lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 48 (2015) 75e86

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Research on mentor education for mentors of newly qualifiedteachers: A qualitative meta-synthesis

Jessica Aspfors a, *, 1, G€oran Fransson b, 1

a Faculty of Professional Studies, University of Nordland, Norwayb Faculty of Education and Business Studies, University of G€avle, Sweden

h i g h l i g h t s

� A qualitative meta-synthesis of research on education for mentors of new teachers.� 10 studies met the criteria for full inclusion and were synthesised.� Three overarching dimensions were found as a final synthesis.� A systematic, long-term and research-informed mentor education is stressed.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 21 July 2014Received in revised form5 February 2015Accepted 9 February 2015Available online

Keywords:InductionMentor educationQualitative meta-synthesisNewly qualified teachersMentoring

* Corresponding author. University of Nordland,Norway. Tel.: þ47 75517708.

E-mail address: Jessica.Aspfors@uin.no (J. Aspfors)1 Both authors have contributed equally.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.02.0040742-051X/© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier

a b s t r a c t

The aim of this meta-synthesis is to deepen the understanding and knowledge of qualitative researchfocusing on education for mentors of newly qualified teachers. Altogether, 10 studies were included andsynthesised. Four common themes emerged in the initial analysis: School and mentoring context, Theoryand practice, Reflection and critical thinking and Relationships. Furthermore, three overarching dimensionswere found as a final synthesis guiding the further development of mentor education: 1) Contextualdimensions, 2) Theoretical-analytical dimensions, and 3) Relational dimensions. The synthesis stresses theimportance of a systematic, long-term and research-informed mentor education that develops mentors'(self-)understanding of teaching and mentoring.© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND

license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

In educational research there has been a long standing focus onnewly qualified teachers (NQTs). Challenges have been identifiedthat underpin arguments as to why mentoring may be justified oreven important (Aspfors & Bondas, 2013; European Commission,2010; Fletcher & Mullen, 2012). While much is known aboutmentoring, relatively little is known about mentors' professionalknowledge and needs (Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, & Tomlinson,2009), and even less is known about their professional develop-ment, how mentors are educated, and how their skills andknowledge develop during mentor education (Bullough, 2012). In

Post box 1490, 8049 Bod€o,

.

Ltd. This is an open access article u

this context, it has been claimed that the preparation of mentorshas to be a priority for policymakers, teacher educators and re-searchers (Hobson et al., 2009). However, it is surprising that somecountries or states with well-established mentoring programmesdo not seem to have any systematised mentor education. Forinstance, New Zealand has a long tradition of induction andmentoring for NQTs, but has no mandatory mentor education.Training is provided as professional development, often by pro-fessional or academic consultants or as university courses.The same is offered in Scotland, where training delivered by ed-ucation authorities is often related to documentation, rather thanthe mentoring process. Similar, in Japan the induction programme‘Shoninsha-kenshu’ is mandatory, but most mentors are nottrained (Asada, 2012). Thus, as research on mentor education isscant, the aim of this qualitative meta-synthesis is to deepen theunderstanding and knowledge of research focusing on educationfor mentors of NQTs (Noblit & Hare, 1988; Sandelowski & Barroso,2007).

nder the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

J. Aspfors, G. Fransson / Teaching and Teacher Education 48 (2015) 75e8676

In doing this our focus is not on the literature that simply de-scribes howmentor education is provided, its content and structureetc., but on global-wide studies with an explicit research focus onmentor education. The following questions are addressed: Whatdoes the qualitative research on mentor education focus on? Whatdo the studies contribute to the further development of mentoreducation? By addressing these questions, the ambition is that thissynthesis will offer a basis for further studies of mentor education.

Mentor education cannot be studied in full without problem-atising how mentoring and mentor education are understood anddefined. The problem is that there is no universal definition ofmentoring (Gold, 1996; Mullen, 2012), and that mentoring is acontested practice (Kemmis, Heikkinen, Fransson, Aspfors, &Edwards-Groves, 2014) in which different concepts, such as men-toring, supervision, coaching etc., are used (cf. Sundli, 2007).Mullen (2012) offers an illustrative quote: “While some theoriststhink of coaching as a type of mentoring, others see the exactreversee that is, mentoring as a type of coaching” (p. 9). Mentoringcan be performed in many contexts, be based on a variety of pur-poses and theoretical approaches (Dominguez & Hager, 2013;Hobson et al., 2009) and be performed under different circum-stances in a variety of ways with different duration and intensity(Bullough, 2012; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011; Strong & Baron, 2004).

For instance, in some research studies mentoring and mentoreducation are discussed in general terms and are often related todifferent kinds of contexts or experiences in different professions(Garvey&Westlander, 2013). When it comes to teachers, the terms‘mentor’ and ‘mentor education’ are sometimes used in the contextof ‘pre-service education’ and focus on initial teacher training,student teachers and their mentors (Ballantyne & Mylonas, 1991;Hudson, 2014; Sundli, 2007). In research on mentoring or mentoreducation, a clear line is seldom drawn between ‘mentoring’ andmentor preparation with regard to initial teacher education andmentoring and the training of mentors for NQTs. However, in thisarticle, we base our overview on the literature and research thatfocuses on mentoring and mentor education for mentors of NQTs.We do this because we consider ‘mentoring’ in initial teacher ed-ucation and for NQTs to be two different practices with (somewhat)different logics, contexts, relations and effects. A second reason isthat the majority of research seems to focus on the professionaldevelopment of ‘mentors’ for student teachers in initial teachereducation (cf. Hobson et al., 2009; Hudson, 2013; 2014), rather thanconsidering the professional development of mentors for NQTs.

In the article we regard mentoring as an activity, a process and along-term relationship between an experienced teacher (mentor)and a less experienced NQT that is primarily designed to supportthe NTQ's learning, professional development and well-being andto facilitate their induction into the culture of teaching and the localschool context (cf. Hobson et al., 2009). We definementor educationas: a) formal courses or education involving universities, teachereducation institutions or researchers, b) professional developmentactivities, such as coaching or reflective seminars for mentors, andc) action research projects involving mentors and researchers.

We begin with an overview of previous research in the field ofmentor preparation before describing the methods and criteria forthis qualitative meta-synthesis and its results.

2. The professional development of mentors e informal andeducative practices

2.1. Focus on mentoring for newly qualified teachers

The professional development of mentors embraces the transi-tion from experienced teacher to the position of mentor and havingto master teaching practices and mentoring practice, which can be

seen as two separate practices (Orland-Barak, 2001). These transi-tional processes imply knowledge and skills to master the pro-cesses of communication, learning and identity formation, as wellas the micro-political manoeuvring that is necessary in both prac-tices (Achinstein, 2006). In the mentoring practice, these skills aremanifested and exposed in the processes of mentoring. In manyways the professional development that is necessary to become amentor is similar to the developmental stages that new teachersexperience in their first years of teaching (Orland, 2001).

There seems to be at least two main approaches in researchwhen conceptualising the professional development of mentors forNQTs. The first approach focuses on mentors' informal learning andinteractions with mentees. The second focus on formal courses orprogrammes or on more informal but still organised opportunitiesfor professional development while serving as mentors, forinstance via coaching or reflective seminars. These two approachesare highlighted below.

2.2. Mentors' professional development and informal learning

Mentors' professional knowledge has been found to be highlypractice-oriented and emanates to a great extent from mentors'own professional experiences and preferences (Clarke, Killeavy, &Moloney, 2013; Ulvik & Sunde, 2013) and instructional contextshave been found to have a strong influence on mentors' concep-tions and practices of mentoring. This is clearly illustrated inWang's (2001) study of mentors in China, England and UnitedStates.

The informal learning of mentors is well documented in terms ofhow the mentors themselves benefit and learn from mentoring(Patrick, Elliot, Hulme, &McPhee, 2010). According to Hobson et al.(2009), the largest body of research evidence seems to deal withmentors' critical reflections and mentors' own way of acting orunderstanding their own teaching practices (Abell, Dillon, Hopkins,McInerney, & O'Brien, 1995; Clarke et al., 2013; Patrick et al., 2010).It is also highlighted that mentors can learn current knowledge ornew perspectives from the NQTs. For instance, in a Norwegianstudy of new upper secondary teachers and their mentors, Ulvikand Langørgen (2012) find that mentors learn from NQTs aboutissues such as youth culture, ICT, gain up-to-date-knowledge aboutcurriculum and subject matter, and listen to the alternative per-spectives of NQTs. In their study of 25 mentors in Missouri, Gillesand Wilson (2004) find that mentors learn how to work withadults, how to ‘read situations’ and their mentees, when and how tochallenge mentees' thinking, and how to make tacit expertisevisible and conscious. It is concluded that a lot of mentoring islearned by engaging in it, and that it is a learning process that takestime, i.e. years rather than months (cf. Koballa, Kittleson, Bradbury,& Dias, 2010). In another study, Orland-Barak (2001) uncovers thelearning and evolving competence of two Israeli mentors as theydevelop their competence over time, partly by contrasting thepractice of mentoring and the practice of teaching children. In asimilar study from New Zealand, Langdon (2014) shows howmentors learn and develop their mentoring, for instance bychanging their conversational strategies to more co-constructivistapproaches, or by viewing themselves more as “learners” than“problem-solvers” or “tellers”.

Mentors' professional development has also been found to beconnected to the professional development of the mentors' ownteaching. In a study from Ireland, Clarke et al. (2013) found thatmentors regarded the acquisition and improvement of their ownteaching skills to be of importance in their role as mentors.Reflecting on their own teaching and reflecting on and sharingexperiences with colleagues was also found to benefit mentoring.Thus, it would seem that the factors or activities in the mentor's

J. Aspfors, G. Fransson / Teaching and Teacher Education 48 (2015) 75e86 77

daily work that enhance their capacity to analyse their ownteaching are also important sources of knowledge in their role asmentors.

2.3. Formalisation of mentors' professional development

In research it is sometimes suggested that mentors for NQTsneed some kind of preparation, education or professional devel-opment. In some studies these suggestions stem from researchoverviews (Tang, 2012) or from empirical research, e.g. on men-toring processes, skills or learning (Clarke et al., 2013; Desimoneet al., 2014; Jones, 2009). For instance, based on experiences offormal induction programmes in Ontario, Canada, Glassford andSalinitri (2007) conclude that mentor training is a key contributorto the success of mentoring programmes. In other cases, the sug-gestions resulting from research informed the development of in-duction and mentoring schemes, as in Ibrahim's study (2012) ofimportant factors for the creation of a possible future mentoringscheme in the United Arab Emirates. Despite such suggestions, it isnotable that mentor education has hitherto not been regarded asbeing sufficiently in focus in research (Iucu& Stingu, 2013; Wang &Odell, 2002).

When it comes to the formal courses for mentors or opportu-nities for professional development e the research is sparser andknowledge about mentors' professional development and learningmuch weaker (cf. Hobson et al., 2009). Some research is available,however. From an extensive research overview focusing on men-toring for NQTs and for student teachers in initial teacher educa-tion, Wang and Odell (2002) identify three basic models formentoring preparation: the knowledge transmission model, thetheory-and-practice connection model and the collaborative in-quiry model. These models are based on different assumptionsabout how one learns to be a mentor. Other researchers, forexample Tang and Choi (2005), analysed and compared twodifferent mentoring courses in Hong Kong and found that mentorsdeveloped a deeper understanding of the concept of mentoring andtheir competence in mentoring. Ulvik and Sunde (2013) came tosimilar conclusions in their Norwegian study of an ongoing mentorcourse for mentors of student teachers and NQTs. Here, the par-ticipants' understanding becamemore systematic, their knowledgebecame more grounded and their awareness of mentoringincreased.

Other research refers more indirectly to mentor education, e.g.the impact of mentor education or the extent to which the content,approaches or ideologies of the education can be traced in thementoring. For instance, when investigating the effects of a struc-tured mentoring education facilitated by the New Teacher Centre(NTC) in Oregon, in the United States, Menegat (2010) found in-dications that the interaction between mentor and mentee wasframed by the content of the mentor training. In another study, alsoperformed in the United States but this time on 46 mentor-menteepairs, Evertson and Smithey (2000) compared the mentoringpractices of 23 mentors who had been trained with 23 who had notbeen trained, and found that the trained mentors had bettercommunication skills and were more likely to share their ownexperiences with the mentee. The mentees were also better able tofollow instructions and establish more workable classroom rou-tines than the mentees of mentors who not had received anytraining. In Evertson and Smithey's study (Evertson and Smithey,2000), the mentor education was systematically used as a param-eter. However, the extent towhichmentoring education is used as aparameter in analysis in other research can be discussed. In aresearch overview of the effects of mentoring programmes,Waterman and He (2011) show that although most of the includedarticles reported that the mentors were trained, only in a few

studies had data been collected about how the mentors valued theeffects of the mentor education for their competence to performmentoring. Regarding the impact of mentor education, Hobsonet al. (2009, p. 212) state in their extensive research overviewthat the evidence base for claiming actual effects of mentor edu-cation is “generally rather sparse and underdeveloped”. It is worthnoting that in their overview, mentor education covered educationfor mentors of NQTs and/or for student teachers in initial teachereducation.

However, the impact of mentor education could also be a resultof its extent, focus and content. Courses can vary extensively, forexample from 10 week courses in Norway giving 15 ECTS (Ulvik,2014) to a few days of training in some parts of the United States(Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009) or as a local initiative inQueensland, Australia (Beutel & Spooner-Lane, 2009). Mixedmodels of education and support are also reported. Carver andFeiman-Nemser (2009) describe and analyse different approachesof mentor education in the states of Connecticut, California andCincinnati, where for instance California has mandated mentoreducation followed by support while mentoring. The focus of thementor education is also important. In the study the authors alsofound that as the main focus of a specific 2-day education was onteaching standards and supporting portfolio assessment, theobserved mentors did not talk about or practise reflective conver-sation; something that the researchers regarded as important butwas a missing element in the brief education. In an English study ofthe mentoring of maths and science teachers, Haggarty,Postlethwaite, Diment, and Ellins (2011) found similar challenges,namely that the mentor education seemed to focus more onorganisational procedures and the requirements of the providingauthority, the Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA),than the complexities of the mentor's role or of learning to teach.

The quality and focus of the literature used in mentor educationcan also affect its impact. In a US context it has been claimed that alot of the literature used for the professional development ofmentors tends to have a technical approach, thus reducing men-toring to strategies and tips rather than acknowledging it as acomplex and challenging practice (Achinstein & Athanases, 2006).

2.4. Mentoring a profession within the teaching profession?

It has been argued that mentoring can be seen as a specificprofession within the teaching profession, at least from an Israeli(Orland-Barak, 2001) and a Norwegian perspective (Smith & Ulvik,2014; Ulvik & Smith, 2011) on mentoring. The main argument forthis is the specific competence that mentors need to acquire inorder to mentor colleagues, which differs from ‘regular teachingcompetencies’. However, being regarded as a profession requiresother, more specific circumstances. According to the traditionaldefinitions of profession, it implies identification with a ‘mentorcommunity’ that has control over the knowledge base and theeducation, that the mentoring is performed in accordance withethical codes, and that there is a general acceptance of professionalclaims (Evans, 2008; Evetts, 2006). In this context, teaching istraditionally seen as a semi-profession (Wise, 2005), although thistraditional definition has also been criticised, for instance for hav-ing toomuch focus on structural issues that downplay the tasks andthe content of the work (Abbott, 2010). In line with this argu-mentation, the present practice seems to be to acknowledgementors' specific expertise and professionalism, rather thanacknowledge mentorship as a profession in the traditional sense.However, regardless of whether or not any ‘mentor community’ canbe seen as having control over its knowledge base and education,the very idea of regarding mentorship as a profession in its ownright brings mentor education into focus. Before elaborating on our

J. Aspfors, G. Fransson / Teaching and Teacher Education 48 (2015) 75e8678

primary studies of mentor education used for this meta-synthesis,we will address some of the methodological issues.

3. Method

3.1. Qualitative meta-synthesis

In order to examine the research on mentor education formentors of NQTs, a qualitative meta-synthesis was employed.Meta-synthesis aims at a more comprehensive view i.e. “theorydevelopment, higher level abstraction, and generalisability in orderto make qualitative findings more accessible for application inpractice” (Zimmer, 2006, p. 313). It is thus not an ordinary review ofthe research in the field, but a methodological approach to developnew knowledge based on an interpretive analysis of existingqualitative research findings. Here, the main idea is to bringtogether findings from primary studies and to use these as data in a“third level” interpretation. As such, meta-synthesis may presentcondensed knowledge and offer a fuller and/or new understandingof the mentor education phenomenon. Meta-synthesis is not thesame as meta-analysis, which includes quantitative studies andtypically operates in a positivist/post-positivist tradition (cf.Bondas, Hall, & Wikberg, 2013; Brown & Lan, 2015).

This meta-synthesis study draws on the methods of meta-ethnography (Noblit & Hare, 1988) and qualitative research synthesisstudy (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2007). The former pair used meta-synthesis within qualitative research in their meta-ethnographicstudy of education, which is the most common method for meta-synthesis. Although the methods are more commonly used todayin nursing science, they have recently gained new ground withineducation (e.g. Brown & Lan, 2015; H€okk€a & Etel€apelto, 2014).2

The present qualitative meta-synthesis study poses thefollowing questions:

� Which common themes can be derived from the research onmentor education?

� What is the final synthesis that can guide the development offurther mentor education?

3.2. Literature search

Systematic reviews of published research were conducted fromDecember 2013 to May 2014, with a focus on the search termsmentor preparation/mentor education/mentoring education/mentor training/mentoring training or shorter forms of these withtruncations, in: (a) databases of peer-reviewed articles, (b) fivepeer-reviewed journals. Reference lists and the names of the au-thors of the included articles were also searched.

The following databases were reviewed: Academic Search Pre-mier (EBSCO), Ebrary, PsycArticles (Ovid), ScienceDirect (Elsevier),Primo Central (Ex Libris), Springer Link, Web of Science, ERIC(Proquest), Discovery, SAGE Premier, Google Scholar. A total of 3466articles were identified in these databases. We also conducted asystematic review of the titles of all the articles published from2000�May 2014 in the journals Mentoring & Tutoring: Learning inPartnership, Professional Development in Education, Teaching andTeacher Education, International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching inEducation and AsiaePacific Journal of Teacher Education. This com-plimentary strategy was used in order to validate the systematicreview of the databases and the search terms used, and also to

2 A search in ERIC (EBSCO HOST) 2014-12-08 for “meta-synthesis” resulted in 17hits, of which 8 related to education. A similar search in Medline rendered 280 hitsrelevant for the health-care sector.

determine whether other relevant articles were available. All thejournals were chosen for their focus and for their representations ofdifferent parts of the world. No new article was found in this sup-plementary search.

3.3. Study selection process and criteria

The study selection process was conducted in two separatephases: the first was a review of titles and abstracts and the seconda consideration of the full text articles. The two authors initiallysearched the above mentioned databases and listed the titles andabstracts of the articles found (in total 3466). As many of the da-tabases generated similar results, some of the articles were dupli-cates. Both authors reviewed the lists individually to beginwith andthen discussed inclusion or exclusion on the basis of the followingpredetermined criteria:

A first criterion was that the articles reviewed needed to adhereto our definition of mentor education. In this article we havedefined mentor education for mentors of newly qualified teachersas: a) formal courses or education involving universities, teachereducation institutions or researchers, b) professional developmentactivities, such as coaching or reflective seminars for mentors, andc) action research projects involving mentors and researchers.Studies addressing the effects of mentor education, if the researchfocused on the processes during the mentoring education, wereincluded. However, we excluded research on mentoring practicethat only claimed to study the effects of mentoring education andnot the mentor education itself. Furthermore, studies focusing onperspectives other than mentor education for mentors of newlyqualified teachers were excluded, such as mentor education for‘mentors’ of student teachers in initial teacher education.

A second criterionwas that the articles should be qualitative andempirical. A qualitative meta-synthesis was used as an approachand method to focus on the original qualitative primary studies.Quantitative articles, theoretical and discussion articles, reviewsand editorials were therefore excluded. This is why, for instance,the excellent study of Wang and Odell (2002) was excluded fromthe meta-synthesis. A third criterion was the date of publication.The articles had to have been published before the end of 2013. Afourth criterion was peer-review. Articles guaranteed for quality bythe journals' peer-review processes and a qualitative check by theauthors of this article were included.

A fifth criterion was accessibility. Books and book chapters wereexcluded, partly because in the databases they were difficult to findand the full text difficult to access, partly because they have notalways been subjected to the same rigorous peer review process asscientific articles. Dissertations were also excluded for similarreasons. Articles that were not possible to access in full text weresimilarly excluded.

This process led us to the second phase and a total of 35 po-tential articles, all of which were reviewed in full text. However, 25of these were excluded due to either the wrong focus, for exampleon initial teacher education, on mentors' competences rather thanmentor education, or on theoretical scenarios for mentor educa-tion. This left us with ten articles, whichwere finally included in thestudy (see Table 1). According to the recommendations of qualita-tive meta-synthesis, 10-12 studies are optimal (Bondas & Hall,2007).

3.4. Summary and context of included articles

In this section, an overview of the included studies, data andbackground is provided. This is followed by a more detaileddescription of the analysis process of the meta-synthesis.

Table 1Studies focusing on mentor education included in the qualitative meta-synthesis.

Author, year ofpublication andcountry of study

Aim Sample of informants Data collection Data analyses

Beutel andSpooner-Lane(2009), Australia

To report on the implementation of amentoring development programmedesigned to build mentoring capacitiesin experienced teachers

8 female teachers, 1male teacher

Questionnaires and subsequentfocus group interviews

Iterative process: themes,communalities and overarchingcategories

Dallat and Moran(1998), Ireland

To describe an initiative in which the entirestaff at a primary school participated in aprogramme of Mentorship Training

Whole school activitywith 16 staff

Questionnaire with open and closedquestions (professional portfolio ofexperience, personal journal/diary,peer observations, teaching video)

Not specified (actionresearch approach)

Evertson and Smithey(2000), USA

To explore the efficacy of using aresearch-based mentoring programme toassist mentor teachers in supportingtheir prot�eg�es

46 prot�eg�e-mentorpairs (23 treatment;23 comparison)

Ratings and narrative records fromclassroom observations, video ofmentor- prot�eg�e conferences,documentation of goal-setting andweekly mentoring activities andratings of students' classroombehaviour

Classroom Activity Record(CAR), Ratings of classroominstruction (RCI), video analysiswith a 5-point Likert-type scale

Harrison et al. (2005),UK

To produce knowledge and action usefulfor Induction Tutors, and also to empowerthem through a process of constructingand using their own knowledgeTo influence teachers to change theirown practicesTo make sense of processes withinthe mentor meetings

30 subject inductiontutors

Questionnaire surveys at the startand end of year to NQTs; end-of-yeartelephone interviews with NQTs tofollow up key themes; auditdocuments to target SITs at start andend of year; Professional ReviewMeetings (PRM) transcripts; andrecordings of small and large groupdiscussions with target SITs

Not specified (ParticipatoryAction Research)

Koballa et al. (2010),USA

To understand the cultural tools used byscience teachers when learning to mentorand how tool use may lead to theconstruction of new understandings aboutmentoring

37 experienced teachersenrolled in a federallyfunded science-specificmentor preparationprogramme

Interviews, group discussions,electronic bulletin board postings,and written cases

Interpretative orientation(phenomenology): threestages of data analysis

McCrary and Mazur(2010), USA

To conceptualise the design of a narrativeonline simulation that implementsuser-selected multiple outcomes asdecision points for reflection and dialogiclearning for mentors and NQTs

6 mentors as criticalfeedback group

Notes and observations, groupdiscussions

Conceptual analysis(narrative framework)

Sinclair (2003),Australia

To report on the experience of a universityprofessor and her graduate students as theyembarked on learning about the verypersonal domain of mentoring viaface-to-face and online learning

7 practising teachers Student online discussions, e-maildiscussions, assignments andanonymous course evaluations

Analysis by adapting threedimensions of the QueenslandSchool Reform LongitudinalStudy classroom observationschedule

Stanulis and Ames(2009), USA

To examine how an experienced teacherlearned to mentor as she attended ongoingprofessional development and worked withfirst- and second-year teachers across oneschool year as part of a university/districtpilot induction partnership programme

1 experienced teacherlearning to mentor

Observations (mentor study group,mentoring cycle, new teachers'classroom instruction), interviews,and mentor's reflection journal

Iterative process: initial codes,tentative themes, individualcases (action research)

Tang and Choi(2005),Hong Kong

To examine the theory-and-practiceconnection model in mentor preparation inthe context of two mentor preparationprogrammes in Hong Kong

About 300 and 120mentor trainees,respectively, attendedthe two programmes(2003e2004)

Document analysis (curriculumdocuments, reflective reports) andfocus group interviews

Analysis from the perspectiveof professional knowledgeconstruction

Ulvik and Sunde(2013),Norway

To gain a deeper understanding of mentorpreparation, the focus is on a formal mentoreducation programme offered to teachersin secondary school at a universityin Norway

31 teachers enrolled inthe programme; 20completed the course(17 were presentat the last meeting)

Pre-course and post-coursequestionnaires (open-ended) andfocus groups

Inductive approach(constructivistic/post-positivisticparadigm): to move from theparticular to the generalthrough codes and categories

J. Aspfors, G. Fransson / Teaching and Teacher Education 48 (2015) 75e86 79

Ten articles, published between 1998 and 2013 and representingdifferent parts of the world, are included in the meta-synthesis.Four of the articles refer to the USA, two to Australia and oneeach to Hong Kong, UK, Ireland and Norway (see Table 1). Thestudies were all published in international journals covering edu-cation, learning, mentoring and professional development. Thesamples of the studies vary between 1 and 420mentors and involvein total some 560 teachers participating in mentor education. Fourof the studies involve secondary school teachers. All the studies arequalitative in nature and three explicitlymention action research asan approach. Different data collectingmethodswere used, themostcommon being questionnaire surveys (4), different forms of groupdiscussions (4) (focus group interviews and critical feedback groups

or intervention meetings), as well as observations, individual in-terviews, document analysis, narrative simulations and journal/logs. The methods of analysis included different kinds of thematicanalysis (iterative/inductive). Some of the studies either did notmention any specific analysis method or were very vague in theirdescriptions.

The ten included articles focus on different kinds of mentoreducation, e.g. university-based courses ranging from 30 h (Tang &Choi, 2005) to 15 ECTS (15 weeks) (Ulvik & Sunde, 2013), ongoingprofessional development in mentor groups meeting each month(Stanulis & Ames, 2009), online mentor courses (McCrary &Mazur,2010; Sinclair, 2003), combinations of short courses, workshopsand sustained support in internship whilementoring (Koballa et al.,

J. Aspfors, G. Fransson / Teaching and Teacher Education 48 (2015) 75e8680

2010), action research projects (Harrison, Lawson, & Wortley,2005), a four-day workshop (Evertson & Smithey, 2000), andschool development projects (Beutel & Spooner-Lane, 2009; Dallat& Moran, 1998). One of the studies used a comparative approachwhen comparing mentors with formal mentor education to thosewithout formalised mentoring preparation (Evertson & Smithey,2000). In most cases the mentor education had only been opera-tive for a short period and therefore had no sustained structure.Most of the education consisted of isolated events or courses thathad been researched after being developed, implemented or run ona few occasions.

When reviewing the articles, three approaches to presenting thefindings of the mentor educationwere revealed. One approach is tocentre on the impact of the mentor education in focus (Dallat &Moran, 1998; Sinclair, 2003; Tang & Choi, 2005; Ulvik & Sunde,2013). A second strategy is to discuss mentor education, its con-tent, how participants perceive it and what impact it has in tightrelation to mentoring practices (what mentors do). A result of thisis that the mentoring practice is given space in text, while mentoreducation is given less space or is exposed more indirectly via thementoring context (Beutel & Spooner-Lane, 2009; Evertson &Smithey, 2000; Koballa et al., 2010; Stanulis & Ames, 2009). A thirdapproach is to have the main focus on the ideas behind or methodsin the mentor education, as in McCrary and Mazur's (2010) studyrelated to narrative simulation, or in Harrison et al's (2005) studyrelated to action research. In this approach, the mentor education issomehow in the background.

3.5. Data analysis process

The partially overlapping six phases of the two combinedmethods of Noblit and Hare (1988) and Sandelowski and Barroso(2007) are presented below, with a description of how they areapplied in the current meta-synthesis (cf. Bondas et al., 2013).

1) Getting started e conceiving the synthesis. The aim and researchquestions of this qualitative meta-synthesis study were dis-cussed and formulated against the background of the limitedprevious research.

2) Deciding what is relevant to the initial interest e deciding thetarget of the study. The criteria for the literature search and theinclusion and exclusion criteria were set after careful consider-ation by the two authors.

3) Reading the studies e appraising included reports. The identifiedstudies were critically reviewed and the usefulness of thestudies evaluated. The ten studies that were finally included inthe meta-synthesis were repeatedly read and summarised (seeTable 1).

4) Determine how different studies are related e a targeted com-parison. The results of the primary studies were analysed byadopting qualitative content analysis with the aid of NVivo10software. More concretely, the analysis process consisted ofthree steps: open coding, categorisation and abstraction (cf. Elo &Kyng€as, 2008). The process started with a careful reading, fol-lowed by an inductive review process of the results of theincluded studies in which key metaphors, ideas and/or conceptswere highlighted and coded as emerging themes (codes inNVivo). This initial and open coding process resulted in a largenumber of codes. Thereafter, a more systematic coding or cat-egorisation was conducted. The pieces of data were comparedfor similarities and differences, and the codes categorised in atree node system. In this way, codes having similar meaningswere grouped into the same sub-category. Finally, the list of sub-categories was further reduced by grouping them in higher or-der categories or main themes (see the four identified themes in

the findings outlined in Section 4). In order to validate theanalysis process the authors analysed the data separately: firstin NVivo and then by discussing the codes and the categories.This enabled us to reach inter-rater agreement and led to morerefined results.

5) Translating the studies into one another e forming the qualitativemeta-synthesis. Noblit and Hare (1988, p. 7) use the term“reciprocal translation” for the translation of findings into eachother. This is an inductive and interpretive explanation thatenables the uniqueness of the studies to be retained and a newwhole of the parts created. After the preceding steps of a contentanalysis, in the form of the categorisation and abstraction of fourmain themes, the next step was to integrate the results. Thismeant an interpretive integration of the findings into a finalsynthesis. Here, the identified themes were interpreted andthree concluding and overarching dimensions developed torepresent our deepened and multi-dimensional understandingof research on mentor education. The dimensions are blendedwith a number of elements from the four different themes.While some of the themes are more notable in certain di-mensions, the integration should be seen as a dynamic andflexible whole that hangs together. The intention of the syn-thesis is to raise the data to a more abstract level and to presenta new whole that enables a refined understanding of researchon mentor education in relation to previous research (see syn-thesis in Section 5).

6) Expressing and presenting the meta-synthesis. In this article thefindings are presented in written formwith quotations from theoriginal studies (see Section 4) and the synthesis is presented inthe form of three dimensions.

4. Findings

In the following we present the findings in relation to our firstresearch question. The findings are organised into the followingthemes: School and mentoring context, Theory and practice, Reflec-tion and critical thinking and finally Relationships. Quotations fromthe original studies are used as validation.

4.1. School and mentoring context

This theme focuses on how school and mentoring contexts areaddressed in the findings in terms of practical and cultural ar-rangements. The school context in which the teachers work seemsto be important for the mentor education in several ways. Support,such as the allocation of time, the employment of substituteteachers, payment for literature, the moral support of principals,colleagues etc. seems to vary in different contexts and studies(Beutel & Spooner-Lane, 2009; Harrison et al., 2005; McCrary &Mazur, 2010; Tang& Choi, 2005; Ulvik& Sunde, 2013). For instance,in Tang and Choi (2005), examples are given concerning the lack ofsupport from the principal for the mentor to apply the knowledgefrom the mentor education in school.

Not all principals know the use of this course. I sent the hand-outs to my principal, but he did not respond to me at all… It isdifficult for me to tell the principal about the need to assistbeginning teachers. Only I know the mentoring course. Othersenior teachers and teachers don't know this course at all… Ibenefited a lot from the course, but it will be difficult to applywhat is learned in school. (Tang & Choi, 2005, p. 397)

One important issue seems to be the time and effort invested bythe participants in the mentor education, given that their ordinaryjob also takes time and energy. Bad circumstances seem to

J. Aspfors, G. Fransson / Teaching and Teacher Education 48 (2015) 75e86 81

negatively influence the options to utilise the full potential of thementor education, and dropping out is often explained by thesechallenging circumstances (Harrison et al., 2005; Tang & Choi,2005; Ulvik & Sunde, 2013). One reason that is often given fordropping out of mentor education is the workload:

I think it is an excellent idea and I benefited from the firstmeeting. However the pressures of my new role and myinvolvement in the KS2/3 transition project… means I havespread myself too thinly and something has to go. (Harrisonet al., 2005, p. 93)

Thementors are not only concerned about the school context fortheir own successful participation in mentor education, but also forthe success of mentoring in general as part of the overall schoolculture. For example, in Koballa et al., (2010, p. 1083) mentors raisedoubts about the school cultures in which NQTs are working. Newteachers are often assigned classes with challenging pupils thatmore experienced teachers do not want to teach, or are given extra-curricular duties without being provided with the necessarytraining or support. This in turn also affects the quality of men-toring and the mentors' actual work:

It is now my contention that beginning teachers like Daveshould be allowed to only teach for at least two years beforebeing asked to assume extra curricular responsibilities. How-ever, this is not the way the systemworks, and Dave is definitelystruggling to fullfill his responsibilities. […] Is it the re-sponsibility of the mentor to “run interference” for this newteacher to help keep the administration from pressuring him toassume coaching responsibilities? (Koballa et al., 2010, p. 1083)

Thus, the mentors express a wish to develop mentoring inschool, but at the same time experience resistance. These kinds ofcontextual issues and concerns, together with others, are discussedin the mentor education.

4.2. Theory and practice

This theme focuses on the theory and content of mentor educa-tion and how it relates to practice, and on how methodological ap-proaches are used tobridge the experienced theoryandpractice gap.

Most important for utilising the full potential of mentor edu-cation seems to be the opportunities to connect and integrate‘theory’ and ‘practice’. That is, the extent to which it is possible to‘practise mentoring’ during the course or already having theseexperiences and thus having something to relate the ‘theory’ andthe ‘practical doings’ of the course to. Issues relating to theory andpractice are, to varying extents, emphasised in all the ten articlesstudied. While this issue is explicitly stressed in some articles, theanalysis also exposes these often implicitly expressed findings.

This theme comprises evidence as to how the content of mentoreducation could have theoretical and practical implications, e.g. inthe form of suitable strategies, tools, theories and perspectives forperforming and conceptualising mentoring. We find an example oftools in Koballa et al.'s (2010) study, in which an informant reflectson a tool for observation.

One of the best ideas that I thought I got from this summer wassome of the methods that they gave us on when we go in towatch our prot�eg�es in the classroom, how to look for specificthings … to look at that data and learn how to analyze it andhow much that piece of paper that is now your data really toldyou about how well the teacher was doing. (Koballa et al., 2010,p. 1081)

An example of how theories can facilitate new perspectives isprovided in Ulvik and Sunde's (2013) study:

I have acquired a system of concepts that has made it possible tosystematise and understand better what was previously baseduponmy own judgement and often vague considerations. (Ulvik& Sunde, 2013, p. 761)

Some of the researched mentor education seems to be speciallydesigned for the opportunities to ‘practise mentoring’ whilelearning to mentor. For instance, in Harrison et al.'s (2005) study, aparticipatory action research approach is used, in which theparticipating mentors critically analyse their own mentoring pro-cesses. In Stanulis and Ames' (2009) study, thementor is coached incontext during the mentoring year, and in Dallat and Moran's(1998) study a whole school approach was designed to integratementors' learning with a review of their own teaching.

Challenges to transform the education to a mentoring practiceand getting the theory-and-practice connection to work are alsostressed in some studies (Tang & Choi, 2005; Ulvik & Sunde, 2013).For instance, Ulvik and Sunde (2013) find that mentors seemconfident about their theoretical understanding of mentoring, butare less confident about using the knowledge in practice. Examplesof their data reveal mentors' doubts: ‘I know theoretically what Ishould do. Whether I do it in practice is something quite different’(Ulvik & Sunde, 2013, p. 764).

Even though many mentors value a formalised mentor educa-tion (Dallat&Moran,1998; Ulvik& Sunde, 2013), the importance ofpractical experience is also acknowledged: “The most importantasset that I have to offer the mentoring relationship is the wisdom andexperience of 35 years of teaching science” (Koballa et al., 2010, p.1080).

4.3. Reflection and critical thinking

This theme focuses on critical thinking and reflection and on themethodological approaches used in the education to enhance theseaspects and to challenge taken for granted assumptions.

A common theme in all the ten articles is the intention of thementor education to develop the mentor's analytical skills andenhance reflection. In most of the articles, evidence is given forsuch development. For instance, in Sinclair's (2003) analyses ofwritten journals he finds via the reflective writing evidence thatmentor education facilitates critical thinking.

… writing a reflective journal empowered me by forcing me[in]to articulating my knowledge, beliefs and understandingsof professional readings and teaching experiences, as well asquestion and explain my learning intentions by thinkingdeeply about the ways of doing things and why. (Sinclair, 2003,p. 84)

Also in Koballa et al. (2010), case writing is used as a way ofreflecting on the mentoring practice. In their study, Beutel andSpooner-Lane (2009) report that the most valuable aspect of thementor education is that it prompts mentors to reflect on theirmentoring relationships. Mentor education also seems to enhance amore reflective approach to effective teaching. As onementor statesin Dallat and Moran (1998, p. 39), “It (the programme) made merealise that we can teach all day but learning may not be taking place”.In online courses, as in the narrative simulation developed byMcCrary and Mazur (2010), mentors are required to reflect on andanalyse how their decisions influence their own theories-in-actionand professional reasoning in the classroom.

J. Aspfors, G. Fransson / Teaching and Teacher Education 48 (2015) 75e8682

However, evidence that the mentor education actually enhancesa mentor's analytical and reflective skills is mostly self-reported bymentors, although in some studies this is also analysed in contextsexperienced by the researchers. For instance, Evertson & Smithey's(2000) study of mentors showed that educated mentors listenedmuch more actively, asked more questions and used probes,described specific suggestions and conversations with theirmentees about teaching problems and more frequently describedtheir plans to observe the mentees. Studying and comparing thementees' actions and the impact of these in teaching revealed thatin many respects they were better able to arrange the physicalsettings of the classrooms, manage instructions and had moreeffective routines and procedures.

One approach that is used to enhance analytical skills is toorganise opportunities for experienced-based learning. Some arti-cles focus on mentoring education that is in principle organised inthe teaching andmentoring practice, for instance as action researchprojects (Harrison et al., 2005) orwhole school approaches (Dallat&Moran, 1998). Another example of a method promotingexperienced-based learning is self-reflection over one's ownteaching, often explicitly expressed as a method to become ‘reflec-tive practitioners’ (Dallat & Moran, 1998) and thus being betterprepared to analyse mentees. Another common method is theorganisation of peer-observations or observations of videos of one'sown or others' teaching. In some studies, this self-reflection alsofocuses on real mentoring situations (Evertson & Smithey, 2000;Koballa et al., 2010; Stanulis & Ames, 2009; Tang & Choi, 2005).For instance, Tang and Choi (2005) report on a mentor who afteranalysing the video-recorded post-lesson conference realised:

I should guide the mentee to think about the problem and thesolution, rather than telling her directly. If I tell her directly, thenit's not like lesson observation. It's like a teacher teaching apupil, not an activity between the observer and the observed.(Tang & Choi, 2005, p. 395)

The articles include several examples of the importance ofallowing new teachers to reflect. In the mentor education mentorsexperience the value of this and often change their mentoringpractice as a result.

4.4. Relationships

This theme focuses on the relations between mentor studentsthat are also related to mentor educators, colleagues and mentees.

An important finding and theme in the research is the re-lationships between mentors in the education and betweenmentors and the mentees in the mentoring. Trusting, comfort-able, supportive and stimulating relations among participants inthe mentor education are reported as crucial for professionallearning. These aspects are implicitly stressed in some articles,whereas in others they are explicit. This is the case in Ulvik andSunde (2013):

The programme has been very useful, and there are two ele-ments that have contributed. One is what you at the faculty havedone, like delivering good lectures and that kind of thing, theacademic content. The other thing is something fromwhich I'vebenefited enormously, namely the community with the otherstudents. (Ulvik & Sunde, 2013, p. 763)

As the quote above expresses, it is the mentor students who areappreciated the most, while mentor educators are addressed moreindirectly. The mentor education also seems to highlight theimportance of adult relationships in general:

I think I've lost the human relationships in my job, in relation toteachers. It's all for the students and it's not about my re-lationships with teachers. […] I'm going to make more of aneffort to share my concerns, experience, support andmakemoreof effort to connect socially in the staff room. (Beutel& Spooner-Lane, 2009, p. 354)

An example of when relationships are sometimes implicitlyaddressed is when communicative skills for mentors are in focus asa component of a mentor education or as skills acquired throughthe mentor education. Also, some research shows how relationalprocesses develop, for instance from ‘cautious’ to more beneficialrelationships, during the mentor education (Dallat & Moran, 1998;Stanulis & Ames, 2009).

The organisational form of the mentor education also addressessome of the challenges of creating good relationships among theparticipants. For instance, Sinclair (2003) e who studies a partlyonline based mentoring education e stresses the importance ofdeveloping a “mentoring relationship of trust and open commu-nication” (p. 89) before expecting open and honest communicationonline.

Mentor education also appears to address the dilemmas andethical issues experienced by mentors in their relations withmentees (Beutel & Spooner-Lane, 2009; Evertson & Smithey, 2000;Harrison et al., 2005; Sinclair, 2003). These include challengesregarding how to balance support and assessment, and dealingwith confidentiality e all of which help to create a specialisedknowledge base for mentors. The research reveals another rela-tional challenge for mentors, namely to accept that the menteesmay conduct their teaching in a different way than their mentors.We find examples of these tensions in the data from Beutel andSpooner-Lane (2009):

It was difficult separatingmyself, as a mentor, from the HOD roletoo. I found that really awkward, because on one or two occa-sions some of the ideas she was having for her class, which isunder my banner, were inappropriate. (Beutel & Spooner-Lane,2009, p. 356)

Other challenges can include coming up against new teachers'resistance. Examples of this can be found in Koballa et al. (2010, p.1082): “My dilemma is about a teacher who does not want to bementored”. Another mentor continues: “I now find observing hervery awkward, and she seems to be less receptive when I step into thementoring role. She becomes defensive when I try to give herconstructive feedback.”

Several articles indicate that mentor education contributes tofeelings of empathy for new teachers and a greater understandingfor their well-being and needs (Beutel & Spooner-Lane, 2009;Dallat & Moran, 1998; Evertson & Smithey, 2000; Sinclair, 2003;Tang & Choi, 2005).

5. Synthesis

5.1. Three dimensions emerge

In this sectionwe answer the second research question: “What isthe final synthesis that can guide the development of further mentoreducation”? In so doing we will, on the basis of the results of thefirst research question and the four themes in Section 4, presentthree overarching dimensions as a final synthesis, which areessential when developing mentor education further. These are: 1)Contextual dimensions, 2) Theoretical-analytical dimensions and 3)Relational dimensions. These dimensions thus represent our

J. Aspfors, G. Fransson / Teaching and Teacher Education 48 (2015) 75e86 83

condensed, deepened and multi-dimensional understanding ofqualitative research on mentor education based on the results ofthe primary studies. By using the concept ‘dimensions’, our inten-tion is to raise the data to a more abstract level in relation to pre-vious research and show that each dimension is made up of severallayers, often with increased depth and complexity. They aretherefore not fixed or static, but dynamic and flexible. The di-mensions are presented below, accompanied by an interpretativetext. At the same time, the presentation highlights the implicationsfor developing mentor education.

5.2. Contextual dimensions

The first, contextual dimensions, implies the importance ofcontext when implementing, developing and researching mentoreducation. The reviewed mentor education programmes varydepending on which context they are situated in, according towhich meaning and understanding of mentoring there is and ac-cording to which approach the researchers/authors of the studiesprefer. The design of the education varies from formal coursesconsisting of study points to more informal and flexible profes-sional development programmes while the mentors practicementoring. The results also reveal the influence of context on theindividual mentors participating in the programmes, since thesuccess rate depends on the resources and time allocated.

However, it is not only the local school context, with supportand understanding from school leaders and colleagues or thecontext of the mentor education itself that is essential, but also theeducational and cultural context of the country in which thementor education is developed. These different layers of contextsare central components in the ongoing dialectic process of con-struction of everyday practices (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). Thus,the conditions for and the understanding of what mentoring andmentor education is or can be are construed or played out differ-ently in different contextual layers. For instance, research showsthat mentor education sometimes focuses more on the standardsformulated in a policy context than on the complexities of thementoring processes (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Haggartyet al., 2011). In a similar way, Kemmis et al. (2014) argue thatmentoring is a contested practice, in the sense that severalcontextual layers with different doings, sayings and relationscomplicate the construction of a ‘cohesive wholeness’ of howmentoring is understood and practised.

Given that educational- andmentoring systems are organised indifferent ways internationally, mentor education needs to bedeveloped within the existing structures in order to work effec-tively as it is difficult to adopt a model for mentor education fromanother context. In cases of policy borrowing, processes of policylearning also have to be initiated so that the enactment of a modelbecomes culturally and contextually transformed “to fit”(Chakroun, 2010; Lingard, 2010).

Thus, the development of a mentor education needs to startwith a review of contexts and current practices. Relevant questionsto pose when developing mentor education relate to how theteacher education and following mentoring programme is organ-ised. Is the induction of new teachers part of teacher education, or aseparate support system organised in-service training?What is therole of a mentor - to assess and/or support the new teacher?Considering context might seem to be a matter of course, althoughin the analysis of the primary studies for this meta-synthesis, theonly context to be mentioned is that at the local school level.

The educational context (at national level) is closely related topractical issues at a more local level, such as time and economicallowances. These need to be taken into account when developingmentor education. Does the national mentoring system help

experienced teachers to qualify as mentors? Do they have time formentoring andmentor education in their working schedule, and dothey get paid for their work? The results of the first researchquestion suggest that the success of mentor education largely de-pends on the answers to these questions.

5.3. Theoretical-analytical dimensions

The second, theoretical-analytical dimensions, stresses thevarious layers of content and professional knowledge that a mentoreducation needs to address in terms of theoretical and practicalcomponents. In this, in-depth reflection promotes the identificationand understanding of complexities, new perspectives and differentlayers of knowledge and is an analytical skill that facilitates pro-fessional development (Eraut, 1994; Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005;Sch€on, 1983, 1992). The previously discussed contextual di-mensions strongly influence this and theoretical and analytical skillsas well as reflection appear as key elements in all the studies. Onereason for this is the critical role of the mentor, given that this is thepersonwhowill enhance the new teacher's analytical and reflectiveskills, develop their teaching and steer them away from old pat-terns. The process of becoming amentor for NQTs is therefore of theutmost importance, since being a good teacher is not necessarilythe same as being a good mentor (Bullough, 2012; Orland, 2001;Wang, 2001). Becoming a good mentor is a process that takestime, rather years than months (Gilles & Wilson, 2004; Koballaet al., 2010).

As the results bring forward, theory and practice are inseparableunits, where one cannot be understood without the other. They areconsequently two equal and supportive elements in the profes-sional development of being and becoming a mentor. In all theanalysed mentor education, efforts are made to expand and deepenthe layers of knowledge and mentors' analytical skills. Theoriesabout mentoring may enhance and conceptualise the mentors'practical understanding and experiences of mentoring, and men-toring in practice may concretise the theories. An optimal mentoreducation would therefore enable the mentors to practise men-toring in parallel to learning the more theoretical elements.

Thus, the findings relating to the first research question high-light the significance of mentors' critical thinking, reflective andanalytical skills. Mentors should be stimulated to reflect on andanalyse not only mentoring, but also teaching in general and newteachers' professional development in particular. In this way,mentors can develop their own teaching and analytical skills, at thesame time as helping others to analyse and develop their teaching.Most importantly, they are prepared to challenge taken for grantedassumptions. In the primary studies, several approaches forenhancing reflection and expanding new dimensions of knowledgeemerge, such as action research and experienced based learning. Asthe results reveal, time for reflection is appreciated by the mentors,but is not often included in the mentor's timetable.

5.4. Relational dimensions

The third, relational dimensions, emphasises the importance ofrelationships when developingmentor education, not only in termsof the relational character of mentoring, but also in the process ofbecoming a mentor, where support from others and jointcommunication and learning are crucial. Relational dimensionstherefore seem to be at the core of mentor education and areinfluenced and framed by the previously named dimensions.

Like the previous dimensions, this one also includes thedifferent levels and depths of relationships. As the findings for thefirst research question suggest, mentors appreciate meeting theirfellowmentor students during the education and the new teachers

J. Aspfors, G. Fransson / Teaching and Teacher Education 48 (2015) 75e8684

they mentor. They seem to find themselves in these encounters,grasp their new roles as mentors and receive support in thesometimes vulnerable process of mentoring. They also positionthemselves and are positioned by others in both the mentor edu-cation and in school, for instance when it comes to power,knowledge, values, authority, educational stances etc. (Fransson &Grann€as, 2013). A mentor or new teacher could, for example, beinvolved in a micropolitical game (Achinstein, 2006) and be posi-tioned as skilled, stubborn, impossible to co-operate with or as anadvocate of collaborative inquiry model in mentoring, etc. Thus,positions and processes of positioning imply manoeuvring in aspace of possible positions and relations (Massey, 2005). Forinstance, a mentor programme that assesses of NQTs in accordancewith professional standards positions the mentors as both sup-porters and assessors, which adds additional layers to the relationaldimensions thanwould be the case if thementors simply facilitatedlearning (cf. Fransson, 2010). This, in turn, shapes the prerequisitesfor the focus in mentor education and implies new layers of contentto be dealt with, relational and ethical issues, as well as standardsfor the assessment (Carver& Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Haggarty et al.,2011).

Another relational layer that is brought forward is the moreindirect influence that mentors have on their colleagues and pupilsat their own school (Beutel & Spooner-Lane, 2009). The knowledgefrom mentor education can be utilised in the daily interactions atschool, and many mentors experience that they are generally moresuccessful at dealing with relationships and communicating effec-tively after completing mentor education.

When developing mentor education it is therefore essential toorganise enough space for thementors tomeet, interact, share theirnew experiences as mentors and build a culture of openness andtrust. This can be done in several ways, and many of the primarystudies propose different kinds of interactive group activities,working methods or discussion groups.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Dimensions in the research on mentor education for NQTs

In the same way as mentoring is a contested concept withmultiple of meanings (Sundli, 2007), the results of this study showthat mentor education is complex. We see the three previouslydiscussed dimensions as mutually dependent. For example, thedifferent layers of contexts are not there per se, but are analyticallyconstrued and possible to understand in different ways dependingon the context, perspective or which theoretical analytical dimen-sion is taken as the starting point. In a similar way, how one con-ceptualises relational aspects and positions is dependent onanalytical depth. Recalling, for example, the three basic models formentoring preparation identified by Wang and Odell (2002) e theknowledge transmission model, the theory-and-practice connectionmodel, and the collaborative inquiry model e and acknowledgingthat these models are based on different assumptions about howone learns to be a mentor, results in efforts to construe differentkinds of mentorementee relationships and also positions theconstruction of different kinds of mentoring context and mentoreducation. Hence, the three identified dimensions are dynamic,flexible, reciprocally dependent, construed and re-construed, andprocesses of power, negotiation, positioning, identity formationand manoeuvring operate within and between the dimensions.

6.2. Limitations

Some of the limitations of this study also need to be addressed.First, besides any possible limitations of the databases used, we

only searched for research written in English. This may imply a biasconnected to language-spheres and traditions of how research ispublished. Second, the decision to only include research publishedin peer-reviewed research journals was meant to ensure scientificquality, although this have excluded research published in booksand dissertations. Third, qualitative meta-synthesis is understoodas a third-level interpretation (Zimmer, 2006), i.e. we interpretwhat is reported in the second-level interpretations of researchers'primary studies, which are often based on a first-level interpreta-tion of informants. Thus, a synthesis has the advantage of offering amore comprehensive view, theory development and general-isability of qualitative research that can make the findings morepractically applicable, but at the same time are not too far removedfrom the first- and second level interpretations. However, at thesame time, qualitative meta-synthesis excludes quantitativestudies, which in this case resulted in only 10 studies meeting theinclusion criteria. The number of included studies is nevertheless inline with meta-syntheses in general consisting of 10e12 studies(Bondas & Hall, 2007). Fourth, doing a meta-synthesis of primaryarticles with disparate designs, different styles of writing and var-iations in the extent of the presented results of mentoring educa-tion is an additional challenge.

6.3. Future research

Through this meta-synthesis we have come a few steps furtherin the process of capturing available qualitative research on mentoreducation and the knowledge that these, often small scale anddisparate studies contribute. Even though surprisingly littleresearch has been done on mentor education, mentoring is now aninternational trend (Sundli, 2007). As the field of education formentors of NQTs is under-researched, we would like to suggest theneed for more research. In particular, we find a specific need forresearch that moves away from small-scale case studies and takes amore holistic look at mentor education concerning overallcontextual and systemic factors. For example, knowledge is neededabout how educational ideologies and stances at national andcultural levels influence and operate within mentor education. Ifthe knowledge base for mentor education is to be increased, thereis a need for profound research onwhether, and also how and why,mentoring NQTs differs from the mentoring of student teachers,and whether in the studied context there is a need for a separatementor education or not. In some national and educational con-texts these needs may be more obvious than in others. Anothertopic of research would be to study the effects of mentor educationin practice. Here, the focus needs to be on how the education in-forms and influences mentoring, and how it affects new teachers'professional development and teaching. Evertson and Smithey's(2000) study in the context of the United States is in line withthese suggestions. Another area that needs to be addressed iscomparative studies within and between different internationalcultural contexts. Comparative perspectives are powerful in thatthey make us aware of taken for granted assumptions, help us tochallenge our own perspectives, raise new questions and constructnew ways of conceptualising and acting. However, in this kind ofresearch one has to realise the challenges of policy borrowing andcultural transfer and acknowledge the importance of policylearning and enactment (cf. Chakroun, 2010).

6.4. Conclusions

In this qualitative meta-synthesis, a more comprehensive andless fragmented portrayal of the international body of knowledgeinforming the practice of mentor education is presented. Contex-tual, theoretical-analytical and relational dimensions has been

J. Aspfors, G. Fransson / Teaching and Teacher Education 48 (2015) 75e86 85

identified as being of importance for mentor education and someaspects of the depth, width and complexities of these dimensionsand its layers have been highlighted. The synthesis stresses theimportance of systematic mentor education that is research-informed, long-term and developsmentors' (self-)understanding ofteaching and mentoring. A mentor education that in different waysincorporates and pays attention to the different layers of contex-tual, theoretical-analytical and relational dimensions found. Thismeans that mentor education should be well integrated into theeducational context, well balanced with theoretical and practicalcomponents, include rich possibilities for interaction and criticalreflection and prepare for an evidence-informed mentoring.Furthermore, such an education needs to be followed by contin-uous professional development, for example the mentoring ofmentors, in the mentors' everyday lives. The meta-synthesis pro-vides a foundation for future empirical work in the new field ofresearch on mentor education.

References

Abbott, A. (2010). Varieties of ignorance. American Sociologist, 41(2), 174e189.Abell, S. K., Dillon, D. R., Hopkins, C. J., McInerney, W. D., & O'Brien, D. G. (1995).

‘‘Somebody to count on’’: mentor/intern relationships in a beginning teacherinternship program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(2), 173e188.

Achinstein, B. (2006). New teacher and mentor political literacy: reading, navigatingand transforming induction contexts. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,12(2), 123e138.

Achinstein, B., & Athanases, S. (2006). New visions for mentoring new teachers. InB. Achinstein, & S. Athanases (Eds.), Mentors in the making. Developing newleaders for new teachers (pp. 1e20). New York: Teachers College Press.

Aspfors, J., & Bondas, T. (2013). Caring about caring: newly qualified teachers' ex-periences of their relationships within the school community. Teachers andTeaching: Theory and Practice, 19(3), 243e259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2012.754158.

Asada, T. (2012). How do mentees evaluate their mentor's competencies in Japaneseinduction program? Paper presented at The European Conference on Educa-tional Research (ECER), 18e21 september 2012, Cadiz, Portugal.

Fransson, G. (2010). Mentors assess mentees? A overview and analyses of thementorship role concerning newly qualified teachers. European Journal of TeacherEducation, 33(4), 375e390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2010.509426.

Fransson, G., & Grann€as, J. (2013). Dilemmatic spaces in educational contexts e

towards a conceptual framework for dilemmas in teachers work. In Teachers andTeaching: Theory and Practice, 19(1), 4e17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.744195.

Ballantyne, R., & Mylonas, A. (1991). Improving student learning during ‘remote’school-based teaching experience using flexible delivery of teacher mentor andstudent preparation programmes. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,29(3), 263e273.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in thesociology of knowledge. London: Allen Lane Penguin.

Beutel, D., & Spooner-Lane, R. (2009). Building mentoring capacities in experiencedteachers. The International Journal of Learning, 16(4), 351e360.

Bondas, T., & Hall, E. O. C. (2007). A decade of metasynthesis research in healthsciences: a meta-method study. International Journal of Qualitative Studies onHealth and Well-Being, 2, 101e113.

Bondas, T., Hall, E. O. C., & Wikberg, A. (2013). Metasynthesis in health care research.In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Research methods in health-foundations for evidence-based practice (2nd). (pp. 280e294). Australia, Victoria: Oxford University Press.

Brown, C. P., & Lan, Y.-C. (2015). A qualitative metasynthesis comparing U.S.teachers' conceptions of school readiness prior to and after the implementationof NCLB. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 1e13.

Bullough, R. V., Jr. (2012). Mentoring and new teacher induction in the UnitedStates: a review and analysis of current practices. Mentoring & Tutoring: Part-nership in Learning, 20(1), 57e74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2012.645600.

Carver, C., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2009). Using policy to improve teacher inductioncritical elements and missing pieces. Educational Policy, 23(2), 295e328.

Chakroun, B. (2010). National qualification frameworks: from policy borrowing topolicy learning. European Journal of Education, 45(2), 199e216.

Clarke, M., Killeavy, M., & Moloney, A. (2013). The genesis of mentors' professionaland personal knowledge about teaching: perspectives from the Republic ofIreland. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 364e375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2012.755513.

Dallat, J., & Moran, A. (1998). Training and accrediting a school staff as mentors:experience of a primary school in Northern Ireland. Mentoring & Tutoring:Partnership in Learning, 6(1e2), 31e42.

Desimone, L. M., Hochberg, E. D., Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M. S., Schwartz, R., &Johnson, L. J. (2014). Formal and informal mentoring: complementary,

compensatory, or consistent? Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2), 88e110.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487113511643.

Dominguez, N., & Hager, M. (2013). Mentoring frameworks: synthesis and critique.International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 2(3), 171e188.

Elo, S., & Kyng€as, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal ofAdvanced Nursing, 62(1), 107e115.

Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: TheFalmer Press.

European Commission. (2010). Developing coherent and system-wide inductionprogrammes for beginning teachers: A handbook for policymakers. Brussels:Commission of the European Communities.

Evans, L. (2008). Professionalism, professionality and the development of educationprofessionalism. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(1), 20e38.

Evertson, C. M., & Smithey, M. W. (2000). Mentoring effects on prot�eg�es’ classroompractice: an experimental field study. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(5),294e304.

Evetts, J. (2006). Introduction: trust and professionalism: challenges and occupa-tional change. Current Sociology, 54(4), 515e531.

Fletcher, S. J., & Mullen, C. A. (Eds.). (2012). The SAGE handbook of mentoring andcoaching in education. London: SAGE.

Garvey, R., & Westlander, G. (2013). Training mentors e behaviors which bringpositive outcomes in mentoring. In J. Passmore, D. B. Peterson, & T. Freire (Eds.),The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of coaching and mentoring (pp.243e265). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Gilles, C., & Wilson, J. (2004). Receiving as well as giving: mentors' perceptions oftheir professional development in one teacher induction program. Mentoring &Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 12(1), 87e106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1361126042000183020.

Glassford, L. A., & Salinitri, L. (2007). Designing a successful new teacher inductionprogram: an assessment of the Ontario experience 2003e2006. CanadianJournal of Educational Administration and Policy, 60, 1e34.

Gold, Y. (1996). Beginning teacher support. Attrition, mentoring, and induction. InJ. P. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teachereducation (2nd ed.). (pp. 548e594). New York: Association of Teacher Educa-tors, Macmillan.

Haggarty, L., Postlethwaite, K., Diment, K., & Ellins, J. (2011). Improving the learningof newly qualified teachers in the induction year. British Educational ResearchJournal, 37(6), 935e954. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.508513.

Harrison, J., Lawson, T., & Wortley, A. (2005). Action research and the professionaldevelopment of induction tutors: some unforeseen impacts and pitfalls. Whatdo we learn? Journal of In-Service Education, 31(1), 83e103.

Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring begin-ning teachers: what we know and what we don't. Teaching and Teacher Edu-cation, 25(1), 207e216.

H€okk€a, P., & Etel€apelto, A. (2014). Seeking new perspectives on the development ofteacher education: a study of the finnish context. Journal of Teacher Education,65(1), 39e52.

Hudson, P. (2013). Mentoring as professional development: ‘growth for both’mentor and mentee. Professional Development in Education, 39(5), 771e783.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.749415.

Hudson, P. (2014). Feedback consistencies and inconsistencies: eight mentors' ob-servations on one preservice teacher's lesson. European Journal of Teacher Ed-ucation, 37(1), 63e73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2013.801075.

Ibrahim, A. S. (2012). Induction and mentoring of novice teachers: a scheme for theUnited Arab Emirates. Teacher Development: An International Journal of Teachers'Professional Development, 16(2), 235e253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2012.688676.

Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring pro-grams for beginning teachers: a critical review of the research. Review ofEducational Research, 81(8), 201e233. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654311403323.

Iucu, R., & Stingu, M. (2013). Training induction mentors: alternative policy sce-narios of Romanian educational system. Procedia e Social and Behavioral Sci-ences, 76, 931e934.

Jones, M. (2009). Supporting the supporters of novice teachers: an analysis ofmentors' needs from twelve European countries presented from an Englishperspective. Research in Comparative and International Education, 4(1), 4e21.http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2009.4.1.4.

Kemmis, S., Heikkinen, H., Fransson, G., Aspfors, J., & Edwards-Groves, C. (2014).Mentoring of new teachers as a contested practice: supervision, support andcollaborative self-development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 154e164.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.001.

Koballa, T. R., Kittleson, J., Bradbury, L. U., & Dias, M. J. (2010). Teacher thinkingassociated with science-specific mentor preparation. Science Education, 94(6),1072e1091.

Korthagen, F., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: core reflection as a means toenhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(1),47e71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354060042000337093.

Langdon, F. J. (2014). Evidence of mentor learning and development: an analysis ofNew Zealand mentor/mentee professional conversations. Professional Develop-ment in Education, 40(1), 36e55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2013.833131.

Lingard, B. (2010). Policy borrowing, policy learning: testing times in Australianschooling. Critical Studies in Education, 51(2), 129e147.

Massey, D. B. (2005). For space. London: Sage.

J. Aspfors, G. Fransson / Teaching and Teacher Education 48 (2015) 75e8686

McCrary, N. E., & Mazur, J. M. (2010). Conceptualizing a narrative simulation topromote dialogic reflection: using a multiple outcome design to engageteacher mentors. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3),325e342.

Menegat, G. M. (2010). Mentor/prot�eg�e interactions and the role of mentor trainingwithin a novice teacher mentoring program (Diss.). Lewis & Clarke College,Graduate School of Education and Counseling. UMI Number: 3403009. UMIDissertation Publishing.

Mullen, C. A. (2012). Mentoring: an overview. In S. J. Fletcher, & C. A. Mullen (Eds.),The SAGE handbook of mentoring and coaching in education (pp. 7e23). London:SAGE.

Noblit, G., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Orland, L. (2001). Reading a mentoring situation: one aspect of learning to mentor.Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 75e88.

Orland-Barak, L. (2001). Learning to mentor as learning a second language ofteaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(1), 53e68.

Patrick, F., Elliot, D., Hulme, M., & McPhee, A. (2010). The importance of collegialityand reciprocal learning in the professional development of beginning teachers.Journal of Education for Teaching, 36(3), 277e289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2010.497373.

Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research.New York: Springer.

Sch€on, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.New York, NY: Basic Books.

Sch€on, D. (1992). The theory of inquiry: Dewey's legacy to education. CurriculumInquiry, 22, 119e139.

Sinclair, C. (2003). Mentoring online about mentoring: possibilities and practice.Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 11(1), 79e94.

Smith, K., & Ulvik, M. (2014). Learning to teach in Norway: a shared responsibility.In O. McNamara, J. Murray, & M. Jones (Eds.), Workplace learning in teachereducation. International practice and policy (pp. 261e277). New York, Heidel-berg, Dordrecht, London: Springer.

Stanulis, R. N., & Ames, K. T. (2009). Learning to mentor: evidence and observationas tools in learning to teach. The Professional Educator, 33(1), 1e11.

Strong, M., & Baron, W. (2004). An analysis of mentoring conversations withbeginning teachers: suggestions and responses. Teaching and Teacher Education,20(1), 47e57.

Sundli, L. (2007). Mentoring e a new mantra for education? Teaching and TeacherEducation, 23(2), 201e214.

Tang, S. Y. F. (2012). Knowledge base of mentoring and mentor preparation. InS. J. Fletcher, & C. A. Mullen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of mentoring and coachingin education (pp. 478e493). London: SAGE.

Tang, S. Y. F., & Choi, P. L. (2005). Connecting theory and practice in mentor prep-aration: mentoring for the improvement of teaching and learning. Mentoring &Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 13(3), 383e401.

Ulvik, M., & Langørgen, K. (2012). What can experienced teachers learn fromnewcomers? Newly qualified teachers as a resource in schools. Teachers andTeaching: Theory and Practice, 18(1), 43e57.

Ulvik, M., & Smith, K. (2011). Veilederrollen. En profesjon innenfor profesjonen [Thementor role. A profession within the profession]. Bedre skole, 4, 82e87.

Ulvik, M., & Sunde, E. (2013). The impact of mentor education: does mentor edu-cation matter? Professional Development in Education, 39(5), 754e770.

Wang, J. (2001). Contexts of mentoring and opportunities for learning to teach: acomparative study of mentoring practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1),51e73.

Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standards-based reform: a critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72(3),481e546. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003481.

Waterman, S., & He, Y. (2011). Effects of mentoring programs on new teacherretention: a literature review. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning,19(2), 139e156.

Wise, A. E. (2005). Establishing teaching as a profession: the essential role of pro-fessional accreditation. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(4), 318e331.

Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 311e318.