Mentoring trainee teachers is a complex, relational practice that draws on a repertoire of knowledge, skills and dispositions that are distinct from classroom teaching (Gardiner & Weisling, 2018). In England, the mentoring role has been part of teacher education since the early 1990s (Hobson et al., 2009), although recent government reforms (Department for Education, 2022), implemented from September 2024, have intensified its prominence. These reforms place renewed emphasis on the responsibilities, training, and leadership of school-based mentors, highlighting their central role in high quality teacher development and retention. These reforms make timely a closer examination of how mentoring is enacted at the point where trainees and school mentors first come together, their initial meeting, and how trainees experience the structures intended to support it.

At a European level, the European Commission’s report Supporting Teacher Educators for Better Learning Outcomes (2013) argued that mentoring and teacher‑educator work are a specialised professional practice. The report notes that rather than being treated as an extension of teaching, mentoring trainee teachers requires explicit competency frameworks, coherent preparation and continuous development. More recently, the Eurydice report Teaching Careers in Europe: Access, Progression and Support (2018) shows that across many European systems, mentoring and induction are regulated features of teacher training and early‑career support, with increasing clarity around mentor roles and the structure of mentor–mentee conversations. Framing the English reforms against this European backdrop positions them as part of a broader trend towards the professionalisation and standardisation of mentoring.

From a broader international perspective, the OECD’s TALIS survey (2024) found that mentoring of trainee and new teachers is expanding, is better recognised, and is increasingly embedded in policy frameworks. There appears to be a shift towards mentoring as an integrated, systemic support mechanism.

This study builds on previous work by the co-investigators (Connolly, Bates & Shea, 2022), which developed a set of questions to guide the mentor–trainee “initial encounter” on a postgraduate programme. Extending that work, the present research explores the use of the same questions in an undergraduate initial teacher training context at ARU, shifting the analytic lens to the perspectives of trainee teachers. By focusing on trainees’ experiences of their first meeting with school mentors, the study addresses a notable gap in the literature, which more commonly focuses on the mentor’s practice and programme design rather than trainees’ perspectives.

The contribution is twofold. Firstly, it examines whether a structured conversational tool helps trainees to articulate goals, negotiate roles and establish productive routines with their mentor. Secondly, considering the global emphasis on teacher retention and wellbeing (OECD, 2024), it investigates whether early, structured mentor–trainee dialogue can enhance trainees’ sense of support and professional agency at a formative moment in their preparation.

The study pursues two objectives:

1. to examine trainee teacher perspectives on their initial meeting with school mentors; and
2. to explore the use of a structured set of questions to support the initial meeting between trainee teachers and their mentors.

This study employs a qualitative, two‑phase research design to explore trainee teachers’ perspectives on their initial meeting with school‑based mentors, and to examine the usefulness of a structured conversational tool adapted from Connolly, Bates and Shea (2022). Given the study’s focus on experiences, perceptions, and meaning‑making, a qualitative approach enables rich insights into how trainees negotiate expectations, relationships, and early professional identity during the mentoring process. Phase 1: Focus groups (November 2025) Phase 1 involved a series of focus groups with undergraduate trainee teachers enrolled on the BEd Primary Education (with QTS) programme at Anglia Ruskin University (ARU). These trainee teachers were preparing for their first school placement, making the timing appropriate for exploring expectations of the initial mentor meeting. Participants were provided with nine adapted “initial encounter” questions developed in earlier research (Connolly, Bates and Shea, 2022). Using a diamond‑nine activity, participants collaboratively sorted the questions into an order of perceived importance, enabling group negotiation and reflection on what matters most at the first meeting with a mentor. The activity encouraged trainees to articulate their reasoning, challenge or defend certain priorities, and consider how questions support the development of rapport, clarity of expectations, and shared purpose. Focus groups were audio‑recorded to capture this dialogue, with the potential for participants to add, edit, or remove questions based on their professional judgement. Three focus groups were conducted—one at each ARU campus (Chelmsford, Cambridge, and Peterborough). All trainees will be invited with a total of 9 participating. Phase 2: Use of questions in initial meeting (November 2025) and follow‑up interviews (March 2026) In Phase 2, the question sets generated by the focus group were used as prompts at the trainees’ initial meeting with their assigned school mentors. This initial took place at the ARU School Mentor conference on each of the three campuses. Trainees then began their 8-week school placement in January 2026. Following placement, trainees will be invited to participate in individual online semi‑structured interviews (March 2026). These interviews will explore how the initial meeting unfolded, how the structured questions supported (or hindered) relationship‑building, and the extent to which the early dialogue influenced the trainee’s experience during placement. Semi‑structured interviews ensure consistency in core topics while allowing participants to introduce issues of personal significance. The interviews will be recorded via MS Teams. The focus group data and interview data will be thematically analysed (Clarke and Braun, 2017).

The study is expected to generate important insights into how trainee teachers experience the initial meeting with their mentor and the extent to which a structured conversational tool can support the early development of this relationship. As this initial meeting sets the foundations for communication and expectations, the findings are likely to illuminate the factors that contribute to a productive, supportive mentoring relationship. Firstly, it is anticipated that trainees will report increased clarity and confidence when approaching their initial meeting as the questions will provide a clearer understanding of what the initial meeting can achieve, what they hope to communicate, and how they might establish rapport with their mentor. This may reduce anxiety and promote a sense of agency as trainees enter their first placement. Secondly, the study is expected to identify which of the structured questions trainees deem most meaningful for establishing early trust and shared expectations. This will provide valuable insights into how conversation tools can be refined to better address the needs of undergraduate trainees, who may require different forms of support compared to postgraduate trainees. The focus groups may also reveal gaps or new priority areas. Phase 2 interviews are expected to show that trainees who experienced a purposeful, structured initial meeting feel better supported throughout their placement. These trainees may report stronger communication, greater openness in addressing challenges, and a clearer sense of direction in their professional development. Conversely, the interviews may reveal barriers that shape the effectiveness of the tool in real school contexts, such as limited mentor time or inconsistent use of the questions Overall, the study is likely to produce evidence informed recommendations for ITT providers and school mentors, highlighting how structured conversational tools can enhance early relational work, contribute to trainee wellbeing, and support the wider goals of teacher development and retention.

Clarke, V. & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic Analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology 12 (3), 297–98. Department for Education. (2022). Initial teacher training (ITT) provider guidance on stage 2. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/637b75ddd3bf7f7209bf2de5/ITT_Provider_Guidance_Stage_2.pdf European Commission (2013) Supporting Teacher Educators for Better Learning Outcomes, https://school-education.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2024-04/Supporting-Teacher-Educators-for-better-learning-outcomes.pdf European Commission (2018) Teaching Careers in Europe: Access, Progression and Support, https://eurydice.indire.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Teaching-Careers-in-Europe.pdf Hobson, A.J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A. & Tomlinson, P.D. (2009). Mentoring beginning teachers: what we know and what we don’t. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25 (1), 207-216. OECD (2024) Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/10/results-from-talis-2024_28fbde1d/90df6235-en.pdf Weisling, N. F., & Gardiner, W. (2018). Making mentoring work. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(6), 64-69.