Mentor teachers their main responsibility is to support student teachers’ learning during the teaching practicum. This learning takes place during mentoring conversations, but empirical evidence regarding mentor teachers’ guidance during these conversations is scarce. In the present study, a vignette-based measurement instrument was developed to advance insight into mentor teachers’ preference for a supervisory role during mentoring conversations. The instrument includes two written vignettes and clarifying questions and was presented to 137 mentor teachers. 

During the past years, first efforts have been made by researchers to shed light on mentor teachers’ responsibility during the teaching practicum (e.g. Crasborn et al. 2011; Ellis, Alonzo, and Nguyen 2020; Mena et al. 2017). In these studies, the conversations between mentor teachers and student teachers are often the research object, since a large proportion of mentor teachers’ work is accomplished through these conversations (Orland-Barak and Klein 2005; Tillema and Van der Westhuizen 2013). Such conversations are called ‘mentoring conversations’ (e.g. Mena et al. 2017; Van Esch and Tillema 2015) or ‘mentoring dialogues’ (e.g. Beek, Zuiker, and Zwart 2019; Crasborn et al.  2011). They are described as important professional conversations (Orland-Barak and Hasin 2010; Orland-Barak and Klein 2005), that encompass authentic and constructive dialogues between the mentor teacher and the student teacher (Hobson et al. 2009, 212). In this respect, these mentoring conversations are assumed to be an important lever in student teachers’ learning process to become a teacher (Timoštšuk and Ugaste 2010; Timperley 2001; Van Esch and Tillema 2015; Yuan 2016).

To better understand mentor teachers’ guidance during these mentoring conversations, Hennissen, Crasborn and colleagues (2008, 2011) developed the Mentor Roles in Dialogues Model (MERID) model (Crasborn et al. 2011; Hennissen et al. 2008). This conceptual model provides a conceptualisation with four possible supervisory roles situated along two dimensions. The first dimension refers to the extent of directiveness in mentor teachers’ guidance. The second dimension refers to the degree of input provided by mentor teachers during mentoring conversations. Based on both the input and the directiveness mentor teachers provide, the MERID-model distinguishes the following roles: (1) the initiator, (2) the imperator, (3) the advisor and (4) the encourager (Crasborn et al. 2011; Hennissen et al. 2008). 

No doubt exists about the MERID model’s potential to expand the research field with understanding on mentor teachers’ role in the learning process of student teachers. However, despite its potential, the MERID model has currently only been explored empirically in small-scale studies. Large scale empirical evidence is needed (e.g. Crasborn et al. 2011; Mena et al. 2017) in order to fully understand how mentor teachers’ supervisory guidance takes place during mentoring conversations. This study addresses this need to further underpin this theoretical model with empirical evidence by presenting the results of a vignette-based study investigating 137 mentor teachers preferred supervisory role  during mentoring conversations. 

Overall, this paper aims to deepen empirical insight into mentor teachers’ supervisory roles during mentoring conversations by presenting the results of a large-scale vignette-based study. This overall objective is further specified in two research questions (RQ): (1) What supervisory role do mentor teachers prefer to adopt during mentoring conversations? (RQ1) and (2) What aspects are related to mentor teachers’ preference for a particular supervisory role during mentoring conversations? (RQ2)

In order to develop vignettes that are methodologically consistent with the study aims, Skilling and Stylianides' (2019) framework for vignette construction in educational research was adopted. The final vignette-based measurement instrument consists of two written vignettes with four answer options to measure mentor teachers’ preference for a specific supervisory role (RQ1). The first vignette describes a situation in which the classroom management is disrupted because the student teacher does not provide clear instructions for a group work. The second vignette is about a situation in which the student teacher struggles with setting appropriate goals for each student. Next to the two written vignettes, clarifying questions were included to investigate elements related to mentor teachers’ preference (RQ2). Data was collected from 137 mentor teachers in Flanders (the Dutch speaking part of Belgium) from February till May 2020. The convenience sample included mentor teachers working in elementary (n=55) and secondary education (n=82), who had a recent mentoring experience with student teachers. Participants were informed about the research objectives and signed informed consent. For RQ1, the answers on the vignettes were analysed using frequency measures in SPSS. It was analysed how often an answer option, and thus a specific supervisory role, was chosen. Additionally, the consistency in mentor teachers’ responses was investigated by comparing mentor teachers’ answers on both vignettes. As such, it was examined whether mentor teachers gave the same or a different answer on both vignettes. For RQ2, the answers to the clarifying questions were analysed using Nvivo12. After transcription and anonimisation, transcripts were labelled with codes based on the theoretical framework of this study. This data-analysis was carried out in two phases in order to investigate aspects related to mentor teachers’ preference for a particular supervisory role. First, a vertical analysis took place where the answers of each mentor teacher were a unit of analysis. Second, a horizontal analysis was carried out in which mentor teachers’ responses were compared with each other (Miles and Huberman 1994).

The results show that mentor teachers consistently prefer the role of initiator (vignette A; n=118/86.13%; vignette B; 100/72.99%). This supervisory role is characterised by a non-directive and active guiding style. Mentor teachers acting as initiators ask questions and give student teachers the opportunity to raise their concerns and questions, while they react empathetically, listen actively and summarise student teachers’ input. The initiator role is also characterised by mentor teachers who actively bring in topics during mentoring conversations (Crasborn et al. 2011; Hennissen et al. 2008). The overall preference for the initiator role is contrary to earlier studies that concluded that mentor teachers mostly take on the role of imperator (Beek et al. 2019; Crasborn et al. 2011; Hennissen et al. 2008). This role is, as opposed to the initiator role, characterised by a directive guidance. Imperators better fit within the traditional view on mentoring, where they start from their experience to give direct advice and judgements to student teachers in order to guide them through the teaching practicum (Ambrosetti and Dekkers 2010; Kram 1983; Pennanen, Heikkinen, and Tynjälä 2018). Moreover, the results also reveal four factors related to this preference, namely: the timing of the teaching practicum, the student teacher, the covered topic and mentor teachers’ work pressure. This study empirically illustrates an important shift in mentoring literature as a more bidirectional relationship instead of a hierarchical relationship.Traditionally, mentoring was defined as a unidirectional hierarchical relationship with an older and more experienced mentor teacher as a guide for a younger and less experienced student teacher (Ambrosetti and Dekkers 2010; Kram 1983; Pennanen, Heikkinen, and Tynjälä 2018). However, there is an increasing plea to rethink and replace this hierarchical, unidirectional view by a more bidirectional one that includes a reciprocal relationship between the mentor teacher and the student teacher (Ellis et al. 2020; Pennanen et al. 2018).

Ambrosetti, A., and J. Dekkers. 2010. "The interconnectedness of the roles of mentors and mentees in pre-service teacher education mentoring relationships." Australian Journal of Teacher Education 35 (6): 42–55. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2010v35n6.3 Beek, G. J., I. Zuiker, and R.C. Zwart. 2019. "Exploring mentors’ roles and feedback strategies to analyze the quality of mentoring dialogues." Teaching and Teacher Education 78: 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.10.006 Ben-Peretz, M., and S. Rumney. 1991. "Professional thinking in guided practice." Teaching and Teacher Education 7 (5–6): 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(91)90046-R Cochran-Smith, M., and K. Zeichner. 2006. "Studying teacher education." Journal of Teacher Education 56 (4): 301–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105280116 Collett, J. L., and E. Childs. 2011. "Minding the gap: Meaning, affect, and the potential shortcomings of vignettes." Social Science Research 40: 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.08.008 Crasborn, F., P. Hennissen, N. Brouwer, F. Korthagen and T. Bergen. 2011. "Exploring a two-dimensional model of mentor teacher roles in mentoring dialogues." Teaching and Teacher Education 27: 320–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.014 Ellis, N. J., D. Alonzo, and H.T.M. Nguyen. 2020. "Elements of a quality pre-service teacher mentor: A literature review."Teaching and Teacher Education 92: 103072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103072 Evertson, C. M., and M.W. Smithey. 2000. "Mentoring effects on protégés’ classroom practice: An experimental field study." The Journal of Educational Research 93 (5): 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670009598721 Helman, L. 2006. “What’s in a conversation? Mentoring stances in coaching con- ferences and how they matter.” In Mentoring in the making: Developing new leaders for new teachers, edited by B. Achinstein and S. Z. Athanases, 69–82. New York: Teachers College Press. Hennissen, P., F. Crasborn, N. Brouwer, F. Korthagen, and T. Bergen. 2008. "Mapping mentor teachers’ roles in mentoring dialogues." Educational Research Review 3 (2): 168–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.01.001 Timperley, H. 2001. "Mentoring Conversations Designed to Promote Student Teacher Learning." Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 29 (2): 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660120061309 Vanderlinde, R., K. Smith, J. Murray, and M. Lunenberg. 2021. "Teacher educators’ professional development: Looking to the future" In Teacher Educators and their Professional Development, edited by Vanderlinde R., Smith, K., Murray, J. and Lunenberg M., 158-171, New York: Routledge.