Introduction, research question, and theoretical framework

To meet the future needs for educated teachers it is essential that newly qualified teachers (NQTs) start and remain in their profession. Since 2017 teacher education in Norway for primary and secondary school has been reformed to a master’s degree, and NQTs graduate with both a specialization in three to four subjects, and a research and development competence (R&D). This change has created both an opportunity and a need to analyze how to support, apply and develop NQTs competence as they transition from students to working life. All the Nordic countries—including Estonia and except for Denmark—offer a five-year master’s level teacher education, consequently, the ambitions and results of this paper reach beyond the borders of Norway.

Regarding support of NQTs, a lack of mentoring is highlighted as a reason why teachers leave their profession (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011), and Thomas et al. (2019) argue that “high quality” collegial support is necessary for both job satisfaction and motivation to teach. In turn, three key factors have been described as necessary to support NQTs: skilled and educated mentors, a variety of learning activities, and contextual factors like professional development, collaboration, and teacher education (Helleve & Ulvik, 2019; Schaefer et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2008). Mentoring is however a contested concept, and Kemmis et al. (2014) outline three main archetypes of mentoring: as supervision, as support, and as collaborative self-development. However, empirical research indicates that induction practices are unpredictable concerning what kind of support and collaboration NQTs can expect (Antonsen et al., 2022), which adds to the findings that there is no clear patterns in the organization and implementation of mentoring in Norway (Rambøll, 2021). These ambiguities indicate a need for clearer principles and guidelines for mentoring, similar to how Finland has embraced collaborative self-development through their practice of “Peer-Group Mentoring” (Pennanen et al., 2020; Tynjälä et al., 2021).

Considering the necessity of mentoring practices that supports, apply, and develops NQTs competence, this paper analyzes key documents regarding Norwegian national guidelines and principles for mentoring NQTs. These key documents provide insight into the political intentions for what kind of profession and practice a new teacher is envisioned to be inducted into, and what the mentoring process entails.

Therefore, this paper’s research question is: How do the documents that comprise the overarching national guidelines and principles for mentoring articulate that schools should support NQTs with a master’s degree?

To analyze the issues outlined above, I will apply the theory of practice architecture as an analytical lens (Mahon et al., 2017), which allows me to assess and understand social realities that are subject to a professional practice.

The theory of practice architecture describes that practices are social, situated and that they are shaped by arrangements (Mahon et al., 2017). There are three mutually influencing arrangements that exist simultaneously in a professional practice (Mahon et al., 2017, s. 9-10): Cultural-discursive arrangements, which describes the space for expressions in a practice (the prevalent language and discourses), which either constrain or enable what’s relevant or fitting to say (sayings). Material-economic arrangements that deal with the resources that shape practice by determining what, when, how, or by whom something is constrained or allowed to be done (doings). Finally, social-political arrangements, which shape how individuals within the practice relate to each other (familial and professional relationships, hierarchies, etc.) and non-human objects (rules, norms, etc.), which shape relationships in a practice.

Summarized, NQTs will encounter practice architectures which will define through their three arrangements which sayings, doings and relatings enable or constrain mentoring that support, apply and develop their subject-specialization and R&D-competence.

The paper’s methodologic approach is a qualitative content analysis (Krippendorff, 2018), and the scientific theoretical framework is hermeneutic (Gadamer, 2013), which means that the reading, data creation and the interpretation process is both reflexive, iterative, and explorative. This entails several close readings of the documents, where I read them in the context of my three main categories: sayings, doings, and relatings. Through this process different themes and patterns will emerge, which I will code into sub-categories. The data that’s been created and coded into these categories will be the object of my analysis, and I will give it meaning using the theory of practice architecture (Mahon et al., 2017), and previous research. The documents that will be analyzed are: “National framework for mentoring of newly qualified teachers in kindergarten and school” (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2018), "Mentoring of newly qualified teachers—how can it be done?" (UDIR, 2018), and the Norwegian Official Report 2022: 13 "With further significance—A holistic system for competence and career development in kindergarten and school" (NOU 2022: 13) (my translations). As per the hermeneutic process however, it is possible that more documents will reveal themselves as relevant when the analysis is undergoing. In addition, it is necessary to point out that these documents exist on different levels and are of different genres. Where one document might articulate a "should", another document might articulate a "must". This is a necessary aspect to be aware of in the analysis.

Primarily I’m expecting that the documents won’t commit to a philosophy of mentoring. This is due to the many understandings of what mentoring is, which Kemmis et al. (2014, p. 154) claim is because of a “plurality of theories”. If the documents do not commit to one, there’s reason to expect vague descriptions of guidelines and principles that lack clarity and a conflict between the three archetypes of mentoring, most likely as a product of political compromise (Afdal, 2013). As Kemmis et al. (2014, p. 163) writes: “Their choice [about which approach of mentoring ought to be used] is not just a choice of a mode of induction, it is a choice about the kind of world and the kind of profession a new teacher is inducted into.” Therefore, the documents’ philosophy of mentoring—or multiplicity of one—will be leading in the school’s practice architecture for understanding and motivation to support, apply and develop NQTs competency. However, if the documents reproduce the Norwegian tendency to view mentoring as an individualistic practice, there’s reason to expect a practice of mentoring as supervision and support, not collaborative self-development—or practice architectures which enable an “individual learning belief” in contrast to a “”social learning perspective” (Blossing & Ertesvåg, 2011). If this is the case, I will argue that it indicates a teacher education which has developed at a faster pace than the policy documents for mentoring, and as a result, how the schools organize their practice for mentoring. The implications of this are competing discourses of sustaining NQTs. Finally, it is expected that the documents will either not have, or not agree on, definitions of key concepts. It is reasonable to expect that a lack of standard definitions will result in less collaboration and comparative research.

Afdal, H. W. (2013). Policy making processes with respect to teacher education in Finland and Norway. Higher Education, 167-180. Antonsen, Y., Jakhelln, R., Aspfors, J., & Bjørndal, K. E. W. (2022). Solo, collaborative or collective? Newly qualified teachers’ experiences of being stirred into induction practices. [Under Review]. Blossing, U., & Ertesvåg, S. K. (2011). An individual learning belief and its impact on schools’ improvement work–An Individual versus a Social Learning Perspective. Education Inquiry, 153-171. Gadamer, H.-G. (2013). Truth and method. A&C Black. Helleve, I., & Ulvik, M. (2019). Tutors seen through the eyes of mentors assumptions for participation in third space in teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 228-242. Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of educational research, 201-233. Kemmis, S., Heikkinen, H. L., Fransson, G., Aspfors, J., & Edwards-Groves, C. (2014). Mentoring of new teachers as a contested practice: Supervision, support and collaborative self-development. Teaching and Teacher education, 154-164. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications. Kunnskapsdepartementet. (2018). Veiledning av nyutdannede nytilsatte lærere i barnehage og skole. Mahon, K., Francisco, S., & Kemmis, S. (2017). Exploring education and professional practice. Through the lens of practice architectures, 1. NOU 2022: 13. (2022). Med videre betydning - Et helhetlig system for kompetanse- og karriereutvikling i barnehage og skole. Pennanen, M., Heikkinen, H. L., & Tynjälä, P. (2020). Virtues of mentors and mentees in the Finnish model of teachers’ peer-group mentoring. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 355-371. Rambøll. (2021). Evaluering av veiledning av nyutdannede nytilsatte lærere - Sluttrapport 2021 [Evaluation]. Schaefer, L., Long, J. S., & Clandinin, D. J. (2012). Questioning the research on early career teacher attrition and retention. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 106-121. Thomas, L., Tuytens, M., Moolenaar, N., Devos, G., Kelchtermans, G., & Vanderlinde, R. (2019). Teachers’ first year in the profession: The power of high-quality support. Teachers and Teaching, 160-188. Tynjälä, P., Pennanen, M., Markkanen, I., & Heikkinen, H. L. (2021). Finnish model of peer‐group mentoring: review of research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 208-223. Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2018, 10.09.2019). Veiledning av nyutdannede – hvordan kan det gjennomføres? Wang, J., Odell, S. J., & Schwille, S. A. (2008). Effects of teacher induction on beginning teachers' teaching: A critical review of the literature. Journal of teacher education, 132-152.