There is a centralized University governing body in Turkey called Higher Education Council (YOK). University teacher education programs are all planned by YOK and about 90 universities in Turkey have to implement the same program. The program has three main  focus and the courses are planned around them; content, pedagogy and general culture (YOK, 2018). In the current program, there are two semester practicum. In some cases, with justification some universities may alter about 25% of the program by changing the courses or sometimes combining the content of the courses. In our case we made a change in the practicum. Normally there is two semester teacher practicum in the programs in which first one focus on observations of school and teaching environment and second semester practicum focus on teaching. In normal implemented programs pre-service teachers attend practicum schools once a week (6 hours per week). Universities and practicum schools are stakeholders of teacher education. Practice schools provide students with the opportunity of using theoretical knowledge they have learned at university (Hudson, 2014).

At our institution we implement University within School Model where pre-service teachers (PST) are immersed in an intensive internship experience during the last two years of the program (Özcan, 2013). Normal teacher education programs have about 1500 hours of internship where our pre-service teachers complete 1600 hours in average. PSTs are in schools for two full-day in the 3rd year of the program and three full-day internships in the 4th year . These schools are selected carefully to develop PSTs’ professional skills in most effective ways. In teacher education, the interaction between mentors and student teachers is quite important in their development. All pre-service teachers have a mentor teacher at internship schools who took a mentor education program from academicians. The model aims to educate qualified teachers however the effect of this program is not investigated in terms of receiving feedback from mentor teachers and supervisors.

For pre-service teachers’ development, reflecting on their experiences from an experienced mentor’s feedback is useful (Özcan, 2013). Hattie and Timperley (2007) defined the feedback as “information provided by an agent regarding aspects of one's performance or understanding”  (p. 81). Mentor teachers effect mentees’ future career implicitly by providing feedback in the profession (Hudson, 2014).

Mentoring is described as interaction that involves supporting and providing feedback to the mentee without judgement or criteria in the literature. According to Lin (2005) ‘mentoring plays an important role in enhancing novice teachers’ opportunities to learn within the contexts of teaching’ (p.12). However, supervising includes judgement and assessment therefore supervisors might not engage in mentoring (Ambrosetti, Dekkers, 2010).

On the basis of our literature research, studies on feedback from mentor teachers includes written feedback to student teachers. In this research, feedback is collected by a recorded three-way discussion and reflection meetings with  pre-service teacher, mentor teacher and university supervisor. The feedback can be more detailed when it is in the form of ‘talking’ as  opposed to written feedback. Expressing ideas verbally may be easier than expressing by writing. We collected and interpreted data within University within School Model. In this model, giving and receiving feedback is not researched yet. Intense collaboration of university and schools especially in Turkey’s context is a new situation and has potential contributions for literature.

Research question of the study:

What is the nature of feedback that PSTs receive from mentor teachers and a University supervisor on implemented lessons during practicum ?

METHODOLOGY This study is a qualitative and interpretive study. We conducted content analysis (Mayring, 2000) of transcriptions of the nine recordings of reflection meetings (three-way meetings). First, we analyzed the transcripts and identified the focus of the conversation. Around this focus we listed all the feedback statements. As a pilot study, similar data was collected from a previous intern group and written reflections were coded. Using this knowledge, we applied this coding scheme to the list of feedback statements currently transcribed from the recordings. Three coders were trained and they coded the data. Participants This study investigates feedbacks of three mentor teachers and a University Supervisor (US) on three 3rd year pre-service teacher in school-based practicum. The mentor teachers are labelled as M1, M2, and M3 with respect to pre-service teachers whom they mentored. M1 had 20 years, M2 had 30 years, and M3 had 16 years of experience. In this study, the pre-service teachers are 3rd year students who study at the department of Mathematics and Science Education at a foundation university that implements University within school model. PSTs labelled as P1, P2, and P3 respectively. The US has PhD degree in mathematics education and is an acknowledged scholar whose re-search is based on constructivist views of teacher education. Data sources Data was collected in the Spring 2019 in pre-service teachers’ practicum school. PSTs meet regularly with their mentor teachers for fourteen weeks. There were three meetings that US also participated. For this paper, we will focus on nine lesson plans (3 for each PST), PSTs’ implementation and later on the discussion (reflection) meet-ings. These meetings took longer than 25 minutes. They are audio-recorded and written transcript of records are made. Data Analysis In this study, all of the feedback was classified according to four dimensions. Those classifications were: a) Owner of the feedback; b) Types of feedback (negative, positive or supportive feedback); c) Nature of the feedback; and d) Notable observation related to the received feedback. The owner of the feedback is indicated, depending on whether it is PST, MT or US, and if the feedback is positive, negative or supportive, it is coded accordingly. Supportive feedback was usually: questions or statements which made PSTs think and reflect about some situations related to their teaching skills. Differences between the mentor and supervisors’ feedback were investigated based on their detail.

Findings: Owner of feedback: After teaching 3 middle school mathematics lessons, for P1: total of 42 feedback was given from M1 (10, 2 positive, 8 negative), US (22, 3 positive, 19 negative) and herself (10, 1 positive, 9 negative). For P2: total 55 feedback was given from M2 (17, 13 positive, 4 negative), US (29, 11 positive, 18 negative) and herself (9, 3 positive, 6 negative). For P3: total of 43 feedback was given. P3 received 28 feedback from M3 (15 positive, 13 negative), 11 feedback from US (8 positive, 3 negative), 4 feedback on her own (1 positive, 3 negative). Positive or Negative: P1 and P2 received the most feedback from US. P3 received most feedback from M3. For P1 and P2, all of three owners of feedback gave more number of negative feedback than positive feedback. For P3, there were more positive feedbacks. Because of the word limit, we can present limited data. Discussion: University supervisor’s feedback showed variety depending on the PSTs. PST 1 and PST 2 mostly received feedback on the category of ‘teaching process’. PST3 mostly received types of feedback about ‘Mathematical Knowledge’. So, US’s feedback had different focuses in each case. This shows that each PST might need support on different areas. The big ideas behind US’ feedback for each lesson was to create and provide opportunities for student learning in the class and making them active in their learning process.

Ambrosetti, A., & Dekkers, J. (2010). The Interconnectedness of the Roles of Mentors and Mentees in Pre-service Teacher Education Mentoring Relationships. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6). doi: 10.14221/ajte.2010v35n6.3 Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) ‘The power of feedback’, Review of Educational Research, 77, pp. 81-112. Hudson, P. (2014). Feedback consistencies and inconsistencies: eight mentors’ observations on one preservice teacher’s lesson. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 63-73. Lin, F.-L. (2000). Making Sense of Mathematics Teacher Education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Educat-tion. 3(2), 183-190. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis . Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Art. 20. http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0002204. Özcan, M. (2013). Okulda Üniversite: Türkiye’de öğretmen eğitimini yeniden yapılandırmak için bir model önerisi. (University within School: A new model to re-structure teacher education in Turkey) Ankara: TÜSİAD Yayınları (TÜSİAD Publications). Samaras, A. (2011). Self-study teacher research: Improving your practice through collaborative inquiry, Sage, Lon-don. Yıldırım, A. (2013). Teacher Education Research in Turkey: Trends, Issues and Priority Areas, Education and Sci-ence, 38(169) YOK (1998). Egitim Fakültesi öğretmen yetistirme lisans programlari, Retrieved May 18, 2018, from https://www.yok.gov.tr/