Leadership Context and Educative Mentoring: From Policy to Practice

Author(s):

Frances Langdon(presenting / submitting)Sue Sutherland(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

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

Format:

Paper

Session Information

01 SES 03 A, Mentoring Policy and Practice

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-23

17:15-18:45

Room:

OB-Theatre F

Chair:

Ken Jones

Contribution

General description objectives and research questions

Internationally, a substantive amount of research and educational policy is focussed on teacher education, including increased investments in the induction, mentoring of new teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Moreover, initiatives such as the United Kingdom’s policy of “zero tolerance for underperformance” (Bubb & Earley, 2006, p. 259), and the European Parliament (2008) resolution to promote continuous coherent professional development for teachers throughout their careers; have heightened interest in induction and mentoring. Such policies drive expectations of mentors, and the mentoring role. In particular, there has been an increased shift to educative mentoring, a form of mentoring that goes beyond guidance and support toward co-constructive approaches to learning to teach (Richter et al., 2011).

As a result of the shift towards educative mentoring, challenging questions about the responsibilities of mentors and the role of those influencing the context in which mentors work and learn have been raised (Flores & Day, 2006). Questions related to the influence of context on what mentors learn and do have been addressed in a number of studies. For example, Carver and Feiman-Nemser (2009) found school culture and context have an influence on how induction policy and mentoring is enacted. They argue that leadership, demoralised staff and isolating professional cultures have the potential to inhibit thoughtful induction and educative mentoring.

Certainly the extant literature suggests that teachers isolated in school settings and left to their own devices to develop their mentoring practices are unlikely to develop the level of expertise required to be educative. That is, to enact mentoring in beginning teacher learning. Ironically, Bullough,(2012), in his review of current mentoring and induction practices, proposes that to make the transition from teacher to an educative mentor, mentors need mentoring. He notes the lack of research around the fact that mentoring is “a matter of adult learning” (p.70) and argues that helping adults learn complex tasks, in some-times threatening conditions, presents unique challenges. In particular, unlearning old habits and remaking established beliefs. Further, Timperley’s study (2008) supports that as learners, mentors are unlikely to make the shift from teacher to an educative mentor on their own.

The literature on the role of school leaders addressing the complex task of mentoring and creating the conditions for educative mentoring is limited but growing (Youngs, 2007). Moreover, it appears creating the context for comprehensive induction and educative mentoring to become the norm is complex ( Kemmis, Heikkinen, Goran & Aspfors, 2014). Required is a mix of multiple levers that take into account policy, resourcing, leadership and the role of learning communities and teacher inquiry based learning. Wang et al (2008) in their literature review reveal the integral nature of the component parts of comprehensive induction and mentoring; arguing that mentoring and teacher learning are culturally scripted activities and “the what and how beginning teachers learn during induction grow out of the context” (p. 48).

The investigation presented here represents an attempt to address salient gaps in the literature by reporting the findings of a study on the influence of leadership, in situ, on the development of an educative mentor. Questions addressed are:

a) How do leadership influence the context in which mentors work and learn?

b) How do leaders support the development of mentors?

c) What are the challenges faced by school leaders when translating induction and mentoring policy into practice?

Needless to say the journey from national policy to what occurs in the school context in relation to mentoring is unpredictable and complex. This complexity is illustrated in the findings, presented here.

Method

Methods and Methodology A primarily qualitative multi-site longitudinal instrumental case study involving six schools was undertaken to develop a rich understanding of how leaders supported the induction and mentoring of beginning teacher induction and mentoring in primary and intermediates schools. This meant that each of the six cases was instrumental in informing and theorising the collective case of beginning teacher induction and mentoring. The study occurred over a two year period. Quantitative data were collected through questionnaires and surveys. These enabled the researchers to compare responses within and across different groups of participants (leaders, mentors, beginning teacher, and other teaching staff). The questionnaire, comprising 78 items, was designed to test a theoretically based measure of teacher induction and mentoring. The survey provided data on goal setting and action plans. The same questions were asked across participant groups across two years. Qualitative data were collected through: semi-structured one-to-one interviews; focus groups; mentoring conversations and document analysis. The interviews, focus groups and conversations were audio-taped, transcribed and analysed using an iterative process of coding against themes. Inter-coder reliability measures were used to ensure the rigour of the coding process. These data enabled the researchers to explore, understand and describe the richness, depth and complexity of the induction and mentoring processes. Participants Six schools were purposively selected to participate in the study. The New Zealand Teachers Council provided criteria regarding location and school type. Potential schools that met these criteria were identified based on the knowledge of the research team. The first six schools that agreed to participate were selected. Four primary and two intermediate schools participated in the research. Two of the primary schools were rural; the other four schools were urban. There were two schools located in high socio-economic communities; four were located in low socio-economic communities. The school rolls ranged from 207 to 696. There were a total of 193 participants including six principals, 22 mentors, 31 beginning teachers and another 134 teachers. Over the two years 18 beginning teacher and eight mentors left the project. In the second year there were four new mentors and eight new beginning teachers.

Expected Outcomes

The study demonstrated the extent to which certain understandings and practices must be “hard-wired” into the practice of school leaders and mentors, indeed into the cultural norms of the school, for the quality of beginning teachers’ experiences of mentoring to be lifted, that is if they are to become comprehensive, educative and evaluative for all. School leaders determined whether the systems necessary to sustain high quality mentoring were embedded in the school and whether teachers were encouraged to develop pedagogical expertise. As such we found their role was critical to the successful implementation of educative mentoring. An example of key findings is illustrated in four challenges identified by the six leaders to lifting the quality of mentoring. These were: 1. Having induction and mentoring policy implemented by knowledgeable, committed leaders and integrated into effective school structures and cultures: 2. The appointment of, and ongoing support for, educative mentors. 3. Making the shift to recognise that student’s learning is integral to mentoring programmes. 4. The need for all schools to evaluate the effectiveness of their induction and mentoring programme. From the findings of this study (more extensive than presented here) we argue that for educative mentoring to be optimised in individual schools, so that serious and sustained learning dominates, leaders must become part of that continuum, building with others the connective tissue, to translate educative mentoring policy into practice in ways that benefit all learners. As our study highlights this is no easy task. Just as mentors cannot learn to mentor effectively alone leaders also cannot effectively translate policy to practice on their own. Working in isolation is likely to result in discrete, poorly conceptualised and individualistic mentor/mentee practice making unlikely the educative approach envisaged in the current New Zealand induction and mentoring policy environment and in the international literature.

References

Beijaard, D., Buitink, J., & Kessels, C. (2010). Teacher Induction. In P. L. Peterson, & E. Balker (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd ed., pp. 563-568). Oxford: Elsevier Scientific. Bubb, S., & Earley, P. (2006). Induction rites and wrongs: The educational vandalism of new teachers' professional development. Journal of In-service Education, 32(1), 5-12. Bullough, R. V. (2012). Mentoring and new teacher induction in the United States: A review and analysis of curretn practices. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnerships in Learning, 20(1), 57-74. 10.1080/13611267.2012.645600 Carver, C. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2009). Using Policy to Improve Teacher Induction: Critical Elements and Missing Pieces. Educational Policy 23, 295-327. 10.1177/0895904807310036 Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American Future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 35-47. European Parliament (2008). Texts tabled : A6-0304/2008 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2008-422. Retrieved 14/1/2016 Flores, M., & Day, C. (2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teachers' identities: A multi-perspective study. Teacher and Teacher Education, (22), 219-232. Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring beginning teachers: What we know and what we don't. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 207-216. Ingersoll, R., & Strong, M. (2011). The Impact of Induction and Mentoring Programs for Beginning Teachers: A Critical Review of the Research. Review of Educational Research. 81(2), 201-233. Kemmis, S., Heikkinen, H., Goran, F., & Aspfors, J. (2014). Mentoring of new teachers as a contested practice: Supervision, support and collaborative self-development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 154-164. Richter, D., Kunter, M., Ludtke, O., Klusmann, U., Andrs, Y., & Baumkert, J. (2011, 8-12 April). How Different Mentoring Approaches Affect Beginning Teachers' Development in the First Years of Practice. Paper presented at the meeting of American Education Research Association 8-12 April, New Orleans. Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher Professional Learning and Development: International Bureau of Education / International Academy of Education. Totterdell, M., Bubb, S., Woodroffe, L., & Hanrahan, K. (2004). The impact of newly qualified teachers (NQT) induction programmes on the enhancement of teacher expertise, professional development, job satisfaction or retention rates: A systematic review of research literature on induction. London: University of London. Wang, J., Odell, S. J., & Schwille, S. A. (2008). Effects of teacher induction on beginning teachers' teaching - A critical review of the literature. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 132-152. Youngs, P. (2007). How Elementary Principals' Beliefs and Actions Influence New Teachers' Experiences Educational Adminstration Quarterly, 43(1), 101-137.

Author Information

Frances Langdon (presenting / submitting)

University of Auckland

Learning Development and Professional Practice

Auckland

Sue Sutherland (presenting)

University of Auckland, New Zealand

Faculty of Education