Abstract:
This qualitative case study research investigated the mentoring process for beginning teacher induction in Aotearoa New Zealand primary schools. Generally, the study investigated the links between philosophy, policy and practice and how these may interrelate and impact on beginning teacher development. Specifically, the study considered how the participants’ and their respective primary schools’ interpret and experience the national policy guidelines on mentoring. Following the collection and analysis of data, the resulting discussion synthesises the study findings with the current discourse related to mentoring within educational contexts.
Three qualitative methods were used to collect data in this research study, these were; semi-structured interviews with the participants, collection of policy documents and related literature, and field notes. The interview data was analysed using a constant-comparative approach, where data was interpreted and reduced to common themes, and finally some conclusions drawn (Lichtman, 2013; Yin, 2014). Document analysis was employed to interpret the mentoring policy documentation. The resulting discussion presents the findings as two themes, these are; ‘Mentoring Policy – illusion or confusion?’ and ‘Mentoring Practice in Action’.
The discussion of the findings reflects that the national policy guidelines for mentoring in primary school induction programmes were interpreted and implemented differently within the three participating schools. Contrary to the national policy guidelines suggesting the importance of a collaborative and democratic professional learning culture that captures the concept of educative mentoring in beginning teacher induction programmes, the findings highlighted wide variations in their interpretation and implementation. Furthermore, the findings revealed that mentor selection was based on subjective notions of experience, rather than identifying mentors with appropriate skills and dispositions. Compounding this concern, there appeared to be a lack of training and support for mentor teachers in the participant schools.
Recommendations from this study highlight the need for greater connection between the key actors associated with mentoring process during the induction period for beginning primary school teachers. Importantly, it is recommended that school leadership should give greater attention to, and provision for, the training and support for mentor teachers. In this sense, school leadership becomes an important actor and conduit in this process to ensure there are adequate opportunities for mentor teachers to engage in professional learning about mentoring philosophy, policy and practice. Furthermore, support and training should deepen the mentors understanding of learning conversations that are collaborative and democratic and are embedded in the principles of adult learning.
Three qualitative methods were used to collect data in this research study, these were; semi-structured interviews with the participants, collection of policy documents and related literature, and field notes. The interview data was analysed using a constant-comparative approach, where data was interpreted and reduced to common themes, and finally some conclusions drawn (Lichtman, 2013; Yin, 2014). Document analysis was employed to interpret the mentoring policy documentation. The resulting discussion presents the findings as two themes, these are; ‘Mentoring Policy – illusion or confusion?’ and ‘Mentoring Practice in Action’.
The discussion of the findings reflects that the national policy guidelines for mentoring in primary school induction programmes were interpreted and implemented differently within the three participating schools. Contrary to the national policy guidelines suggesting the importance of a collaborative and democratic professional learning culture that captures the concept of educative mentoring in beginning teacher induction programmes, the findings highlighted wide variations in their interpretation and implementation. Furthermore, the findings revealed that mentor selection was based on subjective notions of experience, rather than identifying mentors with appropriate skills and dispositions. Compounding this concern, there appeared to be a lack of training and support for mentor teachers in the participant schools.
Recommendations from this study highlight the need for greater connection between the key actors associated with mentoring process during the induction period for beginning primary school teachers. Importantly, it is recommended that school leadership should give greater attention to, and provision for, the training and support for mentor teachers. In this sense, school leadership becomes an important actor and conduit in this process to ensure there are adequate opportunities for mentor teachers to engage in professional learning about mentoring philosophy, policy and practice. Furthermore, support and training should deepen the mentors understanding of learning conversations that are collaborative and democratic and are embedded in the principles of adult learning.