Using Design Thinking to Develop a Mentor Training Programme

Author(s):

Fiona Chambers(presenting / submitting)Gavin Breslin Deirdre Brennan

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

01. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations

Format:

Paper

Session Information

01 SES 08 A, Approaches to Mentoring

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-25

09:00-10:30

Room:

OB-Theatre F

Chair:

Fiona Chambers

Contribution

The focus of this paper is on using design thinking (Buchanan, 1992) to develop a mentor training programme which would help mentors to (a) make sense of the complex ecological context and culture in which they learn so that (b) both mentors and pre-service teachers might become ‘co-learners in a voyage of discovery’ (Patton et al., 2005).

Background to study

Funded by the Coca Cola Foundation, the Sport for Life: All Island (SFL:AI) project (2013-2016) is a 12-week health and physical activity programme delivered to 8-9 year old children in elementary schools across the island of Ireland, which comprises two jurisdictions; Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The SFL:AI programme received an Inspire Award from the London 2012 Olympics and a 2012 World Health Organisation award for best practice case study. Overall, 4000 children took part in the programme, with 200 elementary school teachers guiding 200 pre-service physical education (PE) teachers in delivery the programme in the school setting.

In this study, the pre-service PE teachers involved were from five higher-level institutions across the island. In both the North and South of Ireland, elementary school teachers are trained as generalists, teaching up to 14 different subject areas in the elementary school curriculum. They receive a very limited amount of training in the area of physical education pedagogical content knowledge (PE-PCK) during their degree programme. This can be as low as six weeks of training. Pre-service PE teachers who delivered the SFL:AI programme were each assigned to an elementary school mentor teacher in participating schools. This presented an ideal opportunity to study the mentoring role and, in particular, a chance to develop a model for mentor training. This work built on previous mentoring research completed by the author and colleagues: the Telemachus model of Mentor Training (Author, 2009); the Continuum of Factors Influencing Mentor Pedagogies (Author, 2011); the Capability Maturity Model for Mentor Teachers (CM3T) (Author, 2013); and the Terroir of Mentoring Schematic (Author 2015).

The key role of mentors

The presence of experienced mentors in formative field experiences is a vital component in ensuring meaningful work-based learning for pre-service teachers (McIntyre et al., 2005). Mentors (experts) play an important role in the socialisation and enculturation of pre-service teachers within the community of practice (Wenger, 1998) a key professional learning site (Author, in press). Taking a broader view of the act of mentoring, an ecological systems perspective on mentoring acknowledges the composite of individual and environmental forces that mutually influence and constitute the phenomenon of mentoring at work (Chandler et al., 2011, p.526). Therefore, effective mentor training programmes should adopt an ecological perspective to educate mentors to perform their highly complex role in this mercurial and dynamic learning environment (Author, 2015).

Designing a mentor training programme: A wicked problem?

The development of an ecological approach to mentor training could be construed as a ‘wicked problem’ (Rittel and Webber, 1973). Wicked problems are:

Not stable but are continually evolving and mutating; have many causal levels; have no single solution that applies in all circumstances and where solutions can only be classed as better or worse, rather than right or wrong (Blackman et al’s 2006, p.70).

Design thinking (DT) offers a clear framework to develop solutions to such wicked problems (Buchanan, 1992) as it is ‘a human-centric and multidisciplinary approach focused on solving problems through the generation of new ideas by understanding the needs of end-users and final consumers (Cerejo, 2013, p.1). The DT framework adopted in this study is a four-stage process: Clarify, Ideate, Develop and Implement (Goligorsky, 2012, Puccio et al., 2010).

Method

This three-year study [2013-2016] adopted a qualitative approach to data collection and analysis. Full ethical approval was sought and gained from the University leading this study. All participant identities were protected through the use of pseudonyms. There were two data collection phases which were defined by the Design Thinking framework (Goligorsky, 2012, Puccio et al., 2010). Phase One. Reported in ECER Budapest 2015, this focused on five case studies [each comprising an elementary school mentor teacher and a pre-service physical education teacher]. It was guided by Step One of the four-phase DT process (ibid) i.e. the ‘Clarify’ phase. Phase Two (2015-2016), the focus of this abstract, comprised ten mentor teachers (five from Northern Ireland and five from the South of Ireland) and four school principals [two from the North of Ireland and two from the South of Ireland]. This phase was guided by the next two steps of the DT process (Goligorsky, 2012, Puccio et al., 2010): ‘Ideate’ and ‘Develop’. Crystallisation of data (Richardson, 2000) took place (i) during two mentor-led DT workshops and via (ii) in-depth interviews with school principals regarding the policy and practice of implementing this new design of ecological, reflexive, praxis-based mentor training. Data were analysed using a constructivist approach to grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006). Data sources, evidence, objects, or materials: In Phase One (reported in ECER 2015), the research employed (a) open profile questionnaires for five pre-service PE teachers and five mentor teachers and (b) a web-blog for each of five mentor teachers. In Phase Two (2015-2016), the focus of this abstract, (a) two DT workshops for ten mentors and (b) in-depth interviews for the four school principals were used.

Expected Outcomes

Phase One Findings: Reported in ECER 2015, the following findings were highlighted: Limited learning focus of mentors on their training needs: They focus on the ontogenic layer and two of three microsystems [developmental/network/multiple and organisational] ignoring the relationship between mentor-mentee. In particular they emphasised key actors i.e. who they learned from and what they learned. The mentee remained an ‘isolate’ and was not a focus of their thinking. This was due to a lack of confidence in PE-PCK. Phase Two Findings (2015 - 2016): These will be reported in this paper. The key findings are the development of a new ecological, reflexive, praxis oriented approach to mentor training. This uses a Design Thinking Framework which underpins a praxis-oriented, ecological model of mentor training. The core features of the mentor training model (a) High quality communication (b) embedded value for all stakeholders and (c) excellent pedagogy, curriculum and assessment (d) a blended approach. A key finding is that the focus of mentor education is to train mentors to design and implement high quality mentoring conversations (Tillema, van der Westhuizen & Smith 2015) in a busy school day. These short 'blended' conversations comprise compelling and meaningful critical questions [a mirror of questions], encouraging pre-service teacher to critique his/her teaching at a deeper level and progress in his/her learning. In this way the mentor and mentee become ‘co-learners in a voyage of discovery’ (Patton et al, 2005). Scientific or scholarly significance of the study or work: This is the first study in the area of physical education teacher education to use a design thinking approach to developing an ecological, reflexive and praxis oriented approach to mentor training.

References

CEREJO, J. 2013. Design Thinking Principles. 3rd October 2013 ed. CHANDLER, D. E., KRAM, K. E. & JEFFREY, Y. 2011. An Ecological Systems Perspective on Mentoring at Work: A Review and Future Prospects. The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 519-570. CHARMAZ, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis, London, Sage. DARLING-HAMMOND, L. 2006a. Constructing 21st Century Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 300-314. DARLING-HAMMOND, L. 2006b. Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs, SanFrancisco, Jossey-Bass. DARLING-HAMMOND, L. & ROTHMAN, R. 2011. Teacher and Leader Effectiveness in High Performing Education Systems. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. DOMINGUEZ, N. & HAGER, D. 2013. Mentoring frameworks: synthesis and critique. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 2. EVERTSON, C. M. & SMITHEY, M. W. 2000. Mentoring Effects on Proteges' Classroom Practice: An Experimental Field Study. . Journal of Educational Research, 93, 294-304. GOLIGORSKY, D. 2012. Empathy and Innovation: The IDEO Approach. Boston, Massachussetts: Harvard Business School. HASSI, L. & LAAKSO, M. 2011. Making sense of design thinking. In: KARJALAINEN, T.-M., KORIA, M. & SALIMÄKI, M. (eds.) IDBM papers Helsinki: IDBM Program, Aalto University. HUMPHREY, D. C., ADELMAN, N., ESCH, E. E., RIEHL, L. M., SHIELDS, P. M. & TIFFANY, J. 2000. Preparing and supporting new teachers: A literature review. , Menlo Park, CA, SRI International. KORTHAGEN, F. & VASALOS, A. 2005. Levels in reflection: core reflection as a means to enhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice,, 11, 47-71. LAVE, J. & WENGER, E. 1991. Situated Learning and Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge, Cambridge Press. MCINTYRE, D., HAGGER, H. & WILKIN, M. 2005. Mentoring: Perspectives on schoolbased teacher education, London, Routledge Falmer. PUCCIO, G. J., MANCE, M. & MURDOCH, M. C. 2010. Creative Leadership Skills that drive change, Woburn, Sage Publications Inc. RESNICK, L. 1994. Situated rationalism: biological and social preparation for learning. In: L. HIRSCHFELD & S. GELMAN (eds.) Mapping the Mind: domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. RICHARDSON, L. (ed.) 2000. Writing: A Method of Inquiry, London: Sage. RITTEL, H. W. J. & WEBBER, M. M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169. TILLEMA, H. van der Westhuizen, G. & Smith, K. (2015). Mentoring for Learning. Climbing the mountain. Rotterdam: Sense Publications WENGER, E. 1998. Communities Of Practice: Learning, meaning and identity, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

Author Information

Fiona Chambers (presenting / submitting)

University College Cork

School of Education

Cork

Gavin Breslin

Ulster University

Sport and Exercise Sciences Research Institute

Newtownabbey Co. Antrim

Deirdre Brennan

Ulster University, Northern Ireland

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.