You are on page 1of 13

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 10551067


www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Mentoring beginning teachers in secondary schools:


An analysis of practice
Jennifer Harrison, Sue Dymoke, Tony Pell
University of Leicester School of Education, 21 University Road, Leicester LE1 7RF, UK
Received 31 August 2004

Abstract
The conditions that promote best practice in the mentoring of beginning teachers in secondary schools are explored in
this paper in relation to the experiential model of learning put forward by Kolb [(1984). Experiential learning: Experience
as the source of learning and development. New York: Prentice-Hall]. The underpinning processes of this learning cycle
include the experience, the reection, the learning that results and (further) experimentation.
We present some empirical research from a two-year funded project on The Professional Development of Subject
Induction Tutors and data derived from questionnaires completed by beginning teachers in three education authorities at
the start and end of induction year and from semi-structured interviews with sub-samples of beginning teachers. The
questionnaire data allowed us to distinguish three broad teacher types in terms of their experiences of induction and the
associated mentoring. In relation to these types we explored differences and similarities in the extent to which mentoring
functions are distributed in schools, the extent to which different mentoring relationships allow beginning teachers to be
empowered in their work, and the particular uses made of review and target setting and the value placed on these processes
by beginning teachers and their mentors. Overall we found that best practice for developmental mentoring involves
elements of challenge and risk-taking within supportive school environments with clear induction systems in place and
strong school ethos in relation to professional development.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Mentoring; Beginning teachers; Professional development

1. Introduction
Teachers must never stop learning if teacher
education is to be a dynamic process. The learning
process for teachers must be about their practice,
must be built on experiences derived from their
practice and, therefore, the learning cycle of
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 116 252 3673.

E-mail address: jkh4@le.ac.uk (J. Harrison).

experience followed by reflection, learning and


experimentation (Kolb, 1984) is applicable as
much to a teacher, as learner, as to a pupil.
Consequently, many of the principles integral to
the pupils active learning process apply equally to
the teacher as professional learner. It is through
effective mentoring that beginning teacher education can adopt a learner-centred approach, modelled on the best practice found in pupil-centred
classrooms.

0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.021

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1056

J. Harrison et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 10551067

1.1. What is meant by mentoring in the context of


the training and development of beginning teachers?
A mentor is a more experienced individual,
willing to share his/her knowledge with someone
less experienced in a relationship of mutual trust
(Clutterbuck, 1992).
This denition is a broad one since it embraces the
notion of coaching without making the latter
explicit. Coaching is generally thought of as a
particular form of mentoring within teacher education, in that it has a more specic focus upon
particular tasks, skills or capabilities and is related
to performance in some way (Green, Holmes, &
Shaw, 1991; Hopkins-Thompson, 2000; Megginson
& Boydell, 1979). Mentoring is more often linked to
developmental activity in the workplace as a whole
and generally acknowledges the psycho-social aspects of the function as well as job-specic aspects
(Finn, 1993; Kram, 1995). This is not to say that
coaching does not have a particular component
which allows for psychological development of the
mentee (Popper & Lipshitz, 1992) but, in most
denitions of mentoring, the components of counselling, friendship and socialisation seem to be
identied separately from the activity of coaching
per se (see Bush, Coleman, Wall, & West-Burnham,
1996).
In the available models of mentoring in teacher
education (see for example, Elliott & Calderhead,
1993; Hawkey, 1998; McIntyre, 1993), the spectrum
of required skills for the mentoring function shows a
number of common features and overlaps. We can
summarise them as follows:






guiding/leading/advising/supporting,
coaching/educating /enabling,
organising/managing,
counselling/interpersonal.

Mentoring in general has been linked to a number


of benets in a wide range of professional disciplines. However, a recent study of the literature on
the mentoring and coaching for new leaders
(Hobson, 2003) concludes that we cannot assume
that the benets and costs of mentoring experienced by participants in one eld will necessarily be
the same as those experienced in another, especially
since the nature of the mentoring strategies employed will and should differ to take account of
differences in context (p. 5). Hobson commented
on the dearth of systematic research analysis in

connection with the mentoring and coaching for


new head teachers and other leaders, rst noted by
Daresh (1995); another area for further systematic
research is in relation to the mentoring and
coaching of beginning teachers (Harrison, Lawson,
& Wortley, 2005a).
In practice, the mentoring of beginning teachers is
likely to represent the largest divide between expert
and novice for mentor and mentee. Mentoring has
been increasingly acknowledged and used in the
training of new teachers in school-based practice in
the last two decades (Hobson, 2002; Tomlinson,
1995). However, despite this increase in activity,
there is limited evidence about the effectiveness of
mentoring (or, indeed, of coaching), most particularly, within the specic circumstances of newly
qualied teachers entering the profession.
The multiple meanings we have already noted in
connection with the terms mentoring and coaching highlight how difcult it is to be sure that we
are referring to a commonly understood concept.
This situation is compounded by the number of
models of (or arrangements for) mentoring of
beginning teachers. An apprenticeship model of
mentoringthat of master or mistress-of-a-trade
with particular skills to be passed on to the novice
is generally recognised to be too simple a model in
beginning teacher education. There are clearly other
dimensions to this particular mentoring role, such
as passing on an understanding of the purpose and
place of those skills in the rst-post and, more
controversially, assisting with the expectation that
the new teacher acquires particular values and
attitudes within the workplace. Both of these
dimensions demand elements of role-modelling in
addition to an apprenticeship as important elements
of the induction year.
An examination of the literature of the last two
decades reveals an emerging structure in relation to
the particular mentoring functions in beginning
teacher education (i.e. the various roles and
responsibilities that are adopted by the teacher
mentors). These functions build on an apprenticeship model base-line to include one or more of the
further building blocks of friendship, peer support and structured mentoring (Haggerty, 1986).
Parallels can be drawn in likening the life-mentor
(described by Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson,
& McKee, 1978) to the induction tutor (the mentor
working in the school context with the beginning
teacher). Here the induction tutor helps in the
transition of the beginning teacher from early to

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Harrison et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 10551067

middle adulthood by moving from a one-way set of


interactions (largely tutor-initiated) with the beginning teacher towards a more mutual set of interactions based on equality and trust. Merriam (1983)
noted that mentoring denitions varied across both
structural and personal dimensions of the relationship, from roles that provided for advice and
support to those that were intense and developmental. Therefore it would be useful to us at this
point to try to distinguish those mentoring relationships that are longer-term, developmental and
providing for a range of functions, including career
and psycho-social functions, from other mentoring
relationships that might be less developmental,
shorter and more specialised in the kind of
progress-orientated functions provided to the beginning teacher (Kram, 1995; Whitely, Dougherty, &
Dreher, 1992).
Specically, in England, there is the requirement
for a beginning teacher to have a set of nationally
prescribed Induction Standards (and in turn,
Qualied Teacher Status) conrmed at the end of
three terms. The induction tutor described in DfEE
Circular 5/99, and further described in The Role of
the Induction Tutor: Principles and Guidance (TTA,
2003), is the one who plays a signicant role in
supporting a beginning teachers professional development. Implicit in this guidance are the multiple
roles of this mentor, broadly covering three areas:
providing personal support, inducting the beginning
teacher into a new context and guiding their
professional growth. More explicitly within the
guidance, there is an expectation that a career entry
prole (CEP) will be drawn upon in the course of
the rst year of teaching. The CEP is an exit action
plan compiled at the end of initial training. It
species areas of strength and areas for further
professional development with reference to the
Standards for ITT and provides a framework for
recording the outcomes of the professional review
meetings. In relation to mentoring functions, the
CEP provides opportunity for further action planning during the rst and subsequent terms of the
rst year of teaching in the form of regular action
points, identied strategies for meeting these and
opportunities for subsequent review and action
planning. This accords well with the underpinning
processes of Kolbs learning cycle and, in turn, with
professional learning and development.
The national directive (DfES, 2003; TTA, 2003) is
not explicit in its expectations of the type of
mentoring to be done in connection with its

1057

proposals for the work of the induction tutor. In


establishing the various ways in which the mentors
role in induction is dened in schools, Williams and
Prestage (2002) conclude that, to achieve the multiple functions of mentor, manager and facilitator,
the induction tutors training needs should receive
the same attention as that given to the newly
qualied teachers (p. 45). Similarly, in recognising
the caring and support roles of the mentor (see
Anderson & Shannon, 1995), Zimpher and
Rieger (1988) argue also for the conditions of
service of mentors working with novice teachers to
be improved. They indicate the importance of
explicit selection criteria, selective pairings of
mentor and mentee, and a recognition that
the mentors themselves need forms of support
(mentoring).
1.2. Who identifies the beginning teachers needs?
The answer to this clearly relates to the particular
roles and personal responsibilities that the beginning teacher as well as the mentor takes in the
educational process. Vonk (1993) identies two
scenarios in relation to the continuing professional
development of teachers in general and these are
equally applicable to the role of the beginning
teachers in identifying specic training needs. We
describe these approaches as follows.
A bureaucratic-managerial approach regards the
beginning teacher as a technician who is responsible
for implementing a curriculum whose parameters
are imposed by an external body (here, the National
Curriculum of England and Wales). The decisions
about what taught, how, by whom are taken at
managerial levels above the classroom or the school.
Particular development needs will be determined by
a person other than the teacher. Teacher quality is
discussed in terms of training standards, professional competences, accreditation, and accountability to the employers. There may be, therefore, a
mismatch with a teacher who, as a professional,
would wish to be able to make their own decisions
about personal and professional development and
about their pupils needs.
At the opposite end of the spectrum is the
participant-involved approach. Here, self-determining teachers would have a central role in the
decision-making of the school and be at the centre
of the process of improving the quality of education.
Even beginning teachers would be seen as capable of
innovative leadership, reecting on their own

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1058

J. Harrison et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 10551067

actions and able to identify their own professional


development needs. This approach ts well with
learner-centred ways of working, in which the
beginning teacher has ownership of the process.
1.3. Mentoring functions
These often involve more than one person. They
exist within the work/organisational context, are
concerned with on-the-job-practice and are conducted within an adult relationship. Necessarily (for
beginning teachers and their induction tutors), there
is an element of power dependency because one has
more knowledge and experience than the other. As
noted elsewhere (Harrison, 2001), more understanding of the ways in which school-based mentors
construct their roles when working with newly
qualied teachers is now needed.
At a practical level, there may be an, albeit
unwitting, form of social or ideological control by
the induction tutor in the maintenance of on-going
records of meetings, with targets and strategies set
and a review of these in regular progress meetings
(see Piper & Piper, 2000). Government documents
(DfEE, 1999, DfES, 2003, TTA, 2003) are indicative
of a controlling approach to the mentoring
function that, it can be argued, is placed at the
opposite end of the continuum from the personcentred Rogerian approach that has provided the
structure for more general guidance practice since
the 1970s (see Rogers, 1974 for a description of
client-centred therapy). Colley (2002), for example,
has summarised modern mentoring as a doubleedged sword, with disciplinary implications for both
mentor and mentee (p. 268).
In the second and third parts of this paper we
focus on the methods of collection and some
analyses of data emerging from the rst year of a
2-year project. We examine beginning teachers
perceptions of particular aspects of the mentoring
experienced during their rst year of teaching. In
particular, we explore the following aspects of the
mentoring:





the extent to which mentoring functions are


distributed in different schools;
the extent to which different mentoring relationships allow beginning teachers to feel empowered
(i.e. more self-determining);
the particular use of the processes of review and
target setting, in association with professional
development documentation (e.g. CEP), and the

professional value that may be placed on these


underpinning processes.
Our other project outcomes involve the reporting of
the particular induction arrangements for providing
support, guidance and advice and the strategies used
for meetings, monitoring and assessment of the
newly qualied teachers. These outcomes, as well as
the more detailed analyses of mentorbeginning
teacher dialogues are now reported elsewhere (see
Harrison, Lawson, & Wortley, 2005b).
2. Esmee Fairbairn Foundation funded project on
the professional development of subject induction
tutors
2.1. Background
The guidance that has emerged for LEAs, schools
and induction tutors (TTA, 2003) is challenging
since it presents a particular model of mentoring
that is inherently bureaucratic and methodological. Harrison et al. (2005a) speculate that critical
reection on practice will improve only when forms
of inquiry into teaching and/or critical thought
about professional work can be closely linked with a
whole school culture of professional development.
Beginning teachers, their induction tutors and other
school colleagues may then benet professionally.
The encouragement for such reective practice is
presented in the TTA guidance as a series of
timetabled review meetings, involving review, action
plan and target setting. In our action research
project the project team devised ways to intervene in
(1) changing the awareness of induction tutors of
the reective processes and strategies they might
adopt in preparing for these meetings;
(2) the acquisition of specic knowledge, skills and
understanding in their developing role as induction tutors.
Thirty target subject induction tutors (SITs)the
mentorsfrom three Education Authorities in the
East Mid-lands, England, were invited to take part
in three intervention meetings in year, to select from
a range of strategies to support reective practice in
the series of formal professional review meetings in
the course of the induction year and thereby attempt
to model the approaches they would encourage the
beginning teacher to adopt to become a more
reective and self-evaluative teacher. The SIT was

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Harrison et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 10551067

envisaged as the person with whom the beginning


teacher worked with most closely on a daily basis
and, as such, was distinguished from a co-ordinating induction tutor (CIT), who was envisaged to be
a more senior person in school with an overall
managerial function.

Table 1
Percentage responses for each category of beginning teacher for
each questionnaire
Questionnaire 1
(start of year)

2.2. Beginning teacher questionnaire surveys


Two postal questionnaires were distributed
(n 147), one at start of year (October 2002) and
another as a slightly modied version at the end of
year (June 2003), containing both closed and open
questions. Both versions were piloted rst with a
small number of beginning teachers.
The rst questionnaire comprised four sections,
with section A allowing the collection of personal
information in relation to age, gender, current
teaching contract, type of initial training, and so
on. Section B sought information about support
systems and arrangements for mentoring in relation
to early experiences during induction in the new
school. Section C sought evidence of the professional training plans and the particular ways of
working with the mentor (for example, the extent to
which the beginning teacher was pro-active in
arranging to be observed, or was able to negotiate
the focus of a lesson observation; the nature of, and
way in, which the feedback was given). The end-ofyear questionnaire asked for additional information
about teaching responsibilities (A); details of midand later experiences in the induction year (B);
evidence about monitoring and assessment, including aspects of action planning (C); and, nally (D),
sought individual views of aspects of professional
development, including the mentoring and the use
of the CEP. All questionnaires were coded in order
to track changes across the year for each respondent. All participants were guaranteed condentiality in that no individual names or schools would
be used or identied in subsequent reports.
The mailings were sent to two groups of beginning teachers: Group 1 comprised the target
beginning teachers who were working with the
target SITs. Group 2 was formed at the same time
from a stratied sample of non-target beginning
teachers, drawn from the same three Education
Authoritiesin other words, beginning teachers
who were not working alongside a target SIT.
Table 1 shows the generally good response rates
after a second follow-up mailing within one month
of the rst mailing in each case.

1059

No.
returned
%
response

Questionnaire 2
(end of year)

Group 1
target
N 32

Group 2
non-target
N 115

Group 1
target
N 32

Group 2
non-target
N 115

22

63

19

42

69

55

59

36

The questionnaire responses were coded and


analysed using SPSS. Data were examined for
discriminatory variables that might distinguish key
features in the target from the non-target beginning
teachers and the Leicester-trained and non-Leicester-trained beginning teachers within the nontarget group. Very few discriminatory variables
emerged between each of these groups and, where
these occurred at the start, they were not maintained
later in the year.
2.3. Developing a classification of beginning teacher
types based on the questionnaire data
By selecting a combination of questionnaire
items to which respondents gave a positive
response (yes) together with a selection of negative
answers (no) to others, a scoring system was
devised to provide an index score within a
maximum and minimum range. The start-of-year
responses revealed four possible teacher types,
denoted 14, with Type 3 as the most common.
These are displayed in Fig. 1, in which function 1
provides high scores for teachers whose induction
training might be described as strong, that is





the induction tutor will have seen the CEP


document;
there will be a school recording structure for
monitoring the beginning teachers progress;
the nal section (C) of the CEP will have been
completed in the rst-post school.

Function 2 provides high scores for teachers in


maintained, non-specialist schools where there is
likely to be a range of disciplinary problems. These
schools are found in partnership for initial teacher

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Harrison et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 10551067

1060

Table 3
Residual gain scores for the Induction Index broken down by
teacher type

Function 2

2
Teacher
type

Mean residual gain


score

Standard
deviation

1
2
3
4
All

2.35
1.24
0.17
2.74
0

6
5
31
1
43

2.80
2.67
3.13

3.13

-2

2
-4

 Signicantly above the mean for all other types, po5%.

-6
-8

-6

-4

-2

Function 1
Fig. 1. Discriminating between teacher types.

Table 2
Induction training index scores for teacher types at start of year
Teacher
type

Mean index
score
(maximum 17;
minimum 0)

Standard
deviation

1
2
3
4
All

5.27
8.25
9.28
7.00
8.44

11 (incl. 2 target)
12 (incl. 2 target)
46 (incl. 15 target)
1
70

1.79
1.48
1.73

2.21

 Signicantly below the mean of the other types, po1%.


 Signicantly above the mean of other types, po1%.

training. Type 3 teachers have high scores on both


functions 1 and 2.
Table 2 helps us to distinguish between the
teacher types at the start of the year: Type 3
teachers have a signicantly higher Induction
Training Index score than Type 1 teachers. The
statistical effect size of the difference is very large
(Cohen, 1988). These types were used to inform our
stratied sampling strategy for the telephone interviews (see Section 2.4).
On the basis of these questionnaire analyses, it
appeared that, at the start, Type 1 teachers were
receiving relative poor induction training and
support, Type 2 teachers more adequate training
and support, and Type 3 teachers much better
training and support. When we constructed a
corresponding end-of-year induction training index
score for the different teacher types we found that

the end-of-year and start-of-year indices for the four


teacher types correlated at r 0:34 (n 49,
po5%). This allows us to set up a regression
equation that might be used to predict an end-ofyear index. However some teachers do better than
others in the course of the year and have a higherthan-predicted end-of-year index. Such a comparative change is described as a residual gain. Others,
who do worse than the predicted index, have a
residual loss. Interestingly we found signicantly
higher residual gain score for Type 1 teachers (see
Table 3).
While it is not the purpose of this paper to pursue
discussion of the particular usefulness of developing
an Induction Index score as an overall measure of
induction effectiveness, we have been able to use it
here to identify three broad bands of beginning
teachers with which we can interrogate our qualitative data more systematically. We can explore our
interview data (see Section 2.4) particularly with
regard to the Type 1 teachers, to provide insights
into any additional factors in relation to mentoring
for these teachers that might point to the reasons for
improvement in the course of the year and the
possible impact of the delay in the start of better
training and support.
2.4. Beginning teacher telephone interviews
A stratied sample of 36 beginning teachers was
located for our interview phase to ensure the sample
included teachers from Types 1 to 4, and from all
three Education Authorities, a broad range of
subjects and those working with target and nontarget SITs. Thirty-ve interviews were conducted
at the very end of the induction year (JuneJuly
2003), each lasting approximately 20 min. Table 4
shows the number interviewed by teacher type.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Harrison et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 10551067
Table 4
Distribution of interview sample according to teacher type
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type
Total
(n 6) (n 5) (n 31) (n 1) unknown
Number
4
interviewed

16

10

35

The postal survey data and emergent themes were


used to devise a semi-structured interview schedule.
The questions in the interviews explored the
particular ways of working in the professional
review meetings with the mentors, the use of action
planning /target setting and the CEP, and the
beginning teachers views on the particular roles and
responsibilities of their mentors. All participants in
the interviews were contacted in advance to inform
them of the purpose of the interview, seek their
agreement to participation and provide indication
that the recording of the interview could be
interrupted at any time if they so wished. Oral
consent for the recording was obtained at the start
of the interview.
The questions were trialled with a few beginning
teachers and discussed in advance with the six
academic colleagues (including JH and SD) who
conducted the telephone interviews in the same twoweek period. Almost all the interviews were
recorded, with the teachers permission, onto
audiotape. These qualitative data were gathered in
three stages to try to minimise invalidity: (1)
summary notes were made immediately after each
interview and collated by one of the authors (SD);
(2) these notes were then used to further clarify
meanings and draw conclusions at a review meeting
of all interviewers; (3) the grouping of responses to
the open-ended questions was conducted by one of
the authors (SD) by checking key points arising
from the survey data against the recordings. This
provided an opportunity to eliminate any interviewer bias, gain a sense of the whole for each
interview, and identify general and unique themes in
relation to mentoring functions for all interviews.
3. Key ndings and discussion
Our earlier observation that there are very few
discriminatory variables between each of the groups
(target and non-target beginning teachers; Leicester
and non-Leicester trained beginning teachers) and,
where these occurred at the start, they were not

1061

maintained later in the year indicates that our


intervention programme with its introduction of
reective practice strategies to mentors is not
bringing about noticeable, short-term changes in
practice as reported by the beginning teachers
themselves. It is probable that any changes in
practice are more subtle, embedded in the types
and styles of mentoring conversations and must be
subject to monitoring over a longer time frame. In
the following paragraphs we present our analyses
and discussion of aspects of mentoring in relation to
the different teacher types in an attempt to locate
some distinguishing features of the different experiences of mentoring and associated processes during
induction.
3.1. Mentoring functions
The notion of a mentor function and the extent to
which this is experienced as distributed in a school
is explored here. Our questionnaire data indicates
that the most significant person(s) cited for providing for effective induction in the year were the SIT
(29 citations), closely followed by the CIT (25
citations). Reasons given for these choices were that
the induction tutor was







organised, positive, consistent source of help


(44% of reasons),
easy to contact, readily available and approachable (37%),
encouraging, empathic, supportive (29%),
relevance to subject taught and its support
(19%),
informal help (16%).

When asked to reect on what systems have helped,


and who in particular has provided the beginning
teacher with a good level of support during the year,
the formal Professional Review Meetings were cited
most often (26 citations in connection with the CIT;
21 citations in connection with the SIT out of a total
of 61 citations for this category).
Thus, a set of distributed mentor functions is
clear and involves two or more people covering both
the professional and personal dimensions of work to
be done with beginning teachers.
3.2. Mentoring relationships
We explore here the extent to which different
mentoring relationships allow beginning teachers to

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1062

J. Harrison et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 10551067

feel empowered and self-determining. To meet the


qualities highlighted in the bullet points above,
expected mentoring skills would therefore include
being master-of-trade, role-modeller plus a range
of interpersonal skills. Our beginning teachers
reports of good mentoring practice indicated




someone with whom they could collaborate overmarking and moderation of pupils work;
a role model for the planning, organisation and
delivery of work in the classroom.
Specic mentor attributes included







being a good listener;


being exible;
an ability to focus on issues, to enable discussion
and reection on practice;
an ability to open up opportunities for them and
broaden their experiences;
an awareness or foresight to recognise pressure
points which would need to be worked through
by the beginning teacher.

These last three items seem to go beyond a generic


list of interpersonal skills and include particular
professional attributes held by those mentors. A
description of their mentor as being both professional and maintaining a professional distance is
illustrated in the following interview extracts:
Katy (Type 3): the relationship (with my
mentor) is driven by worky she is not too over
friendlyy with her, I know things will get
doney (she) is not over familiar.
Mark (Type 2): (the mentor)y hes not a wrap
you up in cotton wool sort of person, but he
found me strategies that would work when
needed, both ones he would and would not have
used himself.
Overall the level and nature of support in relation to
their subject or curriculum area was variable across
all beginning teacher types. Best mentoring practice
included specic subject-related discussion, clarication of subject knowledge, or assistance with
related activities (e.g. marking). Wanda (Type 3)
was teaching things I am (i.e. feel I am) not
qualied (i.e. trained) to teach and described her
mentor as approachable, supportive, knowledgeable and exible.
More generally, Penny (Type 3) felt her mentor
had left her to her own devices. Simon (Type 2)

described his mentor as not very pro-active, nor did


he keep a close eye on my progress. Meetings were
not timetabled and (when they occurred they)
lacked structure. Barbara (Type 2) felt unsupported
by an unhelpful mentor. She was able to let off
steam with her, but nothing more. Beginning
teachers like these appear to have been cast adrift
in the school or department without that careful
balance, in mentoring, of overall support (i.e. being
on the beginning teachers side) but with a certain
amount of risk and challenge at the same time.
We interrogated our interview data further on
these aspects in relation to the Type 1 beginning
teachers, those whose induction experiences had
appeared slow to start but where the residual
gain by the end of the year was high. One, Brenda
(Type 1) said she had not been allocated a SIT,
there was no-one qualied in the department to
take this ony I had someone else as a back-up with
whom I had a lot of informal chatsy. As with
Courtney (Type 1) cited above, she was able to draw
upon the expertise of an available and interested
colleague in the same subject area. The numbers
interviewed in this category were inevitably very
small, given the small proportion of the whole
sample that had been designated as Type 1. We
could nd no other discernible aspects to dissociate
the experiences of the Type 1s interviewed (n 4)
from the whole interview cohort with the exception
that no negative comments about their SITs were
made. It is evident that collaborative, collegial and
supportive ways of working within groups of
experienced teachers may compensate to some
extent for any lack of formal structures for
mentoring.
Although mentors were largely described in
positive terms (by 29 of the 35 respondents), there
were a number of negative experiences: Brenda
(Type 1) felt supported, but not especially as a
beginning teacher. Without a designated SIT, she
arranged for six or seven observations of other
teachers to pick up practical tips. She thought she
knew how she was to be assessed from the
experience I had in (initial) training: her (Head of
Faculty) reported back to her in a professional way
after an observation; the Assistant Head was more
informal. Steve (type unknown), a notably articulate beginning teacher, did have opportunities for
review of progress but only after formal lesson
observations and with three different school personnel: his SIT and CIT for induction, and his Head
of House in a monitoring capacity. Otherwise he

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Harrison et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 10551067

seemed to engage in self-monitoring but without


any formal mechanisms to support this process.
Penny (Type 3) had three observations in the year
with only general feedback. She developed and kept
her own (professional) portfolio, developed from
her experiences in her training year, but this was not
looked at by either the SIT or CIT in the absence of
any formal review meetings.
Theresa (Type 3) described informal chats about
her strengths and weaknesses, but she felt that the
review process was not completed fully in order to
conrm that targets had been reached. Likewise,
Tony (Type 3) said his SITs approach (to
monitoring) was informal and that there was no
ofcial review process. He had been given a
professional development le by his school but he
remained uncertain how to use it even at the end of
the year; the CIT had promised him a session to
explain its use but that had not happened.
What is striking in these vignettes of negative
experiences is that three of the six NQTs were able
to be pro-active and to some extent self-monitor in
the absence of other formal structures. It is possible
that this factor may account in part for our
measured improvement in induction training and
support that was experienced by the Type 1 NQTs.
3.3. Mentoring processes
3.3.1. Use of evidence, review and target setting
For almost all the beginning teachers (97%)
observation and monitoring information was reported back to them both verbally and in writing.
Eighty-ve percent indicated that specic targets
were set for further action. These were largely
negotiated with the CIT or SIT (reported in roughly
equal proportions). It appears that targets may be
set by the mentors rather than by the beginning
teachers for up to 15% of the cohort. This is the
percentage of beginning teachers who reported that
they had not been able to negotiate what was
observed in their teaching and may be indicative of
a low level of personal responsibility for their
professional development overall. For those who
had no apparent say in this aspect of negotiation,
it is also possible that they have not been
empowered within the mentoring relationship to
take charge of their own agendas. When examining
the questionnaire data for evidence of the extent
that beginning teachers were being pro-active in
requesting observations/feedback, 58% of the sample at the end of the year reported yes (with no

1063

signicant differences between the different groups


of beginning teachers). Thus well over half of our
overall sample do show a capacity for some selfdetermination within the mentoring relationship.
3.3.2. Maintaining a professional portfolio
Questionnaire responses at the start of the year
indicated some discussion in connection with the
CEP had begun for a large minority (41%). The use
of the CEP improved slightly during the year but,
given that review and target setting are important
features of the CEP, a large minority of beginning
teachers (45%) continued to report that the CEP
was not being actively used during the year. For
those who reported its active use, the CITs and SITs
were mentioned in an equal number of instances.
When asked for brief details of how it was used, the
most common provided reasons mentioned targets
and looking at areas for development. Seventy-six
percent of the active users of the CEP said they
were identifying areas for further development at
intervals. Of those who were interviewed, Table 5
provides a prole of its use through the year as
reported by these new teachersjust a quarter
seemed to be using the CEP in some way for the
whole year.
The CEP was devised to be owned by the
beginning teacher and for joint discussion and
negotiation of targets to be embedded in the
underpinning processes. Implicit in its use is a
process approach in which we might expect a critical
review of the evidence of progress and a considered
weighing up of alternatives for further action. None
of the 30 reasons given in the questionnaire
responses for how it was used gave any indication
that critique, reection and/or discussion or a
consideration of underlying theory or practice
underpin its use.
The ownership issue lies at the heart of the CEP
and the lack of clarity over who is its owner may
Table 5
Prole of use of CEP by the beginning teachers in the interview
sample
Number within interview
sample (n 35)
No CEP used/CEP not used
First meeting/as a starting point
Throughout the year
Different system in place/
unclear

2=4 6 (17%)
9=8 17 (50%)
9 (25%)
1=2 3 (8%)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1064

J. Harrison et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 10551067

account, at least in part, for its apparent underuse


and its low status held by these beginning teachers.
The government guidance itself is opaque, if not
ambivalent, on this issue. The guidance materials
for induction tutors state, NQTs are responsible for
making use of the CEP; familiarising themselves
with the Induction Standards and contributing to
the monitoring of their own progress (The role of
the Induction Tutor, TTA, 2003, p. 5). In contrast,
the guidance materials for NQTs state, y.NQT
should be provided with an individualised programme of monitoring, support and assessmenty
the programme that you and your induction tutor
will plan will reecty . You must make your CEP
available to the head teacher and your induction
tutory You and your induction tutor will use the
Prole as you discussy . (Into Induction, TTA,
2003, p. 5).
Beginning teachers were asked on the end-of-year
questionnaire how comfortable they now felt with
the CEP in terms of the processes for making action
plans, for target setting and deciding on suitable
strategies. Eighty-one percent overall reported on
being fairly (55%) or very (26%) comfortable.
There were no differences between the different
groups of teachers. The SITs clearly have some
important role to play in allowing the CEP to be
used effectively. Beginning teacher Andrea (Type 3)
reported in her telephone interview:
(Doing) it was a chore. I never felt condent
using it. I never knew quite how to use it. Ive
never gone back to it. However several targets
that were set (last June), such as differentiation
of pupils work were followed up and there has
been a review process throughout the year.
Colin (Type 3) was not keen on using the CEP but
admitted it did help with the review process. Moniza
(Type 3) used the CEP in her second-post school
during the year, where she was encouraged to be
more pro-active in meeting targets and using the
target areas as a focus for observation by colleagues.
For others, once new targets were set, the CEP
seems to have been put to one side. In some cases it
was superseded, for example, by performance
management records in line with what all school
teachers were using in the school; or by a confusing
set of LEA documentation with a variety of
handouts; or by parallel systems such as a schoolspecic prole log or professional development
folder. But for others, when the CEP was not used

after the rst meeting, it was not always replaced by


another recording system. Julia (Type 3) said
that,yno portfolio was used and performance
management was never mentioned.
Our main nding is that the use of the CEP is
sporadic across institutions and that, generally, it is
not supporting the deeper, underpinning processes
needed for reective practice. To provide further
illumination of the possible underlying factors we
explored NQTs views on professional development
in the questionnaires and the majority (52%)
expressed positive views, a substantial minority
(33%) expressed negative views, and 15% gave
more practical views (neutral), along the lines of (I)
learn best from practical experiences and other
teachers. For those expressing negative views, the
system itself seem to be getting in the way: CEP (is)
too complex, (with) drawn-out procedures and
paperwork and system is too formal; tutors focus
on narrow requirements only; over-concern with
managing performance; too much form-lling and
le-building; meetings for their own sake (27% of
this group). For others in this group, time is factor:
tutors have too little time to help; difcult to get
released to attend courses (24%). It appears that the
primary focus for the CEP is less on the long-term
developmental aspects and more on the short-term,
progress-orientated aspects which are closely linked
with monitoring and accountability.
We argue here that critical reective practice lies
at the heart of best practice in using the CEP. We
tentatively conclude for the signicant minority not
actively using the CEP, and for many of those
professing to use the CEP, that such critical
reective practice is not embedded in the day-today workings of their induction year and might in
turn be a reection of the particular cultural norms
(in connection with professional development) of
the department or school. This tentative conclusion
is supported by the views of the 33% expressing
negative views about professional development
more generally, largely in connection with systems
and pressures of time. Our data sets were small and
therefore too limited to suggest conclusively
that the Type 1 beginning teachers fared better
because they were located in schools that had a
strong whole-school ethos in relation to professional development, but these particular teachers
did appear to have a stronger positive view of the
CEP than the Type 2 beginning teachers. In such
schools, both work and developmental priorities
would be discussed and agreed by team leaders and

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Harrison et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 10551067

individual teachers. Reviews would be seen in a


positive light.
4. Broad conclusions and recommendations
The mentoring functions for induction in most
schools are distributed at least between the SIT and
CIT and this needs to be recognised much more
overtly in the government directives and support
materials to inform in turn the structural organisation and related funding for induction in the
secondary schools. Both the SIT and CIT provide
for effective induction experiences for these beginning teachers. However it is also clear that it is the
SIT who has most contact on a daily basis and plays
a key role. Schools have to recognise this central
role of the SIT much more than at present.
Given such a wide-ranging set of skills and
responsibilities, the mentor function might have to
involve several people, since it is unlikely that one
person would be able to full all aspects, including
of the educative, the evaluative (assessment) and the
pastoral dimensions of the job. This is in line with
the notion of Monaghan and Lunt (1992) of a
contract mentor, whether this is one or more
person, which allows us to consider the multiple
facets of the role: the professional dimensions which
include both providing training and conducting
assessment (these appear in the literature to be
frequently fused) and the pastoral (personal) dimension. Thus the mentor (who may be one of several
induction tutors) exists within a specic scheme that
is prescribed by the roles given to the mentor in that
scheme. A contract mentor cannot therefore assume
that things will run themselves: the objectives and
the functions of the job to be done have to have
been worked out, be clear to all concerned and be
subject, at best, to a continuing cycle of review and
evaluation. Schools need to develop codes of
practice in relation to induction at the departmental/subject level as well as whole-school practice.
As we have noted already, mentoring functions
involve considerably more than the range of skills
associated with being a master of trade and a rolemodeller (see also Gratch, 1998; Hawkey, 1997,
1998; Martin, 1996; Rippon & Martin, 2003). The
SIT needs the skills and integrity to deal with a
complex interpersonal relationship on a daily basis.
We have identied in particular the importance of
availability and professionality of the mentor for
these beginning teachers. This means availability
for informal discussion outside of structured meet-

1065

ings as illustrated by the close physical proximity of


the SIT or by their approachability and availability
at break times or even at home on the phone. A key
attribute in connection with professionality was to
be seen as not controlling but being able to
maintain a distance and yet working alongside the
beginning teacher as a colleague. In addition the
educative process during induction requires a
theoretical input in order to develop an open,
questioning and analytical working relationship
that these NQTs strongly indicated that they valued.
Thus we suggest that these aspects of availability
and professionality are key features of successful
induction practice. Schools might respond, rstly,
by monitoring more systematically their particular
provision for a SIT to be located in the specic
subject area of the beginning teacher and to provide
ease-of-access to that person for both informal and
formal encounters. Secondly some systematic auditing of a mentors skills, expertise and condence in
opening up their own practice might be linked to
in-house mentor training to enhance the reective
practice during mentor meetings.
Nurturing has been described as a catalyst for
growth (Martin, 1996, p. 47) in relation to the
NQTs particular stage of development. In Hawkey
(1998, p. 665), the beginning teacher describes her
mentor who acts as the very challenge or catalyst
she needed to help her clarify her own thoughts as
teacher. In other words, once a minimum level of
competence has been reached by the beginning
teacher, support and nurture should be replaced
gradually by greater risk and challenge. Indeed,
Bova and Phillips (1984) viewed mentor teacher
skills, in part, as exhibiting risk-taking behaviour.
Gay and Stephenson (1998) explored the dynamic
that exists between dependency and independency:
the mentee is moved away from dependency to
independency. In other words the beginning
teacher is moved from being controlled (or
wanting to be controlled) towards taking risks or
being willing to take risks. As with some of the Type
1 and other beginning teachers in our study, he or
she becomes self-monitoring and their use of the
CEP, with its underpinning processes of review/
plan/target setting, has the potential to
facilitate this. Overall, challenge and risk-taking
within a supportive whole-school environment are
forms of experimentation, an important part of
Kolbs learning cycle, which encourages independency and greater professional autonomy for all
concerned.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1066

J. Harrison et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 10551067

Not only does the induction tutor have to tread a


ne line between the processes inherent in controlling and nurturing professional development (see
Standing, 1999 for a parallel discussion in nursing
education), but they also bear some professional
responsibility for bringing about particular changes
in the professional beliefs, values and behaviours of
a beginning teacher in line with the employmentrelated goals. This socialisation process has
already been noted in our Introduction as a component of all mentoring. We conclude, as Spindler
and Biott (2000) have argued elsewhere, that
organisational structures can help to condition
NQTs expectations and help them participate in
and understand staff cultures. The school as an
organisation, its ethos and values as an institution,
and the experienced teachers (the mentors) who
manage it, exert powerful enculturation on the
beginning teacher (Killeavy, 2001). For those Type
1 beginning teachers, their capacity to catch up in
the course of the induction year may well be a
reection of their capacity to negotiate and
manoeuvre within a powerful and ideological
context (see Calderhead & Shorrock, 1997). For
other beginning teachers (for example the Type 3
teachers) a crucial aspect of the mentoring relationship, described by Rippon and Martin (2003) as a
personal type of relationship, is the interpersonal
skills of the induction tutor with which they
facilitate the empowerment of the beginning teacher
within whole-school structures that promote professional development amongst all its teachers.
The ideal mentoring scenario may well lie
between the school-led bureaucratic-managerial
approach to beginning teacher training and the
participant-involved approach to training and
development. It would therefore be able to accommodate the needs of both the school and the
teacher, leaving the beginning teacher to feel more
empowered in their work. Thus a beginning teacher
might be provided with mentoring relationships that
can be longer-term and truly developmental (in
terms of their career aspirations and psycho-social
functions) as well as providing for the shorter-term
accomplishment of particular competences and
training standards.
Acknowledgements
The funding for the research project described in
this paper has been gratefully received over a twoyear period (20022004) from The Esmee Fairbairn

Foundation (reference EDU.02-216). The Project


Team comprised Jennifer Harrison (Project Director), Tony Lawson and Angela Wortley, all based at
the University of Leicester, UK. We wish to record
with thanks the help provided by our colleagues at
the School of Education: Tony Lawson, Megan
Thirlaway, Andy White and Angela Wortley, who
assisted with the interviews described in this paper.

References
Anderson, E. M., & Shannon, L. A. (1995). Towards a
conceptualisation of mentoring. In T. Kerry, & A. S. Shelton
Mayes (Eds.), Issues in mentoring. London: Routledge.
Bova, B. M., & Phillips, R. R. (1984). Mentoring as a learning
experience for adults. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3),
1620.
Bush, T., Coleman, M. C., Wall, D., & West-Burnham, J. (1996).
Mentoring and continuing professional development. In D.
McIntyre, & H. Haggar (Eds.), Mentors in school: Developing
the profession of teaching. London: Fulton.
Calderhead, J., & Shorrock, S. B. (1997). Understanding teacher
education. London: The Falmer Press.
Clutterbuck, D. (1992). Mentoring. Henley: Henley Distance
Learning.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences. New Jersey: Laurence Earlbaum Associates.
Colley, H. (2002). A rough guide to the history of mentoring
from a Marxist feminist perspective. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 28(3), 257273.
Daresh (1995). Research based on mentoring for educational
leaders: What do we know? Journal of Educational Administration, 33(5), 716.
DfEE (Department of Education and Employment). (1999).
Circular 5/99 guidance 90/00 the induction period for newly
qualified teachers. London: DfEE.
DfES (Department for Education and Skills). (2003). Guidance
0458/2003. The induction support programme for newly
qualified teachers. London: DfES.
Elliott, B., & Calderhead, J. (1993). Mentoring for teacher
development: Possibilities and caveats. In D. McIntyre, H.
Haggar, & M. Wilkin (Eds.), Mentoring: Perspectives on
school-based education. London: Kogan-Page.
Finn, R. (1993). Mentoring: The effective route to school-based
development. In H. Green (Ed.), The school management
handbook. London: Kogan-Page.
Gay, B., & Stephenson, J. (1998). The mentoring dilemma:
Guidance and/or direction? Mentoring and Tutoring, 6(1/2),
4354.
Gratch, A. (1998). Beginning teacher and mentor relationships.
Journal of Teacher Education, 49(3), 220227.
Green, H., Holmes, G., & Shaw, M. (1991). Assessment and
mentoring for headship: New approaches to senior management
development in schools. Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic, Centre
for Education Management.
Haggerty, B. (1986). A second look at mentors. Nursing Outlook,
34(1), 1624.
Harrison, J. K. (2001). The induction of newly qualied teachers.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 27(3), 277279.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Harrison et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 10551067
Harrison, J. K., Lawson, T., & Wortley, A. (2005a). Mentoring
the beginning teacher: Developing professional autonomy
through critical reection on practice. Reflective Practice,
6(3), 419441.
Harrison, J. K., Lawson, T., & Wortley, A. (2005b). Facilitating
the professional learning of new teachers through critical
reection on practice during mentoring meetings. European
Journal of Teacher Education, 28(3), 267292.
Hawkey, K. (1997). Roles, responsibilities and relationships in
mentoring: A literature review and agenda for research.
Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 325335.
Hawkey, K. (1998). Mentor pedagogy and student teacher
professional development: A study of two mentoring relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(6), 657670.
Hobson, A. J. (2002). Student teachers perceptions of schoolbased mentoring in initial teacher training (ITT). Mentoring
and Tutoring, 10(1), 520.
Hobson, A. J. (2003). Mentoring and coaching for new leaders.
Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Hopkins-Thompson, P. A. (2000). Colleagues who mentor
colleagues: Mentoring and coaching. NASSP Bulletin,
84(614), 2936.
Killeavy, M. (2001). Teacher education in Ireland: The induction
and continuing professional development of primary
teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 24(2),
115132.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source
of learning and development. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Kram, K. (1995). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships
in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., &
McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a mans life. New York:
Ballantine.
Martin, S. (1996). Support and challenge: Conicting or
complementary aspects of mentoring novice teachers? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 2(1), 4156.
McIntyre, D. (1993). Theory, theorising and reection in initial
teacher education. In J. Calderhead, & P. Gates (Eds.),
Conceptualising reflection in teacher development. London:
Falmer Press.

1067

Megginson, D., & Boydell, T. (1979). A managers guide to


coaching. London: BACIE.
Merriam, S. (1983). Mentors and proteges: A critical review of
the literature. Adult Education Quarterly, 33(3), 161173.
Monaghan, J., & Lunt, N. (1992). Mentoring: Person process
practice and problems. British Journal of Education Studies,
40(3), 248263.
Piper, H., & Piper, J. (2000). Disaffected young people as the
problem. Mentoring as the solution. Education and work as
the goal. Journal of Education and Work, 13(1), 7794.
Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (1992). Coaching on leadership.
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 13(7),
1518.
Rippon, J., & Martin, M. (2003). Supporting induction:
Relationships count. Mentoring and Tutoring, 11(2), 212225.
Rogers, C. (1974). On becoming a person. Constable.
Spindler, J., & Biott, C. (2000). Target setting in the induction of
newly qualied teachers: Emerging colleagueship in a context
of performance management. Educational Research, 42(3),
275285.
Standing, M. (1999). Developing a supportive/challenging and
reective/competency education (SCARCE) mentoring model
and discussing its relevance to nurse education. Mentoring and
Tutoring, 6(3), 317.
Teacher Training Agency (TTA). (2003). Into induction. London:
TTA.
Tomlinson, P. D. (1995). Understanding mentoring: Reflective
strategies for school-based teacher preparation. Buckingham:
Oxford University Press.
Vonk, J. H. C. (1993). Mentoring beginning teachers: Mentor
knowledge and skills. Mentoring, 1(1), 3141.
Whitely, W., Dougherty, T. W., & Dreher, G. F. (1992).
Correlates of career-orientated mentoring for early career
managers and professionals. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 13(2), 141154.
Williams, A., & Prestage, S. (2002). The induction tutor: Mentor,
manager or both? Mentoring and Tutoring, 10(1), 3545.
Zimpher, N., & Rieger, S. (1988). Mentoring teachers: What are
the issues? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 27(3),
175182.

You might also like