
In the other local authority 3 of the participants had experience of mentoring a probationary
teacher (1 teacher had experience of mentoring 1 probationary teacher, 1 teacher had
mentored 2 probationary teachers and the third teacher had held a seconded post as a Full
Release Mentor and had mentored 23 probationary teachers). Seven of the participants in
this local authority had experience of mentoring pupils or staff members in school and one
teacher had experience of mentoring outside of school. Eight of the participants in this group
had not had experience of being mentored themselves and 4 teachers had been mentored
as part of the GTCS Induction Scheme. Ten of the participants in this local authority had not
received any mentor training. Two teachers had received mentor training prior to their
involvement in the Mentor Pilot Project (1 teacher had received up to 5 days training and the
other 6 – 10 days training).
1
The DHT who only attended on day 3 did not complete the Baseline Survey on day 1. Therefore, in one local
authority the Baseline Survey responses refer to only 12 teachers.
12
4. Mentor Development Days and Implementation Processes
Following discussion with the local authorities and the schools participating in the Mentor
Pilot Project it was agreed that the mentor development days would take place in and out of
school. The mentor development days were conducted separately in each local authority but
the structure and the design of the mentor development days were similar in both authorities.
Day 1 and Day 3 of the mentor development took place in a location outside of the schools.
These two full days of mentor development gave the participants time and space to focus on
their own professional learning and work with their primary and secondary school colleagues
across their local authority cluster. It provided opportunities to develop a cross-sector
professional learning community (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Day 2 took place in the
participants’ own school. This meant the numbers involved in the mentor development in
each school were smaller and the focus was on the individual participants’ own career-long
learning in relation to their own practitioner enquiry, the pupils in their school and their own
development as a mentor. In one local authority the 3 mentor development days took place
between May and June 2013 and in the other, at the request of the schools, Day 1 and 2
took place between May and June 2013 and Day 3 took place in August 2013.
The development days were structured around the needs of the teachers, schools and the
two local authorities. The different starting points and context for teachers, schools and local
authorities were recognised. The mentor development was not conducted in abstract.
Rather it was developed through the participants’ engagement in a practitioner enquiry that
was specific to their own needs as a teacher and the pupils they worked with in their own
school. To ensure that the ownership of the practitioner enquiry rested with the teacher the
focus of the enquiry was identified by the Mentor Pilot Project participants themselves. On
the first mentor development day the teachers engaged in a reflective activity to identify their
challenges as an individual or as school. This was done through mentoring processes set in
the context of individual career-long professional learning (CLPL) and improving pupils’
learning outcomes. The focus of the practitioner enquiry provided an authentic context for
the development of mentoring skills.
Engaging in practitioner enquiry was at the centre of all the activities on the development
days so the development of mentoring skills had a clear focus. The aim was to develop a
sustainable model of CLPL that focused on the use of mentoring processes to improve
teaching and impact on pupil learning. Knowledge and skills in practitioner enquiry were
developed during each of the development days. The focus of the mentoring conversations
was either the individual teacher’s enquiry or a school enquiry. There was a mix of individual
and school-based topics identified for the practitioner enquires. In one local authority the
secondary school focus was on encouraging pupil engagement in learning. In the other local
authority the secondary school teachers engaged in paired practitioner enquiry focusing on
preparations for the implementation of the new National 4 and 5 Examinations in maths,
biology and business education. In the primary schools across the two local authorities the
participants in all but one school focused on individual practitioner enquiries which included
developing understanding of odd and even numbers, reading for understanding, cooperative
learning and challenging able learners. The primary school-based practitioner enquiry
focused on identifying ways to implement 2 hours of physical education.
13
All the participants engaged in practitioner enquiry and all acted as mentors. This enabled all
the teachers involved to develop the knowledge, understanding and experience of
practitioner enquiry and mentoring processes within a partnership context. The 3 mentor
development days were designed to ensure individual, pair and group work. Day 1 and Day
3 enabled secondary and primary school colleagues to mentor one another and challenge
and support one another in their practitioner enquiry. Day 2 which took place in their own
schools and enabled them to focus on developing and deepening their mentoring skills with
their own colleagues and further develop the focus and structure of their practitioner enquiry.
At the end of each of the mentor development days an implementation task was set for all
the participants. This was designed to enable them to implement the skills they had learned
and to practise and reflect on mentoring processes and practitioner enquiry in their own
school context. The reflections gathered between the development days were used to refine
the design of the next development day. This enabled the personalisation of learning and
gave the participants opportunities to take responsibility for their own learning and engage in
co-construction of the mentor development days.
The mentor development days involved the following:
Day 1












Aims of the Mentoring Pilot Project and Day 1
Working in collaboration – universities, local authorities and schools
Teachers as learners – developing as enquiring practitioners
Engaging in practitioner enquiry
Identifying effective mentoring characteristics and processes
Understanding mentoring roles
Building trusting relationships
Collaboration with colleagues – developing a learning culture in schools through
peer-learning communities
Career-long professional learning - Implementing effective professional learning
activities through analysis of pupil work
Understanding the new CLPL Standards
Completion of Reflective Log
Implementation task
Day 2







Aims of Day 2
Reflection on implementation of mentoring processes since day 1
Engaging in focused mentoring conversations to improve pupils and teacher
learning
Consolidating and developing mentoring processes introduced in day 1
Developing effective listening skills
Working in collaboration with peers
Developing trusting relationships and supportive and challenging learning
environments for improvement.
14



Mentoring in relation to participants’ specific practitioner enquiry
Completion of Reflective Log
Implementation Task
Day 3










Aims of Day 3
Reflection on implementation of mentoring processes since day 2
Revisiting Aims of Mentor Pilot Project
Engaging in responsive mentoring
Building trusting relationships
Practising mentoring conversations focusing on individual practitioner enquires
Improving the quality of evidence gathering, reflection, feedback and follow-up
action to improve teacher and pupil learning
Understanding CLPL and Leadership and Management Standards
Reflection and evaluation of mentoring processes and Mentoring Pilot Project
Identifying next steps in sustaining enquiry and mentoring processes
5. Evaluation Approach
The aim was to evaluate the impact of the development and implementation of the Mentoring
Pilot Project carried out by the partnership of two universities and two local authorities on
strengthening the professional learning of the participants and the effectiveness of the
mentoring structures and processes the participants engaged in.
A mixed methods approach was used to collect data to evaluate the project. The
approaches included:




Interviews with headteachers/DHTs prior to start of the Mentor Pilot Project
Baseline survey of all participants
End of Mentor Pilot Project interviews with all participants
End of Mentor Pilot Project interviews with headteachers/DHTs of the
participating schools
Review and evaluation was integrated into each step of the pilot project. Participants were
asked to complete a reflective log over the course of the pilot project and after each Mentor
Development Day were given a work-based task to enable them to apply, practise and
reflect on their new learning. The participants were provided with a grid to note their
‘between mentor development days reflections’ and they were encouraged to record their
own reflections in a Reflective Log. This process enabled ongoing reflection and evaluation
and enabled immediate issues and questions to be identified so each development day built
from previous learning. The first activity of the 2nd and 3rd Mentor Development Days enabled
individual and joint reflection on the practitioner enquires and on the development and
impact of mentoring processes on learning and teaching. The participants were able to share
any points noted in their reflective logs during these joint reflection activities at the start of
each training day and in the end of Pilot Project interviews.
15
6. Materials developed


Videos/voice recordings of mentor conversations (consent has been agreed by all
the participants who have provided a video or a voice recording.)
Evidence collected or output from practitioner enquires (paper materials and
video evidence)
The videos and voice recordings of mentor conversations are submitted on a separate CD.
The paper materials are also submitted in a separate file.
7. Data Gathering and Analysis
One of the aims of the Pilot Project was:
•
To evaluate the impact of the joint development and implementation of a Mentoring
Pilot Project by a partnership of two universities and two local authorities on the
career long professional learning of practitioners
Therefore, all the participants were interviewed at the end of the Pilot Project with the
exception of three people (one DHT from local authority A and one DHT from local authority
B who did not attend on the final training day when the interviews were carried out. Similarly,
one probationary teacher was not interviewed as she left the training early on Day 3 to
attend a job interview).
The responses were coded by the two university partners in the project. The first analysis of
the data involved them both coding the responses from four interviews independently (two
from one local authority and two from another) and identifying the themes that emerged from
the data. The university partners then shared their coding of the four interviews with each
other and found strong reliability, with almost 100% agreement in the themes identified.
Each then undertook a second analysis of the data; which involved coding half of the
participant interviews each. Again the coding results were shared to check reliability of
coding. The third analysis of the data involved collating the themes and selecting participant
responses to provide evidence of the theme selection. Therefore, all of the themes
discussed below emerged from the participants’ responses during the interviews. The
participants were all numbered randomly. The letters ‘S’ or ‘P’ after the participant number
indicates a secondary or primary school participant and ‘A’ or ‘B’ indicates the two local
authorities. In the section below direct quotes from the participants are used to provide
evidence of the themes and their individual code is used to attribute the quote to them.
8. Key Issues to emerge from the data
This section provides a summary of the analysis of the data collected from the participants
during the project, drawing particularly from the responses in individual interviews at the end
of the Pilot Project. From the data analysis the following key themes emerged:




Strengthening of professional learning through mentoring processes
Improving focus and structure of mentoring conversations
Importance of mentor language
Benefits and challenges of relationships and partnerships
16







Importance and challenges of quality assurance
Limited time available
Challenging timing of the Mentor Pilot Project
Impact on pupils’ and other teachers’ learning
Importance of mentor training and ongoing training
Sustaining mentoring processes in schools
Suggestions for taking mentoring forward
Each theme will be discussed in turn although there were a number of connections between
themes and these are highlighted where relevant.
Strengthening of professional learning
The main aim of the Pilot Project was:
to strengthen teachers’ professional learning, within the context of career-long
professional learning, through mentoring approaches.
The responses overwhelmingly demonstrated that every participant has strengthened their
professional learning through the training and implementation of the mentoring processes.
This was remarkable given the short time period – just 3 days of training over a period of
time amounting to less than an academic term. The mentoring processes strengthened the
participants’ professional learning in a number of different ways. The participants also
identified ways that the training and implementation processes impacted on other teachers’
and pupils’ learning.
Gaining and deepening knowledge and understanding
At the start of the training some of the teachers indicated that they were already involved in
mentoring activities. However, their comments in the individual interviews at the end of the
project indicated the training and implementation of the mentoring processes changed their
understanding of mentoring and the way they engage in learning conversations with
colleagues and pupils. This highlighted that gaining deeper knowledge and understanding
changed participants’ views about the role of mentoring and mentoring processes. A number
of participants’ comments indicated their views changed from feeling that they were ‘doing
this already’ to wanted to know more about mentoring. For example, participant 1SA said ‘I
want to find out more about mentoring’. Some participants indicated that headteachers and
teachers need more knowledge and understanding about mentoring processes. For
example, participant 16PB said, ‘I feel mentoring is not properly understood – when I try to
initiate conversations with others I am given others’ opinion. Mentoring is not quite there yet
in being understood’.
Gaining knowledge and understanding about current educational priorities was also an
important issue in strengthening some participants’ professional learning. The analysis of
their responses showed that participants had gained knowledge and understanding in
relation to the following: mentoring processes; practitioner enquiry; Teaching Scotland’s
Future Report; and the new GTCS Standards. For example, participant 2PA said she,
‘welcomed the opportunity to gain new knowledge and understanding of current priority
areas in education’. Participant 4PB indicated ‘the training provided an opportunity to raise
17
awareness about the recommendations made in the Donaldson Report particularly the
teacher’s role in professional learning in school’. Participant 14PA said the ‘benefits were
uncovering all the evidence in the practitioner enquiry.’
Developing and deepening thinking, listening and reflection skills
The training also impacted on the participants’ professional learning by developing and
deepening a number of skills including thinking, questioning and listening skills. Participant
4PB said that the impact of the training was learning the ‘skills associated with the mentoring
role’. Many of the participants’ comments indicated that their engagement in mentoring
processes had deepened their thinking about learning and teaching. Participant 19SB’s
comment provides an example of many similar comments made in relation to impact on their
thinking as teachers.
I think more about teaching and learning in a deeper way. I question practice more.
(P19SB)
This is an important finding given the aim of strengthening teachers’ professional learning
though mentoring in the context of career-long professional learning. Comments regarding
impact on the teachers’ practice were noted across the range of participants (from
probationers to teachers with 30+ years of teaching). In some cases the participants said
the training and engaging in mentoring processes had changed the way they teach. For
example, participant 3SB said, ‘it changed how I think and teach’. The specifics of some of
the changes to teaching are exemplified in participant 11SB’s comments. She said,
‘I focus more on reflection, (I am) doing it much more often at the end of a lesson.
Focusing more on pupil behaviour and my own behaviour – why am I behaving the
way I am behaving. Reflect on – was what I was doing clear? Reflect more on my
practice. It is having an important impact on pupil learning – it makes you much more
reflective.’ (11SB)
The comments indicated that the teachers welcomed the opportunity to develop their own
thinking and reflection skills. Participant 22PA highlights the development of and the
connections between thinking, listening and reflective skills. She said, ‘The main impact was
I stopped to think’. She said it gave her the opportunity to engage in ‘active listening,
reflecting back on what had been said to show understanding.’ Similarly, participant 14PA
said, ‘I learned listening to and repeating what is said, is important’.
The focus for enhancing the development and improvement of active listening, questioning
and reflection during the training was mentoring conversations in relation to the participants’
own practitioner enquiry. This appeared to be a central factor in the participants’ successful
engagement in the training; because the focus of the mentoring conversations was on
developing their own professional learning needs in relation to their own context and their
own pupils. The conversations were not vague or abstract. Rather they were focused and
led to identification of next steps in teaching and learning. For example, participant 10PA
said she found it helpful to develop her expertise in mentoring processes through practitioner
enquiry. She indicated that it gave a focus to the mentoring conversations and there were
clear benefits for her in developing her own practice. She said, ‘The enquiry helped to go
18
beyond assumptions and use the evidence.’ Similarly, 4PB noted ‘It was good to focus on
one thing in your teaching; we focused on co-operative learning, then one specific group and
identified their listening skills. The children found listening in small groups better than large
groups and therefore skill transfer was needed. The need to narrow the focus in enquiry was
the key thing’.
Improving focus and structure of mentoring conversations
As part of the Pilot Project training, teachers were introduced to a structured approach for
mentor conversations using a 4 step collaborative framework. The practitioner enquiry
activities undertaken between training days enabled the participants to implement and
practise this structured approach in school. The training was specifically designed to support
the participants in the development of mentor language, structuring and managing learning
conversations through questioning, analysis and use of evidence. A structured log was used
to record and guide the mentoring process.
In the individual interviews, 16 of the 23 participants specifically identified a positive impact
on enhancing the focus and structure of their professional dialogue following the training.
Use of the structured log and focused mentoring conversations was valued by these
teachers for its development of a more analytical and solution-focused approach to thinking
about and discussing learning and teaching. Participant 15SB said that she is now ‘thinking
differently’ moving from broad generalisations thinking that ‘everything is wrong to a more
specific focus, chunking and ruling out bits’. Some of the participants found that as they
reflected with a mentor using the structured log they were better able to self-evaluate their
own practice and as they talked and reflected they were able to identify solutions and next
steps to improve learning and teaching for themselves. For example, participant 3SB stated,
‘It made me more focused on the problem; I solved the problem on my own, mentored
myself, honed in on something specific. I shared with another teacher; it changed how I
think and teach’.
Overall, the response to the training in mentor conversations was very positive. The majority
of the participants said that the training in mentor language selection and use was very
helpful and enabled them to engage in higher order thinking and focus more deeply on
learning and teaching. There was a general recognition that this type of focused learning
conversation guided by a mentor ‘is different from the day to day conversations’ held in
school (Participant 6PA).
Participant 1SA said that while previous conversations with colleagues in the staff room
(which he identified as a ‘mini-TLC’) have been helpful opportunities for professional
learning, the learning conversations he has had with his mentee following the training are
now more focused. He recognised the importance of identifying clear goals for teachers’ next
steps in professional learning and teaching. Many of the participants commented on the
importance of the training in holding a mentoring conversation, particularly building trust,
identifying learning cues, questioning, communication skills and facilitating the mentee to
identify strengths, challenges and next steps in learning and teaching for themselves.
Participant 14PA’s comment is similar to many of the comments made about the
development of skills relating to mentoring conversations. She said,
19
‘I learned about how to have a mentoring conversation, the Collaborative Log
supporting recording the conversations, the questioning phrases and building
confidence’. (14PA)
Overall, the participants were very positive about the use of the structured log. They said
that the 4 step structure of the log helped to guide the learning conversation and together
with practice of mentor language helped to keep it focused. Many of the participants
commented on the helpful way that the log also made the mentoring process efficient. For
example, participant 10PA said, ‘Staff are snowed under and the training enabled us to be
much more focused on learning. Narrowing it down was really helpful.’ Summarising the
benefits of outcome and time efficiency, participant 24PB described the process as,
‘Focused on evidence, quick and quality dialogue, moving the teacher’s planning forward
and impact in class.’
Many of the participants’ commented on their use of the log structure to help them reflect on
their own teaching and some of them described how they also used the structure of the log
with pupils. This will be explained in more detail below in the section concerning impact of
the training and mentoring processes on pupils.
Although the overall comments regarding the use of the structured log were positive, there
were some caveats expressed regarding its use. For example, participant 1SA said that not
all colleagues may immediately see the benefits of using the log, particularly if they have not
been trained in the process and do not understand how helpful it is in keeping the learning
conversation focused. He said that it might be viewed as ‘additional paperwork at first and
that it was important to persevere’. However, he also said that teachers should be free to
make judgements about when to use the structured log with an individual. Participant 6PA
also saw value in applying this learned skill, stating ‘Once the structure is learned you can
adapt it to suit’. This linked to a point expressed by several participants about maintaining
ownership of the decision-making about mentors and mentoring processes in the context of
career-long professional learning. This issue of ownership will be explored more fully in
relation to the participants’ comments regarding quality assurance. Participant 3SB also
commented on the benefits of the structured log but felt that not all staff would share her
enthusiasm for its use. She said she found the ‘Collaborative Log particularly useful in
supporting the mentoring processes. However, some staff would love it’ but ‘others would
see it as a burden’. This again highlights the importance of training to ensure that the
purpose of the log is clear and its use in structuring and focusing the mentoring conversation
is understood.
The importance of mentor language
The purpose and choice of language used in mentoring conversations formed part of the 3
day training for teachers participating in the Pilot Project. Use of videos and real time
modelling by the trainers introduced the language of mentoring conversations and all
teachers gained experience of practising the specific language skills within and between the
training days.
In the interviews 10 participants highlighted the importance and significance of mentoring
language, conveying developed knowledge and understanding of the powerful impact on
professional learning outcomes for teachers, through the careful selection of language in the
20
mentoring process. Both verbal and non-verbal language was acknowledged as significant in
supporting the development of trusting relationships between teachers. Participant 10PA
recognised the equal significance in what is said and how it is said, ‘It all depends on how
the advice is given – it can be said in very different ways’. Paired with an experienced
mentor, who through previous training in this mentoring approach, was very skilled in the use
of mentoring language, participant 23B said, ‘My 8 minute conversation in the training with X,
on profiling was fantastic. She has the language and I saw how she used the mentoring
language’. Working with an experienced and fully trained mentor, this participant saw the
impact of skilled use of mentoring language on developing her own professional learning.
One participant said that she now understood the importance of reflection on the choice of
language in mentoring conversations, saying that she ‘wasn’t aware of language before and
wouldn’t think about it’ in conversation. Now ‘not sure if she had changed her language’,
however she said she now knew to ‘think about the terminology being used’. Participant
24PB identified the need to develop skill in active listening and choice and use of higher
order questioning, commenting on his transference of these skills he said; ‘I was listening
and thinking about the answers. I was focused on what to listen for’.
Their own professional learning on language use, developed through the training, resulted in
participants communicating their belief in the need for this training in order to mentor
successfully. Participant 6PA said that teachers needed to be open to mentoring
conversations, suggesting understanding of the challenge faced in reframing professional
dialogue and application of specific language stems. Through self-evaluation one participant
shared her need ‘to develop the vocabulary,’ stating ‘I realised I didn’t have the structure in
place for the conversation’. Participant 2PA indicated that mentoring processes had been
established in her school but her evaluation was that more training was needed to change
the language to enable mentoring to strengthen professional learning.
Several teachers commented on their plans to further develop their use of mentoring
language but said that time is required to practise and enhance these professional skills.
Participant 5SA said ‘development of mentoring language was the hardest to get my head
around’. She said that she gained particularly from the training on mentoring conversations,
realising that the use of a different word changed the way the comment could be received by
the mentee. The training and implementation processes also appeared to motivate
participant 1SA to learn more about language use in mentoring conversations, while
participant 4PB shared ‘use of language and questioning (as) next steps’ and a focus for
professional development. It is important to note how valuable the participants found the
training in mentor language for the development of their own thinking skills and their ability to
structure and initiate mentoring conversations with other teachers and pupils.
Having developed deeper understanding of the challenge in effective choice and use of
mentoring language for the specific purpose of supporting and challenging teachers’
professional learning, participant 6PA recognised the multiple opportunities for skill
development. ‘I am more aware now how many mentoring conversations you have
throughout the day’ suggesting acknowledgment of the extent of her daily engagement in
communication with colleagues and the possibilities for enhancement of professional
learning through use of mentoring language.
21
Despite the very positive comments about mentoring and its application in the context of
teachers’ career-long professional learning concern was raised by 2 participants about the
appropriateness of the terms ‘mentor’ and ‘mentoring’ in relation to developing experienced
teachers’ professional learning. Participant 1SA indicated that he felt it was good to have a
mentor but suggested that the term ‘mentor is not the best word for more experienced
teachers’. Similarly, participant 18PA said that use of the word ‘mentoring’, because of its
associations with beginner teachers, would impact negatively on an initiative which sought to
support the career long professional learning of experienced teachers. This may suggest
that the concept of mentoring for some teachers may be framed in the context of the highly
successful induction year system and understood and/or accepted only in relation to a
probationer teacher. The well evidenced professional learning outcomes for those in the
mentor role may not be widely known or understood. In addition several of the teachers
responded very positively to the mentoring process but framed this in the context of solving
problems of practice or career transitions i.e. new stage of primary class, the new National 4
assessments or a new leadership role. The role of mentoring in continuous development and
improvement of all learning and teaching may not be fully shared by all teachers and need
well trained mentors and carefully phased implementation if the potential impact on learning
and teaching in the context of career-long professional learning is to be realised.
Benefits and challenges of relationships and partnerships
One of the aims of the Pilot Project was:
•
To identify the principles of partnership between schools, local authorities and
universities
One of the objectives was:
•
To enhance professional learning and engagement between colleagues in school,
local authority and university to enable innovative work practices within schools and
local authorities.
The aim and the objective related to taking forward Recommendation 15 (Teaching
Scotland’s Future, Donaldson, 2011):
•
“New and strengthened models of partnership among universities, local authorities,
schools and individual teachers need to be developed. These partnerships should be
based on jointly agreed principles and involve shared responsibility for key areas of
teacher education.”
The majority of the participants indicated that the aim and the objective were achieved.
Partnerships were at the heart of this Pilot Project; strengthening shared communication and
understanding across school, local authority and university sectors, in pursuit of a common
goal to support and challenge the improvement of children’s learning. Across all sectors at
all levels, effective working relationships were achieved. The mentoring approach presented
in the Pilot Project valued the significance of teachers’ social and emotional engagement
with learning and teaching, including their own career-long professional learning.
Successful collegiate working was underpinned by the establishment of effective working
22
relationships and personal and professional communication. The successful partnership
work was founded on reciprocal relationships and responsive communication.
Trusting Relationships
Twelve participants specifically mentioned the importance of relationships to mentoring
during the individual interviews, several highlighting the need for trust. Participant 10PA said
‘The key thing is the quality of mentoring relationship – trust and respect and value their
opinion and judgement.’ Building trusting relationships was central to the training and 10PA
acknowledged this saying the ‘Training is the important part’. Participant 15SB also saw
value in having access to a mentor but qualified this by saying it would ‘need to be someone
I trusted and who valued what I did’. Identifying this need for a trusting mentoring
relationship several participants proposed that this could only be achieved by self-selection
of a mentor by the teacher. Participant 24PB, for example, said that engagement with a
mentoring approach to strengthen professional learning would require, ‘People who I trust
and respect … The root is choosing the person you trust’. The participants identified a range
of criteria they would use in deciding which mentor would gain their trust, for example
participant 9SA said that while ‘Mutual respect was key (she was) looking for knowledge and
common sense’ in a mentor. Professional knowledge and experience of teaching was an
identified requirement of a trusted mentor by participant 20PB, ‘I would absolutely love it. It
would be wonderful to sit with someone to help clarify your thoughts; the mentor does need
to challenge your thinking. But within the profession, not someone from another profession.’
For others it was identification of curriculum knowledge and expertise that appeared
important, participant 6PA saying ‘It would be good to have different mentor partners. For
example, a specific one for outdoor education another for ICT.’ This participant appeared to
be open to a flexible model of mentoring where self-selection, perhaps from a pool of
mentors, would be judged by identified curriculum strengths and expertise relevant to her
own professional learning at the time. Several participants recognised the importance of
them identifying their own professional learning needs in order to select an appropriate
mentor to support their development across their career. Participant 9SA said, ‘The type of
mentoring might change throughout your career, dependent on career need. Start of your
career– discipline, now its new ideas.’
Establishing trusting relationships across the tripartite partnership of university, local
authority and school personnel was necessary. The university partners held meetings with
the local authority officers to discuss and plan the training days to establish trust from the
outset of the project. In authority A the university and local authority officers visited the
schools involved together and facilitated an information sharing meeting with the
headteachers and depute headteachers prior to the start of the Pilot Project. The participants
appeared to value the process, 23SB saying, ‘Communication between university and school
was very good; the meeting prior to the training days let us know what it was about’.
Establishing a secure environment for professional learning
Striving to construct a way of working which established trust from the beginning of the Pilot
Project for all involved, the university partners sought participants’ identification and
agreement of social norms. Revisited each time the participants met, these norms were used
to frame inclusive actions and behaviour for university, local authority and school partners,
23
ensuring achievement of an equitable and secure learning environment. This way of working
appeared to facilitate a safe space for the participants in each local authority group, to get to
know each other and engage in open mentoring conversations. The opportunity to work
within and across school sectors was mentioned positively by almost all of the participants
during the interviews. For example participant 8PB said it was ‘Good to work with the
academy as cross sector working (was) valued for widening teacher’s professional learning’
and participant 4PB said it was ‘Useful to work with colleagues from different schools and
hear their experience, practise skills. Useful to do this with people you didn’t know. I was
often working with secondary school people and it was useful to talk about the
primary/secondary links across the two sectors’. This participant valued the opportunity to be
involved in cross sector working, as irrespective of teaching context or relational knowledge
of a peer the mentoring skills could be practised. This may suggest that participants began
to form very positive working relationships where the focus of mentoring conversations drew
on the secure knowledge of participants own contexts and learning and teaching interests.
Practising the skills of mentoring conversations, participants took it in turn to take on the role
of mentor and mentee. This training strategy aimed to enable all participants to experience
the approach from both perspectives; experienced teachers and school leaders gaining
insight into the thoughts and feelings of the mentee and less experienced teachers, including
probationers, gaining similar experience of the mentor’s responsibility for professional
learning. For two of the newer entrants to the profession, taking on the role of peer mentor
resulted in affirmation of their professional value and capabilities, irrespective of length of
service. It also appeared to result in a growth in confidence and self- belief. For example
participant 19PA said, ‘As a probationer I am always a mentee, this (training) assisted me to
become a mentor. Helped me feel equal – I can really help others, I do have the knowledge’
and participant 8PB said it was, ‘Good to know that your voice was being heard. Early career
teachers shouldn’t think they have nothing to offer’. This interchange of roles may also have
challenged perceptions of professional learning within a framework of hierarchy and status
related to length of experience or role within schools and across sectors. Such relational
structures can inhibit free flow in professional dialogue and act as a barrier to professional
learning. As a peer mentor, changed perception of own role status may have supported the
breaking down of personally held barriers, positively influencing changing relationships and
greater openness in communication.
‘In the setting, over the 3 days everyone was valued - headteacher as a listener. It
was new to everyone....the hierarchy was not there’. (Participant P19A)
Relational outcomes
The importance of relationships across secondary school departments and primary stages in
strengthening professional learning was raised by participants from larger schools.
Participant 3SB indicated that as a group not only were they learning - ‘we got a lot out of it’
- ‘but we enjoyed working with them’. Where colleagues who do not normally work closely
with one another engage in mentoring processes they gain opportunities to reframe thinking
about breadth and progression in learning. Participant 9SA said this way of working helped
her, ‘realise not in a pocket, life before and after me’ and similarly working with an upper
stages colleague participant 6PA learned, ‘There are different problems for the upper and
lower school’ concluding ‘I have a whole school picture now with new relationships’.
24
Overall this indicates the value of cross-curricular and cross-year group mentoring for
teachers’ professional learning. With participants selected from school clusters in each local
authority the Pilot Project facilitated opportunities for cross sector mentoring. The mentoring
skills were practised with primary and secondary colleagues and through the process of
listening to each others’ experiences, participants empathised, identified similarities and
differences and professionally learned about and from each other. As well as developing
enhanced professional relationships between primary and secondary teachers, this cross
school mentoring approach was again valuable in opening up a two way flow of
communication. Participant 5SA said it was, ‘Good to work with primary colleagues – we
often have the same problems.’ Participant 14PA said she, ‘learned a lot from the others in
the cluster’, and participant 3SB identified a change in her professional practice stating
difference in ‘the way I speak with colleagues and cross sector’. This participant clearly saw
value in cross sector mentoring stating, ‘The quicker we can cut the divide between primary
and secondary the better’.
Partnership work
The Pilot Project concerned exploring the effectiveness of partnership across schools, local
authorities and universities when sharing responsibility for supporting practitioner career long
professional learning, in order to identify key principles of strong partnership. Though not
universal, 18 participants said in the interview they felt part of a partnership with a further 3
indicating they felt this partnership only on the training days. Two participants said that
generally they did not feel part of a partnership between universities, local authorities and
schools but found the way of working in the Pilot Project helpful with one clarifying her
response by saying ‘it depends what you want out of a partnership’.
A number of influences were identified as contributing to a sense of partnership. Within the
mentoring approach to professional learning in this Pilot Project, the individual and collective
responsibility of all involved provided a common thread. As all members of this tripartite
partnership were registered teachers with the General Teaching Council for Scotland
(GTCS), the common goal of personal professional learning and the collective goal of
enhancing children’s learning existed to some extent during the short timescale of the
project. Bringing together the complementary roles, responsibilities and expertise of these
three sectors of education, most participants saw possibilities for collective professional
learning and a new way of working; although a few participants were less certain. Participant
15SB said this, ‘Opened up doors for continuous working, there should be more of this.
Useful if teachers work in university, (gain access to) the university knowledge base, a
different perspective, bigger picture, not stuck in school.’ Participant 19SB saw value in
getting ‘to know the local authority thinking and the priorities of senior management’ while
participant 8PB said it was, ‘Definitely good to work with the university and for you to come
to school. It has also given me an awareness of what is going on in LA’. Participant 7SB
valued the ‘face to face meetings’ but conveyed understanding of difference in focus, stating
the ‘University is interested in the process but schools are involved practically’. This
perceived difference led participant 13SA to share uncertainty in achievement of tripartite
partnership stating the ‘Goals are not matched. Teachers’ goals are grades. Partnership with
other institutions means more on our plate which gets in the way of results.’ He emphasised
the importance of building an ongoing relationship and proposed that a university link person
could be identified ‘who you get to know well.’
25
Communication was also seen as significant in establishing an ethos of partnership, with
participants commenting on the university trainers’ way of being in leading sessions. For
example participant 14PA noted they were ‘approachable’ and participant 10PA said their
‘whole approach was non-judgemental’. By modelling mentoring approaches throughout the
training, key skills in building trusting mentoring relationships were observed and
commented on in interview. For example participant 20PB said in ‘e-learning you don’t pick
up the body language, human beings are social, you miss the body language. (Here) the
group bonded well, gelled well – the days were very good. It was clear that (the trainers) had
a very good relationship...... and built this partnership’. The developed partnership opened
direct university contacts enabling teachers to initiate communication. Participant 24PB
illustrated this point when, because of the ‘supportive’ nature of the Pilot Project, he said ‘I
feel able to make contact with university if I wanted to. I would now consider contacting
university to ask for advice or direction toward other sources of help from within the
university’. Overall trusting, mutually respectful relationships were seen as necessary to the
achievement of the multi-directional flow of communication required for strong partnership. It
is interesting that one participant made explicit comment of partnership in the national
context stating that ‘It is good that the pilot was not just in the central belt’. (Participant 11SB)
University staff working in schools was viewed positively by a number of participants; their
physical presence in the school setting perhaps perceived as breaking down of sector
barriers to partnership working by communicating value and respect of the teacher’s working
environment. Participant 8PB said, ‘liked Day 2 because we had time together as a school
group. It was good that you came to school’.
The majority of participants responded positively to partnership working and its impact on
their professional learning through the Pilot Project. Participant 1SA said he ‘liked the
partnership between the schools and universities’ and found ‘working together was helpful.’
Similarly, participant 2PA found ‘the partnership approach helpful’, indicating she found ‘it
helpful to meet the local authority staff and to have research input from the university staff’.
She suggested it would be useful for this to continue as drop-in sessions, suggesting seeing
value in the opportunity for professional learning. This was also stated by participant 4PB
who through engagement with the mentoring process saw opportunity for learning in making
‘relevant connections to .........research and expertise’ and proposed the building ‘of more
useful links with the university through involvement in in-service training and twilights’. She
also saw a key role for the local authority in ‘overseeing the mentoring aspect in school’.
Challenges to partnership
Developing strong partnership working between schools, local authorities and universities in
the area of teachers’ professional learning is not without significant challenge. Time, as
discussed in the section, to commit to the development of partnership in a context of
economic restraint and decreasing human resources, was a significant challenge for all
those involved. In the individual interviews the participants commented on the need for
headteachers and senior management teams (SMT) in school to be trained for full
understanding of the mentoring approach, suggesting the importance of leadership in
effecting partnership ways of working. Participants were also conscious of the many
competing demands on individuals’ workload and time within their own settings and local
authorities. They raised concerns about how partnership working could be prioritised,
26
participant 19SB stating ‘Its good if there is better communication between school,
universities and local authorities but the challenge is everyone is busy doing their own jobs’.
This difficulty was seen as particularly challenging for unpromoted teachers by participant
11SB, who said they are ‘not as aware of partnership working’.
A second challenge identified in the interviews, and particularly highlighted by participants
23SB and 20PB was that of supply cover and the resultant issue of being able to release
staff to participate in the Pilot Project and thus develop extended partnership. For one of the
participant school groups this difficulty actually resulted in the postponement of day 2
training until the start of the new term. In some settings finding staff cover for ‘McCrone’ or
headteacher release from class is challenging and prevents prioritisation of building
partnerships for professional learning.
Importance and challenges of quality assurance
One of the objectives of the Mentoring Pilot was to take forward recommendations 15, 27
and 31of Teaching Scotland’s Future and the Scottish Government’s response to Teaching
Scotland’s Future. Recommendation 27 said,
‘Local authorities and national bodies should develop approaches to quality assure
and improve mentoring.’ (page 94)
In their individual interviews participants were all asked about their views concerning
approaches to quality assure and improve mentoring. The participants particularly
emphasised the importance of mentor training indicating a belief that the quality of mentoring
is dependent on training. Participant 6PA’s response typifies many comments made about
mentor training. She said that quality assurance of the mentoring approach would require
everyone to be trained, advocating ‘training across the board’. The comments concerning
training for all mentors are in line with Recommendation 39 in the Teaching Scotland’s
Future Report (Donaldson, 2011) which stated,
All teachers should see themselves as teacher educators and be trained in
mentoring (page 98).
While the majority of participants emphasised the importance of training for mentors there
were differences of opinion regarding whether all teachers should or could be mentors. For
example, participant 15SB suggested that only teachers who value mentoring approaches
will facilitate successful application in practice. This participant advocated a quality
assurance review to provide opportunities for teachers to decide to maintain or change a
mentor partner, indicating the challenge of finding a mentor that they could trust and would
be supportive of their professional learning. Similarly, participant 9SA said that finding the
‘right mentor could be difficult and that mutual respect is key to achieving a quality mentoring
relationship’. She suggested that there needs to be quality assurance processes to ensure
the correct match for a trusting mentoring relationship.
Trust was identified as crucial for successful mentoring relationships as outlined above. For
example, participant 15SB said she is open to having a mentor but said it needs to be a
27
trusting and non –judgmental relationship. This suggests that the strengthening of
professional learning through mentoring processes will be limited if trust and respect are not
achieved between the mentor and the mentee. Participant 9SA suggested that some
teachers may feel unable to share any challenges or developmental needs with others for
fear of detrimental response or judgement on the quality of their professional practice. This
indicates the sensitivity over mentoring for experienced teachers and again highlights the
importance of training, particularly in building trusting relationships and use of mentoring
language. Some of the participants offered suggestions concerning the necessary
characteristics of a mentor. Some of these characteristics were discussed above in the
section on relationships and partnerships and will be returned to in the section below
concerning the sustainability of mentoring processes in the context of career-long
professional learning.
Some participants indicated a general challenge with new initiatives which can seem
threatening at first and, in relation to universal implementation of mentoring processes, could
be a perceived barrier. Referring to the introduction of classroom observation visits by senior
members of staff which initially challenged staff, one participant said ‘over time these
individuals were able to engage and feel more accepting of new processes as the norm.’
This highlights the need for careful handling of the implementation of mentoring processes in
the context of career-long professional learning if it is to be of a high quality and be
meaningful to the teachers involved. It was suggested by some of the participants that
school leaders needs to fully understand the approach in order to achieve success. One of
the headteachers who took part in the mentoring pilot emphasised the importance of the
training for her. This perhaps indicates that as a headteacher she is better able to value the
importance and role that mentoring plays in the development of teachers’ and pupils’
learning if she has the knowledge and understanding of how to support mentoring processes
across the school.
Flexibility within the implementation of mentoring processes emerged as a key point in
responses regarding quality assurance. Participant 1SA indicated his concern about the
imposition of formal quality assurance mechanisms, ‘Quality assurance is too formal’. He
suggested the structure used in the training for mentoring conversations was helpful but he
wanted to have the opportunity to personalise it. This links to the importance of teachers
maintaining ownership of the mentoring processes in order to value the mentors and
recognise the role they play in strengthening their professional learning. His view was,
‘Quality assurance should be about learning not the mentoring process itself.’ Similarly,
participant 2PA said that teachers should have freedom to make their own decisions about
mentoring. She also said, ‘Quality assurance should be measured in relation to impact on
learning and teaching.
Participant 13SA also had concerns about quality assurance mechanisms. He said that
‘quality assurance should focus on progressing the challenge, not the mentoring process
otherwise trust that has been built up may be lost.’ He suggested ‘there is a need for a
standardised system but it should have differentiation within it so that mentoring processes
could be adapted to suit own needs.’ However, the tensions between differentiated
approaches and consistency in quality were acknowledged by some of the participants. For
28
example, participant 5SA raised ‘the challenges of quality assurance for mentoring in a large
secondary school with 100 teaching staff.’
Despite reservations about the form of quality assurance there was recognition that quality
assurance was needed to ensure that mentoring processes were effectively and consistently
implemented. Participant 3SB said that previous experience of PRD processes did nothing
to support her professional learning and that a quality assurance mechanism is needed to
make sure that quality in meaningful implementation is maintained. Some of the participants
offered suggestions for quality assurance approaches. For example, participant 14PA
suggested as a mentor, ‘It should be necessary to demonstrate in your CPD Record that you
have had some training.’ Participant 4PB suggested that the local authority should have an
overview role suggesting one person should be given this role. Participant 15SB suggested
that quality assurance of the process could take the form of a review, with mentors looking at
the use of the approach in school with a focus on change over time, as recorded in
collaborative log, as evidence of quality.
Limited time available
The biggest challenge that was mentioned by the majority of the participants was time. This
included, time to think, time to reflect, time for a mentor and mentee to analyse pupil work
collaboratively, time to meet to have mentor conversations and time to develop expertise in
mentor conversation, particularly mentor language and use of the structured log. Examples
of comments from primary and secondary teachers in both local authorities which reflect
general views included:
‘Time to meet to engage in mentoring conversations.’ (participant 1SA).
‘The challenges of time to mentor. It should not be seen as something that is an ‘add-on’.
Rather it should ‘fit into the structures we are already using’. (participant 4PB)
‘Time and workload issues.’ (participant 5SA)
‘The biggest challenge was time. There was no time to sit together as a pair or a three’
(participant 22PA)
‘The main challenge was finding time particularly coordinating timetables to enable us to
meet as a group.’ (participant 19PB)
‘Time out of class was a challenge’ (participant 14PA)
‘The Collaborative Log is great but it will take time to synthesise it.’ (participant 11SB)
Some participants suggested that mentoring processes should be implemented slowly to
give people time to develop their knowledge and skills and enable people to be trained.
Participant, 13SA posed the question, ‘how to find the time?’ and then offered some
suggestions saying, ‘it could be introduced at department meeting or inservice days – not an
additional bit of time - until it is second nature. Initial stages some formal approaches are
necessary – doing is as a whole school.’
29
Challenging timing of the Mentor Pilot Project
It is recognised that it is challenging to find ‘a good time’ to carry out a Pilot Project during
the school year and it is not surprising that several participants said that the timing of the
project was not ideal. For example, participant 3SB said, ‘It took place towards the end of
term when timetables had changed.’ She indicated it would have been even more effective
over two terms (e.g. August to March). Also, some of the participants felt that the pilot project
‘was too short a time’ to develop the mentoring skills with any confidence. For example,
participant 10PA indicated that she felt she had ‘not had enough time to develop a deep
understanding of the mentoring processes.'
Impact on pupils’ and other teachers’ learning
As has been said the main aim of the Pilot Project was strengthening professional learning
through mentoring processes and it is very positive to report that many participants identified
the way their professional development impacted on their pupils, on their relationships with
other teachers and on other teachers’ learning.
Participant 3SB said she used the structured log with pupils and she identified benefits for
their learning and confidence building. She explained that the log was used with pupils who
had been identified as ‘disengaged’ in the learning process. She indicated the pupils ‘liked
the short, sharp focus’ of the structured log. Participant 3SB also said that the pupils were
used to negative feedback and they liked the way the log started by focusing on their
successes in learning.
P11SB indicated that she has used her training in the structure of mentoring conversations
and the selection of mentoring language to clarify, probe and facilitate others’ thinking to
support and challenge pupils’ learning. She said,
‘I see the benefits in school and the benefits for pupils because I have used the
process with pupils. It has made them think and be more reflective. I have seen an
impact on them. …because I am more reflective they are too. For example, one pupil
if he has to do group work is now clear what he needs because of the structure and
focus. He is much more aware of his own needs. The clear prompts are helpful I am
now more able to push and challenge.’
The structure was also viewed by one participant as contributing to avoidance of possible
confrontation in conversations with adults and children in school; participant 20PB said, ‘I
have used it for difficult conversation with parents, children and other school staff. It is such
a good solution-focused way of looking at something’.
Participant 12PB indicated using practitioner enquiry as the focus for the development of
mentoring processes, had helped her professional learning, and she had seen an impact on
the pupils’ learning too. She said, ‘The challenge to pupil learning only came to light through
the practitioner enquiry. It was reassuring to know that the pupils were improving. The
challenge is to come up with ways to help the individuals. It was interesting thinking ‘can we
make a difference’ through practitioner enquiry’. (P12PB)
30
The benefits for the professional development of other teachers were also highlighted by the
participants. For example, participant 1SA recognised that the mentoring approach could be
used in different areas not only with pupils but with staff. For example, he said, ‘Could apply
the training in course work and in TLCs (Teacher Learning Communities)’.
Importance of mentor training and ongoing training
The participants commented on the quality of the training, highlighting specific aspects that
they felt had been particularly helpful. The training was designed drawing on Timperley et
al’s (2007) synthesis of best evidence which identified a number of elements that are
important for effective professional learning and development. According to Timperley
(2011:3) the elements are interactive and include: grounding learning in the immediate
problems of practice, deepening relevant pedagogical content and assessment knowledge,
and engaging existing theories of practice on which to base on ongoing enquiry processes.
The training days did not take place on consecutive days rather the training was carried out
over a number of weeks to provide ongoing support. Each training day built on the previous
day and there was a spiralling back and forward in the content and the processes to enable
the participants to practise, refine, deepen, reflect and extend their learning of the mentoring
processes. During each of the training days, explicit connections were made between the
formative learning and assessment approaches used with pupils and the mentoring
processes particularly through analysis of pupil learning in the practitioner enquiry.
As mentioned above, the training was also designed so Days 1 and 3 were out of school and
all the primary and secondary teachers involved in each authority came together. This
enabled them to have ‘time out of school’ to think, reflect and learn more about mentoring
processes. It also enabled them to work together in a cross-sector group and learn from
each others’ different experiences and expertise. For example, a primary school teacher
focusing on a maths concept as part of her practitioner enquiry was able to engage in a
mentoring conversation with a secondary school maths teacher. The teachers involved both
said they found this a very helpful experience. However, the participants also said they
welcomed and benefitted from Day 2 which enabled them to undertake the training in their
own school context. In the secondary schools involved this meant working in a group of 6
with their own colleagues who were part of the Pilot Project. In the primary schools it meant
working in groups of either 2 or 3 people who were part of the Pilot Project. This provided
opportunities for more individualised training in relation to their own needs as mentors and in
relation to taking forward their own practitioner enquiry.
‘Day 2 was really good – practising the use of language and getting to know
colleagues in school better.’ (Participant 19SB)
The spacing of the 3 training days over a number of weeks and the ‘between training days
tasks’ contributed to reducing the participants’ feelings that the training was a short ‘one-off’
input. However, a number of concerns were raised about the length of the training. Some
participants said that they needed more training and more practice, particularly in use of
mentor language and choice of mentoring approaches. It is clear that the mentors need ongoing practice to develop their mentoring skills and develop confidence and expertise in
using them. Further support through the partnership, such as a mentor forum, over the next
31
term would support and contribute to embedding mentoring approaches in the schools.
Participant 11SB said, ‘Mentors should be meeting and practising together so they keep up
their skills at questioning and listening. They need regular meetings and training.’ The
participants specifically emphasised this point in relation to ensuring that the mentoring
practices are sustained in their practice. Participant12PB said, ‘All need to be trained and
keep training. The training needs to be embedded.’
The importance of training for headteachers and members of the senior management team
was also raised by the headteachers who were involved in the mentor training and by some
of the other participants. Some participants went as far as saying that all
headteachers/senior management team members should be trained (participant 8PB). The
importance of training for mentors highlighted by the participants is in line with
Recommendation 28 (Teaching Scotland’s Future, 2011:94) which proposed that
‘Mentors should be selected carefully and undertake training based on a recognition
of the skills and capacities required for this role.’
There were aspects of the training that the participants particularly mentioned as worthwhile.
The comments concerning the key benefits of the training related to mentor language and
the structured log have already been made so will not be repeated here. In addition, many of
the participants specifically mentioned that they found viewing and discussing the videos of
mentoring conversations particularly useful. Although many of the participants recognised
the strong contribution the videos of mentoring conversations made to their professional
learning, not all were prepared to be videoed themselves.
Another aspect that the participants said they found particularly helpful was the modelling of
mentoring processes carried out by trainers throughout the training process.
Sustaining mentoring processes in schools
As indicated above the participants generally welcomed the training and they all indicated
they had benefit from their involvement in the project. However, there were concerns
expressed about how the mentoring processes would be implemented more widely in their
own schools and schools more generally across Scotland, how their learning would be
sustained and further developed.
Participant 18PA said that the way the mentoring processes were implemented would be
‘crucial to the success or failure of this mentoring approach.’ She said that teachers would
need to see the positive benefits of such an approach to their own learning and teaching.
She suggested that mentoring conversations focusing on analysing evidence of pupils’ work
would help teachers to value the process. She said this is ‘the way in’. Participant 2PA’s
concern was ‘how to involve teachers who did not opt into mentoring processes’ in the
context of career-long professional learning. As a headteacher she recognised the
importance of energy and commitment for mentoring processes to have an impact on
strengthening professional learning. Participant 5SA also said that the challenge is how to
take mentoring forward. She posed a question about implementing mentor processes more
widely. She said, ‘Do you roll it out with all staff or a small group and build it up? ‘Similar
challenges concerning next steps in the implementation of mentoring processes were raised
by participant 3SB. She indicated the need ‘to establish a group to keep mentoring going.’
32
She emphasised the importance of support from the senior management team but was
concerned about adding to their workload.
‘Need back up from the Senior Management Team and the Principal Teachers –
they need to know what it is about. However, they have a huge workload already.’
(Participant 3SB)
Participant 1SA indicated the importance of finding ways to keep the mentoring processes
they had learned going. He said, ‘when the development work goes it would be good to keep
it (mentoring) going. We need to get staff talking about it - get a chance to let whole staff
know about it.’ Participant10PA had also concerns about the sustainability of what the
participants had learning during the training. She said, ‘I wonder how it will work – how will
we implement it without diluting it?
Some of the participants suggested some ways that they thought the mentoring processes
could be sustained in relation to mentor selection. For example, participant 22PA suggested,
‘Possibly have a mentor from another cluster. It would be good to continue to shadow in
other schools – build it in as part of inservice days. It would be good to have discussion
groups across sectors and mentoring online especially at transitions.’ Participant 14PA said,
‘We have been asked to pair up but nobody has approached me and I haven’t
approached anyone. Individuals should identify strengths then if you have a subject
expertise or have identified one thing that you have expertise in people who want a
mentor in that area could pick you. It could be linked to PRD – a termly choice for
teachers to select a strength according to their subject or a particular aspect such as
technology’
The participants recognised the different challenges facing schools regarding mentor
selection. For example, the different approaches needed in primary schools compared to
secondary schools, and challenges for small rural primaries with no other schools close by in
the cluster compared to large urban schools with large numbers of teachers to involve in the
mentoring processes. It was also recognised that in small schools with 2 or 3 teachers
mentor selection was very limited and may always involve the line manager or require cross
cluster working.
There were strong feelings expressed about the importance of experienced teachers having
freedom to select a mentor. Participant 19SB’s comment was echoed by a number of
participants. She said, ‘I don’t think the mentor should be assigned. The mentee should have
the opportunity to select from a pool of mentors. The discussion about the selection of
mentors according to a teacher’s particular professional learning needs at the time led to a
number of views being expressed about mentor characteristics. In particular, there were
contrasting views about whether a mentor had to be more experienced than the mentee. For
example, participant 22PA said, ‘A mentor should be someone who has more experience
than the mentee’. Participant 14PA had similar views concerning the need for a more
experienced teacher. She said,
33
‘A mentor should be a good listener, use supportive language, praise and guide you,
give you ideas, have more experience than you and be a decision-maker. Allow you
to move forward and have freedom to do so.’
Another participant emphasised the importance of certain mentor characteristics and drew
the distinction between experience and expertise. For example, participant 13SA said, ‘It is
necessary to have expertise to be a mentor.’ However, he pointed out that you need
expertise over experience and that it depends on what the professional learning challenge is.
He said, ‘the selection of a mentor ‘depends on the situation. For probationers it would be
good to have a mentor selected. If you want to get better you shouldn’t mind if the person is
selected if they have expertise.’
Different views were also expressed concerning whether the mentor should be subjectspecific or a more generic mentor. For example, participant 1SA said that a subject-specific
mentor is a starting point for strengthening professional learning. This view is perhaps
related to this participant’s focus at the time on the development of new materials and
teaching approaches in his subject within the context of the new national examinations.
However, he also mentioned that it was depended on the specific professional learning need
and said that cross-sector (primary and secondary) mentoring was helpful.
Participant 29SB summed up the views of many of the participants concerning mentor
characteristics. She said that a mentor should be ‘… able to listen and not interrupt, mainly
someone who is going to listen and not judge, not just telling what to do.’ The participants’
comments highlight the important issue of mentor selection in relation to building trusting and
mutual respect in order to sustain mentoring processes and have an impact on
strengthening teachers’ professional learning across their career.
Suggestions for taking mentoring forward
A number of the participants offered comments concerning ideas and suggestions for taking
mentoring forward. In some cases they offered specific ideas concerning ways to take
mentoring forward in their own school and in other cases it was ideas related to mentoring
across schools in Scotland in general.
For example, participant 4PB identified opportunities within her own school, ‘Plan weekly
with stage partner– built mentoring conversation in; we have an Active Literacy Working
Group - it is a new focus, (Collaborative Log) useful tool to find out what’s working, what are
the development needs; Also possibly (put mentoring) into Teacher Learning Communities’
Similarly, participant 5SA recognised how mentoring could be used in a number of contexts
in school. For example, she suggested including mentoring conversations during
observations; department meetings and Professional Review and Development meetings. It
is positive that the participants identified the transferability and relevance of the mentoring
skills and processes to a number of key education priorities in the context of career-long
professional learning, although they emphasise the necessity of additional support via
ongoing mentor training for mentoring to be embedded in the daily life of schools. These
views are in line with Recommendation 31 (Teaching Scotland’s Future, Donaldson, 2011):
34
‘Early career teachers should continue to benefit from mentoring beyond induction.
Additional support should be provided by senior managers within schools and local
authorities to ensure appropriate progression as part of the CPD and PRD process.’
Participant 4PB offered suggestions regarding the development of mentoring more
generally; for example, she suggested that people who have been trained could be used in
school to support building mentor capacity. She suggested there should be a support system
for teachers – if facing a tricky situation; someone to go to. The participant suggested ways
that the members of the partnership could be involved in providing a support system - local
authority have the overview (oversee the process) and the university makes relevant
connections to research and to experts.’
The headteachers of the schools involved in the Mentor Pilot Project also offered their
thoughts and suggestions concerning taking mentoring processes forward. They identified
opportunities for mentoring to support teachers’ professional learning and potential
challenges. The examples below draw from the headteacher interviews held after the end of
the project.
One of the primary school headteachers said that she understands that it is necessary to
‘embed mentoring in all we do and use research in teaching for understanding’. This
headteacher participated in the training and suggested that a culture shift is necessary to
enable all teachers to embrace mentoring and understand the value of it for individual
professional learning and school development. She had a very clear and well thoughtthrough whole school approach for implementing mentoring processes across the school.
She explained that she has ‘put mentoring into the School Improvement Plan and it will be
discussed at the first inservice day of the new term.’ She explained that time has been put in
the collegiate calendar for staff and that at first all staff would focus on numeracy for their
practitioner enquiry and make use of the structured log for mentoring processes. The
teachers would be free to choose the particular concept they want to look at within the
parameters of numeracy. She saw her role as facilitator and as the catalyst to inspire
teachers in their practitioner enquiry and in mentoring one another. She recognised that
there are many demands on teachers’ time and said that it is important to demonstrate
leadership commitment. As well as putting practitioner enquiry and mentoring in the School
Improvement Plan, she said that she had talked to all staff about it collectively and in oneto-one discussions so ‘the message is not lost in translation.’ This commitment to a
systematic whole-school approach in the implementation of mentoring demonstrates the
importance of headteachers’ involvement in mentor training. She saw for herself the benefits
of mentoring for teachers’ professional learning and for pupils’ learning. She also said her
involvement in the training gave credibility to the key messages and ideas about mentoring
when she shared them with other headteachers during their cluster meetings.
One of the other primary school headteachers, who had not been involved as a participant in
the Mentor Pilot Project, demonstrated similar commitment to implementing mentoring
through a whole school approach. However, she had previous training in the model of
mentoring presented during the Pilot Project training and she also had experience of using a
collaborative log to structure learning conversations. She said that she had also included
mentoring in the School Improvement Plan and that she wanted to use the teachers who had
35
been involved in the Pilot Project to set up a school Mentoring Group. This distributed
leadership approach is planned in order to use the teachers’ experience to build further
mentoring capacity in the school. The headteacher has invited all members of staff to select
a mentor who could be a stage partner or out with their stage. She said this was an
important step to enable teachers to come together to reflect on their practice using the
systematic 4 step approach with the support of the structured log.
Another of the primary headteachers interviewed was fully committed to implementing this
mentoring approach to professional learning with teachers in her school. As the teachers’
line manager and perceived ‘authority figure’ in the school she recognised the difficulties of
achieving a genuinely open and trusting relationship in the role of mentor. She was also
aware that perceiving her to be ‘busy’, teachers were less likely to seek her out to discuss
areas of their professional learning. She indicated that she had to go to them and initiate
mentoring conversations. To overcome this she plans to implement a policy of peer
mentoring, suggesting that the teachers may find it beneficial to find pairings with a peer who
is teaching either a stage above or a stage below their own class. This she saw as being
beneficial in the current context to establishing a safe space for ‘greater honesty’ in
mentoring conversations which focused on sharing learning and teaching. She saw her
leadership role as being responsible for ‘fostering a collegiate approach (by) modelling’ and
developing a collegiate school ethos. She has introduced Friday morning information-sharing
meetings where teachers are encouraged to share their successes and worries. With
persistence and a changing culture the teachers are more open to engaging in this meeting
and sharing their practice. The teachers are going to be encouraged to meet in a regular
time slot which will be protected for mentoring processes. While striving to achieve fortnightly
meetings, the headteacher recognised varying demanding priorities may require a more
flexible schedule to be applied. To sustain this mentoring approach to professional learning,
this headteacher identified the need for her leadership through commitment to the approach
and the need to find time to make it happen as critical to success. She felt that for quality
mentoring processes between teachers to take place, ‘meetings should not always take
place before or after school’, rather they should take place at an identified professional
learning time within the school day, for example she suggested ‘McCrone time’ as a suitable
alternative. She did however raise the very real and challenging issue of a lack of supply
cover as a possible threat to achievement of this plan.
The headteacher interviewed from one of the other participating primary schools identified
very real challenges in the implementation of this mentoring approach to professional
learning in small rural schools, where again shortage of supply cover made teacher access
to non-class contact time for professional learning extremely challenging. She recognised
the many benefits of the model of mentoring provided in the Pilot Project and from previous
experience of it had evidence of its value to teachers’ professional learning. She identified
the need for development of a local authority small school policy to support implementation
of the process, suggesting a ‘cluster approach’ to accessing mentors and mentoring. She
also suggested the benefits of appointing teachers to the role, with dedicated time and focus
for supporting peers’ career-long professional learning, with ’recognition that one size does
not fit all’ and that all teachers and schools are working ‘within the context they have’. She
did identify the possible strategy of embedding this mentoring approach into school selfevaluation as the best way forward. With the external drivers of the Core Indicators as the
36
focus for prioritisation of workload, embedding career-long professional learning in these,
along with the GTCS policy of Professional Update would ‘raise the profile’ of the mentoring
process; perhaps with the positive outcome of recognition of the need for support. The
unique challenges for very small rural schools need to be carefully considered in the context
of access to mentors to support and challenge teachers’ career-long professional learning.
The development of mentoring processes for teachers’ career-long professional learning,
was viewed as challenging by the headteacher and the DHT in one of the secondary schools
involved in the Pilot Project. The headteacher felt that experienced teachers may feel
‘overwhelmed if given a mentor’. He indicated that the project took place at a challenging
time for secondary schools because the focus was on preparing for the new national
examinations. He said that the school already had a number of different approaches in place
to enable teachers to share and discuss practice and that it was not only about senior
management support for mentoring processes it was about collegiate support. The DHT also
said that the local authority facilitated an online forum for subject-specific dialogue between
teachers. However, the headteacher recognised the benefit of further online mentoring,
particularly if it offered relevant subject-specific support when required. He also said that the
teachers who had participated in the Pilot Project found Day 2 of the training (which took
place in the secondary school) most helpful because it focused specifically on their
professional learning needs at the time. The secondary teachers involved in the project, from
this school, had also indicated in their interviews at the end of the project that they had
benefited from the specific mentor training in school and they suggested a number of ways
they were going to take forward the mentoring processes and use the structured log either in
their own work with pupils or with teachers in their own department or faculty.
The secondary headteacher in the other local authority indicated during his interview that the
Mentor Pilot Project had made a positive contribution to the work of the school. He said that
the teachers involved were enthusiastic about the mentoring approach and he hoped that
introducing the use of a more structured mentoring approach would change peer discussion
about classroom visits. He emphasised the importance of training in the mentoring
approach, likening the use of mentoring language to that of the learning conversation with
pupils. He said that as teachers we often begin with advice, before the learner has had time
to reflect on the shared experience. He advocated that training on use of the mentoring
language and processes could support teachers in focusing their learning conversations on
shared evidence of learning and teaching rather than offering advice. He suggested that this
approach could be used equally effectively to enhance pupil and teacher learning and made
specific reference to the importance of mentor training in the context of Professional Update
conversations. He also suggested that young people’s learning in school could be
enhanced if they were also taught the language and processes of mentoring. He said that
wider implementation and roll out of the mentoring approach would require training, but in
the current context of multiple initiatives he questioned whether schools and/or local
authorities had the capacity to provide this. He suggested that widening the use of the
mentoring approach would also require schools to have the foundation of a ‘no blame school
culture’, where openness and trust enabled collegiate working and innovation. Reflecting on
the challenges for teachers and schools to embed the skills of mentoring and the use of
mentor language, the headteacher said that professional challenge at the personal level was
required. He suggested that following training, teachers would have to practise the skills,
37
seek review and feedback on their application of these and over time draw on the support of
those with expertise in mentoring for regular updates. His comments again highlight not only
the need for effective mentoring training but also the need for that training to be ongoing in
order to extend and deepen expertise in mentoring and to embed and sustain mentoring
processes in schools.
9. Concluding points

Overall positive response to strengthening of professional learning through
mentoring processes

Strong recognition of the importance of mentor training and the need for ongoing
mentor training within the context of career-long professional learning.

Evidence that the participants found the blended approach of professional
learning helpful with some of the mentor training taking place at a site external
the school with a larger group of primary and secondary teachers working
together and some ‘school-based’ training taking place in their own school with
greater emphasis on their individual professional learning in relation to their own
needs and those of their own pupils

Overall positive response to cross department, faculty, stage, school, sector
working – providing opportunities for affirmation and new thinking

Evidence of improvement of teachers’ and pupils’ learning through focused and
structured mentoring conversations

Generally positive response to practitioner enquiry that was guided by a mentor,
solution-focused, flexible and responsive to the needs of individuals and schools

Evidence of teacher understanding that focused mentoring processes are
different from less formal conversations about learning and teaching held
between teachers

Evidence of mentoring processes building and strengthening trusting
relationships across departments, faculties, stages, schools and sectors

Evidence of desire for professional autonomy and flexible approaches to mentor
selection to support effective professional learning through mentoring processes
in the context of career-long professional learning

Evidence of professional culture which views mentoring as a process relevant to
probationer professional learning but not so easily implemented with experienced
teachers in the context of career-long professional learning without ongoing
training and sensitive implementation

Evidence of the potential benefits of the partnership approach between
universities, local authorities and schools and the mentoring approaches to be
38
used in many established processes in schools e.g. TLCs, stage and department
meetings, classroom observations as well as challenging practice and stimulating
and supporting the implementation of innovative practices in schools

Evidence that the time available to devote to the practitioner enquiry and
mentoring processes was generally challenging for the participants. This was
caused partly by the timing of the implementation of the Mentor Pilot Project at
the end of a school year. It was a particularly challenging time for the secondary
schools when the key priority for them was the preparation for National 4 and 5
Examinations.
The mentor Pilot Project appears to have been an important step in the development of
structured and focused mentoring processes to strengthen teachers’ professional learning
and impact on pupils’ learning. However, the participants and the headteachers of the
schools involved indicated that further training through partnership between the universities,
local authorities and schools is needed to embed mentoring processes within and across
schools. Implementing new initiatives needs a model that pays attention to developing,
consolidating and sustaining mentoring processes in Scottish schools.
It is recommended that work continues with the local authorities and the primary and
secondary schools involved in the Mentor Pilot Project to support them in embedding
mentoring processes across their schools. This would not only enable the local authorities
and the schools to have support and challenge as they take mentoring processes forward for
themselves, it would also provide an opportunity to evaluate the consolidating and sustaining
stages of the implementation of mentoring processes in the context of career-long
professional learning. This moves the evaluation processes on from analysing and reviewing
the initial stages of new mentoring processes to uncovering the lessons to be learned more
generally from local authorities and schools as they embed and strive to sustain these
processes for themselves aided by light touch partnership support.
39
10. References
Donaldson, G (2011) Teaching Scotland's Future: Report of a review of teacher
education in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated, Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Learning
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H. and Fung, I. (2007); Teacher Professional
Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES) (New Zealand
Ministry of Education: Wellington).
40
Appendix 1
Teaching Scotland’s Future (Donaldson, 2011)
Recommendation 15
“New and strengthened models of partnership among universities, local authorities,
schools and individual teachers need to be developed. These partnerships should be
based on jointly agreed principles and involve shared responsibility for key areas of
teacher education.”
Recommendation 27
“Local authorities and national bodies should develop approaches to quality assure
and improve mentoring.”
Recommendation 31
“Early career teachers should continue to benefit from mentoring beyond induction.
Additional support should be provided by senior managers within schools and local
authorities to ensure appropriate progression as part of the CPD and PRD process.”
41