For some years now, the discourse on professionalization theory has been revitalized by explanations and reflections on the teacher habitus (Helsper 2018, 2019). In his concept Helsper has mapped the importance of school biography and family milieu for the later genesis of the teacher habitus. Following this theory, school experiences form a first “silhouette of a teacher habitus” (Helsper 2018, 125) or "raw forms and images of the teacher" (Kramer and Pallesen, 2019, p.81), including orientations towards school, teachers and learning that are mostly implicit and not reflected.
Thinking this theoretical idea further, as we do in our project „Mentor teachers as teacher trainers – identifying the requirements for a dual Professional task“, we postulate the connection between one's own teacher training experience and the development of a teacher trainer habitus. In doing so, we are following a research desideratum, because so far there are only a few reconstructive studies that empirically examine the mentor teachers‘ implicit orientations and understanding of training (Leineweber 2022, Zorn, 2020, Kosinar & Laros, 2019, Fraefel, Bernhardsson-Laros & Bäuerlein, 2018). Their results illustrate the differences in training between the mentor teachers which range from demonstration to enabling experience, from close support to co-constructive cooperation.
In our project we try to find out more about the biographical backgrounds that lead to these different ideas and implicit orientations. Our own preliminary interview studies with 12 mentor teachers in primary schools confirm a connection between their own experiences with mentor teachers during their training, whose approach is set as a positive and negative counter-horizon (e.g. forms of giving feedback, helping in difficult situations, preparing lessons etc.). These experiences served as a blueprint for their own training activities (Laros et al., i.p.). Considering that mentor teachers during internships are of great importance for the teacher students, and that their orientations influence future teachers immensely (Oelkers, 2009) it is all the more important to set an eye on these relations.
In our current project, the sample of the experienced mentor teachers is part of a larger sample in a project consisting of two sub-studies. As a second research interest we try to find out to what extent the orientations of experienced mentor teachers were connected to their teacher habitus. We examine experienced mentor teachers (N = 12) through interviews and different training situations (1. lesson debriefing, 2. lesson planning, 3. feedback and assessment) that were audiographed.
In our presentation, we will first introduce the theoretical concept of the teacher habitus by using a model (Kosinar, 2023) to better describe the connections of the different habitus figures (Helsper 2018) and processes. Two contrastive cases will be introduced to show how the connections to one's own teacher training experience become empirically verifiable and visible. With the results, we strive for concrete insights into the influence of training experiences and put them in relation to the concepts of the university. As mentioned, the orientations of the mentor teachers are very different, but also very stable, as Leineweber (2022) found in a longitudinal study. This is followed by questions about the quality of training and opportunities to reflect on one's own action-guiding orientations and norms.

The mentioned project contains a longitudinal study that accompanies mentor teachers over a period of 2 years. T1/2 is an interview in which one's own school experiences and training as a teacher are discussed. The interviewees talk about their class and how they support their pupils in their learning processes. Further Questions follow about the experiences with teacher students doing internships in their own class. Here, concrete situation reports, dealing with difficult situations and challenges, are used to try to find out as much as possible about the practice of the participating mentor teachers. Questions are asked about supportive people and particularly lasting experiences. In the final interview (t4), the importance of the cooperation with the university and the support from the school principal is discussed. In addition, the task as a mentor teacher should be contextualized. Both interviews are analysed regarding their leading norms and common-sense theories and role models as well as regarding the implicit action-guiding orientations. In addition to interviews, one observation during an internship takes place in the classroom, followed by audio recordings of the interaction with the teacher students after the lessons. The feedback and assessment discussion takes place in the absence of the researchers; the audio recording is sent to us afterwards. All data were analyzed with the documentary method (Bohnsack, 2017). This method distinguishes between explicit knowledge (e.g. norms) and implicit knowledge (orientations), which is mostly not reflexively accessible to the actors and is reflected in their practices of action (t3) as well as in their narratives (t1/2, t4). In a multi-step process, both norms and explicit orientations as well as the implicit orientations that lead to the (training) habitus are reconstructed. The comparison of cases is central in order to work out similarities and differences and to typify the sample. The longitudinal perspective in turn enables the reconstruction of the individual cases regarding a possible change over time (Kosinar & Laros, 2021). With the different data, we can also work out possible differences between what the interviewees say is relevant for the development process of students and their actual learning support in the interaction with the teacher students. It is quite an innovative methodological turn in the documentary method to combine reconstructions of narratives and in-situ-situations. Thus, our project would like to contribute to examining the extent to which this relation promotes empirical access to the habitus of the participating teachers.

As our first results show, the orientations as a mentor teacher seem to merge over the years of activity with the learning support orientations as a teacher. Depending on the type, this connection is reflected as a conscious use of knowledge and experience or unquestioned as a matter of course. Only a few cases show a clear separation between supporting the learning process of pupils and of teacher students. In that case they treat them as adult learners, for which it is necessary to find adequate methods and discussion formats. Only this type shows a clear difference between the teacher habitus and a teacher trainer habitus. Concerning the triangulation of the data at this moment a congruence between the speaking about the practice and the in-situ-interaction can be demonstrated on first cases, but has to be far more carefully researched, especially with regard to the analysis of norms refound in practice. Our results lead to further questions about the quality and qualification of mentor teachers and the teacher training in general. 1. regarding the reflection of mentor teachers on their role and orientations 2. regarding the implementation of biographical reflection on one’s own school experiences to as a mandatory part of teacher education. Both shall be discussed with the audience.

Bohnsack, R. (2017). Praxeologische Wissenssoziologie. Opladen: Barbara Budrich. https://doi.org/10.1515/srsr-2018-0060 Fraefel, U., Bernhardsson-Laros, N. & Bäuerlein, K. (2017). Partnerschulen als Ort der Professionali- sierung angehender Lehrpersonen. In U. Fraefel & A. Seel (Hrsg.), Konzeptionelle Perspektiven Schul- praktischer Studien: Partnerschaftsmodelle – Praktikumskonzepte – Begleitformate (S. 57–75). Münster: Waxmann. Helsper, W. (2019). Vom Schüler- zum Lehrerhabitus – Reproduktions- und Transformationspfade. In R-T. Kramer & H. Pallesen (Eds.), Lehrerhabitus. Theoretische und empirische Beiträge zu einer Praxeologie des Lehrerberufs (pp. 49-72). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. Helsper, W. (2018a). Lehrerhabitus. Lehrer zwischen Herkunft, Milieu und Profession. In A. Paseka, Keller-Schneider, M. & A. Combe (Eds.), Ungewissheit als Herausforderung für pädagogisches Handeln (pp. 105–140). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17102-5_6 Kosinar, J. (2023). Theoretische und empirische Betrachtungen eines Studierendenhabitus. In Kowalski, M. et al. (eds.). Dokumentarische Professionalisierungsforschung im Kontext des Lehramtsstudiums. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt (in press). Kosinar, J. & Laros A. (2021). Dokumentarische Längsschnitt-Typologien in der Schul- und Lehrer*innenbildungsforschung – Umsetzungsvielfalt und methodologische Herausforderungen. In A. Geimer, D. Klinge, S. Rundel & D. Thomsen (Eds.). Jahrbuch Dokumentarische Methode (pp. 221-248). Berlin: ces. https://doi.org/10.21241/ssoar.78276 Kramer, R.-T. & Pallesen, H. (2019). Der Lehrerhabitus zwischen sozialer Herkunft, Schule als Handlungsfeld und der Idee der Professionalisierung. In R.-T. Kramer & H. Pallesen (Eds.). Lehrerhabitus. Theoretische und empirische Beiträge zu einer Praxeologie des Lehrerberufs (pp. 73-100). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. Leineweber, S. (2022). Partnerschulen als Professionalisierungsraum für an- gehende Primarlehrpersonen – Rekonstruktionen von Ausbildungsmilieus. In BEITRÄGE ZUR LEHRERINNEN- UND LEHRERBILDUNG, 40 (2), S. 254 – 267 Oelkers, J. (2009). "I wanted to be a good teacher…" Zur Ausbildung von Lehrkräften in Deutschland. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Berlin. Zugriff am 2.7.2020. Verfügbar unter: https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/studienfoerderung/06832.pdf Zorn, S. K. (2020). Professionalisierungsprozesse im Praxissemester begleiten: Eine qualitativ-rekonstruktive Studie zum Bilanz- und Perspektivgespräch. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.