Cooperating Teachers' Perceptions of Their Work: A Description of Four Mentoring Profiles

• In Event: 35.063 - Mentoring Practices: What Works, for Whom, and Where

Abstract

Mentoring is widely acknowledged as determinant to support teacher candidates’ entry to the profession. Mentors, as cooperating expert teachers, provide valuable working opportunities for professional learning in the school setting. However, the transition from the initial teacher education programs to the classroom experience may be challenging (Kokikokko et al., 2017). In fact, the numbers of teachers leaving the profession in the early years continue to grow (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011).

Contrary to coaching – conceived as short-term support to promote the development of behavioral skills – mentoring is regarded as a holistic relationship where instructional, emotional, social and identity aspects intermingle (Stoddar, 1953). However, it remains an ample concept that is commonly used in many contexts and for different purposes (Kemmis et al., 2014). Orland-Barak (2014) more specifically conceptualizes mentoring under three dimensions: (1) Behaviors and performance; (2) Identity (reasoning, beliefs and roles) and (3) contexts (culture and discourse).

The three aspects are necessary to fulfill any supervising task in the schools. Our paper basically focuses on the second dimension (mentors’ roles) although the rest are interrelated. The present research work aims at describing four mentoring profiles resulting from completing the Mentoring Profile Inventory (MPI).
The MPI (Clarke et al., 2012) is an online validated survey (www.mentoringprofile.com ) for professional learning for supervising teachers. The survey includes 62 items ranked in a 5-point Likert type scale. The items are clustered into 14 scales that are organized into two main categories: Challenges (what is perceived as difficult or problematic) and Motivators (what stimulates in their work with student teachers).
The MPI was used to collect data. An overall sample of 1,828 respondents from six countries took the questionnaire. Each mentor received an individual report informing of each scale’s scores.

Results from each cooperating teacher were ordered in two chart diagrams that offer a balance of two dimensions: self-other (for motivators) and systemic and interpersonal (for challenges). Out of the combination of the two dimensions we found four mentoring profiles: (1) Partner: A strong emphasis is given on ensuring that the mentor is well prepared for his/her part in the teacher candidate learning process in school settings; (2) Advocate: A strong emphasis is to ‘give voice to’ the importance of teacher candidates learning in school settings; (3) Nurturer: a strong emphasis is to support teacher candidate learning and respond to their needs in school settings; (4) Facilitator: a strong emphasis is to provide the key scaffolding necessary for teacher candidate success in school settings.

This research adds new insights on the existing body of research by exploring four profile types of mentoring that are directly induced from empirical response patters of a questionnaire (not deduced from predefined theoretical frameworks). This might enable to better adjust mentoring roles according to personal attitudes, candidate teachers’ interest and job contexts.
The understanding of mentoring as a complex and multidimensional profession that needs to adapt to many situations and people may be of help in future teacher education programs to help candidate teachers.

Authors

• Juanjo Mena, Universidad de Salamanca

• Anthony Clarke, The University of British Columbia