Purpose of the study: The purpose of the study is to develop the existing theoretical knowledge about mentoring practices within the pedagogical practicum via exploring them within the universities with formal initial teacher education program in Kazakhstani context. Given the recently introduced Law on The Status of a Teacher (2019) in Kazakhstan, the mentoring program among in-service teachers gains more attention from the policy-makers, however, little is still known about the existing mentoring practices in education in general, and in teacher education programs in particular, which however, needs to be explored in order to improve the  mentoring programs and enhance their effectiveness in terms of the teacher preparation. The obtained knowledge is expected to contribute to the overall existing theoretical knowledge of mentoring from the Kazakhstani perspective by providing a more in-depth understanding of the mentoring approaches during the pedagogical practicum.  

Main research question: How is pre-service teacher mentoring program during the pedagogical practicum between universities and secondary schools in Kazakhstan understood and practiced?

Sub-questions:

1. How is mentoring conceptualized (perceived) by mentors in Kazakhstani secondary schools and by student teachers and practicum advisors at the universities?
2. Which mentoring practices are prevalent between secondary schools and the universities? 

Conceptual and theoretical frameworks used: this study is employing the mentoring model framework of Ambrosetti, Knight and Dekkers (2014), which delineates mentorship as a step-by-step process, entailing all the necessary objectives pertinent per each stage (preparation for mentoring, pre-mentoring, mentoring and post-mentoring stages) for each actor. This framework was inspired by the organizational mentoring framework devised by Kram (1985) and integrated into the formal initial teacher education program. Other theories used: social exchange theory (Blau, 1964, 2017; Cook & Emerson, 1978), teacher knowledge theory (Shulman, 1987). 

Significance of the study and relation to the European context: Although the results of the case study cannot be generalized, the research findings and conclusions can be transferrable to other congruent settings (Lincoln & Guba, 2000), that is to the practicum experiences in formal teacher education programs within European context. Furthermore, the study findings have added to a small body of research regarding the conceptualization of the mentoring within teacher education following the study by Orland-Barak (2016), and have shed light on the perceived understanding of roles and responsibilities, and challenges of each member of the mentoring triad within formal initial teacher education program, following the study by Dennis and Parker (2016). Moreover, it took into consideration the OECD (2005) review on teachers and teacher education programs which stressed the importance of further research on various models of mentoring within teacher preparation programs in the international context. 

As the focus of this study hinges on the understanding of mentoring process within different cases, I employed a holistic multiple case study research design. In total, I explored the mentoring practices within formal initial teacher education program in-depth using two university cases and their partnering schools. Two of the university cases represent universities that provide formal initial teacher education program with the compulsory pedagogical practicum experience. These two universities were chosen on purpose, as their teacher education departments have been functioning for a considerable amount of time (since 1995-1996) since the period of gaining the Independence in 1991, thus, having a particular influence among the educational institutions of Kazakhstan, moreover, both universities are located in two cities that have a special republican status, making it more popular among students from different towns across Kazakhstan, thus, potentially, enhancing the representability of the participated students. The sampling entailed three groups: mentors at schools (subject teachers), mentees (student teachers), and practicum advisors at the universities. Given that I chose the majority of my participants according to the particular criteria, the sampling can be defined as purposeful with the elements of convenient and snowball sampling as some participants in the second stage of data collection did not meet all the criteria but were willing to participate. In total, the study involved 26 participants. To collect data I employed 26 semi-structured ethnographic one-on-one interviews, one paired interview, four focus groups, and document analysis. The data was gathered in two stages: first, I collected data within both cities during the 3-months period, and then, to corroborate the data I came back to Case 1 in the first city. During my data analysis I was guided by the five-phased qualitative analysis cycle framework devised by Yin (2016), where the five phases were: (1) Compiling, (2) Disassembling, (3) Reassembling (and Arraying), (4) Interpreting, and (5) Concluding. To analyze and interpret my data during these stages I employed the iterative phronetic approach synthesized by Tracy (2020), which combines "emergent readings of the data and an etic use of existing models, explanations and theories» (p. 209), given the fact that I combined the interpretation of emergent data through the elements of grounded theory and through the use of the mentoring framework devised by Ambrosetti et al. (2014).

Having analyzed the part of data, I came to conclusion that participants in both cases have multiple understandings of the mentoring practices. As for the mentoring model within the formal initial teacher education program in Kazakhstan, it partially reflects the framework of Ambrosetti et al. (2014): as in the framework, participated schools also represented the stages of preparation for mentoring, pre-mentoring and mentoring, though, there is an evident lack of post-mentoring stage, as both mentors and student teachers just abruptly terminate the mentoring by the end of the practicum without any follow-up or any continuation of the relationship which might adversely affect on the improvement of the mentoring system. Some of the elements of mentoring process during each stage are either poorly developed or missing at all. For instance, during the stage of preparation for mentoring, both student teachers and mentors receive very little or no preparation at all, instead, preparation was limited to one brief training, during which goals of the mentoring work were not explicitly articulated. Pre-mentoring stage also showed the absence of important interactions, such as exchange of the expectations and plans prior to collaborative work between mentors and mentees. Mentoring stage showed lack of follow-up feedback and reconstructive discussions on the observation period from mentors, and reflective practices were perceived by students rather as means to obtain a grade for the practicum, than an analytical tool for the further professional improvement. Moreover, as the framework of Ambrosetti et al. (2014) hinges its mentoring model on two main agents – a student teacher and a mentor, mentoring in Kazakhstani institutions presumes the presence of a third main agent– practicum advisors at universities, who are represented as the key agents in the mentoring conceptualization, especially during first and last mentoring stages – preparation for mentoring and post-mentoring.

Ambrosetti, A., Knight, B. A., & Dekkers, J. (2014). Maximizing the potential of mentoring: A framework for pre-service teacher education. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 22(3), 224-239. Blau, P. M. (2017). Exchange and power in social life. Routledge. https://books.apple.com/us/book/exchange-and-power-in-social-life/id1392385822?ign-gact=1. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (Sixth ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. (1978). Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks. American sociological review, 721-739. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Edinburgh, UK: Pearson Education Limited. Furlong, J., & Maynard, T. (1995). Mentoring student teachers: The growth of professional knowledge. Psychology Press. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). The only generalization is: There is no generalization. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, & P. Foster (Authors), Case Study Method: Key Issues, Key Texts (pp. 27-44). Sage Publications. McIntyre, J., & Hobson, A. (2015). Supporting beginner teacher identity development: external mentors and the third space. Research Papers in Education, 31(2), 133–158. doi:10.1080/02671522.2015.1015438 McNamara, D. (1995). The influence of student teachers' tutors and mentors upon their classroom practice: An exploratory study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 51-61. OECD. (2005). Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, Education and Training Policy. OECD Publishing. OECD. (2016). Supporting Teacher Professionalism: Insights from TALIS 2013. TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264248601-en Orland-Barak, L. (2001). Reading a mentoring situation: one aspect of learning to mentor. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 75–88. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00039-1 Orland-Barak, L. (2016). Mentoring. In J. Loughran, & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education. Volume 2 (pp. 105–142). Springer Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Iossey-Bass. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14. Thomas, G. (2011). How to do your case study: A guide for students and researchers. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Tracy, S. J. (2020).Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (2nd edition). John Wiley & Sons. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Yin, R. K. (2016).Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd edition). Guilford publications. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (6th edition). Sage.