Mentoring preparation for New Zealand secondary school teachers: insights from an effective programme Open Access

The value of mentor preparation programmes has been established in previous research (see, e.g. Hobson and Maxwell, 2020; Langdon and Ward, 2015; Pariente and Tubin, 2021); however, a recent review of literature on mentoring preparation in educational contexts found a lack of opportunities in many countries for mentors to learn appropriate skills and capabilities (Thornton, 2024). This article focuses on a government-funded mentor preparation programme for New Zealand secondary school teachers/leaders that took the form of a micro-credential offered in partnership between a university and the national secondary teachers’ union, the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA). My involvement in the design and facilitation of the course allowed me to gain an understanding of the influence the course had on the mentoring practice of participants as shared in the workshop sessions, a focus group convened after the piloting of the study in 2022, and course evaluations. I became interested in researching how participation in the micro-credential influenced the mentoring practice of participants longer term and also what the participants considered to be the most beneficial aspects of the programme design.

The following section reviews current literature on effective mentoring practices and mentor preparation, and this is followed by a description of the nature of the training programme. The study methodology is then described and the findings presented. These are then discussed in relation to current literature, in particular Maxwell et al.’s (2024) principles, approaches and resources developed from a multi-level meta-synthesis of effective mentor training, education and development and explained in detail below. Implications for mentoring preparation resulting from this study are also highlighted.

An approach to mentoring in educational contexts that is often referred to in the literature is that of educative mentoring. This term is attributed to Feiman-Nemser (2001), who used it to differentiate between an inquiry- and practice-focused approach to working with mentors and a more traditional apprenticeship model. Ewing (2021) has highlighted the role of the mentee as an active partner when an educative mentoring approach is used, and Langdon and Ward (2015), who applied educative mentoring principles in earlier New Zealand research, claim that this approach requires co-construction and a more reciprocal stance rather than that of expert and novice. The importance of viewing mentoring as a collaborative process involving reciprocal learning and joint construction of knowledge has also been highlighted (Burley and Pomphrey, 2011; Ellis et al., 2020). Collaborative mentoring contrasts with a top-down approach, creating a more symmetrical relationship (Tonna et al., 2017), and involves shared learning, decision-making and respect for each other’s knowledge (Beutel et al., 2017; Ellis et al., 2020; Ewing, 2021).

A number of different skills and capabilities are essential to building strong and trusting relationships between mentors and mentees. Hobson et al. (2009) identify essential relational characteristics such as trustworthiness, approachability and empathy, and similarly, Tonna et al. (2017) emphasise building trust and offering emotional support. In addition, Shields and Murray (2017) identify belonging support and emotional support as key elements of relationship building. Cross-cultural mentoring also requires understanding and addressing issues of equity and cultural identity (Batiste et al., 2022). Ellis et al. (2020) highlight the value of tools that help mentees think, question, analyse and problem-solve, and it has also been suggested that mentors should engage in critical reflection and challenge mentees’ thinking through active listening and questioning (Beutel et al., 2017). These findings emphasise the complexity of mentoring roles and the range of capabilities required to carry out the role effectively.

Previous research has emphasised the importance and impact of mentor preparation and support in educational contexts (Kupila et al., 2017; Maxwell et al., 2024; Ulvik and Sande, 2013). Studies suggest that without in-depth professional learning opportunities, mentors often revert to simply telling their mentee what to do or providing solutions, rather than actively facilitating their professional growth (Ambrosetti, 2014; Bullough, 2012; Sewell et al., 2017). It has been found that participation in mentor preparation programmes enables mentors to understand the complexity of their role and adopt a more collaborative approach in line with educative mentoring (Robson and Mtika, 2017; Stanulis et al., 2018). Structured and meaningful learning opportunities for mentors help them develop the skills and capabilities necessary for effective mentorship (Langdon and Ward, 2015; Wexler, 2020). Training can also strengthen personal capabilities such as relationship building, problem-solving and encouraging reflection (Pariente and Tubin, 2021; Sewell et al., 2017).

Key features of effective mentoring preparation programmes have been highlighted in a range of research. Maxwell et al.’s (2024) recent multi-level meta-synthesis identifies key design principles and pedagogical approaches and resources and highlights useful aspects of programme content. In terms of design, recommendations from this meta-synthesis include that programmes draw on ongoing research as well as being customised to the participants. Customisation is also a design aspect recommended in previous research carried out in the New Zealand education sector by Hoben (2021) and Langdon and Ward (2015). Pedagogical approaches suggested in Maxwell et al.’s (2024) research include opportunities for participants to observe, interact, practise and critically reflect on their learning. Programme elements of reflection, dialogue and criticality have also been found in a range of other studies (see, e.g. Burley and Pomphrey, 2011; Langdon, 2017; Tang and Choi, 2005). In terms of content, Maxwell et al.’s recommendations also align with those of Thornton (2024), whose review of literature on mentor preparation suggests that programmes should address mentoring knowledge, expectations, strategies and personal capabilities as well as opportunities to collaborate with other mentors. Regarding the structure of programmes, blended programmes that combine face-to-face and online elements have been recommended by a number of authors (see, e.g. Beutel et al., 2017; Dille, 2022; Sewell et al., 2017).

The research discussed above provides evidence that mentor preparation programmes have the potential to contribute to effective mentoring practice. Research suggests that programmes should be evidence-based and contextually relevant, involve ongoing and meaningful learning opportunities and focus on relationship building, collaboration and fostering reflection; however, there are still gaps in our understanding of what these elements look like in practice. This particular study will contribute to a better understanding of effective programme elements, hence providing practical examples of the design aspects identified in recent research such as that by Maxwell et al. (2024) and Thornton (2024).

Participants in this research had taken part in a micro-credential course entitled “Effective Mentoring Practices for Secondary Teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand”. Micro-credentials are short, stand-alone courses that have support from industry, employees and community (New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 2024). This micro-credential, offered by Victoria University of Wellington, was initiated by the PPTA after support for teachers/leaders whose roles require them to mentor others was identified as a need by membership groups. Funding was provided by the New Zealand Ministry of Education. Potential participants included senior leaders, heads of department (HODs), deans, specialist classroom teachers ^[1] (SCTs) and mentor teachers. The mentoring roles of these potential participants varied from supporting teacher trainees on practicum for a period of weeks to working with beginning teachers in their first two years of teaching as required by the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand (TCANZ, n.d.), the body that oversees teacher registration and professional standards for New Zealand teachers as well as mentoring and supporting middle leaders.

As part of the initial planning process, a face-to-face focus group made up of members from the target audience from around New Zealand was brought together at the host university to offer views on course design and content. This resulted in a draft plan developed by university staff that was reviewed and refined by the PPTA and then formed the basis of the final development plan. I was involved in the detailed design of the course, drawing on my previous research and experience in teaching a post-graduate course in mentoring and coaching for over 10 years. Māori ^[2] and Pacific ^[3] leaders contributed to the design to ensure the material was culturally appropriate and also took part in video-recorded interviews. While Māori and Pacific perspectives are sometimes similar, they are treated as two distinct cultural groupings. The course aimed to develop effective mentoring practices in New Zealand secondary teachers/leaders through supporting mentoring capability building within the sector, enabling participants to gain the skills and attributes to become effective mentors and gain a credentialing qualification. The mentoring model used was that of educative mentoring, as this approach is recommended in the Guidelines for Induction and Mentoring developed by the New Zealand Education Council (2015), the body now known as TCANZ. Constructivist principles also influenced the design of the course, which had a strong focus on individuals engaging with new information, critically reflecting on existing beliefs and making meaning of their experiences (Pelech and Pieper, 2000).

The course had a blended learning format, was taught over 11 weeks using the Canvas ^[4] learning management platform, and consisted of six modules as described in Table 1. The three webinars were run in the late afternoon, and the workshop days were run in main centres, with funding for travel and other expenses provided.

A feature of the course was the highlighting of effective practice through the use of video clips of practising teachers/leaders recorded especially for the course. The inclusion of video clips was requested by the PPTA, who specified that these draw on a range of views and practices and include Māori and Pacific perspectives on mentoring. Interviews with experienced teachers/leaders, including some who had completed research on mentoring, were recorded, as were case studies illustrating different phases of mentoring. Recommendations for interviewees came from the PPTA and from university staff working in the teacher education field. Each module contained several academic readings in addition to the video clips. There was a strong focus on reflection in the assessment tasks. The first three tasks involved reflection on mentoring experiences and the characteristics of an effective mentoring relationship, articulation of personal mentoring goals and a critical examination of mentoring in the New Zealand secondary school context. The final assessment task was a presentation involving participants critically reflecting on their previous experiences of mentoring, their learning through the course, and how they intended to apply this going forward.

This study was guided by two research questions:

1. How has participation in a training programme influenced the mentoring practice of New Zealand secondary school teachers/leaders?

2. What elements of the programme were most beneficial?

An interpretive research paradigm informed the design of this study. Interpretivism assumes reality is socially constructed rather than observable and focuses on how participants understand, interpret and give meaning to their experiences (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016), in this case, their involvement in the mentoring micro-credential and its impact on their mentoring practice. The study also meets the criteria for a basic qualitative study (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016) in that it focuses on meaning and understanding, uses a purposeful sample and presents findings according to richly descriptive themes. It can also be described as an embedded design due to some quantitative data from a survey being included in a primarily qualitative design (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016).

The study received ethics approval from the Victoria University of Wellington Human Ethics Committee (approval number 31532).

The sample for this study was the 342 individuals who had completed the micro-credential course between February 2022 and June 2024 and who had agreed to receive communications from the university. Some of the emails containing an information sheet and survey link bounced back, indicating changes of school for approximately 28 teachers/leaders, leaving a sample size of 316. Of these, 76, or 24% completed the survey, a reasonable response rate given the busyness of potential participants, particularly near the end of the winter school term. Survey respondents were invited to indicate via email if they were willing to participate in a follow-up interview. The 14 teachers/leaders (ten female and four male) who indicated their willingness were sent an additional information sheet and consent form, which they completed prior to the interviews. My positionality as the researcher was addressed in the ethics application process through an acknowledgement that while some potential participants may feel some obligation to participate because of my role as their former professional learning facilitator, I had no ongoing relationship with them, reducing any possible feelings of compulsion. The interviewees held a range of roles in their schools; two were deputy principals, one was a HOD and two deputy HODs, three were current SCTs, another three previous SCTs and the other three classroom teachers. These varying roles provided a range of perspectives as they had differing opportunities to embed their learning from the course.

The anonymous Qualtrics ^[5] survey consisted of ten statements that participants could indicate their agreement or disagreement with and three open-ended questions. While the survey produced quantitative data in the form of numerical responses to the Likert scale statements, the survey findings are used descriptively rather than to make any statistical claims, in line with an embedded qualitative design (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). A combination of statements and open-ended questions was chosen to reduce the time required for busy participants to complete the survey. The semi-structured interviews took place via Zoom ^[6] and involved eight open-ended questions relating to the influence of participation on practice and beneficial aspects of the programme. They were transcribed by the researcher, and the data were analysed using the phases of reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2022). This involved familiarisation with the data, identifying segments of data relevant to the research questions, developing broader themes, reconsidering these and then naming them. The themes related both to how the programme influenced practice and the identification of the useful elements. Trustworthiness was maintained by using more than one data source and also by member checking through sharing the interview transcripts with participants. Maxwell et al.’s (2024) meta-synthesis on mentor training, education and development provided a useful analytical framework for the discussion of the beneficial aspects of the training.

This findings section has two parts. The first section provides evidence of participants’ satisfaction with the training programme and the shifts in their practice arising from it, and the second section focuses on their perceptions of the most useful elements of the programme. Both the anonymous survey and the follow-up interviews are drawn on. It is possible that there is some overlap in the comments, as it was not possible to match interview data to the anonymous survey responses. Table 2 shows responses to the survey statements related to the influence the programme had.

These data show that the majority of participants believed their participation in the micro-credential had positively influenced their mentoring practice. The highest level of agreement was with the statements related to having a greater awareness of different stages and approaches to mentoring as discussed in the course, with over 90% of participants strongly agreeing or agreeing with this statement. Also highly rated were the statements related to being more conscious of listening rather than providing solutions and having challenging conversations. Slightly fewer participants strongly agreed or agreed with the statements relating to encouraging critical reflection, having a more reciprocal relationship, asking open questions and helping mentees set relevant goals; however, agreement was still over 80% in each case. Slightly fewer respondents thought their confidence in giving evidence-based feedback had improved. Overall, 93% of mentors who completed the survey indicated that their confidence in their role as mentor had increased, suggesting that the professional learning had been very effective. Of those who disagreed with the statements, several indicated (in open-ended survey responses) that they had participated in previous courses on mentoring and therefore were already confident in their practice.

Survey participants were asked to provide examples of how they had changed or strengthened their mentoring practice as a result of their participation, and interviewees were asked to expand on the most significant change in their mentoring practice. The themes arising from this question will be discussed in order of how frequently the changes were mentioned.

The most frequent change in mentoring practice mentioned related to active listening, with 26 survey comments and nine interviewees referring to a strengthening of this capability. Active listening was specifically focused on in the workshop day, with the importance of active listening being highlighted through the presentation of research and a number of video clips. Participants also engaged in an active listening exercise where they had to listen without speaking and then reflect back their understanding of a partner’s perspective.

Participants reported that as a result of their participation, they had become better listeners, and one commented that they had become “much more effective as a mentor to my colleagues and my students simply through developing this skill”. This change had also resulted in another participant giving their mentee more space “to talk and feel heard”.

Several participants shared the realisation that their previous approach of sharing their experiences and suggestions was not always helpful. As one explained:

The second most commonly reported change, with 18 survey comments and six interview mentions, was a shift to a more reciprocal relationship rather than one of expert and apprentice. The value of this approach was emphasised throughout the micro-credential through the focus on educative mentoring approaches. This change was expressed in a variety of ways in the survey responses, including making the relationship “more open and responsive”, having “a much more balanced relationship” and “definitely switching to a reciprocal role rather than being the person who knows more”.

A willingness to make the mentee a more active participant in the process was highlighted in comments such as:

These responses suggest a more facilitative approach as a result of participation in the preparation programme and were echoed in the interview conversations with participants commenting on their awareness that rather than having all the answers, effective mentoring was encouraging mentees to drive the conversation. The importance of building trust was also mentioned.

The use of open questions to encourage reflection was discussed and practised during the face-to-face workshop and was referred to ten times in both the survey responses and the interviews, often in conjunction with the greater use of active listening. Participants referred to using “better questions in practice which has helped form stronger relationships”, “asking more questions rather than rescuing people, being able to be open and honest in a more constructive way” and “ensuring I guide my mentee to a solution using open questions”.

The impact of more effective questioning was also described:

A shift to encouraging mentees to reflect on their practice through asking open-ended questions was also mentioned.

There were eight mentions of having a stronger focus on goal setting in the survey as a result of participating in the training and three in the interviews. Goal setting was discussed in the face-to-face workshop and strategies were offered to assist in this process. Survey responses mentioning goal setting included “supporting mentees to set relevant and achievable goals” and “using questioning to help my mentee set higher-level goals”. The importance of giving mentees agency in setting relevant goals was also mentioned. An HOD shared in their interview that “The way forward for me is to look at some more clear goal setting ideas and then linking the feedback to the specific goals”.

The importance of making time for mentoring conversations, particularly for beginning teachers who, in the New Zealand system, have one hour a week allocated for mentoring, was shared during the webinars. Six survey participants shared how they had taken this on board, as the following comments illustrate:

Keeping to timetabled meetings and ensuring enough time was booked for the sessions was also mentioned in both the survey and interview responses, with a deputy principal describing it in their interview as “sacred time”.

Part of the workshop day was spent on introducing participants to different models of approaching challenging conversations with their mentees. They then spent time in groups discussing what approaches could be used in a range of scenarios that they had anonymously contributed to. Six people mentioned feeling more confident about approaching such conversations, several of whom had previously avoided them:

One of the deputy principal interviewees described how their approach had changed as a result of their participation, saying that now she was more “mindful of making sure that when you do have to have those difficult conversations that there’s that mutual respect and sort of mana ^[7] that’s still upheld for the other person”.

Various models of mentoring, including Clutterbuck’s (2005) phases of a mentoring relationship and Davis’s (2006) repertoire of approaches, were shared in the micro-credential modules. Reference was made to several of these models in the survey responses, as shown by the following comments:

The importance of taking a bespoke approach to each relationship was emphasised in several of the interviews. One person spoke about “reframing how you look at each person individually”, and another mentioned:

Interviewees were asked whether they had been able to transfer their learning to other aspects of their work, and all provided examples of how this had occurred. These examples included coaching conversations with students, being more comfortable in having challenging conversations with colleagues and facilitating a conversation after a relationship breakdown between two teachers.

One of the deputy principals suggested:

An HOD suggested that the course “should be compulsory for all teachers” as it was useful for teachers working with students as well as those in a leadership role.

Influencing mentoring practices in the wider school as a result of participation was mentioned by several survey participants, as the following statements illustrate:

The interviews revealed that those in an SCT or senior leadership role unsurprisingly had more influence on the mentoring practices of others than more junior staff. Both deputy principals interviewed had plans for supporting the mentors in their schools, which included providing training and setting up a support network, as did one of the SCTs. Considerable progress had already been made by one SCT who had begun a programme for mentors at their school, which involved the development of resources for both mentors and mentees, including handbooks. Specific professional learning opportunities had also been provided for mentors, who were also kept informed through a hub of the learning opportunities offered to mentees so they could follow up on them.

Different approaches were taken to eliciting feedback on the beneficial programme elements, with survey participants being asked for their perspectives on the most useful aspects of the course and interviewees being asked to comment on the ways in which the course encouraged critical reflection. Participants were also asked to make suggestions for improvement.

All but two survey respondents made comments on what they found most helpful, with several remarking that everything was useful and others mentioning the manageability of completing the course while working full-time. The flexibility of the programme and the accountability were also commented on. One participant noted that unlike with other professional development, she was kept motivated: “have readings, have breakouts and we have assignments. This is brilliant PD [professional development]”.

The face-to-face day was mentioned as being the most helpful aspect by nearly half the participants. The opportunity to put learning into practice was valued as well as the role plays, and the opportunity to have a whole day to focus on the material was appreciated. The following are representative comments:

The value of the resources provided throughout the course was also appreciated. The readings and the video clips were frequently mentioned. Both the active listening activities and the difficult conversations practice were identified as being useful, as was the coaching activity where the participants worked in threes. One participant found, “The opportunity to role play with a ‘helpful observer’ was the most helpful thing”.

Being able to connect and network with other teachers/leaders was also frequently mentioned as a highlight, with numerous comments around the value of working with other teachers/leaders from around the country. Comments related to both face-to-face and online interactions:

Interview participants were asked to explain the ways in which they were encouraged to critically reflect on their assumptions and practices. For most participants, it was the combination of different approaches that encouraged reflection, as the following comment illustrates: “The combination of all of the different mediums was so complementary and so I think it was a mix of everything” (HOD).

Others highlighted specific aspects, such as how hearing about the practice of others through the video clips or through breakout room discussions had encouraged them to reflect on their own mentoring practice. For some, the readings were key, and the research caused them to reflect on what mentoring looked like in their own contexts.

The encouragement to personalise the content to the context of each participant was also valued: “The thing I really liked was that the micro-credential was set up to give us some of this research and evidence and make us think about how that looks for us” (SCT).

The inclusion of different cultural perspectives and expectations within the programme was valued by a number of interviewees, nine of whom commented that this aspect of the programme made them critically reflect on their practice. The inclusion of Māori and Pacific values and voices through the video clips was particularly appreciated and also mentioned in the survey responses. A deputy principal commented that their school previously had quite a monocultural lens on mentoring but had now rethought their approach and took more account of the varied backgrounds of their mentees. A former SCT also highlighted the importance of “respecting the mana of your mentees and recognizing them as culturally located individuals”.

The final survey question asked how the micro-credential could have prepared the participants better, with 28 respondents having no suggestions as they felt it had prepared them well. Suggestions for improvement included having more in-person elements or having the face-to-face day earlier. Inclusion of more practical examples or exercises was mentioned, and templates and/or written resources were suggested by a small number of participants. There were also suggestions about resources or readings that were more specific to particular roles, such as SCTs and senior leaders or to different subject areas; however, some participants also acknowledged that this was not always practical. Given confidence in evidence-based feedback was the least highly rated aspect of the programme, this could have been given a stronger focus.

The data outlined above show that the mentor training programme was very well received by participants. They were able to identify both shifts in their practice and elements of the programme that were most beneficial, some but not all of which have been identified in previous research. In this section, findings will be discussed in relation to the design principles, pedagogical approaches and resources, and content from Maxwell et al.’s (2024) meta-synthesis and discussed in relation to other relevant literature in order to highlight aspects of effective mentoring training, including those that appear to be distinctive to this programme.

Of the six design principles developed by Maxwell et al. (2024) in their meta-synthesis, three were evident in the programme design. Firstly, the programme was evidence-based and drew on theory and evidence. The mentoring model used was that of educative mentoring as explained earlier, and characteristics of educative mentoring were shared in the first module and explained in a video clip. The second principle of carrying out rigorous research was performed prior to this study through conducting evaluations and a focus group after piloting the first course in 2022. All subsequent iterations of the course were also evaluated, and suggestions were fed into the design. This research will also contribute as it explores the longer-term influence of participation in the programme.

The third principle of the importance of the programme being tailored to the participants, also found in previous research (see, e.g. Hoben, 2021; Langdon and Ward, 2015), was a strength of this training. The focus on the New Zealand secondary school context was uppermost in the initial design process, which involved prospective participants, an initiative that has not been previously identified in research. In addition, the third module focused specifically on the context of New Zealand secondary schools. Māori and Pacific values and perspectives were included, as were recorded interviews with mentors from a range of schools. As indicated in the findings, this aspect was highly valued by participants. Two of the other design principles from the meta-analysis related to sustained support during the mentoring relationship and training for mentees. These were not within the scope of this training programme; however, there was evidence from the findings that some participants were able to support other mentors and mentees within their school, particularly those in SCT and/or leadership roles.

There was unclear evidence relating to modality in Maxwell et al.’s (2024) meta-synthesis; however, the findings from this study strongly support a blended approach, particularly for a national programme where participants are geographically spread. Participants valued the opportunity to come together face-to-face, particularly not only to put some of the theory into practice by engaging in practical activities but also appreciated the ease of access of the self-directed study modules and the webinars. This format was seen as very manageable for practising teachers/leaders, as shown in the comments above. Similarly, benefits of online interactions have been found in other studies (see, e.g. Beutel et al., 2017; Dille, 2022), particularly when the online interactions were facilitated rather than left to participants. The length of the course was also endorsed by participants, with enough time being provided for both reflection and implementation.

All three pedagogical approaches highlighted in Maxwell et al.’s meta-synthesis (participation and interaction drawing on adult learning principles, a safe learning climate and the use of supporting resources) were evident in this programme. The micro-credential design drew on constructivism, which aligns with adult learning principles (Pelech and Pieper, 2000), as previously explained, and participants had opportunities to reflect on their assumptions, beliefs and behaviours throughout. The section on critical reflection on practice above illustrated how participants believed this occurred throughout the training, including in the self-directed study modules, the webinars, the workshop day and the assessment tasks.

There was a high level of interaction between participants, including webinar breakout room discussions and practical exercises during the workshop day, and the value of these interactions was highlighted in both the survey and interview responses. These interactions and exercises included practising active listening, questioning, providing feedback, goal setting and having challenging conversations as well as a coaching exercise with participants taking coach, coachee and observer roles. These interactions and subsequent group discussions built on the trust already established between participants to some extent through webinar interactions and suggest there was a safe learning climate. The importance of mentor collaboration within training programmes has been previously highlighted (see, e.g. Bullough, 2012; Langdon and Ward, 2015); however, the reported occurrence of networking in both online and face-to-face interactions is a particular contribution of this research. The value of interpersonal skill development through mentoring training has also been found in other studies (Beutel et al., 2017; Tang and Choi, 2005). This programme involved a wide range of supporting resources, including readings and videos that explained concepts and case studies illustrating different phases of mentoring and providing different cultural perspectives.

Four areas of content are recommended in Maxwell et al.’s (2024) meta-synthesis, and all were promoted in this programme to some extent. The first area, a focus on different aspects of the mentoring relationship, was a strong feature of the micro-credential. Table 3 summarises how each of the aspects identified in the meta-synthesis was addressed.

Of the other three content areas, the professional work of the mentee was not emphasised because of the differing roles of the various participants and their mentees. Readings related to working with student teachers, beginning teachers and mentoring middle leaders were, however, provided, with participants choosing whichever was most relevant and discussing it in a webinar breakout room. With regard to understanding equity and diversity, the third area, the cultural factors that need to be considered when mentoring in the New Zealand context, was highlighted through a series of video clips featuring Māori and Pacific mentors explaining their perspectives. As explained in the findings, these were valued by participants and led to changes in practice in some schools. The final area of content, developing plans, was addressed through the final assessment task, which involved preparing and recording a video clip which involved a critical reflection on previous experiences of mentoring both as a mentee and mentor, learning throughout the course and intentions for applying new learning to mentoring practice going forward.

The effectiveness of this nationally available training programme, not only in terms of strengthening individual practices but also influencing mentoring practices in the wider school context, reinforces previous research on the nature of effective mentor preparation and support in education contexts. It also identifies several aspects of effective training programmes, some of which have not been highlighted in previous research, including the value of including potential participants in the design process to help ensure content relevance and developing resources specific to the context including, where possible, video clips showing different cultural perspectives. While the importance of collaboration between mentors and critical reflection has been noted in earlier studies, this research contributes to a clearer understanding of how this can be promoted both through online and face-to-face discussions and written tasks. The opportunity to develop practical skills such as active listening and questioning was appreciated, as was the focus on reciprocal relationships. In at least some cases, the mentoring capabilities developed through this programme were put into practice and transferred to other aspects of the mentors’ professional lives. Some mentors, particularly those in leadership roles, were also able to influence mentoring practice more widely in their schools. The blended approach was appropriate for a national programme, which allowed for a high level of interaction between participants from a diverse range of schools and may be of interest to policy bodies considering funding similar programmes.

Limitations of this study include that the conclusions drawn above are based on the data collected from participants in a single programme and may not be transferable to other mentor preparation programmes in different contexts. While the survey was anonymous, interview participants may have felt they should give positive responses; however, the voluntary nature of the research and the previous positive course evaluations, which were also anonymous, suggest a high level of satisfaction with the programme. Future research could look into how cultural perspectives are drawn on in a range of contexts and also how blended learning can be effectively used to increase the accessibility of mentoring training programmes.