Andrew Debenham is a Senior Lecturer in Education (ITT) at the University of Northampton. He has over 20 years’ experience as a teacher and senior leader in schools across Northamptonshire, which includes six years as Headteacher of a large primary school. Here we talk to Andrew about his experiences of NASBTT’s Mentor Development Modules (MDMs).
Why did you sign up to the Mentor Development Modules, and for how long have you been using them with your mentors?
“I first met Emma Hollis (NASBTT CEO) 18 months ago when we were looking at the then requirement for 20 hours’ mentor training requirement and we wanted to provide high-quality, flexible training for our mentors that would fit around their busy schedules. We needed something effective that mentors could complete at their own pace, without placing too much additional strain on schools or their workload. We knew we could not release mentors for an inordinate number of days so the MDMs seemed a good fit. They offer a good balance between structured online sessions and conference days, covering both general mentoring skills and placement-specific training, which also aligned well with what other universities were implementing. We have been using the modules with our mentors for about 18 months now and, despite the U-turn on the mentor training requirement, we still want to see high-quality mentoring going on within our schools.”
Which modules have you chosen, and why?
“We invested in a core set of 10 modules because they were recommended as part of a structured approach to mentoring. The modules we chose include Difficult Conversations, How Trainees Learn, Learning from Each Other, Mentees and Metacognition, Deliberate Practice, Mentoring or Coaching, Observing Your Mentee, Professionalism, and Teacher and Mentor Standards. We picked these because they seemed the most relevant to developing my mentoring skills in a consistent and transferable way. The idea was to cover key areas that would help us support trainees effectively without duplicating effort if mentors moved between schools or worked with different providers. We also appreciated that while there was a core set, there was flexibility to explore additional modules if desired, and further funding allowed, which some mentors have done voluntarily. Overall, we wanted to ensure we were getting both a structured foundation and the opportunity to expand learning where it felt most useful.”
How many mentors are using the modules?
“Numbers-wise, we had about 180 mentors signed up last year and around 120 did the full set of modules; this year we have got around 40 doing the 10 modules, mainly because many of our mentors have already done a lot of the training in the first year. We will definitely look to continue on the trajectory that we have been, simply because it is good practice. Feedback has been very positive – people have appreciated the quality and flexibility of the training, that the modules are easy to follow, and they have found the assessments realistic.”
What is the difference the MDMs are making?
“While the extent of usage has varied over time, the modules have remained an important part of supporting high-quality mentoring in our placements. The main difference they are making is the combination of quality and efficiency. As a lecturer, my schedule is packed with teaching, marking, and organising placements, so having high-quality, trusted modules that are already developed saves a lot of time. I can be confident that the content is reliable and checked, and the system allows me to track mentors’ progress easily – how many modules they have completed, when they last engaged with the material, and so on. It is a straightforward, efficient way to ensure our mentors are trained to a high standard without me having to create something similar from scratch, and both mentors and schools have highlighted the ‘trusted quality’ in that they are coming from NASBTT.”
Would you recommend the Mentor Development Modules to other university ITE providers, and if so please summarise why?
“Yes, I would. Overall, I think they are high quality and very realistic for mentors to engage with. Given the time pressures mentors have faced and continue to face, the modules are flexible enough to dip in and out of as it fits their schedules, which makes them very practical. I also think they help provide some consistency across mentoring practice. While I know every provider may have slightly different approaches, having a shared framework like this would be really beneficial if more providers could adopt it.”
Andrew Debenham is a Senior Lecturer in Education (ITT) at the University of Northampton
Case study developed: December 2025