This paper investigates evaluation of the mentee in mentoring through focusing on the triad collaboration between school based mentor, university based mentor and mentee.

School based mentors play a critical role in preparing the mentees for the professional work (Ellis, Alonzo & Nguyen, 2020; Clarke, Triggs & Nielsen, 2014) and thus, mentoring is seen as a key learning context to develop the mentees professional competence. The school based mentor assists the mentee in their daily activities and evaluate their development in practice (Nguyen, 2009). Traditionally in teacher education the university based mentor plays a more undesignated role in practice however, through concepts as ‘the third space’, a cooperative role with the school based mentor and mentee are tried to be designed (Zeichner, 2010). International research has been carried out to inaugurate a close collaboration between school and university (cf. Darling-Hammond, 2006) and to further explore a triad collaboration between school based mentor, university based mentor and mentee in mentoring (Akcan & Tatar, 2010; Nguyen, 2009; Valencia, Martin, Place & Grossman, 2009).

In Norway, the mentoring dialogue carries a triad collaboration between university based mentor, school based mentor and mentee through an evaluative session. The overall responsibility for the evaluation of the mentee in practice is given to the educational institution (Universities Norway, 2017, p. 7) and thus, this session embeds a specific structure framed by the university. Whereas, the mentoring dialogue is an ongoing pedagogical relation during the mentee's professional practice, the evaluative session is a specified session where the university based mentor participates with the purpose to evaluate the mentee (NTNU, 2019, p. 16). The evaluative session represents a meeting between university and school were the university represents a theoretical knowledge and the school a practical knowledge and thus, a meeting between two actors which carry different forms of knowledge. Whereas, the school based mentor and mentee collaborates in practice through mentoring dialogues, the university based mentors enter the field of practice to evaluate a field they have not been pedagogical engaged in. This relation between agents at the university and practice create a space and an arena for power struggles (Bernstein, 2000). Bernstein enacts the relation between power relations external to the mentee and the syntax of generation internal to the mentee through rules of recognition and realisation (1990, p. 29). Where these rules enact the mentee to the possibility of recognizing these power relations and how they are positioned in them and to realize it’s the potential. Thus, the form of the evaluative session enables the mentees possibility to read a context through recognition rules and their possibility to realize its potential is enabled trough realisation rules. This paper aims to investigate the evaluative session through inquiring into these rules of recognition and realisation through focusing on the form of the evaluative session and the relations between and within the triad collaboration; university based mentor, school based mentor and mentee. Thus, the main research question inquired into in this paper is: Situated in the five-year-integrated teacher education, what characterizes recognition rules and realisation rules in the evaluative session?

This paper investigate the evaluative session through the theoretical and methodological framework of Basil Bernstein. Bernstein’s code theory structures an explanatory framework and tool to understand and analyze contemporary changes occurring in education and their consequences for identity construction in practice (Bernstein & Solomon, 1999, p. 266). At the level of reproduction, power and control is translated into rules of legitimate communication and interpretation and thus, the communicative context can be characterized through how it is regulated by the degree of insulation. Bernstein describe insulation punctuations as intervals, breaks, delocations which establish categories of similarity and difference, equal and unequal (1990, p. 25) where power relations maintain the insulation and the degree of insulations produce the category's voice. To discover these punctations which create the insulation between and enables the mentee to recognize the contextual rules, a thematic analysis is used (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis is described as a method to identify, analyze and report patterns or themes within data and thus, can be viewed as a constructionist method which examines the ways in which events, realities, meanings and experiences are the effects of a range of discourses operating within society (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 81). Braun & Clarke differ between an inductive and deductive (theoretical) analysis (2006, p. 83) where this article undertakes a theoretical position. Braun & Clarke (2006) highlight that a theoretical approach requires engagement with the literature prior to analysis and thus, the importance of the theoretical position of a thematic analysis being made clear. This because any theoretical framework carries a number of assumptions about the nature of the data and how they represent the world. In this paper, Bernstein’s framework derives a typology of educational codes which include the analytical concepts of classification and framing which translate external power/control relations to power/control relations within and between agencies (1990, p. 101). Through these two analytical concepts, Bernstein (1971/2003,1990, 2000) defines different modalities of the pedagogic discourse where classification is used to describe relations between categories and framing to describe relations within a category. Thus, classification is utilized to describe the relations within the triad collaboration and between an ordinary mentoring dialogue and the evaluative session. Framing then is used to describe the form of control in the evaluative session between the school based mentor and university based mentor.

Inquiring into what characterize the recognition and realisation rules in the evaluative session, the findings embroil the difficulty of measurement in practice and visualize how the evaluative session becomes an artificial performance and an evaluative ranking. The mentees narrate how the evaluative session embeds an artificial performance to fit the evaluative ranking. One mentee elaborates a changed focus in the evaluative session towards an evaluative ranking where the focus is to count points related to a check-list. The school based mentors agree with the mentees and one mentor describes the session as: “It is like a show/performance” and another: “.. it becomes a show..”. The school based mentors describe the rules as not functional in the real world or as one mentor describes it “the university based mentors refers to an ideal world”. Thus, both agents express an increased focus on structure and rules, and these not being connected to the real world in school. As well, the school based mentors’ points to the importance of the university based mentors supporting them and being in line. Helseth, Lid, Kristiansen, Fetscher, Karlsen, Skeidsvoll & Wiggen (2019) claims that the evaluative session is essential to ensure the mentee a high learning outcome and there is an to aim strengthen the triad collaboration and the university based mentor to actively participate in practice (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2018). However, little research has been carried out about evaluation through a triad collaboration. This paper contributes with new knowledge into how the mentee and school based mentor characterize it and raise essential questions about evaluation of the mentee in practice. Thus, research on triad collaboration in practice and evaluation of the mentee in practice requires further research.

Akcan, S. & Tatar, S. (2010) An investigation of the nature of feedback given to pre‐service English teachers during their practice teaching experience. Teacher Development, 14(2), 153-172, https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2010.494495 Bernstein, B. & Solomon, J (1999) "Pedagogy, Identity and the Construction of a Theory of Symbolic Control': Basil Bernstein questioned by Joseph Solomon. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 265-279, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1393112 Bernstein, B. (1971/2003). Class, Codes and Control. Volume I. Theoretical Studies towards a Sociology of Language. London & New York: Routledge. Original printed in 1971. Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, Codes ad Control. Volume IV. The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. London & New York: Routledge. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. Boston: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101, https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Clarke, A., Triggs, V. & Nielsen, W. (2014) Cooperating Teacher Participation in Teacher Education: A Review of the Literature. Review of Educational Research, 84(2), 163–202, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313499618 Ellis, J.N., Alonzo, D. & Nguyen, H.T.M (2020) Elements of a quality pre-service teacher mentor: A literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 92, 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103072 Helseth, I.A., Lid, S.E., Kristiansen, E., Fetscher, E., Karlsen, H.J., Skeidsvoll, K.J. & Wiggen, K.S. (2019) Kvalitet i praksis – utfordringer og muligheter. Samlerapport basert på kartleggingsfasen av prosjektet Operasjon praksis 2018–2020. Retrieved from https://www.nokut.no/globalassets/nokut/rapporter/ua/2019/kvalitet-i-praksis-utfordringer-og-muligheter_16-2019.pdf Nguyen, H.T. (2009) An inquiry-based practicum model: What knowledge, practices, and relationships typify empowering teaching and learning experiences for student teachers, cooperating teachers and college supervisors? Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 655–662, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.10.001 Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research (2018) Teacher Education 2025. National Strategy for Quality and Cooperation in Teacher Education. Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/d0c1da83bce94e2da21d5f631bbae817/kd_teacher-education-2025_uu.pdf NTNU (2019). Informasjon om ansvar og oppgaver for lærerutdannere [Brochure]. Trondheim: NTNU Universities Norway (2017) Nasjonale retningslinjer for lektorutdanning for trinn 8-13. Retrieved from https://www.uhr.no/_f/p1/i4d4335f1-1715-4f6e-ab44-0dca372d7488/lektorutdanning_8_13_vedtatt_13_11_2017.pdf Valencia, S.W., Martin, S.D., Place, N.A. & Grossman, P. (2009) Complex Interactions in Student Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 304-322, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109336543 Zeichner, K (2010) Rethinking the Connections Between Campus Courses and Field Experiences in College- and University-Based Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 89–99, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671