Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Trainee
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This was a 14 CFR 141 instrument training flight with a student nearing the completion of the program.  This was the first training flight for the instrument student after not having flown for approximately three months due to COVID-19 precautions.  We were on an IFR flight from ZZZ1 to ZZZ; returning to ZZZ on the same flight plan.  The student filed ZZZ1 ZZZZZX ZZZZZ ZZZ ZZZ2 ZZZ1.  During the enroute phase; I requested from Approach the RNAV (GPS) Y RWY XX at ZZZ; with a touch and go on RWY XX; and a return to ZZZ with the ILS XYL to a full stop.  Before we were cleared for the approach to ZZZ; Approach relayed the following missed approach instructions 'On the go; fly Tower assigned heading; climb and maintain 3;000 feet.'  I read back the instructions because my student missed the transmission.  Shortly after receiving the missed approach instructions; we received our approach clearance for the RNAV (GPS) Y RWY XX and transferred to ZZZ Tower.  We decided to fly the approach using the autopilot; which the student was not familiar with.  This required a significant amount of coaching; especially to manage the altitude step-downs.  There was a single engine aircraft in the traffic pattern and we were instructed to report traffic in sight and that we were #2 for RWY XX behind the traffic.  I was focused on coaching the student to use the autopilot and looking for the traffic in the pattern and did not hear the landing clearance transmission correctly.  The traffic ahead executed a touch and go without incident.  We followed suite and executed a touch and go.  Several hundred feet in the air; tower asked us what we were doing.  I explained that we were on the missed approach and climbing to 3;000 feet.  The Tower Controller advised that we had been issued a landing clearance; not a touch and go.  In the same transmission; the controller asked if we were IFR or VFR and to state our intentions.  I explained that we were IFR and given missed approach instructions to a fly tower assigned heading; climb and maintain 3;000 feet and were planning to return IFR to ZZZ.  I also apologized profusely.  Tower switched us over to Approach - I read back the instructions and apologized again for the error.  I was mortified.I believe that expectation bias played a crucial role in this error coupled with my inattentiveness to the landing instructions issued by Tower resulting from my focus on coaching my student through the use of the autopilot for the approach and looking out for traffic in the pattern.  Without exception; in my prior experience as a CFII in northern State X; Tower has cleared my flights for a touch and go following an instrument approach when on an IFR flight plan that does not terminate at that airport.  I believe this prior experience established a strong expectation bias.  I also believe that I inappropriately focused my attention on coaching my student through the approach using the autopilot.  This was his first flight back after an extended hiatus from flying; so we had to work through some fundamental refresher in addition to incorporating the autopilot. This was a high workload environment for my student.  Finally; I was focused on visually acquiring the traffic ahead of us; which added to my workload.  I have learned several lessons because of this experience.  Focus and listen to the clearance.  Regardless of how advanced the student is; do not assume they will take the appropriate course of action.  As an instructor I am there to make sure a crucial error does not occur.  Prioritize workload.  Teaching is important; but making sure we are aviating; navigating; and communicating comes before anything else - even teaching.I truly am sorry for this error.  While there was no evasive action taken by any aircraft (the preceding traffic was on a downwind leg by the time we executed the touch and go and no other traffic was in the airspace); I understand that was just luck.I know better and will do better next time.


Second narrative: My instructor and I were on an IFR training flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1 round robin back to ZZZ. We flew the RNAV GPS Y RWY XX approach into ZZZ1. On approach; we were talking to Approach which cleared us for the approach and to see them on the missed approach. We were instructed to fly Tower assigned heading on the missed up to 3;000. My expectation was to do a touch n go and return back to ZZZ for our round robin.We switched to ZZZ1 that then cleared us to land. I became so fixated on doing a touch n go that we landed and did our touch n go. After we were airborne ZZZ1 tower told us that he had cleared us to land. We apologized.This was my first IFR training flight since COVID-19 shut everything down. I think that I became so fixated and accustomed to doing a touch and go and flying the missed approach that I missed that the tower had cleared us to land and not a touch n go. Confirmation bias on my part that I assumed he had cleared us for a touch n go and misheard the tower instruction. I think there may also have been a communication error to the tower as he was under the impression that we wanted to land and not do a touch n go. He had asked us if were IFR; which we filed for so I think there may have been an issue with the plan as I filed it.My takeaway is that I need to listen much closer to the instructions. During the approach I became fixated on flying the approach and read back the instruction but did not catch that it was a landing clearance and not for a touch n go. I was expecting a cleared for touch n go and my confirmation bias interpreted the cleared to land as that.


Synopsis: Pilot instructor and student reported distraction in the cockpit resulted in executing a touch and go without ATC clearance and cited lack of flying as a contributing factor.