Mentors Report on Their Own Mentoring Practices

Implementing an Australian National Curriculum will require targeting both teachers and preservice teachers. Classroom teachers in their roles as mentors are well situated for developing preservice teachers. This mixed-method study presents mentors’ reports on their mentoring of primary preservice teachers (mentees) in mathematics (n=43) and science (n=29). Mentors claimed they mentored the teaching of mathematics more than the teaching of science; 20% or more indicated they did not provide mentoring practices for 25 out of 34 survey items in the science and 9 out of 34 items in the mathematics. Mentors also claimed that professional development on effective mentoring can enhance their skills. Implementing an Australian National Curriculum necessitates professional development for mentors on effective mentoring practices in order to increase the quality and quantity of mentoring for enhancing preservice teachers’ practices. The last attempt at implementing a national curriculum failed in the 1990s largely because it was not followed through with the enactors of reform (Collins, 1994; Ellerton & Clements, 1994). From personal experience as a principal of a NSW school at the time, the national curriculum documents arrived in schools and were left on shelves. There was no professional development provided. In the current era, teachers and preservice teachers require development to ensure the Australian National Curriculum is implemented according to its documentation. Importantly, where teachers and preservice teachers meet becomes a rich environment for pedagogical discussions about new developments that can further advance the implementation of national agendas. Supporting the need for an “Education Revolution”, as part of the $42 billion stimulus package (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2010), is the list of critical reviews into Australian education over the last decade or more (see Nelson, 2002; Ramsey, 2000). Most reviews highlight the necessity to improve Australia’s education system (e.g., Bradley, Noonan, Nugent, & Scales, 2008; Masters, 2009). Many reviews focus specifically on teacher education within school settings and tertiary education for those about to enter the profession (e.g., Bradley et al., 2008; House of Representatives Standing Committee on Educational and Vocational Training [HRSCEVT], 2007). Indeed, the latest results from NAPLAN (2009) and the Queensland Premier’s Green Paper (Department of Education and Training, 2010) further emphasise the need for educational reform. The Green Paper highlights the need to improve the quality of teaching, as the “quality of this training and support can impact on student learning. Bad experiences can mean that potentially talented teachers leave early in their careers” (p. 19). Surprisingly, this paper does not mention mentoring as a way to facilitate the development of preservice teachers. There are only two ways to reform an education system, namely through inservice education of existing teachers and preservice teacher education. An education revolution will need to be enacted by teachers and preservice teachers if change is to filter throughout a Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol 35, 7, November 2010 31 system. In addition, the Australian National Curriculum is intended as part of the education revolution fabric to connect Australian states and territories more cohesively (Australian Government, 2008). This uniformity is also intended as a way for education to be more accountable across states and territories, where students who graduate in one location can be measured at the same educational standards as any other student in Australia. The National Curriculum Board has provided many documents in a consultative manner towards developing an Australian Curriculum across the range of subject areas (e.g., English, mathematics, science, and history). It also advises that there will be “sufficient flexibility and support so that educators can adapt its contents and processes according to their students’ needs” (National Curriculum Board, 2008, p. 5). However, to implement the Australian Curriculum will require targeting the key enactors of such reforms, viz: teachers and preservice teachers. Most importantly will be the dialogue that occurs between these two parties to gather cohesiveness. Consequently, mentoring is where these two enacting parties (preservice teachers and teachers) meet within school settings. Indeed, classroom teachers in their roles as mentors have a significant role to play for developing preservice teachers, where approximately one sixth of the time allocated in a 32-unit degree is held within the school setting. Preservice Inservice Figure 1. Enactors of educational reform It appeared that the enactors of reform were not supported sufficiently with professional development in the 1990s attempt at a national curriculum (Marsh, 1994). Furthermore, mentormentee interactions were not considered in this reformation. Teachers would need to develop their practices in line with current documents in order to dialogue with mentees. Hence, a learning community could come together through purposeful discussions around new innovations such as the Australian Curriculum. Teaching is an interpersonal, emotional and social profession. Similarly, mentoring requires “real-time” interactions, and although 21 Century technologies may be used to support mentoring (e.g., Maxwell, Harrington, & Smith, 2010), the personal relationship between the mentor and mentee and timely interventions are pivotal to the mentoring process (e.g., Ganser, 1996). To have an understanding of how mentors would operate in this new endeavour requires investigation of how they have worked with preservice teachers (mentees) in the past. Recognising mentoring patterns, gaps, and affirmative actions can assist to plan more effectively for mentors’ involvement in curriculum reform. The literature has grown significantly in the area of mentoring with journals dedicated to such works (e.g., Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning; International Journal of Mentoring & Coaching), and empirical evidence has been gathered to present effective mentoring practices for guiding a preservice teacher’s development. There is value in mentoring about school culture and infrastructure, which includes knowledge about the school, staff, wider M E N T O R I N G Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol 35, 7, November 2010 32 community, codes of conduct, emergency operations, and information about school traditions and procedures; however this study focuses on classroom practices and mentoring for effective teaching. A five-factor model of mentoring for effective teaching has previously been identified, namely, Personal Attributes, System Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge, Modelling, and Feedback (Hudson, 2007, Figure 2). There are mentoring attributes and practices associated with each factor, which have been justified statistically with empirical evidence in previous works (e.g., see Hudson, 2007, Hudson, Skamp, & Brooks, 2005); these attributes and practices are summarised as follows. Figure 2. Mentoring Model Personal Attributes: This includes being supportive of the mentee, comfortable in talking about teaching practices and attentive listening to the mentee. The mentor’s personal attributes are used to encourage the mentee’s reflection on practices, and instil confidence and positive attitudes in the mentee. System Requirements: In its simplest form, the mentor needs to articulate the aims, policies, and curricula required by an education system. However, the complexities for implementing system requirements may be noted in the pedagogical knowledge mentors need to articulate for effective teaching. Pedagogical Knowledge: Effective mentors articulate how to plan for teaching; they timetable or schedule lessons for the mentee. Preparation for teaching needs to be discussed, particularly with the location and use of resources. Teaching strategies are key to effective lesson delivery for which an effective mentor can provide experienced perspectives. A mentor needs to check on the mentee’s content knowledge to ensure it is in keeping with the system requirements and appropriate to the grade level. There are incidental problems that arise during lessons for which the mentor can assist in explaining how to problem solve. Classroom management strategies, including managing student behaviour must be discussed with the mentee, especially as the mentor has insight into the various student personalities and behavioural traits. Effective teaching requires astute questioning skills for which a mentor can discuss higher and lower-order questions along with distributing the questions in equitable ways. Lessons have a structure and so an effective mentor can discuss the implementation processes (e.g., ensuring key learnings or concepts are apparent in the introduction, body, conclusion of a lesson). Mentors can provide pedagogical knowledge about assessment and also viewpoints about effective teaching practices that link curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. Modelling: The mentor’s enthusiasm as a teacher can present desirable teaching traits. Importantly, the teacher-student relationship is central to teaching and demonstrating a positive rapport with students can show the mentee how these behaviours can facilitate learning. The mentor also needs to model appropriate classroom language suitable for student Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol 35, 7, November 2010 33 learning, teaching (if not what to do what not to do), effective teaching, classroom management, hands-on lessons, and well-designed lessons. Feedback: Effective mentors articulate expectations and provide advice to the mentee, they review lesson plans, observe the mentee teach, provide oral and written feedback, and further feedback on the mentee’s evaluation of their teaching and the learning environment. Each of the aforementioned attributes and practices linked to the five factors can be located within the survey instrument (Appendix). The research question that guided this study was: What are mentors’ reports on their mentoring of preservice teachers in primary science and mathematics? Data Collection Methods and Analysis This mixed-method study uses two surveys with five part Likert scales and a questionnaire that involved written responses. The “Mentoring for Effective Mathematics Teaching” (MEMT) survey instrument evolved through a series of preliminary investigations on Mentoring for Effective Primary Science Teaching (MEPST; Hudson, 2003; Hudson, 2004a, 2004b; Hudson et al., 2005; Hudson, 2007), which also identified the link between the generic mentoring literature and the items on the survey instrument. The MEMT survey instrument was designed to gather data about preservice teachers’ perceptions of their mentoring for teaching primary mathematics (Hudson, 2009). This study re-designs the survey instrument so that mentors can report on what they perceived they facilitated as mentoring practices within the five factor model. For example, the first item on the MEMT instrument was “During my final professional school experience (i.e., field experience, internship, practicum) in mathematics teaching my mentor: was supportive of me for teaching mathematics”. The mentors’ version of the instrument was re-designed to reflect the mentor’s perspective. Hence, the first item on the instrument used in this study was, “During the preservice teacher’s final professional school experience (i.e., field experience, practicum) in mathematics teaching, I believe I: was supportive of my mentee for teaching mathematics”. Changes therefore occurred to the initial lead sentence and to each of the 34 items only to have the mentor’s perceptions visible. Similarly, the MEPST (science) instrument was changed to reflect the mentor’s perspectives (see Appendix). That is, there was only one word change from the MEMT instrument for mentors to the MEPST instrument for mentors, that is, “mathematics” was replaced by “science”. SPSS was used to analyse data and provided descriptive statistics with percentages for each item (Hittleman & Simon, 2006). Data were used to compare mentors’ perceptions of their mentoring in both science and mathematics. The qualitative part of this study presents mentors’ reports on mentoring primary preservice teachers (mentees) in mathematics (n=43) only. The questionnaire focused on: (1) the mentors’ rapport with their mentees, (2) successful mentoring strategies, (3) aspects that may lead the mentee to feel unsuccessful, and (4) ways to enhance their mentoring skills. Data were coded for commonalities (Hittleman & Simon, 2006). The qualitative data about mathematics teaching aimed to provide further insight into how mentors work with mentees, and identify other avenues for developing mentoring practices. In summary, 29 mentors were administered the science (MEPST) instrument for mentors (Appendix) while 43 mentors were administered the mathematics (MEMT) instrument and the questionnaire for extended written responses. Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol 35, 7, November 2010 34 Backgrounds of Participants The mentors in this study were located in schools around one Australian university campus. Surveys were posted with stamped addressed returns. Mentors in primary mathematics (n=43) comprised of 12% males and 88% females with 67% claiming that mentoring in mathematics was a strength and 9% indicating this was the first time for mentoring. Mentors in primary science (n=29) involved 21% males and 79% females with 72% who had mentored 5 or more preservice teachers during their careers. It was the first time for 7% of these mentors though 41% claimed that mentoring in science was a strength (Table 1). Characteristics Science (n=29) Mathematics (n=43) Males 21 12 Females 79 88 30-50 years old 52 74 Mentored >5 mentees 72 63 First time mentoring 7 9 Subject is a strength 41 67 Table 1: Percentages indicating mentors’ characteristics in this study Results and Discussion Mentors provided insights into their practices on mentoring preservice teachers in primary science and mathematics. Their responses to their mentoring were registered on items associated with five factors for mentoring, namely: personal attributes, system requirements, pedagogical knowledge, modelling, and feedback. The differences in mentoring practices become apparent when compared between the mentoring of science and mathematics. For instance, mentors agreed or strongly agreed that they were more supportive with mathematics than science. They also indicated that all other personal attributes for facilitating mentoring were provided more for mathematics than science. Only 62% of mentors believed they had instilled confidence for teaching science compared with 78% for mathematics. More also claimed they instilled positive attitudes in mathematics (93%, science=79%) and assisting the mentee to reflect on mathematics teaching (91%, science=79%, Table 2). This reflects the reviews on science education in Australia that science is generally not taught frequently enough in primary schools (Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001). It may also indicate the level of mentor-mentee interactions as a result of how often science and mathematics was taught in the classrooms. That is, if they had more mathematics lessons then they may well be more supportive, as there were more opportunities to be supportive. Attributes Science (n=29)* Mathematics (n=43)* Supportive 79 93 Comfortable in talking 86 98 Attentive 72 76 Instilled confidence 62 78 Instilled positive attitudes 79 93 Assisted in reflecting 79 91 * Percentage of mentors agreeing or strongly agreeing that the specific mentoring practice occurred. Table 2: Mentor’s reports on their personal attributes for mentoring Mentors recorded their responses on items associated with addressing the educational system requirements. Less than a quarter of mentors claimed they provided mentoring practices focused on the aims, curriculum and policies of either mathematics or science. In addition, mathematics mentoring in curriculum and policy areas occurred about 20% or more than in Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol 35, 7, November 2010 35 science (Table 3). This infers that the classroom teachers focus on mathematics more than science, though an education’s system requirements must be made more explicit for preservice teachers at all levels of engagement. All of the mentors in this study were supervising final-year preservice teachers who need to know about the practicalities of an education’s system requirements (e.g., aims, curriculum and policies). Considering the Australian Curriculum has new learning material and structures that require mentor and mentee discussions, such dialogue about system requirements may not occur in the school setting for more than a quarter of mentees. Furthermore, mentoring in schools equates to approximately one sixth of the duration of a preservice teacher’s 32-unit degree; therefore many preservice teachers may not be dialoguing about critical praxis connections within the school setting for advancing national