Teaching Scotland’s Future
Further Developing and Sustaining
a Strengthened Model of Professional Learning
through Mentoring Processes in the Context of
Career-long Professional Learning
Final Report
October 2014
This report is submitted by
Professor Kay Livingston (University of Glasgow)
and
Lynne Shiach (University of Aberdeen)
We would like to thank all the participants and their schools for their engagement in the
Mentoring Project and for their willingness to participate.
2
Table of Contents
Page
1.
Introduction
4
2.
Aims
4
3.
Project Partnership
4
4.
Project Participants
4
5.
Further Strengthening Mentor Processes through Training
5
6.
Research Approach and Data Collection
8
7.
Data Analysis
9
8.
Findings
9
8.1 Research Question 1
10
8.2 Research Question 2
15
9.
Concluding Points
24
10.
Bibliography
27
3
1.
Introduction
The University of Glasgow working in partnership with the University of Aberdeen, North
Lanarkshire Council and Aberdeenshire Council were invited by Education Scotland to lead
a follow-up Mentoring Project with teachers from a selection of primary and secondary
schools. This project was a follow-up to the initial Mentoring Pilot Project which took place in
2013 (see initial project Final Report
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/GUAUMentorPilotProjectNov13_tcm4825825.pdf). The focus of the follow-up project was supporting schools to build their capacity
to develop and sustain mentoring processes to strengthen teachers’ learning within the
context of career-long professional learning.
This Final Report of the follow-up project provides an account of the way the project was
implemented. It also provides an analysis of the participants’ views about the way mentoring
strengthen their professional learning and about the opportunities and challenges in building
capacity within schools to implement and sustain mentoring processes.
2. Project Aims

To further develop a strengthened model of professional learning through mentoring
processes.

To identify strategies and processes to support developing and sustaining mentoring
processes with teachers in the context of career-long professional learning.
3. Project Partnership
The project partnership involved the University of Glasgow and the University of Aberdeen
working in partnership with a selection of schools in North Lanarkshire Council and
Aberdeenshire Council. One member of staff from each of the universities worked together
with the teachers involved in the schools in both local authorities.
The schools in the follow-up project participated in the initial Mentor Pilot Project (2013). This
involved two primary schools and one secondary school. The schools varied in size and
location. For example, the secondary school was in a rural area with 914 pupils and a
teaching staff of 70 (mixture of FT/PT) and the primary schools were in urban areas with 234
pupils and 14 teachers (2 job-share) and 407 pupils and 17 teachers respectively. A total of
27 teachers were involved in the follow-up Mentor Project - 18 teachers from the primary
school sector and 9 from the secondary school sector.
4. Project Participants
The planning and implementation of the follow-up Mentoring Project was carried out in
partnership with the headteachers in the primary schools and the deputy headteacher (DHT)
in the secondary school. The selection of the project participants and the design of the
implementation processes was discussed and agreed separately with each school prior to
4
the start of the follow-up project. These discussions ensured that each school was involved
in decision-making about ways to build capacity to implement and sustain mentoring
processes that were relevant to the context of the school. Building capacity is understood as
enabling the staff in the school to have the vision, knowledge, skills, values, dispositions,
motivation and leadership to implement and sustain mentoring processes with minimum
support from external sources. Following discussion with the headteachers in the primary
schools and the DHT in the secondary school it was agreed that further training was required
to strengthen the implementation of mentoring processes in the school. Ongoing discussion
took place between the members of staff from the universities and the headteachers/DHT to
identify opportunities and challenges in relation to making the support and implementation
processes as effect as possible.
The selection of teachers to participate in the follow-up project was made by the
headteachers/DHT in each school according to their own school’s needs as identified in their
school improvement plans. Consequently, the number of teachers involved in further mentor
training differed in each school. In one of the primary schools, 4 members of staff, who had
not been involved in the initial project, were selected by the headteacher to undertake
mentor training. In the other primary school all 12 members of the teaching staff were
involved in mentor training (2 members of staff out of the 12 had undertaken mentor training
during the initial Mentor Pilot Project. The headteacher of this primary (who had undertaken
the training before) also engaged in the training in the follow-up project. In the secondary
school, the DHT selected 8 teachers who were Faculty Heads and she engaged in the
training herself. None of the members of staff in the secondary school had been involved in
the initial Mentor Pilot Project.
5. Further Strengthening Mentor Processes through Training
All the training took place between March and June 2014. The different starting points and
contexts of the schools were recognised. The headteachers/DHT identified the focus during
the initial discussion held with them prior to the follow-up project starting. The focus of the
training was tailored to suit the individual requirements of each school.
The context of each school and the aims which shaped the focus of the training is as follows:
5.1 Primary School 1
The headteacher of this primary school had been involved in the training in the initial Mentor
Pilot Project (2013). Following the initial project the development of mentoring processes
was included in the School Improvement Plan and time was set aside for the teachers to
engage in mentoring. The headteacher made her support for mentoring processes clear
through her commitment to the training, in the emphasis she placed on mentoring, her
leadership of a whole staff inservice day on mentoring and in the provision of dedicated time
for the teachers’ professional learning. The headteacher wanted to build the teacher’s
capacity in practitioner enquiry alongside the development of mentoring processes. She had
previously invited all members of staff to engage in a practitioner enquiry related to
improving pupil learning in maths. However, in the mentor training in the follow-up project the
headteacher gave the staff freedom to select their own area for practitioner enquiry. She
5
indicated that it could be linked to the School Improvement Plan, but it did not have to be - it
could be about the development of one child’s learning or a group of children or a curricular
area or something the teacher is not trained in. She wanted all the teachers in the school to
benefit from the training and arranged two twilight sessions which were led by the university
staff.
The aims of the mentor training in this primary school were:



To further develop understanding of mentoring processes to support the
development of pupil learning
To develop the use of specific mentoring language to support professional learning
To develop understanding of practitioner enquiry
5.2 Primary School 2
This school had a new headteacher, as the previous headteacher, who had been involved in
the initial Mentor Pilot Project (2013), had retired. Although the new headteacher had not
been involved in the initial pilot she had been trained in the mentoring approaches used in
pilot during an earlier initiative. She was therefore aware of the training and recognised the
benefits of mentoring, saying, ‘mentoring offers opportunities for improvement. Similar to
Primary School 1, the headteacher was committed to mentoring. The development of
mentoring processes was included in the School Improvement Plan. The headteacher
selected 4 members of staff to participate in the follow-up project who has not been involved
in the initial Mentor Pilot Project. She arranged for the staff to participate in two training
sessions during the school day led by the university staff.
The aims of the mentoring training in this primary school were:


To develop skills in mentoring to improve pupil learning
To further develop understanding of formative assessment through the analysis of
pupil work
5.3 Secondary School
The DHT was responsible for facilitating the school’s involvement in the initial Mentor Pilot
Project, but she had only participated in the previous training on one occasion. However, she
recognised the positive impact of the training on the professional development of the
teachers involved in the initial pilot and she was committed to mentoring herself. The school
had been recently inspected and the DHT wanted to use mentoring processes to further the
school’s improvement. The mentoring processes were linked to key areas of the School
Improvement Plan. A strategic approach was taken to the selection of the members of staff
to be involved in the training. The aim was to build capacity be selecting the faculty heads to
participate in the follow-up project. The DHT arranged two training sessions during the
school day. The sessions were led by the two members of university staff. The
headteachers/senior staff of the secondary school’s feeder primaries joined the first training
session.
6
The aims in the secondary school were:
 To engage in dialogue with colleagues about learning and teaching to improve
learning for all

To develop skills in mentoring to analyse, track and improve pupil learning

To further develop skills in use of mentoring language
In all of the above cases, the teachers were asked to bring examples of their own pupils’
work to the training sessions. This enabled the mentoring conversations to begin with an
analysis of pupil work. This gave a strong sense of purpose to the conversation
(understanding pupil learning and thinking how to improve it) and a clear starting point for
discussion. All the teachers involved in the training had the opportunity to mentor each other.
This gave every teacher opportunities to engage in learning conversations with a peer
mentor which focused on, analysing pupil work together and identifying how to move the
pupil(s) forward in their learning and what they should do in their own teaching to support
this learning. The focus, first and foremost, was on learning. The discussion about teaching
was in relation to where the pupils were in their learning and was specific to the needs of the
teacher’s own pupils.
All the project participants were trained in a 4 step approach to learning conversations:
Identifying
 what was going well in the pupils’ learning
 what the challenges for improvement are
 what they should do next in their teaching
 what or who could support them in achieving their next step(s)
The training also facilitated the participants to think about how to keep the focus of the
conversation and how to support and challenge their peer’s thinking about learning and
teaching. This involved considering the importance of building trusting relationships, careful
selection of language and use of evidence to identify next steps. The teachers were
introduced to a selection of language stems/forms of questioning to enable them to start
conversations, clarify what was being said, and develop and challenge thinking. The
participants used a simple 4 quadrant log to agree and record the main points of the learning
conversation in collaboration. The log provided a record of the learning and gave clarity
about the content of the conversation and the next steps. The training emphasised the value
of mentoring processes in making learning visible (Hattie, 2012). The training explained the
use of the logs and how over a series of conversations the logs can demonstrate the learner
journey and hopefully learning progression.
There was approximately 4 weeks between the first and second training session in each
school. At the end of each training session the participants were given a work-based task
which challenged them to apply, practise and reflect on their new learning.
7
6. Research Approach and Data Collection
An exploratory research approach was taken. The aim of the data collection was to find out
about the impact of the follow-up Mentoring Project on strengthening the professional
learning of the participants through mentoring processes and on building the schools’
capacity to implement and sustain mentoring in the context of career-long professional
learning.
The research questions arose from the follow-up project aims. They were:


Did the further development of mentoring processes in the schools involved
strengthen the teachers’ professional learning? If so, in what ways?
What helps or hinders developing and sustaining mentoring processes with teachers
in primary and secondary schools in the context of career-long professional learning?
At the start of the Mentoring Project a range of baseline data was collected about the
participants. This concerned: the sector they taught in (primary or secondary); the post held
(e.g. Maths teacher, Primary 2 teacher, DHT); the number of years teaching; their
experiences of mentoring or being mentored; and if they had any mentor training prior to
participating in the Mentor Pilot Project.
To find out if the teachers thought that the follow-up mentor training had strengthened their
professional learning, and if so in what ways, semi-structured interviews were held with a
selection of the teachers involved in the project. The interviews took place after the
completion of the project in June 2014. The teachers were interviewed individually and the
interviews took approximately 30 – 45 minutes. Ideally, all the teachers involved in the
project would have been interviewed. However, due to activities taking place in school and
the challenges of finding staff cover to release teachers it was not possible to interview every
teacher. In the primary school where 4 teachers were involved all 4 were interviewed and in
the other primary school where every teacher was involved a selection of teachers for
interview was made by the headteacher. Therefore, a total of 8 people were interviewed
from the primary schools. In the secondary school a total of 6 out of the 9 teachers who
participated were interviewed. The selection of the secondary teachers was done by the
DHT. The researchers are aware of the limitation of the selection process, but the reality of
the circumstances in school did not enable all teachers to be interviewed.
The interviews also enabled the teachers’ views to be collected concerning what helped or
hindered building capacity and sustaining the mentoring processes in their schools. The
questions used in the interviews with the primary and secondary teachers were as follows
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What is your role?
How many years have you been teaching / in a management role?
What did you learn from the mentor training?
Has the use of the mentoring approach changed your practice in anyway?
Have you continued to use this mentoring approach?
- In what ways?
- If not what stopped you?
8
6. Has your use of mentoring approaches influenced change in your colleagues in any
way?
- If so, can you share how you have used it?
- If not what were the challenges/barriers in making use of the training
7. For you what are the advantages / disadvantages in using this mentoring approach
as a form of in-school professional learning?
8. What would enable schools to sustain use of this mentoring approach to strengthen
professional learning?
9. What are the barriers / challenges to sustaining a mentoring approach to professional
learning as a way of working in school?
10. Anything you want to add?
The headteachers of the primary schools and the DHT in the secondary school were also
interviewed after the completion of the project using the same set of questions to structure
the interviews.
7. Data Analysis
The teachers’ responses to the semi-structured interviews were coded by the two members
of university staff in the project. The first analysis of the data involved them coding the
responses from primary and secondary schools independently (one coded the primary, the
other the secondary teacher responses) and identifying the themes that emerged from the
data. The university partners then shared their coding with each other and checked for
coding reliability and agreement in the themes identified across primary and secondary.
Each then undertook a second analysis of the data 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 are all numbered randomly and assigned letters ‘S’ or ‘P’ before the
participant number to indicate a secondary or primary school participant. 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. Findings
The baseline data showed that the primary teachers involved in the follow-up Mentor Project
had been teaching for between 1 and 30 years and the secondary teachers had been
teaching for between 20 and 36 years. There were 10 primary class teachers covering all
stages of the primary school, 4 primary school Principal Teachers and one primary school
Deputy Head Teacher. In the secondary there were 8 Faculty Heads and one Depute Head
Teacher. Three Faculty Heads had management responsibility for a faculty crossing two
subject areas; 2 had management responsibility for a faculty with one subject area; and 1
had responsibility for the pastoral care of young learners in school. Seven out of the 18
primary teachers had been mentored as part of the GTCS Induction Scheme and 5 of the
primary teachers had received mentoring training up to 5 days. The 8 secondary faculty
heads had between 12 and 32 years of management experience; none had been mentored
as part of the GTCS Induction Scheme. One had received training in mentoring as part of a
management course.
9
The section below is structured around the findings of the analysis of the data in relation to
the two research questions.
8.1
Research Question 1: Did the further development of mentoring processes in
the schools involved strengthen the teachers’ professional learning? If so, in what
ways?
The analysis of the teachers’ responses to questions 3 and 4 provided the evidence to
respond to this question. Some of the responses to questions 5, 6 and 7 also provided
evidence in relation to this research question.
All the primary teachers interviewed said that mentoring processes had strengthened their
professional learning and five secondary faculty heads interviewed also said that the
mentoring approach strengthened their professional learning.
Their responses indicated that the mentoring processes had enabled them to develop their
professional learning in a number of ways. Some responses were about how the mentoring
processes had enabled them to strengthen their professional learning and other responses
were about what had been developed in their professional learning.
How mentoring processes enabled the teachers to strengthen their professional learning
The key themes to emerge from the teachers’ responses in relation to how mentoring
processes enabled them to strengthen their professional learning were:




Working with colleagues
Structure for peer dialogue
Structure for reflection on learning
Confidence building
All the primary teachers interviewed mentioned that the mentoring processes had enabled
them to work more effectively with colleagues. This is a significant finding given the
emphasis that is placed on teachers working together to achieve educational change.
Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) emphasise the importance of professional capital in
transformational change. They suggest there is a need for collective professional
responsibility in the change process. The teachers’ responses indicated that they felt more
able to collaborate with colleagues in the development of learning and teaching.
‘The training demonstrated how to collaborate with others. We talk about collegiate
working but now we do it.’ (P4)
This suggests that it cannot be assumed that teachers find it easy to collaborate with
colleagues on the strengthening of their professional learning. Some teachers need training
to develop the skills and dispositions to collaborate effectively with colleagues. The
improvement in working with others appears to be strongly related to the training which
focused on how to structure the learning conversation with a peer. Several of the teachers
indicated that they were initially hesitant and nervous in challenging another teacher’s way of
working and in offering suggestions about other ways of doing things in the classroom. The
teachers said that the 4 step structure for the learning conversation, which formed part of the
10
training, helped them feel more confident in the mentoring process. They said that it gave
them a clear focus for the conversation. They also said that starting the conversation by
identifying what was working created a positive climate for dialogue about learning and
teaching.
‘It is a positive approach to discussions with colleagues. It is good to start with
successes …. If we could instil that culture in the school it would be better. We can
be very negative at times.’ (P5)
I have learned that conversations with colleagues can be positive. We tend to focus
on the negative so it was good to start with the positives. It is more constructive.’
(P2)
Creating a culture that enables teachers to take responsibility for their learning in their own
schools and classrooms is important in order to support and enable them to take greater
responsibility for their professional development linked to the needs of their own pupils
(Livingston, 2012). Wenger (1998) identified three key dimensions which he believed provide
the drivers and levers for engagement in communities of practice, namely: mutual
engagement; shared repertoire; and joint enterprise. Similarly, Glazer and Hannafin’s (2006)
work on situated professional development within school settings provides examples where
teachers work together to support each other in their professional learning. Their work was
based on the three dimensions identified by Wenger and they suggested they are central to
effective professional development. These three dimensions suggest the importance of
collegiality, reciprocity and development of shared meaning and action. These three
dimensions also emerged as important in the teachers’ responses.
‘We have a shared purpose and discussion about teaching methods.’ (P8)
‘It’s about listening to people, getting their solution; the rapport and relationships with
people come first.’ (S4)
In the mentor follow-up project the focus on the teachers’ own pupils’ learning and on
objectives set out in the schools’ Improvement Plan gave a strong sense of purpose and
relevancy for the staff to engage in the joint endeavour of learning. The teachers’ responses
showed that context matters - the focus of the training was not abstract. It related directly to
the work of the school and the work taking place in the teachers’ own classrooms.
Several of the teachers also referred to the way the training helped them to remain focused
on the key points raised during the conversation. They said that the pace of the conversation
during the training (approximately 10 minutes for each learning conversation) and the
emphasis on the use of specific language stems enabled them to maintain the focus.
‘More of a structure to discussions - you have these conversations in a busy school
every day but you tend to go off at a tangent. The structure you gave us is good and
easy and you can do it.’ (P5)
‘The form and the structure helped us to focus. You don’t need a lot of time.’ (P4)
‘Gave me an understanding of what we can do here in school. Before it seemed
almost impossible within the time constraints but after the training we can do it.’ (P7)
‘It’s a good way to structure conversations with colleagues. We have conversations
all the time but this is a nice structure and we come out with action points; concrete.
It is a very interesting format.’ (S1)
11
‘I do think it is really good, good structure and it saves time. With certain time for
each section, it avoids a rambling conversation.’ (S3)
In relation to the development of improved collegiate working some of the primary and
secondary teachers mentioned the importance of developing trusting relationships. They
referred specifically to the calm and relaxed atmosphere created throughout the training and
that again the structure for all the activities helped create clarity of purpose which helped
people feel more at ease.
‘The relaxed atmosphere in the training was good. There is so much pressure that
the atmosphere matters.’ (P5)
‘It may be a way of actively engendering trust as a manager of people, leading
toward a solution.’ (S4)
‘It’s supportive; it should be supportive and I think my staff will respond well. If you
carry it out right staff should feel supported, working together. It’s not threatening.’
(S1)
The atmosphere to support and challenge learning during the training in school together with
the understanding of the time available to teachers to engage in learning conversations
appeared to provide some of the participants with confidence that they could take more
responsibility for developing their own learning. Several of the participants also commented
on the sense of ‘shared endeavour’ (Wenger, 1998) that was created because the staff went
through the training in mentoring processes together.
I didn’t feel threatened. It was a relaxed atmosphere but gave support and guidance
and channelled our thinking. It is better to have the training in school. I felt
comfortable in our own school. Everyone was open enough to identify challenges. It
was not intimidating. (P7)
I feel more confident because we went through the training together. (P2)
Having the training in school. It was our own environment. We felt more at ease. (P8)
The staff in both the primary schools welcomed the fact that the teachers involved in the
mentor training were from across the stages of school.
‘The training gave us a chance to speak to each other across the stages which adds
fluidity to the whole school. It gives a chance to know what is going on in the school
continually. If we had mentoring conversations across the stages we would know
what was going on.’ (P5).
Ways mentoring processes helped teachers to strengthen their own professional learning
All of the teachers interviewed indicated that mentoring had helped them to strengthen their
professional learning. The key themes to emerge in relation to their own professional
learning were:
12




Improved reflection on practice
Greater focus on learning and better understanding of the relationship between
learning and teaching
Improved forward planning for learning and teaching (setting goals for pupil
learning)
Better understanding of practitioner enquiry
The teachers’ responses about the ways the mentoring processes had strengthened their
own professional learning focused significantly on their improved reflection on practice. This
included more ‘fine grain’ analysis of individual pupil’s learning needs and also their own
teaching.
Very interesting to stop and think – Are the kids learning or are we going through
activities? Looking at individual learners/groups of children was helpful. (P8)
‘I learned how different (my subject) is to other subjects. I tend to work holistically
and with shared (subject) language. It was very helpful working with, describing a
child’s work to someone outwith my subject. (S2)
‘I am dealing with crises all the time but I am aware that I need to step back as these
crises might be prevented if I used the approach.’ (S6)
‘Yes. I have been aware when talking with pupils who are upset that I throw things
back at them, ‘where would you like to go with this?’ I am not directing them as
forcefully as I would have. I am taking more of a back seat, allowing them to make
decisions. In the past I would answer their questions directly. I am using the idea
behind it (mentoring) in my teaching.’ (S7)
The training was designed to start with the analysis of pupil learning. This meant that at the
beginning of the training session the teachers were immediately focused on analysing and
reflecting on pupil learning through a mentoring conversation. As explained above, the
conversations were structured and focused and the teachers all responded positively to
having the opportunity for short discussions on individual and groups of pupils’ learning. The
teachers had to identify evidence to support their analysis about how learning was going and
what specifically had been learned. The teachers’ responses in the interviews indicated that
analysing pupil work through mentoring processes focused them on pupil learning and
helped them to think more deeply about the evidence to indicate that learning had taken
place and to what extent.
‘The training helped us to analyse, … not bring pre-conceived ideas. It allowed us to
evaluate our own teaching and the pupils’ work and think ‘why might that be?’ It gave
us an opportunity to step back and reflect.’ (P7)
‘Making sure the teaching method started with thinking about learning.’ (P8)
‘It helped me to understand how complex learning was, to understand what the child
needed to know. It was like drawing a thread from my head, like Dumbledore in the
13
Harry Potter films; pulling out the thread and seeing the learning as very important.;
one thing at a time instead of trying to do everything at once.’ (S2)
Through mentoring conversations the teachers also identified what the challenges for the
pupils were in improving their learning. Again, through careful selection of language
stems/questions they identified the evidence from the pupil work that supported their
analysis. The next step was to think about their teaching – what should they do to enable
their pupil(s) to move forward in their learning. The responses indicated this process enabled
the teachers to develop their understanding of the relationship between learning and
teaching.
‘We were evaluating our own planning needs and the needs of the children. It was
good to see the link between learning and teaching.’ (P8)
‘I use the approach in my Forward Planning. The training showed me the importance
of taking it down to the individual learner.’ (P4).
In the primary school where the focus was on improving practice in formative assessment
the teachers found the mentoring processes supported them in more detailed analysis of the
pupil work. The learning conversations helped them to identify what had been learned, what
needed to be improved and why. The teachers involved in this school said that following the
training they felt more confident in giving specific feedback to pupils, supporting them in
setting achievable learning goals and identifying their own next steps in teaching. All key in
the development of formative assessment approaches.
The mentoring processes supported teachers in each of the schools involved to provide
more specific feedback to pupils.
‘I learned to look at pupil work and set achievable targets.’ (P5)
‘I identified next steps before but didn’t make then specific. Now I also identify a
timescale. I do it with the pupils too. I get them to be more specific about their next
steps and give them a timescale.’ (P2)
‘It helped transform that child. I told the child whose work I shared that day what had
been discussed – I put the work out and explained what the child couldn’t do; her
developmental level of skill but that it was the class teacher’s job to help her move
forward. The child looked at her own development, she saw the development and
where she is now. Resultantly she has moved up about 2 levels.’ (S2)
In the primary school where the focus was on the development of practitioner enquiry
through mentoring processes the training supported the teachers to develop enquiry
questions and analyse the information/data they collected to help them understand their area
of enquiry better. A key challenge for the teachers was narrowing down their enquiry area to
make it feasible and worthwhile in relation to improving their own teaching and their pupils’
learning. The teachers’ responses in this school indicated they had found developing their
understanding of practitioner enquiry through mentoring helpful. They suggested that the
14
mentoring conversations enabled them to think through what the practitioner enquiry was
about and identify an enquiry question. The main focus in the two training sessions was
support for these first steps of enquiry. The responses indicated that the teachers had
developed their understanding but it will take more time to further develop confidence in
working together in ongoing enquiry processes and discussing each other’s work openly.
‘Hopefully the teachers will find it easier now to drill down to the nub of the issue but we
need to do a lot more preparation for open discussion. (P6)
This comment links to the earlier comments in this report about the importance of training in
collegiate working. The teachers indicated that the structured approach in the mentoring
conversation and the focus on analysing pupil work together made it easier to raise
questions with their peers about ways to move learning forward and to be more specific. As
Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) suggest trust in working with colleagues is needed in change
processes, as well as trust in the process. The primary teachers indicated that they liked the
structured mentoring process and the practise in use of language stems/forms of
questioning, which suggests they put some trust in the mentoring process. The teachers also
indicated that they had developed better relationships with colleagues they do not normally
work with in other stages. Undoubtedly, developing trust takes time. Some staff already said
they were comfortable working with colleagues, particularly their stage partners, but
welcomed the opportunity to work with teachers they did not know so well.
It needs a whole school approach. We need time to work with each other and with
colleagues from different stages.’ (P5).
8.2 Research Question 2: What helps or hinders developing and sustaining mentoring
processes with teachers in primary and secondary schools in the context of
career-long professional learning?
Analysis of the teachers’ responses to questions 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 provided evidence to
respond to this question. Of those interviewed, 7 of the 8 primary and 4 of the 6 secondary
participants said they had continued to use the mentoring approach to professional learning
in a variety of ways, and to varying degrees. The primary teacher who had not continued to
use mentoring processes said it was due to time pressures but she intended to do so. Two
of the secondary faculty heads stated their future intention to use the mentoring approach
but at the time of interview they had been unable to apply it for reasons of timing (see
below.) In the context of career-long professional learning it is important to explore the
reasons underpinning the diversity in teacher implementation.
The focus of this follow-up project was on further strengthening professional learning through
mentoring, and trying to gain an understanding of how schools could sustain the use of
mentoring in the context of career-long learning. Analysis of the teachers’ responses
provided emerging themes which indicated the reciprocal relationship of enablers and
barriers. Discussion of these themes below explores the diversity in practice outcomes
following the shared experience of mentor training and provides insight into what will enable
or hinder sustaining the mentoring processes that have been developed.
15
ENABLERS
BARRIERS

Teacher engagement

Demands on time

Training and teachers’
professional learning

Lack of cohesion, continuity and
progression

Leadership
Enablers
Teacher engagement
Both primary and secondary participants recognised the importance of teachers’ perceiving
value of the mentoring approach both personally and professionally. When teachers saw the
relevance to their own practice and made connections to opportunities for improvement,
through implementation of the mentoring approach, they were more likely to engage with the
process.
‘If staff buy-in to it they are more likely to take it forward and build it into their practice’
(P1)
“Embedding it in small ways as staff value it then they see ways of using it. After the
training they were buzzing, it was simple, they benefited from it, could see something
they couldn’t see before.” (S5)
‘Staff who don’t know about it need to see the value. They will see it as an addition,
rather than as a useful tool?’ (S7)
When application of the mentoring approach was viewed by teachers as making a positive
difference to both experience and outcome for those involved, then time was invested in
practice. Two secondary faculty head teachers identified value in applying the mentoring
approach when holding difficult conversations with teachers.
‘In the past with conversations that need to be had, were difficult to be had, I have
been intuitive. Everything will be all right in the end but this approach makes it easier.
For example with a child allegation an awkward conversation will follow. But now
approaching this with ‘How was Year 3?’ allows the teacher to identify the issue, the
solution focus, what can be done is positive. They come up with the problem and the
solution and I reassure the parent. It has changed my approach; I definitely dealt with
it in a different way’. (S2)
‘It could be used if the teachers are not meeting the Standard, the contractual
standards. (This approach is) not threatening; you want to get them there in a
supportive way’. (S1)
16
The primary teachers also saw relevance in using the mentoring processes to support
already established processes of professional learning, for example, choosing to engage in
mentoring conversations with colleagues in the daily course of their work, using the 4 step
structure but not using the log. Three of the primary teachers said that they had continued to
use mentoring processes but had not made use of the collaborative log to note the key
points from their conversation. However, they all said that although they were not recording
their conversations they were using the structure to organise their thinking and remain
focused.
‘We tend to have informal coaching and mentoring conversations.’ (P4)
‘I have continued to use the approach. We are not writing the conversations down but
our discussions are structured.’ (P3)
Time was also invested in applying the mentoring approach when teachers saw relevance
and saw opportunities for time efficiency savings to already established processes in school.
There was evidence of one secondary faculty head making use of the mentoring approach in
their professional review and development (PRD) meetings with staff. Another chose to defer
application of mentoring processes during PRD meetings with teachers in her faculty until
the new school policy on professional update was in place. She did however use the
mentoring structure to facilitate a series of short, focused staff meetings through the year.
With teachers, conscious of demands on their time in the context of continuous change in
schools, strategic planning in response to new initiatives was viewed as necessary.
‘I told the staff they were going to be guinea pigs; I was testing it out. I let them see
what I was doing.’ (S7)
‘I haven’t used it with MyGTCS, the whole thing is going to be different and so I am
holding back... We have so little time to discuss things. We need a short snappy way
of getting to things, get to an important point. Based on the training I have timetabled
out the whole year, no longer 35 one hour meetings, now 13 hours of designated
faculty meeting hours structured into 26 pulse points through the year.’ (S2)
Training and teachers’ professional learning
While all 3 schools had been involved in the initial Mentor Pilot Project only 3 of the 27
teachers participating in the follow-up project had previous experience of training in the
mentoring processes. Developing knowledge and understanding of mentoring processes in
the context of career-long professional learning through training was identified as an enabler
to development and sustainability in schools. Two teachers said that following their
engagement with training they changed their initial belief that they were already using
mentoring processes in their practice. Acknowledgement of the need for training to deepen
teachers’ understanding of the purposes and processes of mentoring was seen as a
necessary requirement for sustainability.
‘We set up a Mentoring Group during Phase 1 of the project although we weren’t all
involved in the training at that time. We put together a similar form but people didn’t
really use it. It would be more likely to be sustained if everyone had an input.’
17
and
‘It is definitely the structure that works. People do not see the structure as being
beneficial through looking at a piece of paper. The training is important to see that.’
(P2)
‘I didn’t feel this right at the start. I thought I was doing this as I was interviewing
teachers all the time. ... Training, everyone who comes in needs to be made aware
of it; shorter PDRS conversations, but it needs training.’ (S7)
Time to embed the knowledge and skills learned though practice was also raised as a
significant enabler to teachers’ use of mentoring, one secondary faculty head stating, ‘the
learning conversation so works. It needs more practice, I’m not there yet.’ (S7) A primary
teacher also commented on the benefits of time to collaborate during the ‘twilight from
university staff plus staff working together across school.’ (P6)
The nature and content of the mentor training was seen as an enabler to development of the
approach in practice. De Corte’s (2010) description of the characteristics of learning in 21st
century: constructive, self-regulated, situated and collaborative is embedded within both the
training and the application of the mentoring processes. Two primary teachers commented
positively on the provision of the mentor training being situated within their own school.
Justification for this response suggested feelings of security and trust, possibly established
through knowledge of the environment and relationships with colleagues involved in the
training. This supported individuals in openly sharing their professional practice together,
‘It is better to have the training in school. Everyone was there – I felt comfortable in
our own school. Everyone was open enough to identify challenges. It was not
intimidating.’ (P2)
‘Having the training in school; it was our own environment. We felt more at ease.
If you held the training at university it would have made it too formal. I felt you could
ask questions.’ (P3)
Contextualising development of teacher knowledge, understanding and skills through
situated training in school with a focus on children’s learning was identified as significant to
development and application of professional learning. For example one primary teacher said,
‘I have been a mentor with a probationer. We were taken out of school to be trained
but back in school with the probationer it took a long time to filter through to what I
did. (It was) difficult to come back and put it into practice. Whereas the training you
provided in school in relation to our own pupils had a lot of value. (P2)
The responses indicate that ongoing training within the school context is important to sustain
mentoring processes in the context of career-long professional learning. Training that is
relevant to teachers’ needs and their pupils’ needs supported by members of university staff
when necessary.
18
The need for teachers’ sense of professional autonomy and trust in a strengthened model of
professional learning also emerged as an enabler to development of the mentoring approach
to professional learning. The mentor training emphasised establishing trusting relationships
and provided opportunities for colleagues to establish a sense of autonomy and trust through
the collaborative mentoring processes. Teachers’ trust in the process and the people
supporting their professional learning served as an enabler to continue using the mentoring
processes to strengthen their professional learning.
‘I have more trust in talking to colleagues because the conversation was structured in
a positive way. It wasn’t just about what is wrong. The structure is really helpful. It is
not like going to someone who has greater power. Because of the structure it is a
positive conversation.’ (P2)
Honest and open dialogue is necessary.’ (P1)
All teachers having knowledge and skill in mentoring was emphasised in relation to building
capacity and sustaining mentoring processes. It appears from the interview responses that
the teachers also had trust in the trainers and the training. One secondary faculty head
teacher expressed trust in the training as a result of perceived access to academic
knowledge from the university sector stating, ‘I trusted it more.’ (S2). Hargreaves and Fullan
(2012) suggest that building trust is the foundation for teamwork and change, however they
emphasis that it is necessary to trust the processes of peer interaction as well trusting
particular people. To build capacity that is sustained needs teachers to be knowledgeable
and skilful in mentoring and supportive processes in school that demonstrate ongoing
commitment to mentoring and provide opportunities for peer collaboration.
Priority, status and leadership
Several primary teachers and secondary faculty head teachers perceived that the mentoring
processes, which they viewed positively, would only continue to be developed and sustained
if they are made a priority for whole school development. This was seen to be important in
keeping it in focus for all teachers, and identified by some secondary teachers as necessary
in raising its status to a key priority amongst their many other priorities for development. For
the primary teachers the role of the head teacher in leading the development was seen as
important to successful implementation and necessary to sustaining mentoring in the future.
‘The headteacher wants this to continue and that is important. We have seen ideas
come and go. We can get bogged down in the day to day but the headteacher is
keeping it in the Improvement Plan and that helps us to keep it going and it gives us
time.’ (P2)
One of the primary headteachers, in her responses to the question of what enabled
mentoring to be sustained, also raised the importance of a headteacher’s role. She said,
‘Headteachers need to model the mentoring approach – they need to keep their skills
fresh and they need confidence in mentoring.’
While both primary teachers and secondary faculty head teachers conveyed need for senior
management leadership in school policy to enable development and sustainability, the need
19
for a more formal directive was also identified. One primary teacher stated, ‘Just do it! Say to
staff this is what we are doing and once a term document a session ‘, (P5). While one
secondary faculty head teacher said,
‘It would work for the PDRS but I am waiting for direction from the SMT. If the SMT
did not follow up with instructions for its use, time is an issue, and therefore I would
not use it. But if the whole school was to be directed to use it then I would
participate.’ (S3)
These two responses highlight the complexity of sustaining any change process. What some
teachers view as enablers others may view as barriers. For example, a top down directive
was not unilaterally seen as an enabler (as discussed more fully in the ‘barriers’ section
below). This indicates the important role of school leaders in understanding their staff and
the approaches that work for them.
The need for leadership at a distributed level was more strongly identified by secondary
faculty head teachers, though one primary teacher did value the leadership of her stage
partner, who had more experience of mentoring (as she had been involved in the training in
the initial Mentor Pilot). She said, ‘X is my stage partner so that will help. Implementing
mentoring is more manageable because I am working alongside my stage partner.’ (P3) The
already established systems of distributed leadership within the secondary school was
viewed as a significant route to supporting continued development of the mentoring
processes to strengthen professional learning. This way of working suggests shared
responsibility by teachers across the school has the benefit of continuity in giving mentoring
a high profile in the minds of busy teachers, even when staff leave or change role.
‘There are a lot of developments. They need to be driven forward by someone in
school. When they go there is not the same impetus. … If left to the PTs we are so
busy, some will do it and others not.’ (S3)
‘Need a champion or a group of champions. We have had lots of success with
teacher-led development. We have committees run by unpromoted teachers’ (S5)
Barriers
Demands on Time
Unsurprisingly, in the current context of change, all the primary and secondary participants
identified demands on time as a significant barrier to the development and sustainability of
mentoring approaches to professional learning. While the majority of participants were
positively disposed to the use of mentoring processes, finding time to apply, further develop
and sustain mentoring in practice was problematic.
‘Time to do it, that’s the only thing; it is such a positive way of working I can’t think
who would object to it, maybe some, but not me.’ (S6)
Finding time to respond to the volume of work stemming from national policy drivers was
voiced by the participants in both sectors. Reference was made to the range of policy
20
developments impacting on primary and secondary teachers’ work in relation to learning and
teaching, and a sense of initiative overload was expressed.
‘Time is the barrier; every year there is something new, last year we had a PE Pilot
this year we have a transition to P1 pilot.’ (P8)
‘There is a lot to do at the moment so time is the biggest barrier.’ (P3)
‘More demands (are made) on us; AifL, CfE, Nationals and I’m up to here with
development work: new courses, CfE, onto the new higher now.’ (S1)
‘The sheer volume of work for teachers, this is not unlike a few years ago when all
teachers had through CfE responsibility for literacy and numeracy. We needed to find
ways to embed this in practice.’ (S5).
The teachers identified a lack of time available for the staff development required to embed
mentoring processes in professional practice. Contractual time available for staff to get
together and work on development priorities was limited and demands on that time were
pressured.
‘Need to give it time – build it into collegiate time. I cannot give as much time as last
year because there are other development issues. We have to make the most of the
limited time available’ (P6)
‘The barrier is time. Five in-service days per year and so much to put in them –
restorative practice, literacy etc. Where do you find time for everybody to share
practice?’ (S5)
Several secondary faculty head teachers also commented on teachers’ involvement in
supporting extra-curricular activities for young people in school using their own time either at
lunch or after school. A lack of supply cover was also impacting on the demands on
teachers’ non class contact time, as was the timetabling of staff teaching commitments. One
faculty head teacher identified stepping into the class cover role following the departure of a
teacher in the faculty as a significant barrier to implementation of mentoring processes.
The inability to gather teachers together emerged as a hindrance to the development of the
mentoring approach to professional learning and the sustainability of its use in schools
‘There is not one single time that all the faculty are off (free of class) altogether. I can
find few times to get together, even with 1 member of staff. This is because of the
change of timetables. At lunchtimes as performing arts we have clubs, and also after
school. Finding peace and quiet to have those conversations – there is always
somebody wanting something’ (S7)
As well as the demands on time, the timing of follow-up project training was identified by two
faculty heads as the reason behind their inability to implement mentoring processes in
practice. Both saw value in mentoring, but with senior pupils engaged in exams and study
leave, demands of changing year group timetable and the disconnect felt between the last
training in June and the new term in August proved a hindrance to implementation and
development. This on the one hand, suggests that careful timing of training is necessary to
21
overcome barriers to finding opportunities for immediate implementation and practice of
mentoring with colleagues in school. On the other hand, it demonstrates that the teachers
are not yet at the stage of embedding mentoring processes in their practice and require
further support to do so.
Cohesion, Continuity and Progression
As was discussed earlier, teachers across the primary and secondary sectors identified the
workload demands of development of a range of policy initiatives, as a hindrance to
development and sustainability of mentoring processes to strengthen professional learning.
They indicated development of Assessment is for Learning, Curriculum for Excellence,
national qualifications 4, 5 and the new Higher; as well as the GTCS Professional Update
were at the forefront of their minds. ‘Getting It Right for Every Child’ was also mentioned by
one secondary faculty head teacher who, because of this policy, was experiencing change in
her professional role. For all teachers the introduction of these national policies has meant
significant change in professional practice and the need for professional development. As
identified by the teachers, development of policy was perceived as a series of initiatives,
each with separate development demands, including training. More needs to be done to
make the links between the different initiatives clear and ensure the starting point is always
about linking the initiatives to pupil learning. This is where mentoring conversations could be
particularly helpful to strengthen teachers’ professional learning – supporting teachers to
make sense of the different initiatives in relation to their pupils’ learning. Yet, it appears the
number of initiatives and consequent pressures on teachers’ time have not given the
teachers time to practise and gain confidence in the use of mentoring.
The lack of awareness of the opportunities for cohesion and joined-up working across policy
development was identified as a hindrance to development of mentoring approaches to
professional development. As discussed above teachers deferred or disengaged from some
initiatives in order to manage the demands of perceived key development priorities.
A lack of cohesion in whole school development, as a result of the organisation of separate
stage curriculum development, was also identified as a hindrance to teachers’ development
of professional learning. Engaging in mentoring conversations with colleagues across the
school can overcome this barrier. One primary teacher said,
‘The training gave us a chance to speak to each other across the stages which adds
fluidity to the whole school. It gives a chance to know what is going on in the school
continually. We are all implementing active literacy but it is segmented. If we had
mentoring conversations across the stages we would know what was going on.’ (P5)
The importance of continuity in leadership in the development of an initiative such as
mentoring was raised by the primary and secondary teachers. The positive role the
headteachers/DHT involved have played in demonstrating commitment to mentoring was
pointed out as an enabler in the follow-up mentor pilot. However, the teachers emphasised
there was a need for ongoing commitment to keep it going. They suggested that a lack of
continuity in leadership could be a hindrance to further development and sustainability of
mentoring approaches to professional learning. Several secondary staff conveyed frustration
in relation to other initiatives when changes in leadership resulted in discontinuity in
development. It was recognised that staffing profiles change as teachers are promoted and
22
move school but with if there is no replacement member of staff to keep the new
development at the forefront of teachers’ minds then momentum is lost. This could result in
the new development slipping off the list of priorities. A lack of continuity and progression in
staff training was also highlighted, with recognition of the complexities involved in sustaining
training over time because of teacher movement into and out of school.
‘Not just 1 generation; there is a tendency for people to take up the lead in an
initiative and then gain promotion and move on;’ (S2)
‘This year there are 4 new teachers – 2 are probationary teachers. We have to go
back and refresh mentor skills. Also, some staff are temporary.’ (P6).
The development of mentoring processes embedded in the work of probationer teachers
engaged in the GTCS teacher induction scheme was seen as a possible opportunity to
enhance continuity and progression of their experience of the mentoring processes to
strengthen professional learning. Peer mentoring conversation should continue beyond the
opportunities afforded to probationary teachers.
‘This (mentoring) is now used in probationer meetings and so the probationers are
used to this way of working. We need to continue from probationary period.’ (S5)
Probationary teachers expect mentoring conversations to be part of their professional
learning and have experience of sharing their successes and challenges with a mentor.
Embedding mentoring processes in the context of career-long professional learning also
requires teachers to openly share the successes and challenges of their practice with
colleagues and collaboratively identify next steps for the development of learning and
teaching. For some experienced teachers this approach could be perceived as threatening
and create unease rather than strengthen their professional learning. What the follow-up
mentor project demonstrated clearly was that knowledge and skill is needed to create a
positive atmosphere for mentoring between experienced teachers. Purpose and value along
with the establishment of trusting relationships and careful language use has been shown to
be central to successful implementation.
9. Concluding points

All the teachers (primary and secondary) involved in the follow-up project were
positive about mentoring processes strengthening their professional learning.
This replicates the findings in the initial Mentor Pilot Project. This is significant as
it suggests that mentoring processes can make an impact on teachers’
professional learning in schools. However, the conditions in which mentoring
processes are implemented including leadership and the knowledge and skill of
the mentors is fundamental to the successful implementation.

The teachers’ responses in this follow-up Mentor Project, regarding the impact of
mentoring processes on supporting their thinking about learning are significant.
The teachers in this follow-up project gave similar responses to those given by
23
the teachers involved in the initial Mentor Pilot Project regarding mentoring
processes helping them to ‘reflect more on learning’, ‘think more deeply about
pupil learning’ and ‘think about the relationship between learning and teaching’.
The similarity of the responses in two different projects, with different teachers
(with the exception of three teachers who had been previously involved) gives a
strong indication that mentoring has a positive impact on strengthening teachers’
learning and teaching in the context of career-long professional learning.

Similarly, the teachers’ responses in this follow-up project replicated the
responses of the teachers in the initial Mentor Pilot Project regarding the
importance of the structure of the learning conversations provided in the training
and the focus on their own pupils’ learning. The results in the two projects
highlight that this particular mentoring approach is valued by the teachers. They
trust the process of mentoring and it there is evidence it supported them in
building trusting relationships with their peers.

The results also consistently demonstrate that mentoring processes play a
significant role in building collegiality. Research (e.g. Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012,
Wenger, 198, Glazer & Hannafin, 2006) suggests that building capacity to
implement and sustain change in schools requires collaboration between staff
and a sense of shared purpose. The mentoring processes which focused on
improving pupil learning gave the teachers a strong sense of purpose which they
particularly welcomed when their time for professional learning is so limited.

In all three schools the headteachers’/DHT’s leadership and commitment to
mentoring played an important role in teachers’ views that mentoring was
important amongst the list of other priorities. It was also seen as significant by the
teachers that it was included in their School’s Improvement Plan. In their view this
enables mentoring to stay on their priority list and it will happen.

Three stages have been recognised in change processes – familiarising,
implementing and embedding. The teachers involved in the follow-up mentor
project are now all familiar with the mentoring processes, and have to some
extent started to implement mentoring with their peers. However, mentoring is not
embedded in their practice. Its development remains fragile and needs sustained
leadership, careful steering with a combination of top-down and bottom-up
support as well as further training to enable teachers to feel confident in their
knowledge and skill of using mentoring processes to strengthen colleagues’
professional learning in the context of career-long professional learning.

The point above suggests that further support is needed to ensure that mentoring
processes move to the stage of being embedded in the teachers’ ways of
working. The teachers commented on previous initiatives where ‘support
disappeared’ nationally, locally or in school for various reasons before the
particular development got to the stage of being embedded in practice. It is
24
important to learn about the process of change from these two projects and
recognise that further support is needed to move from, in some cases, fragile
implementation to mentoring being embedded in practice. Particularly as the
benefits of mentoring for the improvement of pupil learning and the strengthening
of professional learning have been demonstrated.

A long term training strategy is needed that provides support for:
 teachers/schools at differing developmental points in mentoring
 staggered and repeated mentor training to ‘catch’ new staff
 intermittent ‘top up’ of training to keep the energy, motivation and
focus of those already trained.

Time was identified as a barrier by teachers in both the initial and follow-up
Mentor Projects. It is important that this finding is recognised as a barrier to
strengthening professional learning in school. The use of mentoring
conversations to identify what the specific issues of time are and identify feasible
solutions would be helpful. However, it is also recognised that time is not infinite.
There are many calls on teachers’ time and prioritisation is necessary. Different
teachers and schools will be in a position to move forward at different speeds
depending on their context. These differences should be recognised in decisionmaking about the type of provision of further support to ensure changes in
practice get to the point of being embedded.

The schools involved in this follow-up Mentor Project have committed leaders
and teachers who value the mentoring processes. Much has been learned during
the project about the conditions that support the development and
implementation of mentoring processes in the context of career-long professional
learning. However, the schools require further support to embed mentoring
processes. Further training and ‘light touch’ ongoing support for the schools is
needed to enable the last stage of the change process. It is hoped that the need
for a third phase of this Mentor Project will be recognised and funded.
25
Bibliography
De Corte, Erik, (2010) ‘Historical developments in understanding learning’ in Dumont,
H., Istance, D., & Benavides, F. (2010) The Nature of Learning: using research to
inspire practice (Paris: OECD)
Glazer, E. & Hannafin, M.J. (2006) The Collaborative Apprenticeship Model: Situated
professional development within school settings, Teaching and Teacher Education
22 (2) 179 – 193
Hargreaves, A & Fullan, M (2012) Professional Capital, New York: Teachers College,
Columbia University & Toronto: Ontario Principals’ Council
Hattie, J. (2012) Visible Learning for Teachers: maximising the impact on learning,
Abington:Routledge
Livingston, K. (2012) Teachers engaging in peer-mentoring to improve pupil learning.
In: Lindqvist, U. (ed.) Create Learning for All, Consortium of Institutions for
Development and Research in Education in Europe. Skolverket, Stockholm, Sweden.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: meaning and identity Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
26