University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Factors impacting the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national teacher residency

(USC Thesis Other)

Factors impacting the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national teacher residency

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
Running head: MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 1

Factors Impacting the Effectiveness of Mentor Teachers in a National Teacher Residency
by
Marthaa Torres

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2019

Copyright 2019 Marthaa Torres
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 2
Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 5
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 5
Organizational Context and Mission 5
Organizational Goal 6
Related Literature 6
Importance of the Evaluation 7
Description of Stakeholder Groups 7
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals 8
Stakeholder Group for the Study 9
Purpose of the Project and Questions 10
Methodological Framework 11
Definitions 11
Organization of the Project 11
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 13
Influences on the Problem of Practice 13
Role of Stakeholder Group of Focus 17
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 19
Conceptual Framework 34
Conclusion 38
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 3
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 39
Participating Stakeholders 39
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale 41
Data Collection and Instrumentation 42
Data Analysis 43
Credibility and Trustworthiness 43
Validity and Reliability 44
Ethics 45
Limitations and Delimitations 46
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS 47
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences 48
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences 55
Results and Findings for Organizational Influences 59
Summary 67
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS 69
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 70
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 82
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 95
Limitations and Delimitations 95
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 4
Future Research 95
Conclusion 96
References 98
Appendix A: Survey Items 104
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 106
Appendix C: Instrument for Immediate Evaluation (Levels 1 and 2) 108
Appendix D: Instrument for Delayed Evaluation (Levels 1 Through 4) 110

MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 5
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
This study addresses the problem of the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national
teacher residency. Several studies demonstrate that the work between mentor teachers and their
preservice teacher candidates is fraught with challenges. There is a significant imbalance of
power in the relationship (Anderson, 2007), and the two parties are in some ways pursuing
different priorities (Valencia, Martin, Place, & Grossman, 2009). The evidence also highlights
that discussions with their mentor teacher may not be conducive to the preservice teacher’s
growth (Valencia et al., 2009), and there may not be agreement about what the role of the mentor
teacher is fundamentally meant to be (Bradbury & Koballa, 2008).
Organizational Context and Mission
The Eastern University Teacher Residency (EUTR, a pseudonym) is a university-based
teacher education program that prepares preservice teachers for service in partnership with a
number of school districts and charter networks nationwide. The mission of the EUTR is to
provide highly qualified teachers to high-need urban schools. The program uses a residency
model, a preparation model which emphasizes learning in the clinical setting, featuring a
year-long clinical placement in addition to accompanying graduate coursework. Because EUTR
is a national program, the coursework taken by the enrolled teacher candidates is all online. An
Eastern University faculty member is in residence in each district or charter network for the
duration of the clinical placement, however, to work directly with teacher candidates and their
mentor teachers in support of their learning.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 6
Organizational Goal
The Eastern University Teacher Residency’s goal is to graduate 100% of its students
prepared to be effective first-year teachers by June 2020. It measures preparation for effective
teaching using the Eastern University Teacher Residency Framework, a seven-part rubric
describing teacher practices based on the widely used Danielson Framework for Teaching.
Graduates are assessed with the rubric and can be scored for each element as being at a level 1
through 4, with 1 being “ineffective,” and 4 being “highly effective.” The certifying agency for
the state of New York has deemed that teachers may be judged to be “effective” using the
framework if they receive an average score of 2.6 or higher; thus, when the Eastern University
Teacher Residency was launched in July 2016, the program’s faculty agreed by consensus to
adopt this measure of effectiveness as well in deeming graduates to be prepared to be effective as
first-year teachers. Student progress towards “effectiveness” is assessed quarterly using the
Eastern University Teacher Residency Framework by Eastern University faculty. It is important
to evaluate the performance of the Eastern University Teacher Residency with regard to this goal
because it is critical that all teachers are prepared to effectively teach their subject from their first
year in the classroom.
Related Literature
In a review of the literature regarding challenges in the relationship between mentor
teachers and preservice teachers, several patterns emerge. The first is the inherent imbalance in
power between them (Anderson, 2007; Smith, 2007; Valencia et al., 2007). Next is the
observation of differing (and sometimes conflicting) priorities in their work (Russell & Russell,
2011; Rajuan, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2007; Valencia et al., 2007), and the need for skillfully
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 7
managed dialogue in planning sessions (Crasborn, Hennissen, Brouwer, Korthagen, and Bergen,
2011; Pylman, 2016; Valencia et al., 2007). Lastly, challenges emerge from the possibility of
differing conceptions of the role of the mentor teacher (Rajuan et al., 2007; Russell & Russell,
2011; Bradbury & Koballa, 2008).
Importance of the Evaluation
It is important for teacher education programs to address these challenges as a part of
ensuring an effective learning experience for preservice teachers during the clinical experience.
The clinical experience is a critical element of a preservice teacher’s preparation; Dassa and
Derose (2017) found that the clinical experience significantly impacted preservice teacher’s
belief that they would be “extremely effective” at teaching. Preservice teachers’ experience
during the clinical experience may also directly impact teacher attrition rates, which are as high
as 20% per year in urban schools, and 17% per year nationally (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2008): there is evidence that warning signs of teacher attrition develop during the
clinical experience (Pearman & Lefever-Davis, 2012). Therefore, addressing challenges in the
work of preservice teachers and their mentor teachers during the clinical experience may help not
only to promote better learning outcomes for preservice teachers but also reduce teacher attrition
in the future.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
There are five stakeholder groups who contribute to and benefit from the achievement of
the Eastern University Teacher Residency’s goal, reflecting the range of individuals that engage
in the preparation of the preservice teachers enrolled in the program in a significant way or who
benefit directly from their effective preparation. The first are the preservice teachers themselves,
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 8
who engage in coursework, teaching throughout the clinical placement, and who embark on
independent teaching at the conclusion of the program; their efforts to learn and apply the
knowledge and skills required to teach are of course central to the program’s success in reaching
its goal of preparing effective teachers. A second are the mentor teachers who work with the
preservice teachers on a daily basis in their classrooms. Their work of modeling practice, sharing
and explaining the instructional decisions they make in the course of a given lesson, and giving
the preservice teachers feedback as they teach lessons within the shared classroom space impacts
the extent to which the preservice teachers acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to be
effective classroom teachers following completion of the program. A third stakeholder group is
composed of the Eastern University faculty members who are involved in the residency program.
These individuals design and teach the preservice teachers’ coursework, and observe their
development in the classroom and provide feedback on their progression towards readiness to
teach, albeit with less frequency than the mentor teachers. And lastly, a key stakeholder group is
that composed of the students receiving instruction from the preservice teachers, both during the
residency year and in the years after, following completion of the program.
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of EUTR is to prepare teachers who will serve effectively at the beginning of their
first year of teaching.
Organizational Performance Goal
The EUTR’s goal is to graduate 100% of its students prepared to be effective first-year
teachers by June 2020.
Residents Mentor Teachers Program Faculty Students
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 9
Upon completion of
EUTR, 100% of the
residents will be
prepared to serve as
effective teachers
beginning in their
first year.
By June 2020, 100%
of the residents would
answer “good” or
“very good” in
response to the
question “How would
you rate the overall
quality of your
teaching mentor?”
By June 2020, 100%
of the residents will
graduate prepared to
be effective first-year
teachers.
By December 2020,
85% of the students
taught by first-year
teachers who
graduated from the
program in June 2020
will rate them as
effective teachers.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although a complete analysis would consider all stakeholder groups, for practical
purposes, this study will focus on the mentor teachers who work with the preservice teachers in
the Eastern University Teacher Residency. This is a critical group to study because there is a
need for more research on mentor teachers in the context of residency programs, and in particular
on the factors that contribute to their efficacy as mentors to preservice teachers. The
stakeholders’ goal is that 100% of the preservice teachers would answer “good” or “very good”
in response to the question “How would you rate the overall quality of your teaching mentor?”
Though mentor teachers were not involved in the selection of this specific question as part of the
program’s assessment of preservice teachers’ experience with their mentor teacher, the question
is reflective of their goal to serve as effective mentors to the preservice teachers they work with.
Progress towards this goal is assessed with surveys given each semester to the preservice
teachers enrolled in the Eastern University Teacher Residency by program staff, in which this
question is asked along with a number of others eliciting their thoughts on their experience in the
program. Because they work closely with the preservice teachers on a daily basis, the role of the
mentor teachers is central in developing their effectiveness. Failure to serve efficaciously as a
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 10
mentor teacher would significantly jeopardize a preservice teacher’s development of the
knowledge and skills necessary to serve as an effective classroom teacher upon completion of the
program.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which EUTR is meeting its goal
of graduating 100% of its students prepared to be effective first-year teachers. The analysis
focused on knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to achieving this
organizational goal. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders,
for practical purposes this analysis focuses on a single stakehoder group, the program’s mentor
teachers.
The questions that guided the evaluation study were the following:
1. To what extent is EUTR meeting its performance goal?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements related to achieving the
organizational goal?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?

MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 11
Methodological Framework
This project employed a mixed method data gathering and analysis. Eastern University
Teacher Residency mentor teachers’ current performance in relationship to the organizational
goal was assessed using interviews, surveys, and literature review. Based on the analysis,
research-based solutions are recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive manner in Chapter
Five.
Definitions
Mentor teacher : A practicing teacher who agrees to support the learning of a preservice
teacher candidate by allowing them to observe, assist, and lead instruction in their classroom.
This term is preferred by some teacher preparation programs over the widely used term of
“cooperating teacher.” The term “cooperating” derives from the original construction of the role
as one who merely “cooperates” with a teacher preparation program, as compared to the faculty
in the program, who were considered to be the experts informing the work of the teacher
candidate (Whitford & Villaume, 2014). The title of “mentor teacher” is meant to support the
construction of the role as one who actively works to develop the preservice teacher, through
mentoring practices or behaviors.
Preservice Teacher: A person enrolled in a teacher preparation program who is learning
but not yet certified to teach.
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about teacher preparation
programs. The organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders and the framework for the project
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 12
were introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of the current literature surrounding the scope
of the study. Topics discussed in this chapter include inherent challenges in the relationship
between mentor teachers and preservice candidates, the role of the mentor teacher in teacher
preparation, and the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the effectiveness of
mentor teachers based on the literature. Chapter Three details the specific knowledge,
motivation, and organizational elements that were examined as well as the methodology when it
came to the choice of participants, data collection and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and
results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides recommendations for addressing the
identified gaps, based on data and literature, as well as recommendations for implementation and
evaluation.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 13
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This literature review will examine the root causes of gaps in the performance of mentor
teachers in the Eastern University Teacher Residency. The review will begin with an overview
of influences on the practice of mentor teachers in support of preservice teacher candidates as
found in the literature, and the role of this stakeholder group. The review will then outline the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the effectiveness of mentor teachers in
their work of supporting the learning of preservice teachers.
Influences on the Problem of Practice
A number of factors emerge in the literature as influences on the effectiveness of mentor
teachers in their work with preservice teachers. Firstly is the inherent imbalance of power
between the two parties, which impacts the learning of the latter (Anderson, 2007; Smith, 2007;
Valencia et al., 2007). Secondly, there are differing (and sometimes conflicting) priorities in the
work between preservice teachers and their mentors (Russell & Russell, 2011; Rajuan, Beijaard,
& Verloop, 2007; Valencia et al., 2007). Thirdly, there is a need for skillfully managed dialogue
in planning sessions (Crasborn, Hennissen, Brouwer, Korthagen, and Bergen, 2011; Pylman,
2016; Valencia et al., 2007). And lastly, the possibility of differing conceptions of the role of the
mentor teacher can also complicate the work together (Rajuan et al., 2007; Russell & Russell,
2011; Bradbury & Koballa, 2008).
Imbalance of Power
Mentor teachers exert considerable power over their preservice teachers, and this power
differential has an impact on the preservice teacher’s learning during the clinical experience.
This power is exercised over their preservice teachers in a number of ways. In one study,
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 14
Anderson (2007) surveyed 56 preservice teachers and 48 mentor teachers both before and after a
clinical experience, and conducted interviews with 12 preservice teachers and their
corresponding 12 mentor teachers, and found that mentor teachers exercise power over their
preservice teachers through evaluations, rewards, sharing of expertise, allotment of authority
within the classroom, and social capital. The power differential in their relationship makes it
difficult for the preservice teacher to express ideas that may differ from those of the mentor
teacher. Smith (2007) conducted a case study of a preservice teacher-mentor teacher pair that
included observations of the pair’s planning meetings over four months; the researcher found
that when both were in agreement, their planning went smoothly, but when the preservice
teacher’s statements were not in alignment with the ideas of the mentor teacher, the two had
difficulty navigating the disagreement and reverted to the mentor teacher’s preferred ideas.
Mentor teachers exert control over the content of their preservice teacher’s lessons and the
timing of the gradual release process leading to independent teaching. In a mixed-methods study
of a cohort of preservice teachers and their mentor teachers in a teacher education program,
Valencia et al. (2009) conducted structured interviews and observed and videotaped planning
sessions over the course of one year, and found that the preservice teacher’s ability to determine
the content of their lessons and to gradually assume more responsibility for teaching was
dependent upon the approach and decisions of their mentor teacher. The power differential
between preservice teachers and mentor teachers can be a source of tension during the clinical
experience that impacts the learning experience of the preservice teacher.

MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 15
Differing Priorities in the Work Between Preservice Teachers and Mentors
In addition to this power differential, preservice teacher-mentor teacher pairs can also
experience tension as they respond to different pressures and priorities; in some cases mentor
teachers may prioritize imparting their own teaching strategies over facilitating their preservice
teacher’s exploration of new strategies and ideas that may not be consistent with the mentor
teacher’s own approach. In a qualitative study analyzing the perspective of mentor teachers on
mentoring preservice teachers, Russell and Russell (2011) found that the desire to share their
knowledge with a preservice teacher was one of their motivations for becoming a mentor
teacher. On the other hand, preservice teachers have been found to place more value than mentor
teachers on the priority of developing a personal relationship with their mentor teacher. In
Rajuan et al.’s (2007) study of 118 preservice teachers and mentor teachers who were
interviewed regarding their expectations for the clinical experience, the analysis of expectations
held by the two populations differed significantly in the area of expectations for personal
connection, with 32.3% of the preservice teacher’s expressed expectations pertaining to personal
relationship, compared to 23.5% for the mentor teachers. Lastly, while preservice teachers are
focusing on learning to teach independently, mentor teachers have a range of other priorities that
may conflict with their preservice teacher’s goal. Valencia et al. (2009) found in their study that
mentor teachers faced pressures regarding ensuring student achievement, adhering mandatory
curriculum, and keeping to a timeline for content covered that interfered with their ability to
yield control of instructional decisions to their preservice teacher. These differing priorities may
interfere with creating optimal learning conditions for preservice teachers. The impact of these
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 16
differing priorities can manifest in a number of ways, including the discourse between the two
parties.
Managing Discourse During Planning Sessions
The discourse that occurs between mentor teachers and preservice teachers is in some
cases not conducive to the latter’s growth. In their discussions with preservice teachers, mentor
teachers are most likely to be directive when they speak, rather than helping to facilitate
preservice teachers’ own reflection on their practice. In an analysis of 20 transcripts of mentoring
dialogues, containing 440 mentor teacher statements, Crasborn et al. (2011) found that the
teachers most frequently operated in the mode of initiator, with a directive focus. Effective
mentor teacher communication is complex, and experienced teachers must work to develop their
skills in the context of working with a preservice teacher. In a case study of one mentor teacher
who videotaped a series of planning sessions with a preservice teacher, Pylman (2016) found that
mentor teachers move between directive exposition, making thinking transparent, and feedback
within the course of individual planning meetings. And in some cases, mentor teachers may not
systematically debrief at all with their preservice teachers following the novice’s instruction;
those who do may fail to provide substantive opportunities for discussion of instructional
practice. In their year-long study of nine preservice teacher and mentor teacher pairs, Valencia et
al. (2009) found that one-third did not hold debrief discussions at all, and of those who did
debrief regularly, the majority of pairs spent more time discussing classroom management issues
than any other topic. Ineffective practice in the area of dialogue with preservice teachers can
negatively impact the preservice teacher’s experience in the clinical experience. This may be
complicated by different ideas about the nature of the mentor teacher’s role.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 17
Differing Conceptions of the Role of Mentor Teacher
In addition to challenges with how mentor teachers carry out their role, mentor teachers
and their preservice teacher counterparts may not share a common conception of what the role of
mentor teacher fundamentally is. There is a wide range of perceptions of the mentor teacher role.
Rajuan et al. (2007) interviewed 118 preservice teachers and mentor teachers regarding their
expectations for their work together over the course of the student teaching experience and found
discrepancies in the relative weights they placed on different foci of their work, such as academic
content knowledge or the practical knowledge held by teachers. mentor teachers themselves
conceive of their role differently. In their qualitative study of nine mentor teachers, Russell and
Russell (2011) found that mentor teachers espoused a range of features of the mentoring
relationship with preservice teachers. As a result, preservice teachers and mentor teachers can
have different perceptions of what the role of the mentor teacher should be over the course of the
clinical experience. In a one-year case study of two pairs of preservice teachers with their mentor
teachers, Bradbury and Koballa (2008) found that there were differences in the mentor teachers’
conceptions of mentoring when compared to those of the preservice teachers. In cases where
preservice teachers and mentor teachers have different expectations regarding what this role
should be, there is a potential for conflict when those expectations are not fulfilled.
Role of Stakeholder Group of Focus
As the emphasis placed on the importance of the clinical component of teacher education
programs has grown, so has the centrality of the role of the mentor teacher in teacher candidates’
learning. In 2010, the accrediting body for teacher education programs, NCATE, released a
report Transforming Teacher Education through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 18
Prepare Effective Teachers, calling for a shift in teacher education towards being more
clinically-based, with a strong emphasis on well-integrated clinical experiences under the
guidance of skilled clinical faculty and mentor teachers (National Council for Accreditation of
Teacher Education, 2010). Though there was not initially consistency in the clinical experiences
in teacher preparation, over time the inclusion of an extended clinical placement alongside
academic preparation came to be viewed as a critical component of an effective teacher
preparation program (Whitford & Villaume, 2014). The goal of high-quality clinical experiences
increasingly required attention to the quality of teachers selected to serve as mentors, as well as
the preparation they received in order to be effective in this role (Darling-Hammond, 2017). In
the remainder of this chapter, I will discuss the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences of the work of this critical stakeholder group.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Framework
Following the preceding section’s description of the general research related to the work
of mentor teachers with preservice teachers in clinical placements, this review now turns to the
Clark and Estes (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences (KMO)
Framework. Clark and Estes outlined a process for determining performance gaps, as well as
assessing the contributing factors influencing those gaps identified, based on an organization's
goal and the contributing goals of the stakeholders within the organization. They articulated that
all performance gaps that might be identified through this process can be attributed to
knowledge, motivation, or organizational influence, or some combination thereof (Clark & Estes,
2008). The following section describes assumed KMO influences for the organization’s
stakeholder group of focus in this study, mentor teachers.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 19
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
This review of current research on the work of mentor teachers in the clinical experience
focuses on two influences on their performance in support of the development of preservice
teachers: the knowledge necessary to do this work effectively, and their motivation with respect
to this role. Within the organization of the Eastern University Teacher Residency, this
stakeholder group’s performance goal is that 100% of the preservice teachers in the program to
answer “good” or “very good” in response to the question “How would you rate the overall
quality of your teaching mentor?” by June, 2020.
Knowledge and Skills
This review will first examine the impact of mentor teachers’ knowledge with respect to
their work on their ability to meet this stakeholder goal. Clark and Estes (2008) identified three
factors contributing to an organization’s success at meeting its identified performance goals:
knowledge, motivation, and organization issues. The authors argued that all performance issues
can be attributed to one or more of these factors and that each of these factors must be examined
through a gap analysis process in order to diagnose which are contributing to the gap identified
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore it is important to examine the potential impact of knowledge
issues as one of the three factors that could impact the extent to which the organization’s mentor
teachers meet this goal.
All knowledge can be classified as one of four types (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
The first is factual knowledge, which consists of discrete pieces of information necessary for an
individual’s work within a domain; the second, conceptual knowledge, is related in that it is
knowledge of how these discrete pieces can be meaningfully organized together, as in categories,
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 20
generalizations, models, and other constructs (Krathwohl, 2002). The third knowledge type is
procedural, consisting of knowledge of how to carry out a given process as well as criteria for
determining when it is appropriate to do so. The fourth category, metacognitive knowledge,
consists of awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition as well as cognition in general
(Krathwohl, 2002). Different types of knowledge are most effectively addressed through
different means (Clark & Estes, 2008), and for this reason, it is necessary to classify the
knowledge influences impacting the mentor teachers in reaching their stakeholder goal.
Knowledge of mentoring behaviors. The first factor influencing the mentor teachers’
performance with respect to the stated goal is their knowledge of specific mentoring behaviors
from which to draw over the course of the clinical experience. In a year-long analysis of 27
mentor-novice pairs across 3 countries, Schwille (2008) identified eight distinct behaviors,
classified as activities either during classroom instruction or outside of it, that mentors engaged
in support of the learning of their preservice teachers. The experience of mentor teachers as
classroom teachers does not necessarily prepare them with a knowledge of what these practices
are, however. In a qualitative analysis of eight mentor teachers’ perceptions of their development
as mentors, Gardiner (2009) found the teachers conceived of their work as mentors to novice
teachers as requiring a set of skills that were distinct from their practice as classroom teachers;
further, they expressed the need to receive support in developing their skills as mentors. The
implementation of effective mentoring practices directly impacts the learning of preservice
teachers. In an analysis of 389 evaluations of mentor teachers, Sayeski and Paulsen (2012) found
that specific mentoring behaviors were commonly identified by preservice teachers as those that
they felt contributed to their development, such as modeling of effective instructional practices
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 21
and providing specific feedback in multiple modalities. Developing mentor teachers’ knowledge
of mentoring behaviors that they can engage in to support the learning of their preservice
teachers (conceptual knowledge, as it consists of a collection of organized ideas), will impact
their ability to serve effectively in this role.
Knowledge of how knowledge is generated in clinical settings. In addition to a
knowledge of what mentoring behaviors they might engage in, it is critical for mentor teachers to
have conceptual knowledge of how knowledge is generated from each of those activities.
Without this understanding, mentor teachers may engage in a mentoring behavior, but in a way
that does not produce the intended learning in the preservice teacher. For example, in a
year-long study of 9 mentor teacher and preservice teacher pairs, Valencia, Martin, Place and
Grossman (2009) found that though the majority of them engaged in post-lesson discussions,
they consistently failed to include in those discussions corrective feedback pertaining to
pedagogy, but rather focused on other points, such as planning for upcoming lessons. In another
analysis, Mena, García, Clarke, and Barkatsas (2016) noted that little is known about the kinds of
pedagogical knowledge that can emerge from the use of different approaches to the assessment
of preservice teachers’ performance during such conferences, when pedagogy is discussed; in
their discourse analysis of three different types of mentoring conversations that occurred between
168 preservice teachers and their mentors, the authors found that each type developed the
preservice teachers’ understanding of practice in different, but complementary ways. In order
for mentor teachers to identify the mentoring methods that are most likely to develop specific
aspects of their preservice teacher’s knowledge of teaching, and implement it in a way that
attends to the salient features that will yield the kind of learning that is intended, mentor teachers
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 22
must understand what kind of knowledge might be generated through the specific features of
these methods.
Knowledge of the pedagogy taught in the university courses. A third knowledge
influence on the extent to which the Eastern University mentor teachers meet their stakeholder
goal is their knowledge of the pedagogy taught in the preservice teacher university coursework.
In a case study of ten mentor teachers who were graduates of the same teacher preparation
program as the preservice teachers they mentored, Ragland (2017) found that the alignment
between the practices of the mentor teachers and the approaches that the preservice teachers were
learning in their university courses was the most significant benefit of the common background
of the pair in terms of the clinical experience. A misalignment between the beliefs of the mentor
teacher and those the preservice teachers are learning in their university-based courses may lead
to a lack of opportunities to practice the pedagogical approaches they are learning. In a one-year
study of six mentor teachers in a post-baccalaureate teacher preparation program, Cherian (2007)
found that preservice teachers’ ability to implement the inquiry-based approaches they learned in
their university courses were limited by their mentor teachers’ teaching practices, which were not
in alignment with the more constructivist approaches the novices were learning in the university
program. This misalignment can ultimately lead to dissatisfaction on the part of the preservice
teachers, who may feel they need to “toe the line” with their mentor teacher, rather than risk the
conflict that can come with failure to implement lessons that are consistent with the mentor
teachers’ beliefs about effective pedagogy. In an analysis of the narratives of seven preservice
teachers in a university teacher preparation program, Patrick (2013) found that preservice
teachers reported that they were frustrated by their mentor teachers’ unwillingness to allow them
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 23
to implement the teaching practices they were learning at the university, which were not
consistent with the practices of their mentors. This knowledge is conceptual, because it consists
of interrelated sets of information that are organized into categories and models.
Table 2 provides an overview of the three presumed knowledge influences outlined in the
preceding section, along with EUTR’s organizational mission, organizational goal, and the
mentor teacher stakeholder goal.
Table 2
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessment
Organizational Mission
The mission of EUTR is to prepare teachers who will serve effectively at the beginning of their
first year of teaching.
Organizational Performance Goal
The EUTR’s goal is to graduate 100% of its students prepared to be effective first-year teachers
by June 2020.
Stakeholder Goal
By June 2020, 100% of the preservice teachers would answer “good” or “very good” in response
to the question “How would you rate the overall quality of your teaching mentor?”
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type

Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Mentor teachers need to know the
specific mentoring behaviors used
to support the development of
preservice teachers in the context of
residencies.
Declarative
(Conceptual)
Using surveys and interviews,
mentor teachers will be asked to
explain the actions they can take
to support the development of
preservice teachers.
Mentor teachers need knowledge of
how knowledge is generated in
clinical settings.
Declarative
(Conceptual)
Using surveys and interviews,
mentor teachers will be asked to
explain their understanding of
how new teachers learn in
schools during their preservice
year.
Mentor teachers need knowledge of
the pedagogy taught in their
preservice teacher’s the university
courses.
Declarative
(Conceptual)
Using surveys and interviews,
mentor teachers will be asked to
describe the alignment between
their own practices and the
pedagogy taught in their
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 24
preservice teacher’s the
university courses.
Motivation
The second set of factors that can impact mentor teachers’ effectiveness in meeting their
stakeholder goal are classified as motivation issues. As described above, motivation factors are
the second of three possible contributors to performance gaps within organizations, along with
the knowledge and organizational factors (Clark & Estes, 2008). The following review will
discuss possible motivation issues affecting the work of mentor teachers with preservice teachers
in the Eastern University Teacher Residency.
Motivation issues can impact the performance of individuals and groups within
organizations through three possible indexes, or mechanisms (Clark & Estes, 2008). The first is
active choice, which is the extent to which an individual decides to expend effort and energy
toward the attainment of a goal. In the case of mentor teachers working with preservice teachers,
this would be the extent to which they chose to allocate their time and internal and external
resources towards the learning of their preservice teachers. For example, in a qualitative review
of the practices of eight mentor teachers working within a residency model in which the
preservice teachers worked at the school for the full day over the course of an entire year,
Gardiner (2011) found that the mentor teachers chose to place limits on the amount of time that
they made themselves available to their interns. The second index is persistence or the extent to
which individuals maintain their work towards a goal in spite of challenges and obstacles (Clark
& Estes, 2008). In the case of mentor teachers, this might be the extent to which they continue to
invest fully in their work with a developing preservice teacher even in the face of challenges,
such as deficiencies in the latter’s performance or conflicts, which frequently arise. In a mixed
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 25
methods study of 48 mentor teachers, Anderson (2007) found that conflicts regarding
pedagogical approaches can arise between mentor teachers and their preservice counterparts, and
that in such cases the mentor teacher can respond by reducing the preservice teacher’s control of
the classroom and returning to the role of lead instructor or decision-maker in the clinical
experience. The third index is mental effort, or the amount of cognitive energy an individual
invests in a given task. Underconfidence can lead to investing low mental effort in a task,
because of a low expectations with regard to the return on the investment of energy.
Overconfidence can also lead to a decision to invest a low amount of mental effort in a task, for
the reason that an individual may feel that they do not need to expend much effort in order to
perform effectively (Clark & Estes, 2008). In the case of mentor teachers, this could manifest as
an individual failing to invest sufficient mental effort in a task due to underestimating the work
necessary to support the learning of their preservice teacher adequately or having insufficient
confidence in their ability to do so. The following sections will outline two possible influences
on the motivation of mentor teachers in their work with preservice teachers: expectancy value
theory and self-efficacy.
Expectancy value theory. Expectancy value theory postulates that the amount of active
choice, persistence, and mental effort that an individual puts forward is directly impacted by two
factors: the value they place on the task, and their expectations for success with respect to
accomplishing the task (Eccles, 2006). For mentor teachers, these might be the value they place
on their work as mentors in the context of the clinical experience, and their expectations for
performance as mentors during this time. Focusing first on the former, individuals’ assessment of
the value of a task has four components, described below.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 26
The first component of an individual’s assessment of the value of a task is intrinsic value.
This value construct is a measure of the extent to which an individual enjoys the work of the task
itself, independent of any other potential benefits (Eccles, 2006). There might be a number of
reasons why mentor teachers might find enjoyment in their work as mentors; for example, in a
qualitative study of nine mentor teachers perspectives on mentoring preservice teachers, Russell
and Russell (2011) found that the mentors listed a desire to collaborate with beginning teachers
as one of the reasons that they were motivated to take on the role.
A second value construct impacting the value an individual places on a task is attainment
value. This construct is a reflection of an individual’s assessment of the importance of
completing a task (Eccles, 2006). For example, mentor teachers may engage in their work as
mentors for the purpose of contributing to the field of teaching by promoting the effectiveness of
a new member. In the same study, Russell and Russell (2011) found that the mentor teachers
listed a desire to share their knowledge with novices who were just entering the profession as one
of the factors that motivated them to want to serve in this role.
A third value construct is utility value, a measure of one’s assessment of the extent to
which a task supports the attainment of one’s future goals (Eccles, 2006). For mentor teachers,
this may present as a judgement about the impact mentorship on their skills as professional
educators themselves. Russell and Russell (2011) also found that among the reasons stated by
mentor teachers for their motivation to become mentors to preservice teachers was their belief
that it would help them stay abreast of current trends in teaching.
The fourth value construct is cost, a measure of the extent to which one’s engagement in
a task prevents one from engaging in other tasks, as well as one’s assessment of how much effort
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 27
will be required along with the expected emotional cost (Eccles, 2006). Examples of potential
costs that mentor teachers might perceive are the significant amount of time that they will have
to invest in their work with a preservice teacher, such as time debriefing lessons observed,
explaining their thinking to another person, or navigating difficult interpersonal relationships that
can sometimes arise. In a year-long in-depth case study of two pairs of mentor teachers and their
preservice teachers, for example, Bradbury and Koballa (2008) found that both pairs faced
challenges and expended energy in establishing the personal connection that both parties in each
dyad desired, with limited success.
With regard to a second factor, expectations for success, Eccles (2006) asserts that this
impacts motivation because of an individual’s assessment of the likelihood that their efforts will
yield the intended outcome. For mentor teachers, their expectations for success as mentors may
be affected by their assessment of their preservice teacher’s growth trajectory, the quality of the
program in which the preservice teacher is enrolled, or their own potential efficacy as a mentor.
This factor can be viewed in more depth through the lens of self-efficacy theory (Pajares, 2006)
Self-efficacy theory. Looking more deeply at mentor teachers’ assessment of their own
efficacy as mentors, the self-efficacy theory articulates a number of factors that might impact this
assessment. As described by Pajares (2006), the first is mastery experience, which are the
experiences of successful performance that an individual has had in the past; mentor teachers
may have had such experiences based on their prior work as mentors. A second is a vicarious
experience, or seeing someone whom one considers to be similar successfully engaging in the
task; this is likely less common for mentor teachers, due to the relative isolation in which the
work of mentoring dyads might take place in schools. A third is social persuasion or the
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 28
encouragement from others that one can be successful at a task; for mentor teachers, this could
come from other teachers, school leaders, or university faculty in encouraging them to take on
the role of mentor to a preservice teacher. A fourth factor are physiological reactions, such as
the presence of anxiety or excitement in anticipating engagement in the task; for mentor teachers,
this might be the presence of nervousness at the prospect of working with the preservice teacher
(Pajares, 2006).
Table 3, below, summarizes the two possible motivational influences described above
with regard to the mentor teachers’ ability to meet their stakeholder goal.
Table 3
Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivational Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
The mission of EUTR is to prepare teachers who will serve effectively at the beginning of their
first year of teaching.
Organizational Performance Goal
The EUTR’s goal is to graduate 100% of its students prepared to be effective first-year teachers
by June 2020.
Stakeholder Goal
By June 2020, 100% of the preservice teachers would answer “good” or “very good” in response
to the question “How would you rate the overall quality of your teaching mentor?”
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Value - Mentor teachers must believe that there is
value in their work to support the development of
preservice teachers in the role of mentor.
Using surveys and interviews, mentor
teachers will be asked to identify the reasons
why they chose to become a mentor to a
preservice teacher, and their reasons for
continuing or discontinuing the role in the
following year.
Self-efficacy - Mentor teachers must feel that
they have been adequately prepared and
supported in order to expect that they will be
effective as mentors to preservice teachers.
Using surveys and interviews, mentor
teachers will be asked to assess how
confident they are that they can promote the
future effectiveness of the preservice teacher
with whom they work.

MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 29

Organization
This segment of the review of research on the work of mentor teachers in clinical settings
focuses on the third set of influences on their performance in support of the development of
preservice teachers: the organizational factors that impact their work in this role. As a key
stakeholder group within the Eastern University Teacher Residency Program, the performance
goal of mentor teachers is that 100% of the preservice teachers in the program answer “good” or
“very good” in response to the question “How would you rate the overall quality of your
teaching mentor?” by June, 2020. This is in service of the organizational goal of graduating
100% of the program’s preservice teachers prepared to be effective first-year teachers by June
2020.
Organization
General Theory. While the previous two sections have summarized the knowledge and
motivation influences on mentor teacher performance, this section of the literature review will
focus on the organizational influences impacting the stakeholder goal. All organizations evolve
cultures, or shared ways of perceiving, thinking, feeling, and behaving that have developed in
response to the need for external adaptation and internal integration (Schein & Schein, 2017).
These result over time from share learning experiences, and come to be taken for granted as “the
way things are.” Organizational culture is ultimately manifested in artifacts at the most visible
level, espoused beliefs and values, and finally basic underlying assumptions (Schein & Schein,
2017).
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) identified two units of analysis with respect to the
culture that is useful in understanding organizational influences on stakeholder performance. The
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 30
first is the concept of cultural models, which are shared understandings within a group of “how
the world works,” or how it should work (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001, p. 47). These models
come to be taken for granted by members within a shared culture, who may not even be
conscious that they exist (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Examples relevant to schooling might
be how a student engages in a classroom, how teachers teach their lessons, or how school
administrators interact with parents.
The second is the idea of cultural settings, which are the familiar, repeated spaces in
which those cultural models are enacted (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). What settings exist
depend in part on the needs of the group, and the patterns of engagement that have developed
over time (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Examples in a school context might be an
elementary classroom, a disciplinary meeting with the principal, or a parent-teacher conference
night.
Cultural Model: The Role of the Mentor Teacher. Within the context of a mentor
teacher’s work with a preservice teacher, there is a need for clarity on the appropriate role of the
mentor. Mentor teachers and their preservice mentees may have different perceptions of what
the role of the mentor should be. In a one-year case study of two pairs of mentors and mentees,
Bradbury and Koballa (2008) noted differences in the expectations for the role within each pair.
Preservice teachers have been found to place more value on developing a personal relationship
with their mentor teacher compared to the value placed on that aspect of the role by the mentors
themselves. In Rajuan et al.’s (2007) study of 118 preservice teachers and mentor teachers, an
analysis of expectations held by the two populations differed significantly in the area of
expectations for personal connection, with 32.3% of the preservice teachers expressing
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 31
expectations pertaining to personal relationship, compared to 23.5% for the mentor teachers.
Mentor teachers themselves may conceive of their roles differently. In their qualitative study of
nine mentor teachers, Russell and Russell (2011) found that among them they espoused a range
of features of the mentoring relationship with a preservice teacher. That is not to say that there
may not be areas of overlap in the cultural models held among mentor teachers and between
mentor and preservice teachers; In a qualitative study of eight preservice teachers and their
mentors, for example, Izadinia (2016) found that both groups articulated that encouragement and
support were important components of the mentors’ work with their mentees.
Cultural Model: The Role of Preservice Teacher During Clinical Experiences.
Another possible organizational influence on the effectiveness of mentor teachers might be their
adherence to a model of the role of the preservice teacher that is not conducive to the novice’s
growth. The mentor teacher may not want to allow the novice teacher to make their own
instructional decisions in cases where their ideas differ from the mentor’s own. In one case study
of a mentor in their work with a preservice teacher, Smith (2007) observed that in their planning
meetings the planning went smoothly as long as their ideas were in agreement; when the
preservice teacher’s statements were not in alignment with those of the mentor teacher, however,
the two had difficulty navigating the disagreement and reverted to the mentor teacher’s preferred
ideas. As noted above, however, during clinical experiences it is important that novice teachers
develop their own thinking rather than simply replicating the practices of their mentors (Evertson
& Smithey, 2000). As such, the opportunity to develop their thinking through serving as the
“lead” teacher is central to their growth.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 32
Cultural Setting: Incorporating Preservice Teachers into Mentor Classrooms.
Enacting these models within the setting of the mentor teacher’s classroom presents additional
challenges. In EUTR, as in most teacher preparation programs, the mentor teacher serves as the
official teacher of record of the classes that are taught by their mentee, and the classes are taught
in the mentor’s classroom. Mentor teachers face challenges in creating space for their mentees in
this setting, which is traditionally dominated by the mentor. The mentors exert control of the
preservice teachers’ lessons and the timing of the gradual release of responsibility towards
independent teaching. In their mixed-methods study of a cohort of preservice teachers and their
mentors, Valencia et al. (2009) found that the preservice teachers’ ability to determine the
content of lessons and to gradually assume more responsibility for teaching was dependent upon
their mentor. In a study of mentor teachers’ perceptions of yearlong placements in a residency
model, Gardiner (2011) found that mentors expressed that they struggled also with sharing their
students’ attention with their mentees in their classrooms.
Cultural Setting: Meetings Between Mentor Teachers and Preservice Teachers. The
meetings that take place between the mentor teachers and their preservice counterparts are
another setting that is central to their work together and may be a contributing factor to
performance issues of the mentor teacher stakeholder group. Not all mentor teachers
systematically debrief with their mentees following the novice’s instruction and those who do
sometimes fail to provide substantive opportunities for discussion of instructional practice.
Valencia et al. (2009) found that of the nine mentor-mentee pairs they followed for one year,
three mentors did not hold debrief discussions at all, and of those who did debrief regularly, the
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 33
majority of pairs spent more time discussing classroom management issues than any other topic,
representing a critical lost opportunity for feedback on instruction.
Additionally, effective mentor teacher communication is complex, and experienced
teachers must work to develop their skills in the context of working with a novice. In a case
study of one mentor teacher who videotaped a series of planning sessions with their mentee,
Pylman (2016) found that the mentor moved between direct telling, transparent thinking
questioning, and feedback within the course of individual planning meetings. In another study,
Crasborn et al. (2011) analyzed 20 transcripts of mentoring dialogues containing 440 mentor
teacher statements and found that the mentors most frequently operated in the mode of the
initiator with a directive focus. The meetings between mentor teachers and novices are thus
another possible factor contributing to performance problems among this stakeholder group.
Table 4 provides an overview of the four presumed organizational influences outlined in
the preceding section, as well as EUTR’s organizational mission, organizational goal, and the
mentor teacher stakeholder goal.
Table 4
Organizational Influences and Assessment Methods
Organizational Mission
The mission of EUTR is to prepare teachers who will serve effectively at the beginning of their
first year of teaching.
Organizational Performance Goal
The EUTR’s goal is to graduate 100% of its students prepared to be effective first-year teachers
by June 2020.
Stakeholder Goal
By June 2020, 100% of the preservice teachers would answer “good” or “very good” in
response to the question “How would you rate the overall quality of your teaching mentor?”
Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 34
Cultural Model Influence 1: Mentor teachers
need a clearly defined role that they can use to
inform the kinds of activities they engage in
with their preservice teachers, and how often.
Using surveys and interviews, mentor teachers
will be asked to describe the role of the
mentor teacher in the practicum.
Cultural Model Influence 2: Mentor teachers
need a clear picture of what the role of a
preservice teacher should be during a clinical
experience, and how that role should evolve
over time.
Using surveys and interviews, mentor teachers
will be asked to describe the role of the
preservice teacher during the practicum, and
how it should change over the course of the
placement.
Cultural Setting Influence 1: Mentor teachers
need to incorporate their preservice teachers
into the classroom in a way that promotes the
novice teacher’s development over time.
Using surveys and interviews, mentor teachers
will be asked to explain the role of their
preservice teacher in the classroom, and how
it evolves over the course of the placement..
Cultural Setting Influence 2: Mentor teachers
must engage in one on one meetings with
preservice teachers in a way that is conducive
to supporting the novice’s growth.
Using surveys and interviews, mentor teachers
will be asked to describe how they typically
spend their meeting time with their preservice
teachers.

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
The conceptual framework of a study is the researcher’s constructed theory of what is
happening in a given context (Maxwell, 2013). It takes into account the existing literature
pertaining to the context, and additionally may draw on research from other fields, as well as the
researcher’s experiences and ideas of what is taking place (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
research question derives ultimately from the conceptual framework, and the results are
interpreted through the lens of the framework as well (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). As such, the conceptual framework impacts the research study throughout the process
from inception to conclusions.
This study is informed by a pragmatic worldview. Researchers who take a pragmatic
view are most concerned with finding answers and solutions, and will utilize all research
methods available in pursuit of these goals (Creswell, 2014). As such, this study will draw from
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 35
both quantitative and qualitative approaches in order to develop a more complete picture of the
phenomena involved. Pragmatism is a natural match for the context of this study, in that there is
an urgency to determining how to best support the development of novice teachers who will in a
short time impact the learning outcomes of students. The utilization of all available methods with
a focus on producing actionable insights into the work of mentor teachers is consistent with this
urgency. A pragmatic worldview thus is evident throughout this study, including in the design of
the research methodology and research questions.
To this point this paper has addressed the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors that impact the mentor teacher’s stakeholder goal. In Clark and Estes’ (2008) model,
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors all contribute to the meeting of performance
goals. These factors are happening simultaneously within the same context, and interact with one
another. This conceptual framework, therefore, describes the relationship among these three
factors.
For mentor teachers in the Eastern University Teacher Residency, organizational
influences impact to an extent the already existing knowledge and motivation of the members of
this stakeholder group. The resulting knowledge and motivation of these mentor teachers then in
turn influences their ability to attain their stakeholder goal, which is that 100% of the preservice
teachers in the program would rate their mentor teacher as “good” or “very good” on the end of
the year program survey by June, 2020. This influences act through several mechanisms, which
will be explained below. The following figure illustrates these relationships.

MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 36
Figure 1. Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation within Organizational Cultural
Models and Settings.

There are several key features of this conceptual framework as illustrated in the diagram.
First, knowledge and motivation for mentoring preservice teachers exists among the mentor
teacher stakeholder group before the introduction of any organizational influences on the part of
EUTR. These prior knowledge and motivation levels vary among members of the stakeholder
group (Gut et al., 2014; Russell & Russell, 2011), and are activated in different ways through
engagement with the organization and with the mentee to whom they are assigned. The partial
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 37
overlap of the circles representing the mentor teachers’ knowledge and motivation factors with
the circle representing organizational influences reflects a recognition that significant prior
knowledge and motivation for mentoring exists in varying levels among the mentor teachers,
contributing to their work with their preservice mentees.
The portion of the mentor teacher knowledge circle overlapping with the organizational
influences circle represents the impact of the organization on mentor teacher knowledge. This
impact transpires through several mechanisms. First, the professional development that EUTR
provides to its mentor teachers develops their knowledge of how knowledge is constructed in
clinical settings, as well as mentoring behaviors that support this construction (Crasborn et al.,
2008). Second, by supporting the development of a cultural model for the relationship between
the mentor teacher and the preservice mentee that promotes certain behaviors on the part of the
mentor over others, EUTR impacts how mentors approach their work and the choices that they
make. Similarly, through the development of a shared model for the relationship between the
mentor teacher and the university faculty who support them, EUTR is able to influence the
knowledge of this stakeholder group. The EUTR constructs of the “shared” classroom setting
and the regular meetings between mentors and mentees also influence the mentor teacher’s ideas
about what it means to be an effective mentor to a preservice teacher.
The overlap between the mentor teacher motivation circle and the organizational
influences circle represents EUTR’s impact on the mentor teacher motivation. Through the
provision of professional development for mentor teachers, EUTR promotes the mentors’
self-efficacy as well as expectations for success with respect to their work with mentees (Gut et
al., 2014). The construct of the regular meeting time for the mentor teachers and their mentees
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 38
also influences their self-efficacy, as they have regular time set aside during which to carry out
this work (Gut et al., 2014).
Lastly, the arrows connecting mentor teacher knowledge and motivation to the
achievement of their stakeholder goal reflect the impact of these influences on their mentee’s
perceptions of their effectiveness. Mentoring preservice teachers requires the development of
professional knowledge with respect to mentoring, specifically, in order to be effective in the
role (Schwille, 2008; Crasborn et al., 2008; Crutcher & Naseem, 2016; Hudson, 2005).
Additionally, the mentors’ motivation in terms of active choice, persistence, and mental effort
will impact their effectiveness as well in the role (Clark & Estes, 2008). Together, these factors
will influence the mentor teacher’s achievement of their stakeholder goal.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to review the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences impacting the extent to which the mentor teachers of the Eastern University Teacher
Residency are able to meet their stakeholder goal. The stakeholder goal is that By June 2020,
100% of the preservice teachers in the program would rate ther teaching mentor as “good” or
“very good.” This literature review presented an overview of general research related to the
work of mentor teachers, along with research outlining the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that impact their performance as mentors to preservice teachers. The
chapter concluded with a review of the study’s conceptual framework. Next, Chapter Three will
present the study’s methodological approach.

MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 39
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
This evaluation study examines the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
impacting the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national teacher residency. The questions that
guided this evaluation study were the following:
1. To what extent is EUTR meeting its performance goal?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements related to achieving the
organizational goal?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
This chapter presents an overview of the research design and methods for data collection
and analysis for the purpose of answering these questions. First, I will provide a brief overview
of the stakeholder population that was studied, and the criteria that were used to determine who
would be included in the surveys and interviews that were carried out. Next, I will explain my
rationale for the data collection methods I chose for the study, as well as how I planned to carry
out the data collection. I will then describe how I analyzed the data collected, as well as the steps
I took to ensure credibility and trustworthiness, validity and reliability, and attend to issues of
ethics.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population of focus for this study are the mentor teachers in EUTR.
These mentors, of whom there are 65, are all teachers within one of the partner districts or
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 40
charter networks within the national residency. Several factors could potentially be considered
for the purpose of determining sampling criteria for this population. The first is the number of
years they have spent as a mentor teacher, which could plausibly impact their knowledge for
mentoring based on their prior experiences. A second is the number of years they have been a
teacher, which would likely influence their knowledge of the practice of teaching. A third could
be their gender, as this could impact the dynamics in their relationship with their resident intern.
Finally, their district or charter network might be considered, as this could impact the conditions
under which they embark on the mentor relationship. Below, I will describe the sampling
criteria and rationale that I used for the two data collection methods I utilized for this study,
surveys and interviews.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. The group member was a current mentor teacher in the EUTR program.
This was important as this study sought to answer the research questions with respect to the
current group of mentor teachers in the stakeholder group at the time.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
One method through which I collected data was through a survey given to all members of
the mentor teacher stakeholder population. This survey is administered twice annually by the
program leadership, and is given to all current mentor teachers in the program. This census
administration, in which all members of the stakeholder group were given the survey, also
positively impacted my ability to answer the research questions of the study, as the experiences
of all of the stakeholders in the group had the potential to be included.

MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 41
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. The group member was a current mentor teacher in the EUTR program.
Again, this was important as this study sought to answer the research questions with respect to
the current group of mentor teachers in the stakeholder group at the time.
Criterion 2. The group member was a mentor teacher within the Sunshine School
District, one of the district partners in which there was an EUTR cohort. This was an example of
convenience sampling, as the mentors in this group were most readily accessible to the
interviewer. However, there are not known to be significant differences in the mentors across
school districts in the residency, so this sampling criteria should not have had a substantive
impact on the actual data collected, or the conclusions that can be drawn from these.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
In order to better understand the experience of the mentor teachers in the stakeholder
group, I aimed to carry out seven interviews. Given that the interviews would cover the elements
within the conceptual framework in depth, I felt this number would allow for the variations in
experience across the group to be shared, without becoming repetitive or redundant. Using the
criteria in the preceding section, there were nine potential mentors that could participate in the
interviews. Though I intended to utilize a purposeful sampling approach to identify the final
seven participants for the interviews that would represent a range of years of teaching
experience, only seven of the nine accepted the invitation to interview, citing time concerns, and
these were the seven who ultimately participated in the interviews.

MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 42
Data Collection and Instrumentation
To best answer the research questions, I designed this mixed methods study to include
both a survey and interviews. The survey allowed me to see how broadly the patterns observed
were present across the larger program. The interviews, however, provided crucial in-depth
perspectives on the topics covered in the research questions, allowing a more nuanced and
textured understanding of their experiences. Together, these two data collection methods allowed
me to develop comprehensive answers to the questions posed in the study.
Surveys
The survey instrument that I used is administered to all mentors in the EUTR twice a year
by the program staff. The survey is sent to mentors by email, using Qualtrics, an anonymous
online survey tool. The survey consists of 12 items, of which I will be using a subset of items
most relevant to the questions which are the focus of this study. This subset of survey items
pertain to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the effective performance
of the mentor stakeholder group. Because the survey is administered by the program staff, I was
able to access only aggregated survey results, rather than the individual responses of participants.
My approach to ensuring the validity and reliability of the survey items will be discussed later in
the chapter. The survey instrument is included in Appendix A.
Interviews
I also collected data through a series of seven interviews of mentors in the Sunshine
School District. Because I was in a role of potentially perceived authority with respect to the
mentors, I arranged to have the interviews conducted by someone else who was not affiliated
with the university or the district in which the mentors taught. The interviews were conducted
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 43
using Zoom, an online video conferencing tool, and an audio recording was preserved of each.
These were semi-structured, formal interviews, scheduled in advance with each participant; the
twelve questions included were designed to elicit the mentors’ perspectives on the specific
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on their practice that were identified
through the literature. The interview protocol is included in Appendix B.
Data Analysis
I analyzed the qualitative and quantitative data through the lens of the conceptual
framework. With respect to the qualitative data collected through the interviews, I used an open
coding process, utilizing both empirical and a priori codes. From these, I developed axial codes,
aggregating the smaller codes identified in to larger categories with like items. Lastly, I
identified the themes that emerged from the data organized by the axial or analytic codes.
Simultaneously I analyzed the survey data, comparing the responses of the larger cohort as seen
through the survey with the themes that were emerging from an analysis of the qualitative data.
Because the survey data I accessed was already aggregated, I was not able to calculate measures
of spread such as variance or standard deviation for these items. Even with this limitation,
however, the survey data served as a valuable second source of data with which to compare my
results derived from the interviews that were conducted.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
In the design of this study, it was important that I take steps to establish and maintain
credibility and trustworthiness. Credibility and trustworthiness can be strengthened, for
example, through triangulation. Here the use of both interviews and a separate survey of a larger
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 44
group provided opportunities for convergence among the data from the two different sources,
supporting credibility (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Validity and Reliability
The EUTR program staff have taken steps to promote the validity and reliability of the
biannual mentor survey through a number of means. Validity is the extent to which a tool
measures was it claims to measure (Salkind, 2014). In this case, the survey instrument is
designed to assess the experience of the mentor teachers in the program. Though the survey has
not been psychometrically tested, the questions have been carefully written to match typical
mentor teachers’ knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors pertaining to their work.
The questions have also been reviewed and modified as needed in between administrations of the
survey, which is given to mentor teachers two times per year, and are in alignment with the work
of mentor teachers as described in the literature.
The reliability of an instrument is a measure of the extent to which it consistently
measures what it is designed to assess (Salkind, 2014). The instructions that go out with the
survey are clear and consistent across all participants, there are multiple items designed to
measure the same factors, and the survey is edited following each administration to remove
unclear items and add new items as deemed appropriate based on the responses (or in some
cases, non-responses) (Salkind, 2014). Though there is an inherent bias in the responses received
due to the issue of non-responses, the high number of participants (65), and the high response
rate (74% for the administration used in this study), means that there are consistently a broad
range of participants contributing responses. Additionally, the role of the interviews is in part to
gather perspectives that are not fully articulated, or missing altogether, from the survey data.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 45
Ethics
Because this research involved human subjects, it was necessary that I attend to a number
of ethical issues as required both by the Institutional Review Board approval process and by my
ethical obligations as a researcher (Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). These included
ensuring that I disclosed the focus of my study to participants before they agreed to participate,
that participants were engaging in the study freely and without any sense of coercion, and that
privacy was maintained (Glesne, 2011).
It is my ethical responsibility as a researcher to do no harm to those I am studying (Rubin
& Rubin, 2012). One of the assurances I adhered to in carrying out my research, thus, was that
potential participants were able to give their informed consent to participate. In this case, these
were experienced teachers who were serving as mentor teachers in the program. It was critical
that I was honest with them about the topic, scope, and purpose of my study, so that they could
consider how their participation might affect them or their school communities and, with the
benefit of that knowledge, make their own decision as to whether to participate (Glesne, 2011;
Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
I also needed to ensure that participation was completely voluntary, without any sense of
coercion on the part of the teachers. This was more challenging than it might sound, because
though I was not the formal supervisor of any of the teachers I would be studying, they did
receive a significant stipend for participating as mentors in the program itself, and they might
have viewed me as a potential gatekeeper with respect to their future participation. To
counteract this, I worked with a second researcher who conducted the interviews rather than
conducting them myself.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 46
I also had to ensure that I maintained the privacy of the teachers I interviewed and
surveyed (Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). This included taking steps to maintain their
confidentiality, such as not revealing details in the research that could plausibly identify them,
and not including their names with their responses in any notes. I also took steps to keep my
notes and any other records of their data securely, including through the use of a
password-protected laptop and an additional password security layer when accessing the data.
My obligations to the teachers who generously agreed to help me with my research go
beyond the requirements of an Institutional Review Board or the standards of a professional
organization. Rather, I have an ethical responsibility to do the right thing with respect to these
individuals that I must pursue above and beyond external requirements for avoiding harm,
proactively taking steps to protect those who agreed to participate.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are a number of limitations and delimitations to note in this study. With respect to
limitations, there are factors that I was not able to control within the research, such as the
truthfulness of the respondents during the data collection, and the extent to which the
perspectives I learned through the data collection process are ultimately reflective of the entire
stakeholder group. In terms of delimitations, because this study is focused on a specific national
teacher residency, I intentionally bound my research to the experience of mentors within this
organization. These limitations and delimitations are important to keep in mind in interpreting
the data collected through both the surveys and interviews included.

MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 47
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which EUTR is meeting its goal
of graduating 100% of its students prepared to be effective first-year teachers. The analysis in
this chapter will focus on knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to
achieving this organizational goal.
The questions that guided the study were the following:
1. To what extent is EUTR meeting its performance goal?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements related to
achieving the organizational goal?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and
stakeholder knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources?
The conceptual framework that informed this study posits that mentor teachers’
knowledge and motivation pertaining to mentoring preservice teachers interact with their
organizational context to impact their ability to reach their stakeholder goal, which is that 100%
of the preservice teachers in the program would rate their mentor teacher as “good” or “very
good” on the end of the year program survey by June, 2020.
In this chapter I will review the results and findings for the knowledge, motivation, and
organization influences included in the conceptual framework.

MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 48
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences
With respect to the influence of the mentors’ knowledge on the attainment of their
stakeholder goal, the conceptual framework included three influences based on a review of the
literature. These were a knowledge of how knowledge is generated in clinical settings (Valencia
et al., 2009), knowledge of specific mentoring behaviors used to support the development of
preservice teachers in the context of residencies (Schwille, 2008), and knowledge of the
pedagogical methods taught in the university’s courses (Cherian, 2007; Patrick, 2013). Below are
the results and findings related to each of these three influences.
Knowledge of How Knowledge is Generated in Clinical Settings
The first knowledge influence within the conceptual framework was the mentor teachers’
knowledge of how knowledge is generated in clinical settings. Data was gathered on this aspect
of the mentor teachers’ knowledge during the interviews primarily through the question, “What
would you say is the goal of having preservice teachers spend time working with a mentor
teacher as a part of their preparation?” The centrality of observation of the mentor teacher, the
opportunity to receive explicit instruction from the mentor on how to carry out important tasks,
and the opportunity for “hands-on” application of the content learned in their university
coursework all emerged as themes in the mentors’ statements. Largely missing, however, was an
articulation of the role of corrective feedback in the development of the preservice teachers’
pedagogical practice. This last factor, as well as in some cases a lack of clarity with respect to
how mentor modeling and explicit instruction would be carried out, serve to validate this
knowledge influence, as described below.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 49
Role of mentor modeling. Modeling of strategies to be learned supports the learning of
new behaviors and improves performance (Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2009). When asked
about the purpose of the clinical aspect of a preservice teacher’s training, nearly all of the
mentors emphasized the opportunity for them to learn by watching the mentor teacher’s own
instruction. For example, one mentor listed it first when asked about the goal of the clinical
experience: “You know it's multilayered. I think the first is just the ideal is to model effective
teaching.” The extent to which the mentors were intentional in modeling discrete practices to be
learned, as well as their ideas pertaining to the mechanism by which the preservice teachers’
observation of the mentors’ teaching would lead to the development of pedagogical knowledge
was not always articulated, however. One mentor described the exchange in terms that implied a
passive orientation on the part of preservice teacher: “They're looking at everything that I'm
doing, they're soaking in the strategies that I'm applying.” Though the rationale for having the
preservice teachers spend significant time observing their mentor was not always clearly
articulated, all but one of the seven mentors interviewed highlighted this practice when
discussing the purpose of the clinical placement.
Provision of explicit instruction on how to carry out common tasks. Several mentors
also articulated that they viewed the clinical experience as an important opportunity for the
residents to receive explicit instruction from them on how to carry out important tasks as a
teacher, especially of a type that they thought might not be covered in the university coursework.
One mentor stated “I think my role is really to cover what teacher education doesn't… So it's
everything to me from like, this is how I plan curriculum, this is how you take attendance, this is
how you create a test, this is what you do when you have a meltdown, all of those little practical
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 50
pieces that will have to be done to be able to survive your first year or two.” Other mentors
expressed that they would serve as a “guide” to their residents, which may or may not have
included giving explicit instruction on how to carry out common tasks, but does similarly
connote the active role of the mentor teacher in building the residents’ knowledge. This emphasis
on explicit instruction on how to carry out essential tasks in the clinical setting is consistent with
information processing theory in that the residents have the opportunity to learn this information
in a meaningful context, though the extent to which this information is being presented according
to an organized schema of practice is not clear (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
Opportunity for application of knowledge learned in university coursework. Another
idea expressed by several mentors was that the clinical experience served as an opportunity for
residents to gain experience applying theoretical knowledge learned in their university
coursework. These mentors emphasized the difference between what one termed “book
knowledge” versus “experience,” and expressed that the clinical setting created the opportunity
for preservice teachers to gain the latter. One stated, “You could talk all that theory you want in
class but ...there's nothing quite like getting the field experience and being in the classroom.”
These mentors expressed that there was value in the opportunity for hands-on application as their
residents worked to build their knowledge as practitioners, again consistent with information
processing theory (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006)
Role of feedback. Largely missing from the mentors’ responses, however, was an
emphasis on the role of feedback in building the residents’ pedagogical knowledge, though the
literature supports that this is a critical contributing factor to the development of their practice
(Shute, 2008). None of the mentors mentioned the opportunity to receive feedback when
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 51
discussing the rationale for including a clinical placement component in a preservice teachers’
training, though four of the seven did later state that they provided feedback to their residents as
a part of their work (discussed in further detail below). On the other hand, though the mentors
did not emphasise this aspect of the clinical experience in the interviews, 81% of them indicated
on the mentor survey that they “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statement that they
provided their residents with actionable feedback on how to improve his or her teaching. This
may be consistent with the findings of Valencia et al. (2009) that mentor teachers may not
regularly incorporate feedback on their preservice teacher’s instruction in their one-on-one
meeting time, even though they intend to include it in their work with the resident to some
extent.
Knowledge of Specific Mentoring Behaviors
The second knowledge influence included in the conceptual framework was the mentor
teachers’ knowledge of specific mentoring behaviors that would support the residents’ learning
during the clinical placement. Two themes emerged in an analysis of the data: the prevalence of
modeling and one on one meetings with residents as strategies utilized by all of the mentors, and
the high degree of variance in the strategies used among those mentors who did utilize other
approaches.
Prevalence of modeling and one on one meetings as strategies to support resident
learning. When the mentors interviewed were asked about the specific strategies that they
utilized in order to develop their resident as a beginning teacher, all seven referenced the time
residents spend observing their instruction, as well as their one on one meetings spent planning
or discussing what happened during a given lesson. One mentor described the observation that
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 52
their resident engaged in as resulting in learning across a broad range of teacher practices: “The
goal is to watch somebody who's experienced in their practices and to learn from one basically
how they run a classroom, how students learn, how you build community etc.” Each of the
mentors also spoke to the use of one on one meetings as a strategy with their residents; stated one
mentor, “I think a lot of it is just open communication and dialogue... we would touch base and
make sure that we had time to meet when it was necessary but otherwise it is just kind of natural
meeting throughout the day.” These two practices are consistent with the literature on effective
mentoring strategies (Sayeski & Paulsen, 2012; Mena et al., 2016).
Variance in strategies used among mentors who utilized other approaches. Only
three mentors articulated strategies that they used in mentoring their residents beyond modeling
and holding one one one meetings; of these, there was little overlap among the practices used by
the three. One mentor expressed that he engaged in co-teaching with his resident, as well as
reviewing her lesson plans and providing feedback on them; another mentor maintained a
running log of written feedback that her resident could review regularly. A third mentor
described her practice of creating small groups of students for her resident to support in order to
practice working with students prior to his taking over leading the class independently. As noted
in Chapter Two, Gardiner (2009) found that teachers considered the practice of mentoring to be
distinct from the practice of teaching itself, with its own elements and strategies to master. The
lack of overlap among the practices used by the mentors in EUTR indicates that the mentors do
not share a common knowledge base of mentoring behaviors from which to draw.

MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 53
Knowledge of the Pedagogical Methods Taught in University Coursework
A third influence within the conceptual framework was the mentor teachers’ knowledge
pertaining to the pedagogical methods taught in the EUTR courses. As noted in the literature
review, the degree of alignment between the instruction modeled in mentor teachers’ classrooms
and the pedagogical approaches taught in a preservice teacher’s university courses impacts the
extent to which the latter are able to practice the pedagogy they are intended to learn (Cherian,
2007; Patrick, 2013). The first theme that emerged in an analysis of the mentors’ comments on
this potential influence was that the mechanisms by which these stakeholders learn about the
content of the university courses are notably limited. A second theme was that though their
opportunities for learning about the content of these courses were limited, where mentors did
express some familiarity they articulated a general sense of alignment between the pedagogy
they were modeling in their classrooms and what the residents were learning in their courses.
Limited mechanisms for receiving information on the content covered in university
courses. When asked how familiar they were with the pedagogical approaches their resident was
learning in their university coursework, the mentors expressed that there were limited
opportunities for them to learn about the methods being taught in the courses. Most of the
mentors expressed that they talked with their resident to some extent about what they were
learning, primarily through the lens of discussing assignments the residents were completing that
required implementation within the mentors’ classroom. One stated, for example, “There are
some pedagogical things that I knew before but I was reminded of… some of the things that she's
trying to answer or trying to implement in the classroom.” Two of the seven mentors expressed
that they had not had an opportunity to learn what was being taught in the courses; “Well I can't
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 54
answer that because those haven't been shared with me. So I don't really have knowledge of
that,” one stated.
Expressed general alignment with pedagogy. Of the five mentors who indicated some
level of awareness of the content their resident was learning in their university coursework, they
expressed a general sense of alignment between what was being learned and their own approach
to instruction. One mentor stated “So over the course of the year we had a very busy schedule
and especially the resident had quite a heavy load, so I didn't really get much of a chance to be a
participant or kind of discuss much of their course of studies. But overall we were talking and
discussing approaches to reading comprehension and vocabulary and also focusing on research
for our students… we were focusing mainly on Bloom's Taxonomy and that's pretty much what I
learned from my course of study, and that has been part of my approach for the last 20 years.”
Another attributed their perceived alignment to the recent time frame of her own training, as well
as her current work as an instructor for preservice teachers at another local university; “I think
we're pretty aligned. I did my coursework five years ago so it wasn't that long ago and currently I
teach a curriculum course. So there are some classes or courses that he's taking where I'm
literally teaching that and then there's others where it sounds familiar.”
Though the mentors who felt they had some familiarity with the content the residents
were learning in their courses expressed a general sense of alignment between that content and
their own practice, the connections they articulated were vague or unclear. For example, one
mentor stated, “I have kind of got a strong familiarity both with the content but also what it takes
to form relationships with students, having that parent contact, all the things in terms of what a
teacher needs to be also from an administrative point of view. So from that perspective I was
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 55
very well aware of the pedagogy that she had to learn how to use.” This lack of clarity may have
been due to the mentors’ limited access to information on what content was being covered in the
residents’ courses, or due to other possible causes. Though the data in this case is not sufficient
to identify the reason for this, the data does validate that this knowledge gap exists.
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences
In addition to the posited knowledge influences, the conceptual framework also included
two motivation influences on the mentor’s attainment of their stakeholder goal. The first, based
on expectancy value theory, was that mentor teachers must believe that there is value in their
work to support the development of preservice teachers in the role of mentor (Eccles, 2006). The
second, grounded in self-efficacy theory (Pajares, 2006), was that the mentor teachers must feel
that they have been adequately prepared and supported as mentors in order to expect that they
will be effective in the role. Though an analysis of the interview and survey data did not support
validating the first influence, the second influence was validated as an existing gap impacting the
mentors’ performance.
Value for the Work of Mentoring
The first motivation influence posited by the conceptual framework was the value mentor
teachers place on the work of mentoring residents. The first theme identified through an analysis
of the data was that the mentor teachers believe that the role holds intrinsic value as a means to
help new individuals desiring to enter the field to have an opportunity to do so. The second was
that serving in this capacity additionally yielded utility value for them due to the benefit of
having another adult to work with in their classroom, and the opportunity to develop their own
practice as well. Based on the strength of the evidence that nearly all of the mentors surveyed
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 56
and interviewed saw value in their work as mentors, this potential influence was not validated as
a gap in the data collected, as described in the following sections.
Value related to supporting new individuals entering the field. All seven of the
mentors interviewed articulated that they saw intrinsic value in the opportunity to give assistance
to preservice teachers seeking to enter the profession. One shared a sentiment that was echoed
by many of the participants, stating, “The statistics for teachers who leave the profession in the
first five years are very alarming, and so it's important to me if I have the opportunity to open up
my classroom and my practice to somebody else who needs the experience and could benefit
from it, then I want to make myself available for them.” This espoused value is consistent with
previous findings on teacher motivation for serving as mentors to preservice candidates (Russell
& Russell, 2011).
Value related to benefits to the mentor teacher’s own practice. The utility value of
the work of mentoring as a support for their own professional learning was evident in both the
program-wide mentor survey and the interviews. Regarding ways in which being a mentor
supported or improved their work, 93% of the mentors surveyed responded that they “agreed” or
“strongly agreed” with the statement that being a mentor had made them a more effective
teacher. In the interviews, four of the seven teachers interviewed listed this as an additional
reason why they had wanted to serve as a mentor. One stated, for example, “I am the only U.S.
history teacher so that can be a very isolating practice. I am a teacher who constantly questions
myself because I want to do what's best and what's right for my students. So I feel I've gotten a
lot through the program myself, just having another pair of eyes and a fresh perspective on
things.” This potential for collaboration with their resident as a benefit to their own work is also
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 57
consistent with previous findings on teachers’ reasons for choosing to become a mentor to
preservice candidates (Russell & Russell, 2011).
Adequate Preparation and Support
The second motivation influence in the conceptual framework was that the mentor
teachers must feel that they are adequately prepared and supported in order to expect that they
will be effective in the role. This is a necessary condition for their self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006),
which is in turn a contributing factor to their motivation as a stakeholder group. Three themes
were identified in an analysis of the mentor teacher survey data and the seven mentor teacher
interviews. These were the role of their prior experience as a classroom teachers themselves,
their confidence based on previously working as a mentor to preservice or beginning teachers,
and the absence of reference to formal support received, such as that from school leadership or
the EUTR program.
Experience as a teacher as preparation for work as a mentor. When asked about what
had prepared them for their work as mentors, four of the seven mentor teachers interviewed cited
their experience as a successful teacher themselves. These teachers each noted the length of time
they had been teaching, such as one mentor who responded by stating, “Teaching for 19 years.
I've just, I've taught elementary, middle school, high school, and at my university when I was a
graduate teaching assistant for three years.” As noted in the review of the literature on
motivation in Chapter Two, in this context experiences of prior successful performance are
called mastery experiences, and are a contributing factor in expectations of success as described
in self-efficacy theory (Pajares, 2006).
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 58
Previous work as a mentor. Four of the mentors interviewed also identified their prior
experiences serving as mentor teachers as a factor contributing to their sense of preparation for
their current work. “I've had preservice teachers from various other programs in and around the
area… I think I've had about ten preservice teachers and I've had pretty good reviews from
them,” one of these mentors stated when asked about experiences that had prepared them to
serve as a mentor teacher. Such statements are again examples of the mentors citing prior
mastery experiences as a contributing factor to their self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006).
Formal support received from school administrators and EUTR program. Most of
the mentors expressed that they had engaged with their school’s leadership and EUTR faculty to
some extent regarding their work with their resident. Most notable was the support they received
from a member of the EUTR faculty designated as a Residency Director, who provided support
to not only the preservice teacher candidates but also to the mentor teachers themselves, in the
form of coaching and professional development. In the survey administered to mentor teachers
across the program, 93% responded that they “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statement
that they were supported in their role as teaching mentor by the EUTR program faculty; this
compared to only 46% who “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the same statement with respect
to their school’s administrators. During the mentor interviews, when asked specifically about
what kinds of support they had received from the university or from the school district for their
work as a mentor teacher, three stated that their administrators were generally supportive, but did
not articulate actions taken to develop their mentoring specifically.
Regarding support from EUTR, however, the majority of the mentors noted that they
engaged with EUTR faculty to some extent regarding their resident. An example of how such
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 59
interactions were described was given by one mentor who stated “[The faculty member] is here
on a weekly basis, not only to observe, but we would normally have a short talk about how
they're performing and what observations she's made...” Two of the mentors noted that they
would have wanted more guidance on how to give feedback: “I've been an induction mentor for
several years and [with EUTR] there's not as much written feedback in terms of the teacher, not
as much from my perspective, how they're doing on climate, how they're doing on lesson
planning, how they're doing checking for understanding, all the different things he has to do as a
teacher.” So while the mentors were able to benefit from the support of the Residency Directors,
there was still an expressed need for more guidance to be provided on the part of some mentors.
Results and Findings for Organizational Influences
In the next section, the results and findings related to the proposed organizational
influences will be reviewed. As discussed in Chapter Two, organizational factors make up the
third set of influences impacting performance within the Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO
framework, on which this study’s conceptual framework is based. Specifically, according to the
conceptual framework, organizational factors interact with the mentor teachers’ existing
knowledge and motivation with respect to the role to impact their performance as mentors within
the EUTR program. Within the framework, four organizational factors were proposed as the
primary influences on mentor performance based on the review of the literature. Two of these
were the cultural models of the ideal role of the mentor teacher (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001;
Rajuan et al., 2007; Russell & Russell, 2011), as well as the role of a resident. The remaining
two proposed organizational influences were the cultural setting of the “shared” classroom space
in which the resident is learning to teach (Anderson, 2007), as well as the setting of the
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 60
one-on-one meetings that transpire between mentors and their residents (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001; Smith, 2007; Valencia et al., 2009). Below are the results and findings related
to each of these four organizational influences.
Cultural Model: Role of the Mentor Teacher
There was evidence of an interaction between the mentors’ understanding of how
knowledge is generated in a clinical setting and the organizational influence of the expected role
of a mentor teacher. When asked in the interviews about how they enacted the role of the mentor
teacher, their responses largely aligned with their statements regarding the purpose or rationale
for the clinical experience itself. One exception to this was with regard to the practice of giving
the preservice teacher feedback. The following two sections detail these two findings.
Relationship between the cultural model and mentor knowledge. There was evidence
of an interaction between the cultural model of the role of the mentor teacher and the mentors’
knowledge of how knowledge is generated in clinical settings. When asked about the role of a
mentor teacher in the interviews, the mentors emphasized the work of serving as a model, a
theme in their responses regarding the purpose of the clinical experience for preservice teachers.
“What do mentor teachers do? Ideally mentor teachers lead by example… demonstrating best
practices.” This pattern was observed in the mentor survey as well, with 81% of the mentors
across the program identifying “demonstrate teaching moves and routines that s/he can learn
from” as a behavior they engage in within their role. While this was a notable overlap, it is
difficult to determine from the evidence whether the cultural model of the mentor teacher role
was being influenced by the stakeholders’ knowledge of how knowledge is generated in clinical
settings, or if the influence went in the opposite direction.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 61
Role relating to the provision of feedback. A counterexample to this pattern was the
greater emphasis placed on the mentors’ provision of feedback to the residents compared to their
articulation of the goal of the clinical experience. In describing the role of the mentor teacher,
four of the seven mentors interviewed mentioned giving their resident feedback (“You become
more of a mentor to them, where they can talk about what's working, what's not working, giving
them immediate feedback.”), though none mentioned this when discussing the purpose of the
clinical experience itself. As noted above, on the mentor survey 81% of the respondents “agreed”
or “strongly agreed” with the statement that they provided their residents with actionable
feedback on how to improve their teaching. Based on this data, serving as one who provides
feedback is a part of the cultural model of a mentor teacher impacting the members of this group,
even though this feature may not be an explicit aspect of their ideas regarding how preservice
teachers learn during the clinical experience.
Cultural Model: Role of the Resident
There was much less consistency in the mentors’ description of the expected role of the
resident, despite the fact that EUTR as an organization provided mentors with a very detailed
description of what the residents’ role should be, and how it should evolve over time. The
evidence of variation evident on the program-wide survey might be attributable to the impact of
the mentors’ own school sites and districts as spaces in which differing models may exist. There
was notable variation in the mentors’ descriptions of the role in the interviews, however; as noted
in Chapter Three, all of the mentors came from the same district, although they represented five
different schools. One common theme in the interviews, however, was the emphasis on the
resident as observer, which was consistent with the cultural model of the mentor as modeler.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 62
Emphasis on observation. Four of the seven mentors interviewed described the
residents’ role as being primarily about observation of the mentor. When asked what was “the
expected role of the resident in their classroom,” these mentors stated that the resident would
start off primarily observing, though the observation seemed to be a persistent aspect of the
residents’ expected role, as one stated, “For the first semester in this particular program, it was
just observation and she was also able to observe other classrooms, as she has been doing that all
year long.” This emphasis on observation is especially notable given that the EUTR model
includes the resident engaging in carrying out some aspects of the classroom procedures or
instruction from the beginning of their clinical experience, rather than “just observation.”
Limited overlap in articulation of other aspects of the resident role. Beyond the
common emphasis on observation in the mentors’ cultural models of the resident role, there was
a great deal of variation in ways that the mentors constructed the role. As noted above, only two
mentors discussed co-teaching when asked to describe the expected role of the resident. One
mentor described the resident as an “apprentice,” only two mentors spoke of their residents
working with small groups of students, and another mentor explained that she had her resident
lead a class independently from the first day of school, rather than following the program’s
gradual release model. The results of the mentor survey similarly showed a wide range of
expectations for the role of the preservice teachers, with 41% of mentors reporting that their
resident served as an “assistant,” 28% as a substitute, 27% indicating that their resident served as
a “co-teacher,” and 27% reporting that their resident “takes the lead when asked on some tasks,
such as leading small and whole group sessions, guiding transitions, etc.” Given that mentor
teachers were able to select more than one response regarding the role of their resident, the low
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 63
percentages for each response option illustrates the limited overlap in the kinds of tasks the
residents were engaged in. This variation is consistent with Rajuan et al.’s (2007) finding that
there are differences in conceptions of the ideal relationship between preservice teachers and
their mentors, both among and between these two groups.
Cultural Setting: Incorporating Resident into Shared Classroom Space
A third influence within the conceptual framework was the mentors’ incorporation of
their resident in to the cultural setting of the shared classroom space. As noted in the literature
review, there is a marked imbalance of power in the relationship between mentor teachers and
their preservice counterparts; this power is exerted through such avenues as control over the
preservice teacher’s ability to determine the content of lessons, the timing of the gradual
assumption of responsibility for teaching (Valencia et al., 2009), and the allotment of authority
within the classroom (Anderson, 2007). This imbalance of power and control of the residents’ de
facto access to the classroom space was evident in the mentor teacher interviews as well. A
second theme that was identified in the data was that though the release of responsibility for
teaching to the resident was meant to be gradual as a key component of the EUTR program
model, the mentors interviewed place emphasis on “observing” and “leading” as two primary
phases of the residents’ way of being in the class.
Control of the mentor teacher. Four of the seven mentors interviewed used language
that emphasized the primacy of their role in determining how the resident would engage within
the shared classroom. One mentor described her decision to have her resident take over a class
fully from the first day: “One thing that I do differently to make sure that that theory and practice
are aligned is that I actually have given my preservice teacher his own class period from the
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 64
beginning of the year because I do think that when preservice teachers have to do the gradual
takeover model that authority is much more difficult for them to win over later in the year.”
Another mentor described his control of the timing of access to different aspects of the
classroom: “After talking with the preservice teacher, understanding what their strengths, their
weaknesses are, to develop a plan with that teacher to work with the teacher to slowly bring them
into a co-teaching like status… Eventually letting go and letting the other teacher start to write
their own lesson plans…” This control of access to different aspects of their classroom is
consistent with the power relationship identified in prior research as well (Valencia et al., 2009;
Anderson, 2007).
Emphasis on two phases of resident integration in to classroom space. Though three
teachers did speak to a gradual release of responsibility in the classroom consistent with the
EUTR program model , four of the teachers interviewed emphasized two phases in the residents’
integration in to the classroom space: “observing” and “leading.” As an example, one mentor
framed her resident’s time in the classroom as being delineated between these two stages, saying,
“I'm not sure that we did it the way we were supposed to. We did a more traditional model in
certain ways of observation, then taking over classes.” Another mentor stated, “For the first
semester in this particular program, it was just observation… the first semester was not being the
instructor for any particular class. We kind of geared up to that in the second semester, so
currently she is the full-time teacher for two class periods with all of those responsibilities.” As
these examples illustrate, though there may have been some gradation in the residents’ work in
the classroom, these mentors’ descriptions of their residents’ presence in the classroom
emphasized these two phases.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 65
Cultural Setting: Meetings Between Mentors and Residents
The fourth organizational influence articulated in the conceptual framework was the
cultural setting of the meetings between mentors and their residents. Such meetings are often
missed opportunities to discuss pedagogical choices and provide needed feedback to the resident,
if they happen regularly at all (Valencia et al., 2009). Two themes emerged in an analysis of the
data: a broad range of uses described by mentors when asked about how they use their one on
one meeting time with their residents, and a limited focus on the use of this time for feedback.
Broad range of uses of mentors’ one on one meeting time with residents. The
mentors in the study indicated a broad range of uses for their one on one meeting time with
residents. The mentors interviewed indicated a total of twelve uses cumulatively when asked
about how they utilize this time. These included frequently mentioned activities such as
encouraging resident reflection, planning upcoming lessons, and discussing how to work best
with particular students, as well as less-often cited uses (e.g., “making copies”) or
subject-specific uses (such as setting up for and practicing labs for science demonstrations). This
is consistent with the broad range of topics the 39 mentors surveyed indicated that they covered
during their one on one time with residents (see Figure 2). The wide range of topics covered by
mentors during these meetings may indicate lack of clarity on the part of the mentors regarding
what uses might be the highest-leverage in terms of supporting their residents’ learning.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 66

Figure 2. Percentage of mentors who “Strongly Agreed” or “Agreed” that they engage in various
activities with their resident.
Limited focus on feedback during one on one meeting time. Consistent with the
themes identified with respect the mentors’ beliefs about their role and the purpose of the clinical
experience, only one of the seven mentors indicated that she would use the time to provide
feedback when asked about how she used her time with her resident: “I think it's really a
combination space. We use it half of the time to go over the minute by minute details of his class
for feedback, reflection, questions... and then the other times that we have that one on one time
we use it to plan curriculum.” As noted above, four other mentors expressed that they used the
time to encourage the residents to reflect on how a lesson had gone, though it is not clear if this
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 67
reflection time also included feedback from the mentor. One mentor stated, for example, “I was
able to provide my resident time for reflection on what they did within the classroom… to have a
conversation of what went well, what didn't go well, what are some things that you would
change?” This distinction is notable given the role of feedback in the development of preservice
teachers’ practice (Valencia et al., 2009).
Summary
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which EUTR is meeting its goal
of graduating 100% of its students prepared to be effective first-year teachers. While a complete
performance evaluation would have included an analysis of factors influencing the performance
of all stakeholders contributing this goal, for practical purposes this analysis focused on one key
stakeholder group, the organization’s mentor teachers. The study sought to identify the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences impacting the effectiveness of this group
in meeting their stakeholder goal, and contributing ultimately to the organizational goal.
The data outlined in this chapter help to address the first three research questions posed in
the study. Specifically, the data validated that knowledge of how knowledge is generated in
clinical settings, knowledge of specific mentoring behaviors, and knowledge of the pedagogical
approaches taught in the university’s courses are all influences impacting EUTR’s mentors in
attaining their goal of being effective mentors for their residents. While value for mentoring was
not validated as an influence, the mentors’ self-efficacy for mentoring was validated as a
motivation influence impacting their effectiveness. And both of these sets of factors are
interacting with the organizational context of both EUTR and the mentors’ individual school
sites. Specifically, the validated knowledge and motivation influences are interacting with the
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 68
cultural models of the roles of the mentor and preservice teacher active in both contexts, as well
as the cultural settings of the shared classroom and one on one meeting. Based on these findings,
there are validated gaps in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organization factors that are
impacting the mentors’ ability to reach their stakeholder goal, and ultimately the extent to which
EUTR can meet its organizational goal of preparing its residents to be effective first-year
teachers.
The following chapter will now address the final research question of what are the
recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources. Recommendations will be made to address each validated influence
based on the literature pertaining to each of these areas. Lastly, a recommended implementation
and evaluation plan for these actions will be outlined utilizing the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 69
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which EUTR is meeting its goal
of graduating 100% of its students prepared to be effective first-year teachers. As noted in the
previous chapters, while a complete performance evaluation would have included an analysis of
factors influencing the performance of all stakeholders contributing this goal, for practical
purposes this analysis focused on one key stakeholder group, the organization’s mentor teachers.
The study sought to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences impacting
the effectiveness of this group in meeting their stakeholder goal, and contributing ultimately to
the organizational goal.
The questions that guided the study were the following:
1. To what extent is EUTR meeting its performance goal?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements related to
achieving the organizational goal?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and
stakeholder knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources?
An analysis of the data collected validated that eight of the nine posited influences on the
mentor teachers’ performance were in fact impacting their effectiveness. Specifically, the data
validated three influences pertaining to knowledge: knowledge of how knowledge is generated in
clinical settings, knowledge of specific mentoring behaviors, and knowledge of the pedagogical
approaches taught in the university’s courses. While value for mentoring was not validated as an
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 70
influence, the mentors’ self-efficacy for mentoring was validated as an influence pertaining to
motivation. And the cultural models of the roles of the mentor and preservice teacher active in
both contexts, as well as the cultural settings of the shared classroom and one on one meeting
were validated as organizational influences on their effectiveness as mentors.
This chapter will address the question of recommendations for organizational practice in
order to address these validated factors. Consistent with the conceptual framework, the
recommendations will be organized by knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), which integrates a
recommended implementation plan with an evaluation of the results, will be used as an
organizing framework for these recommendations.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. In the following section I will discuss the validated knowledge influences
impacting the performance of the mentor teacher stakeholder group, along with my
recommendations for addressing each. Among the three validated knowledge influences, the
highest priority is addressing the mentor teachers’ knowledge of how knowledge is generated in
clinical settings, as this will provide an overarching framework to guide their work with their
preservice teachers. This is followed by knowledge of specific mentoring behaviors used to
support the development of preservice teachers, which the mentors can use to inform their
actions on a daily basis. This discussion of the knowledge influences and the recommendations
that follow will be guided by the principles of social cognitive theory (Denler et al., 2006) and
information processing systems theory (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006; Baker, 2006). Table 5
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 71
provides a summary of the validated influences, and the recommendations corresponding to
each.
Table 5
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Validated
as a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle Context-Specific
Recommendation
Mentor teachers need
knowledge of how
knowledge is generated
in clinical settings.
(Declarative -
Conceptual)
V Yes How individuals
organize
knowledge
influences how
they learn and
apply what they
know (Schraw
& McCrudden,
2006).
Provide training
for mentor teachers
on key components
of preservice
teacher learning,
organized by phase
of the clinical
experience.
Mentor teachers need to
know the specific
mentoring behaviors
used to support the
development of
preservice teachers in
the context of
residencies.
(Declarative -
Conceptual)
V Yes To develop
mastery,
individuals
must acquire
component
skills, practice
integrating
them, and
know when to
apply what they
have learned
(Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).
Provide training
that breaks down
specific mentoring
behaviors into
component parts,
and gives mentors
an opportunity to
practice them with
a peer prior to
utilizing them with
their preservice
teacher.
Mentor teachers need
knowledge of the
pedagogy taught in
their preservice
teacher’s the university
courses. (Declarative -
Conceptual)
V Yes Information
learned
meaningfully
and connected
with prior
knowledge is
stored more
quickly and
Provide
information for
mentor teachers on
the pedagogical
approaches taught
in the university’s
methods courses
with examples that
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 72
remembered
more accurately
because it is
elaborated with
prior learning
(Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).
explicitly connect
each to their own
instructional
practices.

Provide training that reviews key components of preservice teacher learning in
clinical settings . The results and findings of this study indicated that the mentor teachers in the
EUTR need to develop their knowledge of how knowledge is generated in clinical settings.
Because how individuals organize knowledge impacts how they learn and apply what they know,
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006), I am recommending that mentors receive training in how this
knowledge is formed organized by the phase of the clinical experience. Specifically, the
recommendation is to provide training for mentor teachers on key components of preservice
teacher learning focused on the stage that the teacher is in during the residency year (e.g.,
beginning of the experience, beginning to lead portions of the lesson, independent teaching, and
so on). . For example, the mentor teachers’ monthly professional development session could be
focused on the activities that the pair should be engaged in in the coming month, with an
explanation of the purpose of each.
Such training would be consistent with empirical research on the mentor teachers’
understanding of how knowledge is constructed during the clinical experience. As noted in
chapter two, in their year-long study of nine mentor teacher and preservice teacher pairs,
Valencia et al. (2009) found that the mentor teachers consistently failed to include in their
post-lesson discussions corrective feedback pertaining to pedagogy, focusing instead on other
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 73
points, such as planning for upcoming lessons. In another study, Mena et al. (2016) analyzed
different types of mentoring conversations that occurred between 168 preservice teachers and
their mentors. In their analysis, they found that each type of debrief developed the preservice
teachers’ understanding in different ways. If mentor teachers are to be effective in preparing
preservice teachers, it is critical that they have an understanding of how their choices will impact
preservice teacher learning. Training that equips them with knowledge of how their preservice
teacher’s knowledge is developed during the clinical experience will help them to make better
decisions about what actions to take to maximize the teacher’s learning.
Provide training that reviews specific mentoring behaviors in the context of a
teacher residency. Another knowledge influence that was validated in this study is that the
mentor teachers need to know the specific mentoring behaviors used to support the development
of preservice teachers in the context of residencies. Information processing system theory
provides a useful framework here for considering how to develop the mentors’ knowledge of
these discrete behaviors. Specifically, in order to develop mastery, individuals must learn the
component skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). This could be done by incorporating training on specific
mentoring behaviors into the mentors’ monthly professional development sessions, with a focus
on the component parts of each, along with time set aside for the mentors to practice the
strategies with their peers within that setting. For example, a session might review the strategy
of providing feedback on their mentee’s teaching while watching a videotaped lesson together;
after learning the necessary components of the activities, mentors could watch example videos
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 74
with a partner, and practice giving feedback on the videotaped segment as they would if they
were with their mentee.
This training is also consistent with empirical research on the work of mentor teachers as
mentors. As noted in chapter two, specific mentoring behaviors have been identified in studies
that have looked at the work of these teachers with preservice teacher candidates. In their
analysis of 389 evaluations of mentor teachers, Sayeski and Paulsen (2012) identified distinct
mentoring behaviors that preservice teachers felt contributed most significantly to their
development, including the modeling of effective instructional practices and providing specific
feedback in multiple modalities. In a year-long analysis of 27 mentor-novice pairs across three
countries, Schwille (2008) identified eight specific mentoring behaviors, classified as activities
either during classroom instruction or outside of it, that mentor teachers engaged in in support of
the learning of their preservice teachers. In a qualitative analysis of eight mentor teachers’
perceptions of their development as mentors, Gardiner (2009) found the teachers conceived of
their work as mentors to novice teachers as requiring a set of skills that were distinct from their
practice as classroom teachers; further, they expressed the need to receive support in developing
their skills as mentors. Providing training in these strategies, that includes an emphasis on the
mentor teachers’ own meta-awareness of their growth with respect to each, is consistent with the
findings in these studies.
Provide information for mentor teachers on the pedagogical approaches taught in
the university’s methods courses. The findings also indicate that the mentor teachers need to
increase their knowledge of the pedagogical approaches the preservice teachers are learning in
their university coursework. Information processing theory is again helpful here in identifying
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 75
possible ways to address this need. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) argued that connecting new
information to prior learning will support the movement of this information to long term
memory. As experienced teachers, mentor teachers likely already possess knowledge related to
the specific pedagogical approaches taught in the university’s methods courses. Based on this, a
recommendation to address this knowledge influence is to provide information for mentor
teachers outlining the approaches that are being learned, with examples that explicitly connect
each to their own instructional practices. This might be done in practice by highlighting one to
two key pedagogical approaches emphasized in the university’s coursework at each of the
teachers’ monthly professional development sessions, for example, and asking the participants to
each share ways in which they carry out these (or related practices) in their classroom.
The importance of such training is supported by empirical research on the impact of a
perceived alignment between the pedagogical approaches the preservice teachers are learning in
their coursework and that of the mentor teachers. As discussed in chapter two, preservice
teachers’ perceptions of the match between their mentor teachers’ pedagogy and that which they
are learning in their methods courses directly impacts the teaching practices they feel they are
able to practice during their clinical experience. Cherian (2007) found in a one-year study of six
mentor teacher and preservice teacher pairs that the preservice teachers were limited in their
ability to implement the inquiry-based approaches they learned in their methods courses because
their mentors required them to teach using pedagogical strategies that were aligned with the
mentors’ existing approaches rather than what they were being taught. Similarly, Patrick (2013)
analyzed the narratives of seven preservice teachers in a university teacher preparation program,
and found that preservice teachers reported that they were unable to implement the teaching
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 76
practices they were learning at the university because of a concern that they were not consistent
with the practices of their mentors. Given that the findings in the current study indicate that the
mentor teachers do not have knowledge of the pedagogical approaches being taught in the
university courses, providing this information for the mentors and facilitating their ability to
make connection between these approaches and their own practice will help to ensure that their
preservice teachers are able to implement what they are learning in their coursework in the
context of the clinical setting.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. Next I will discuss the validated motivation influences impacting the
performance of the mentor teacher stakeholder group, along with my recommendations for each.
Of the two potential motivation influences outlined at the beginning of the study, only one was
validated. The proposed influence of mentor teacher beliefs about the value of their work was not
validated based on the data collected. A second motivation influence was validated based on the
data collected, however, which is the mentor teachers’ belief that they have been adequately
prepared and supported in order to expect that they will be effective as mentors to preservice
teachers. This discussion of the motivation influences and the related recommendations will be
guided by the principles of expectancy value theory (Eccles, 2006) and self-efficacy theory
(Pajares, 2006). Table 6 provides a summary of these validated influences, and the
recommendations for each.

MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 77
Table 6
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence

Validated
as a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle Context-Specific
Recommendation
Value - Mentor teachers
must believe that there is
value in their work to
support the development of
preservice teachers in the
role of mentor.
N N
Self-efficacy - Mentor
teachers must believe that
they have been adequately
prepared and supported in
order to expect that they
will be effective as mentors
to preservice teachers.
V Y Feedback and
modeling
increases
self-efficacy
(Pajares,
2006).
EUTR faculty
provide targeted
feedback on
progress in
performance.

Provide feedback and modeling for mentor teachers with respect to their
implementation of mentoring strategies with their preservice teachers. As discussed in
chapter four, a second validated motivation influence is that mentor teachers need to believe that
they have been adequately prepared and supported in order to expect that they will be effective in
this role. Because the mentoring of a preservice teacher is work that requires knowledge and
skills that are distinct from those required for teaching (Schwille, 2008), their self-efficacy with
respect to the work of mentoring itself is important to consider. According to self-efficacy
theory, high self-efficacy can positively impact motivation, and self-efficacy can be increased by
feedback and modeling of targeted behaviors (Pajares, 2006). This suggests that mentor teachers’
self-efficacy, and thus their motivation, can be increased by providing feedback and modeling
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 78
regarding their mentoring practice. Specifically, a recommendation is to provide accurate,
credible, targeted, and private feedback with respect to their implementation of mentoring
strategies, along with the training in these strategies described in the preceding section. This
could be accomplished, for example, by having the residency director focus on observing the
mentor’s practice and giving them feedback, rather than the mentee, during agreed-upon
observations at the beginning of the year.
This recommendation is consistent with empirical research on the effect of feedback on
teacher practice. In their case study on the impact of written performance feedback on the use of
behavior-specific praise statements with three middle school inclusion math teachers, Duchaine,
Jolivete and Fredrick (2011) found that the teachers increased the frequency of such statements
following the intervention. Similarly, this recommendation focuses on the role of feedback in
developing the mentor teachers’ engagement in mentoring behaviors, and ultimately their
self-efficacy with respect to this work.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Lastly, as outlined in chapter four, all four potential organizational
influences were validated in this study. Of these, the highest priority are those that directly
address the work of the mentor teacher: ensuring that mentor teachers have a clearly defined
framework for their role that can inform how they engage with their preservice teachers, and that
they engage in their one on one meetings in a way that is conducive to supporting their
preservice teachers’ growth. Following these two high priority influences are two additional
validate influences: that the mentors have a clear picture of what the role of a preservice teacher
should be during a clinical experience, and that they incorporate their preservice teacher into the
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 79
classroom in a way that promotes the novice teacher’s development over time. As noted in
chapter three, the discussion of organizational influences is guided by Gallimore and
Goldenberg’s (2001) framework of cultural settings and cultural models. Table 7 provides a
summary of the four validated organizational influences, in order of priority, along with
recommendations for each.
Table 7
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence

Validated
as a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model:
Mentor teachers need a
clearly defined role that
they can use to inform
the kinds of activities
they engage in with
their preservice
teachers, and how often.
V Y Effective
organizations
insure that
organizational
messages, rewards,
policies and
procedures that
govern the work of
the organization
are aligned with or
are supportive of
organizational
goals and values
(Clark & Estes,
2008).
Create a detailed
role description
for the mentor
teachers that
scaffolds their
engagement with
their preservice
teacher in a way
that evolves over
the course of the
year.
Cultural Setting:
Mentor teachers must
engage in one on one
meetings with
preservice teachers in a
way that is conducive to
supporting the novice’s
growth.
V Y Effective
organizations
insure that
organizational
messages, rewards,
policies and
procedures that
govern the work of
the organization
are aligned with or
Create guidelines
for mentor
teachers and
preservice
teachers that
support the
effective use of
one on one
meeting time, with
example agendas
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 80
are supportive of
organizational
goals and values
(Clark & Estes,
2008).
and protocols they
can utilize in their
work together.
Cultural Model:
Mentor teachers need a
clear picture of what the
role of a preservice
teacher should be
during a clinical
experience, and how
that role should evolve
over time.
V Y Effective
organizations
insure that
organizational
messages, rewards,
policies and
procedures that
govern the work of
the organization
are aligned with or
are supportive of
organizational
goals and values
(Clark & Estes,
2008).

Create policies
that structure the
role of the
preservice teacher
in a way that is
differentiated for
each phase of the
clinical placement.
Cultural Setting:
Mentor teachers need to
incorporate their
preservice teachers into
the classroom in a way
that promotes the
novice teacher’s
development over time.
V Y Effective
organizations
insure that
organizational
messages, rewards,
policies and
procedures that
govern the work of
the organization
are aligned with or
are supportive of
organizational
goals and values
(Clark & Estes,
2008).
Create policies
that structure the
role of the
preservice teacher
in a way that is
differentiated for
each phase of the
clinical placement.

Create a detailed role description for mentor teachers. Of the two cultural model
influences that were validated, the higher priority influence is that pertaining to the role of the
mentor teachers directly, as they are the stakeholders of focus in this study. This validated
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 81
influence was that mentor teachers need a clearly defined role that they can use to inform the
kinds of activities they engage in with their preservice teachers within the clinical setting.
Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001) concept of cultural models is helpful in understanding how
mentor teachers view their role, which is partially through the lens of their constructed model of
what a mentor teacher should be based on their past experiences and ideas they have may
absorbed over time from a variety of sources. One way to address this influence is through
amending organizational procedures to better align with this aspect of the mentor teachers’ need
for a model of their role that is clearly defined and consistent with best practices for meeting the
needs of preservice teachers (Clark & Estes, 2008). Specifically, the recommendation is to create
a detailed role description for the mentor teachers that scaffolds their engagement with their
preservice teacher in a way that evolves over the course of the year.
This recommendation is in alignment with research on the role of mentor teachers in
clinical settings. In their qualitative study of nine mentor teachers, Russell and Russell (2011)
found that the teachers differed in their descriptions of the features of the mentoring relationship
with preservice teachers. To complicate this further, several studies have found that with
effective mentor teachers, the role itself changes over the course of the year as the preservice
teachers’ needs and development evolve (Kolman, Roegman & Goodwin, 2017; van Ginkel,
Oolbekkink, Meijer, & Verloop, 2016). The recommendation addresses this by supporting the
mentor teachers in the evolution of their role over time.
Create procedures for mentor teachers and preservice teachers that support the
effective use of one on one meeting time. As with the two cultural model influences, of the two
influences pertaining to cultural settings, the highest priority is that which is most directly tied to
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 82
the work of the mentor teachers, which is that mentor teachers must engage in one on one
meetings with preservice teachers in a way that is conducive to supporting the novice’s growth.
Within the context of the clinical setting, the one one one meetings that take place between
mentors and their preservice teachers are a significant cultural setting (Gallimore and
Goldenberg, 2001) in which the novice’s learning and growth can be developed. Again, Clark
and Estes’ (2008) assertion that effective organizations ensure that their procedures are aligned
with their organizational goal can be applied here. The guidelines that the organization provides
for mentor teachers regarding the use of their one on one meeting time can serve to shape the
way they engage within this common cultural setting. Specifically, the recommendation is to
create guidelines for mentor teachers and preservice teachers that support the effective use of one
on one meeting time, with example agendas and protocols they can utilize in their work together.
This recommendation is supported by research on the need for more effective use of
mentor teachers’ meeting time with their preservice teachers. As noted in Chapter Two, Valencia
et al. (2009) found that this time is often not used effectively. In their year-long study of nine
preservice teacher and mentor teacher pairs, the researchers found that one-third did not hold
debrief discussions at all, and of those who did debrief regularly, the majority of pairs spent more
time discussing classroom management issues than pedagogy. This recommendation addresses
this issue by providing guidance on how the time is utilized.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The purpose of the EUTR is to prepare effective teachers for its district and charter network
partners. Specifically, the organization’s goal is to graduate 100% of its teachers prepared to be
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 83
effective from their first day of teaching. This study focused on one of the key stakeholder
groups in reaching this goal, the mentor teachers who support the learning of the program’s
preservice teachers within the clinical setting. The specific goal of this stakeholder group of
focus is that 100% of the preservice teachers in the program would rate their mentor teachers as
“good” or “very good” on the program’s biannual survey of program participants. The
recommendations in the preceding sections were based on a review of the literature and the
findings of this study, and will support attainment of the goal of the stakeholder group of focus,
as well as that of the organization overall.
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The framework that will be informing this implementation and evaluation plan is the
New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This framework is an
updated and expanded version of the original Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model, elaborating on
critical aspects of the original four levels of evaluation for the purpose of improving its
implementation. Importantly, the updated model emphasizes beginning with Level 4 evaluation,
which is the extent to which the event(s) being evaluated impact the organization’s bottom line
results. Because this may take time to manifest depending on the nature of the outcomes sought,
leading indicators may be used as early measures that supporting outcomes are moving in the
right direction. At the next level of evaluation, Level 3, the focus is on the extent to which
participants carry out the intended behaviors as a result of the event(s) being evaluated. The
updated model specifies that the most impactful of these behaviors, termed critical behaviors,
should be articulated, along with the drivers of those behaviors that will promote their
occurrence. Level 2 specifies that participants’ knowledge, skill, and motivation with respect to
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 84
the new behaviors should be assessed, and Level 1 evaluation adds engagement and relevance to
the commonly assessed aspect of “satisfaction” with the event(s) (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). In the following sections, I will review the organization’s Level 4 goal, and discuss how
the New World Kirkpatrick Model will be applied to inform the implementation and evaluation
of the recommendations in the preceding sections.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 8 provides an overview of the Level 4 results that correspond to the organizational
goal. These are articulated in terms of both internal and external outcomes. Additionally, the
table specifies the metrics that will be used to measure each outcome, along with the
recommended methods for gathering the data for each metric.
Table 8
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increase the percentage of
program graduates who
demonstrate effective
teaching in their first year.
The percentage of program
graduates who receive a “highly
satisfactory” or better on their
teacher evaluations during their
first year.
Request that district and charter
partners share aggregate
evaluation data on program
graduates with the organization
at the end of the fall and spring
teacher evaluation cycles.
Internal Outcomes
Increase the percentage of
mentor teachers who are
effective in their work to
prepare preservice
teachers for independent
teaching upon graduation.
.
The percentage of mentor
teachers who are rated “good”
or “very good” by their
preservice teacher mentee on
the program’s biannual survey
of program participants.
Review preservice teacher
responses to the question of
how they would rate the quality
of their mentor teacher twice
per year on the program’s
biannual survey.

MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 85
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. There are three critical behaviors pertaining to the mentor teacher
stakeholder group that must be assessed as the focus of the Level 3 evaluation. The first is the
actual implementation of the specific mentoring behaviors that will be covered in the
recommended trainings. The second is that the mentor teachers utilize one on one meetings with
preservice teachers for high-leverage activities, such as discussing content-specific pedagogy and
planning for upcoming lessons, and reviewing student work. And the third is that the mentor
teachers incorporate their preservice teachers into the classroom in high-leverage ways that
correspond to the program’s gradual release timeline. Table 9 outlines the specific metrics that
will be used to measure each of these critical behaviors, along with the methods that will be used
Table 9
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. When working with
their preservice
teachers, mentor
teachers implement a
range of the specific
mentoring behaviors
reviewed in their
training
1. Number of
mentoring behaviors
utilized by mentor
teachers
1a. Add a question to
the program’s
preservice teacher
surveys regarding what
mentoring behaviors
they experience from
their mentor teachers, in
the form of a simplified
list with the instruction
to “check all that apply”
1a. Preservice
teacher surveys
given twice per
year, once in
November and
again in April
1b. Add a question to
the program’s mentor
teacher surveys
regarding what
mentoring behaviors
they self-report
engaging in with their
preservice teachers, in
the form of a list with
1b. Mentor teacher
surveys given twice
per year, once in
November and
again in April
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 86
the instruction to “check
all that apply”
2. Mentor teachers
utilize one on one
meetings with
preservice teachers
for high-leverage
activities, such as
discussing
content-specific
pedagogy and
planning for
upcoming lessons,
and reviewing student
work.
2. Number of
high-leverage
activities engaged in
significantly each
month during one on
one meetings between
mentor teachers and
their preservice
candidates.
2a. Residency director
solicits information
about how one on one
time is utilized through
interviews with both
mentor teachers and
their preservice teacher
counterparts.
2a. Twice per year
during one of the
residency director’s
individual check-ins
with mentor
teachers and
preservice teachers,
once in October,
and again in
February.
2b. Add a question to
the program’s
preservice teacher
surveys regarding the
activities they engage in
during one on one
meetings with their
mentor teachers, in the
form of a simplified list
with the instruction to
“check all that apply”
2b. Preservice
teacher surveys
given twice per
year, once in
November and
again in April
2c. Add a question to
the program’s mentor
teacher surveys
regarding the activities
they engage in during
one on one meetings
with their preservice
teachers, in the form of
a list with the
instruction to “check all
that apply”
2c. Mentor teacher
surveys given twice
per year, once in
November and
again in April
3. Mentor teachers
incorporate their
preservice teachers
into the classroom in
high-leverage ways
that correspond to the
program’s gradual
release timeline.
3. Number of
high-leverage
activities preservice
teachers engage in
significantly each
month in their mentor
teacher’s classroom,
as outlined in the
3a. Residency director
solicits information
about the activities the
preservice teacher is
engaging in within the
classroom through
interviews with both
mentor teachers and
3a. Monthly during
one of the residency
director’s individual
check-ins with
mentor teachers and
preservice teachers
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 87
program’s gradual
release timeline.
their preservice teacher
counterparts.
3b. Review data from
existing question on the
program’s preservice
teacher surveys
regarding the activities
they engage in within
their mentor teacher’s
classroom.
3b. Preservice
teacher surveys
given twice per
year, once in
November and
again in April
3c. Review data from
existing question on the
program’s mentor
teacher surveys
regarding the activities
their preservice teachers
engage in within the
classroom.
3c. Mentor teacher
surveys given twice
per year, once in
November and
again in April

Required drivers. As outlined in the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016), the organization must put in place key drivers in order to ensure the
implementation and maintenance of these critical behaviors by the mentor teacher stakeholder
group. These include reinforcing, encouraging, rewarding, and monitoring drivers. Table 10
shows the recommended drivers that will support the mentor teacher stakeholder group’s critical
behaviors.
Table 10
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing

Rotating review of selected aspects of
mentor teacher role description at
monthly mentor teacher meetings
Monthly 1, 2, 3
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 88
Mentor teacher self-assessment of
mentoring behaviors utilized at monthly
mentor teacher meetings
Monthly 1
Mentor teacher self-assessment of use of
one on one meeting time at monthly
mentor teacher meetings
Monthly 2
Encouraging
Feedback from peers during monthly
mentor teacher meetings
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Coaching from Residency Director
during monthly check-ins
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Public acknowledgement of their
effective mentoring practice through
features on program social media and
district partner communications
Annually 1, 2, 3
Monitoring
Individual check-ins between Residency
Director and mentor teachers to review
current activities aligned with prescribed
role for the mentor as outlined in the role
description.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Individual check-ins between Residency
Director and preservice teachers to ensure
adherance to the gradual release timeline
for their role within the mentor’s
classroom
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Observations by Residency Director of
mentor teachers and preservice teachers
during one on one sessions to ensure
implementation of the given procedures
for this activity.
Once during the
first month of each
semester
1, 2

Organizational support . It is recommended that the organization utilize several
strategies to ensure that the required drivers outlined above take place on an ongoing basis. First,
because the majority of these drivers fall within the routine coaching and observation work
carried out by the program’s Residency Directors, members of this group should be asked to
share their key observations with respect to these activities within their own weekly meetings on
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 89
a rotating basis. Secondly, because a number of these drivers take place within the context of the
monthly meetings for the mentor teachers designed and facilitated by the Residency Directors, it
is recommended that the program’s leadership collect and review the agendas from these
meetings on a regular basis. Lastly, to ensure that the recommended rewarding driver of public
recognition is carried out regularly, it is recommended that the Residency Directors share at their
regular meetings which mentor teachers’ work they have highlighted that month, and through
which channels. Consistent program oversight of these aspects of the Residency Directors’ work
will help to ensure that these important drivers are being carried out on an ongoing basis.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended learning program, mentor
teachers will:
1. Understand key components of preservice teacher learning in clinical settings.
2. Explain specific mentoring behaviors they can use to develop the knowledge of their
preservice teacher.
3. Apply metacognitive strategies to assess the development of their mentoring practice
over time.
4. Describe the pedagogical approaches taught in the university’s methods courses and
articulate explicit connections between these and their own instructional practices that
they are modeling for their preservice teacher.
5. Understand the importance of the role of the mentor teacher in contributing to the success
of future teachers joining the field.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 90
6. Understand how mentors can effectively carry out their role to guide how they engage
with their preservice teacher candidate.
7. Understand the effective use of one on meeting time between mentors and preservice
teachers to guide their use of this time with their mentee.
8. Understand the role of the preservice teachers during the residency year, with an
emphasis on how it evolves over time.
Program. The recommended program consists of two primary components. The first is
an initial training for the mentor teachers prior to the beginning of the school year, framed as an
“orientation,” in which the mentors would receive an overview of the key concepts and ideas
they are to learn during the program. The second component is a series of monthly professional
development sessions in which the mentors would have the opportunity to discuss how they are
applying these concepts to their work, as well as give and receive peer feedback on their
progress. The structure of the program builds upon the organization’s existing schedule for
mentor teacher professional development, but with the benefit of content aligned to the identified
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.
Evaluation of the components of learning . It is important to assess the different
components that make an effective learning program. Table 11 details how the five components,
which are declarative knowledge, procedural skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment, will
be assessed for the recommended program. It also includes the recommended timing for each
element of the given components.
Table 11
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 91
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks through discussions Throughout each meeting
Mentor teacher articulation of their knowledge
during metacognitive protocols
Once during each meeting
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Mentor teacher articulation of their skills
during metacognitive protocols
Once during each meeting
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Discussions of their perceived value of what
they are learning
During each meeting.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Mentor teacher articulation of their
expectations for competence during
metacognitive protocols
Once during each meeting
Survey items on mentor teacher survey Once per semester
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Mentor teacher articulation of their intentions
for performance during metacognitive
protocols
Once during each meeting
Survey items on mentor teacher survey Once per semester

Level 1: Reaction
As articulated by Kirkpatrict and Kirkpatrict (2015), there is value in evaluating
participants’ reactions to the designed program, as this can have some impact on the extent to
which they are able to meet the program’s intended learning goal. Table 12 outlines the
recommended methods of evaluation for the three components assessed in Level 1 evaluation,
which are participants’ engagement, the extent to which they find the content relevant, and their
overall level of satisfaction with the experience.
Table 12
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 92
Observation of participation rates by instructor
during meetings
During each monthly meeting
Attendance During each monthly meeting
Mentor teacher survey Once per semester
Relevance
Pulse check at the beginning and end of each
meeting
During each monthly meeting
Mentor teacher survey Once per semester
Customer Satisfaction
Pulse check as part of closing protocol at each
meeting
During each monthly meeting
Mentor teacher survey Once per semester

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. At the conclusion of the final
meeting within the program sequence, an evaluation will be conducted to assess the Level 1 and
Level 2 outcomes. The evaluation instrument includes questions that ask participants to
self-report their levels of engagement and satisfaction with the program, as well as the extent to
which they felt the content was relevant to their work, consistent with Level 1 outcomes. Also
included are questions pertaining to the specific learning outcomes that are the subject of the
Level 2 evaluation. All questions utilize a likert scale for participant responses. The full
evaluation instrument is included in Appendix C.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. The program will run during
the majority of the school year; approximately one month following the conclusion of the
program a delayed evaluation will be implemented as well. This evaluation will focus on all four
levels of the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) framework, and will include questions
pertaining to the attainment of the organization’s overall goal of teacher readiness, as well as the
critical behaviors necessary for achieving the goal, specific learnings from the program itself,
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 93
and the perceived relevance of the content covered in the program. This evaluation tool
(Appendix D) can be utilized either as a written open-ended survey questionnaire given to all
mentors, or as an interview tool utilized with a smaller sample of mentors from the group.
Data Analysis and Reporting
In order to support the use of the resulting data in informing next steps towards
improvement, the results from the immediate and delayed evaluations will be shared with the
organization’s faculty leadership no more than two weeks following their administration. The
results will be shared in the form of a written report that includes reporting averages and
variances for likert scale items, as well as a narrative summary of the qualitative data gathered
through the open-response questions to allow for a more nuanced picture of the participants’
experience. Figure 3 illustrates what a reporting dashboard might look like for the organization’s
leadership.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 94

Highlights from interviews:

“At first the strategies we learned for
engaging in shared curriculum planning felt
somewhat awkward, but eventually we got
used to them and found they helped us
structure our time together.”

“I found that the strategies learned on how to
coach our resident during a lesson completely
changed the way I approached our work
together. Instead of waiting until the end of
the day, I was able to share my thinking and
give suggestions while the lesson was taking
place.”

Figure 3. Example of excerpt from potential dashboard for reporting evaluation data.
Summary
In the preceding sections I have outlined how I would use the New World Kirkpatrick
Model to guide the implementation and evaluation plan for my recommended program to address
the identified influences in the EUTR. This model allows for the integration of the
implementation and evaluation of the planned approach, which will support greater alignment
between the expectations for the program and the eventual outcomes. Ultimately this
implemented program should allow the organization to meet both the stakeholder and the
organizational goal.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 95
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
All methodological approaches have strengths and weaknesses. Here, the Clark and Estes
(2008) KMO framework served to organize this study, and other frameworks may have been
used. Secondly, the constraint of only looking at one stakeholder group’s contribution towards
meeting the organizational goal is not ideal, given that in fact multiple stakeholders’ actions
impact the extent to which the organization will be able to meet it as well. Future studies may
utilize a different framework for the inquiry, or broaden the scope of which stakeholders are
included in the analysis.
Limitations and Delimitations
In addition to the challenges articulated in the preceding section, there are a number of
limitations and delimitations that should be noted as well. One important limitation was that the
survey data accessed from the organization was only reviewed in aggregate form; this limited the
extent to which data analysis could be performed. An important delimitation was that though the
program is a national one, the mentors identified for the interviews conducted were chosen as a
convenience sample based on the researcher’s proximity. This may have resulted in data that is
not representative of the larger stakeholder group. Addressing these two factors could represent
a substantive improvement in the analysis, in the case of the former, and in the accuracy of the
findings, in the case of the latter.
Future Research
This study has highlighted a number of potential areas for more research that would
further elucidate the challenges faced by mentor teachers in their work. Most notably, though
prior researchers have considered the ways in which mentors and preservice teachers perceive
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 96
the role of the mentor itself, there would be great value in further investigating which features of
the construct are most salient in supporting the learning of the novice. Similarly, while the
setting of the mentor-preservice teacher one-on-one meeting has been studied, further developing
the knowledge of what features of such meetings are most impactful on the novice’s learning
would be beneficial in informing how teacher preparation program shape that aspect of the
clinical experience in the future.
Conclusion
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which EUTR is meeting its goal
of graduating 100% of its students prepared to be effective first-year teachers. While a complete
performance evaluation would have included an analysis of factors influencing the performance
of all stakeholders contributing this goal, for practical purposes this analysis focused on only one
key stakeholder group, the organization’s mentor teachers. Utilizing Clark and Estes’ (2008)
KMO framework, the study sought to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences impacting the effectiveness of this group in meeting their stakeholder goal, and
contributing ultimately to the organizational goal.
The analysis validated eight of the nine posited knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on the mentor teachers’ performance. With respect to knowledge
influences, the data validated that knowledge of how knowledge is generated in clinical settings,
knowledge of specific mentoring behaviors, and knowledge of the pedagogical approaches
taught in the university’s courses are all influences impacting EUTR’s mentors in attaining their
goal of being effective mentors for their residents. While the mentors’ self-efficacy for
mentoring was validated as a motivation influence, the data reflected that a value for mentoring
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 97
is not a factor impacting their performance. And both of these sets of factors are interacting with
the organizational context of both EUTR and the mentors’ individual schools. Specifically, the
validated knowledge and motivation influences are interacting with the cultural models of the
roles of the mentor and preservice teacher active in both contexts, as well as the cultural settings
of the shared classroom and one on one meeting. A comprehensive learning program and
evaluation plan were recommended to address each of the identified gaps.
Though this study considered only mentor teachers in one specific residency program,
this work has implications for the larger problem of practice of supporting effective mentoring of
preservice teacher candidates more broadly. The findings can help to provide direction for
further inquiry into the factors impacting mentor teacher performance, especially in the areas of
cultural model of the mentor’s role, and the setting of the one-on-one meeting between mentor
and preservice teacher. Adding to the collective knowledge in this area will support the learning
of not just preservice teachers, but ultimately of the students they will serve.

MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 98
References
Anderson, D. (2007). The role of cooperating teachers’ power in student teaching. Education,
128, 307–323.
Axelrod, R. (1973). Schema Theory: An information processing model of perception and
cognition. The American Political Science Review, 67 (4), 1248-1266.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition . Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/
metacognition/.
Bradbury, L. U., & Koballa, T., Jr. (2008). Borders to cross: Identifying sources of tension in
mentor-intern relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 , 2132-2145.
Butler, B. M., & Cuenca, A. (2012). Conceptualizing the roles of mentor teachers during student
teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 34 (4), 296-308.
Cherian, F. (2007). Learning to teach: Teacher candidates reflect on the relational, conceptual,
and contextual influences of responsive mentorship. Canadian Journal of Education,
30(1), 25-46.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Crasborn, F., Hennissen, P., Brouwer, N., Korthagen, F., & Bergen, T. (2011). Exploring a
two-dimensional model of mentor teacher roles in mentoring dialogues. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 27 , 320-331.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 99
Crutcher, P. A., & Naseem, S. (2016). Cheerleading and cynicism of effective mentoring in
current empirical research. Educational Review, 68 (1), 40-55.
Dassa, L., & Derose, D. S. (2017). Get in the teacher zone: A perception study of preservice
teachers and their teacher identity. Issues in Teacher Education, 26 (1), 101-113.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from
international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40 (3), 291-309.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory . Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/ .
Duchaine, E. L., Jolivete, K., & Fredrick, L. D. (2011). The effect of teacher coaching with
performance feedback on behavior-specific praise in inclusion classrooms. Education and
Treatment of Children, 34 (2), 209-227.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Gardiner, W. (2009). Rudderless as mentors: The challenge of teachers as mentors. Action in
Teacher Education, 30 (4), 56-66.
Gardiner, W. (2011). Mentoring in an urban teacher residency: Mentors' perceptions of yearlong
placements. New Educator, 7 (2), 153-171.
Gareis, C. R., & Grant, L. W. (2014). The efficacy of training cooperating teachers. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 39 , 77-88.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 100
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gut, D. M., Beam, P. C., Henning, J. E., Cochran, D. C., & Knight, R. T. (2014). Teachers'
perceptions of their mentoring role in three different clinical settings: Student teaching,
early field experiences, and entry year teaching. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in
Learning, 22 (3), 240-263.
Hudson, P. (2005). Mentors’ personal attributes for enhancing their mentees’ primary science
teaching. Teaching Science, 51 (2), 31-34.
Jones, C. K., Kelsey, K. D., & Brown, N. R. (2014). Climbing the steps toward a successful
cooperating teacher/preservice teacher mentoring relationship. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 55(2), 33–47.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation .
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kolman, J. S., Roegman, R., & Goodwin, A. L. (2017). Learner-centered mentoring: Building
from preservice teachers’ individual needs and experiences as novice practitioners.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 44 (3), 93-117.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41, 212–218.
Lawley, J. J., Moore, J., & Smajic, A. (2014). Effective communication between preservice and
cooperating teachers. New Educator, 10 (2), 153-162.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 101
Mena, J., García, M., Clarke, A., & Barkatsas, A. (2016). An analysis of three different
approaches to preservice teacher mentoring and their impact on knowledge generation in
clinical experience settings. European Journal of Teacher Education , 39(1), 53-76.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Center for Education Statistics (2008). The condition of education 2008. Washington:
D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming Teacher
Education through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers.
Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved
Student Learning.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory . Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy- theory/.
Patrick, R. (2013). "Don't rock the boat": Conflicting mentor and preservice teacher narratives of
professional experience. Australian Educational Researcher, 40 (2), 207-226.
Pearman C. J., & Lefever-Davis, S. (2012). Roots of attrition: Reflections of teacher candidates
in Title I schools. Critical Questions in Education, 3 (1), 1-11.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 , 667–686.
Pylman, S. (2016). Reflecting on talk: A mentor teacher’s gradual release in co-planning. The
New Educator, 12 (1), 48-66.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 102
Ragland, R. G. (2017). Coming full circle: Using program alumni as cooperating teachers for the
next generation of preservice teachers. Cogent Education, 4 (1), 20.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Rajuan, M., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2007). The role of the cooperating teacher: bridging the
gap between the expectations of cooperating teachers and preservice teachers. Mentoring
& Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 15 (3), 223-242.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Russell, M. L., & Russell, J. A. (2011). Mentoring relationships: Cooperating teachers’
perspectives on mentoring student interns. The Professional Educator, 35 (2), 16-35.
Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. (5th ed.). Los Angeles:
SAGE.
Sato, M., Wei, R. C., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Improving teachers' assessment practices
through professional development: The case of National Board Certification. American
Educational Research Journal, 45 (3), 669–700..
Sayeski, K. L., & Paulsen, K. J. (2012). Student teacher evaluations of cooperating teachers as
indices of effective mentoring. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39 (2), 117-130.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/.
Schwille, S. A. (2008). The professional practice of mentoring. American Journal of Education,
115(1), 139-167.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 103
Smith, E. R. (2007). Negotiating power and pedagogy in student teaching: expanding and
shifting roles in expert-novice discourse. Mentoring & Tutoring, 15 (1), 87-106.
Valencia, S. W., Martin, S. D., Place, N. A., & Grossman, P. (2009). Complex interactions in
student teaching: Lost opportunities for learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60 (3),
304-322.
van Ginkel, G., Oolbekkink, H., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2016). Adapting mentoring to
individual differences in novice teacher learning: The mentor’s viewpoint. Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22 (2), 198-218.
Whitford, B. L., & Villaume, S. K. (2014). Clinical teacher preparation: A retrospective.
Peabody Journal of Education, 89 (4), 423-435.

MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 104
Appendix A: Survey Items
1. What types of work do resident interns do in your classroom? (Co-teaching, co-planning,
substituting, leading small or whole group discussion)
2. To what extent do you help Resident Interns understand the students in the classroom?
(Strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree)
3. To what extent do you demonstrate teaching moves and routines? (Strongly agree, agree,
neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree)
4. To what extent do you help Resident Interns plan and teach lessons? (Strongly agree,
agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree)
5. To what extent do you help Resident Interns manage student behavior? (Strongly agree,
agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree)
6. To what extent do you provide Resident Interns with actionable feedback on how to
improve his/her teaching? (Strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree,
strongly disagree)
7. How often does your RD come for professional development? (Once per week, twice per
month, once per month, infrequently)
8. How often does your RD come for individual coaching? (Once per week, twice per
month, once per month, infrequently)
9. How often does your RD come to your classroom? (Once per week, twice per month,
once per month, infrequently)
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 105
10. To what extent are you supported appropriately in your role as teaching mentor by
university faculty? (Strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly
disagree)
11. To what extent are you supported appropriately in your role as teaching mentor by your
school’s administration? (Strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree,
strongly disagree)
12. To what extent have you benefited from being a teaching mentor in the residency?
(Strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree)
13. What topics would you like to cover during your monthly teaching mentor professional
learning sessions? (Coaching, facilitative leadership, co-teaching, providing
coaching/observational feedback, co-planning)

MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 106
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to allow me to interview you regarding your work as a mentor
teacher. The purpose of this study is to assess the EUTR Program’s efforts to support the
effectiveness of mentor teachers. I will not use any identifying information, and will use a
pseudonym for the organization and for any participants. You can decide at any point not to
answer a question, or to end the interview. With your permission, I would like to record our
conversation to aid me in note taking. I will delete any recordings at the conclusion of this study.
Do I have your permission to record?
I want to start with some questions about how you conceive of your work as a mentor
teacher.
1. What would you say is the goal of having preservice teachers spend time working
with a mentor teacher as a part of their preparation? (Knowledge,
Opinion/Values)
2. What are some of the things you think about when first beginning to work with a
resident? (Knowledge, Behavioral/Experience)
3. As a mentor teacher, what strategies do you use in order to develop your resident
as a beginning teacher? (Knowledge, Opinion/Values)
4. What are some ways in which your actions as a mentor change over the course of
the year that you work with them? (Knowledge, Behavioral/Experience)
Next, I would like to ask you some questions about what your work with your resident looks
like.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 107
5. From your perspective, what is the expected role of the resident in your
classroom? (Follow up: how does this compare to their role in your classroom in
practice?) (Organization, Behavioral/Experience)
6. From your perspective, how aligned are the pedagogical approaches your resident
is learning in their program with the approaches you use in your classroom?
(Knowledge, Opinion/Values)
7. From your perspective as a mentor teacher, what is the expected use of your one
on one meeting time with your resident? (Follow up: how does this compare to
the way you use this time in practice?) (Organization, Behavioral/Experience)
Lastly, I want to ask you some questions about why you were interested in being a mentor
teacher, and what kinds of support you have received for that work.
8. Tell me about why you were interested in becoming a mentor teacher.
(Motivation, Opinion/Values)
9. How have you developed your skills as a mentor teacher? (Motivation,
Behavioral/Experience)
10. In general, how would you describe the expected relationship between a mentor
teacher and a resident intern? (Organization, Opinion/Values)
11. How would you describe the expected relationship between a mentor teacher and
the university faculty (including the Residency Director)? (Organization,
Opinion/Values)
12. What kinds of support have you received from the university or from the school
district for your work as a mentor teacher? (Motivation, Behavioral/Experience)
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 108
Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with me. If you think of other points that you
would like to add later, please let me know.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 109
Appendix C: Instrument for Immediate Evaluation (Levels 1 and 2)
For each of the items below, please indicate your level of agreement with the statement using the
following scale:
5 = Strongly Agree
4 = Agree
3 = Neutral (neither Agree nor Disagree)
2 = Disagree
1= Strongly Disagree
1. I can articulate key components of preservice teacher learning in clinical settings.
2. I can apply my knowledge of specific mentoring behaviors I can use to develop the
knowledge of their preservice teacher.
3. I can apply metacognitive strategies to assess the development of my mentoring practice
over time.
4. I can describe the pedagogical approaches taught in the university’s methods courses and
articulate explicit connections between these and my own instructional practices.
5. I can articulate the centrality of the role of the mentor teacher in the preparation of new
teachers entering the field.
6. I utilize research on best practices for mentoring to inform the ways in which I engage
with my resident.
7. Specifically, I utilize research on the use of one one one meeting time to be intentional in
my use of this time with my resident.
MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 110
8. I can describe the role of preservice teachers during the residency, including how it
evolves over time.
9. The training held my interest.
10. The training was relevant to my work with preservice teacher residents.
11. I would recommend this training to other teachers who are preparing to serve as mentors.

MENTOR TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 111
Appendix D: Instrument for Delayed Evaluation (Levels 1 Through 4)
1. In what ways did your preservice teacher candidate demonstrate readiness to teach at the
end of their residency year? Please share examples to illustrate your assessment.
2. One of the goals of this professional development program was to support mentor
teachers in mastering a range of mentoring behaviors to support the learning of their
resident. Please share some examples of specific mentoring behaviors you engaged in
with your resident this year, along with the approximate frequency with which you
employed each.
3. Please share a brief description of the kinds of tasks you had your resident engage in
within your classroom during each of the separate phases of their development,
Foundation, Active, and Peak Teaching, as articulated in the gradual release timeline.
4. Please share the ways in which you utilized your one on one weekly meeting time with
your resident over the course of the year. Please include an estimate of what percentage
of the time you spent on each included topic.
5. To what extent was there overlap between your pedagogical practices in your classroom
and those taught in the university’s methods courses? Please share specific examples to
illustrate.
6. To what extent did you find the content of the professional development program
relevant to your work of mentoring a preservice teacher?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which Eastern University Teacher Residency (EUTR, a pseudonym) would meet its goal of graduating 100% of its students prepared to be effective first-year teachers. Utilizing Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO framework, the study sought to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences impacting the effectiveness of this group in meeting their stakeholder goal, and contributing ultimately to the organizational goal. The analysis validated eight of nine posited knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the mentor teachers’ performance. With respect to knowledge influences, the data validated that knowledge of how knowledge is generated in clinical settings, knowledge of specific mentoring behaviors, and knowledge of the pedagogical approaches taught in the university’s courses are all influences impacting EUTR’s mentors in attaining their goal of being effective mentors for their residents. While the mentors’ self-efficacy for mentoring was validated as a motivation influence, the data reflected that a value for mentoring is not a factor impacting their performance. And both of these sets of factors are interacting with the organizational context of both EUTR and the mentors’ individual schools. Specifically, the validated knowledge and motivation influences were found to be interacting with the cultural models of the roles of the mentor and preservice teacher active in both contexts, as well as the cultural settings of the shared classroom and one on one meeting. A comprehensive learning program and evaluation plan were recommended to address each of the identified gaps.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

PDF

Developing a culture of teacher collaboration in middle school

PDF

The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams

PDF

Effects of mentoring on public school administrators: an evaluation study

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

Emerging adult peer provider specialists and successful college participation: An innovation study

PDF

Evaluating the implementation of 21st century skills and learning

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

Building capacity in homeroom teachers to support English language learners

PDF

A case study of promising practices mentoring K-12 chief technology officers

PDF

Increasing family engagement at Lily Elementary School: An evaluation model

PDF

Increasing the number of minoritized teachers in the Apex public schools: an evaluation study

PDF

The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study

PDF

Critical factors impacting the exodus from teaching ranks: an evaluative study of an independent Christian school

PDF

Transforming hardships into hope for juvenile justice-involved youth: a promising practice case study

PDF

Beginning teachers’ perceptions of induction program support

PDF

Supporting teachers' mental health: an evaluation study

PDF

Lack of culturally relevant teaching in international bilingual schools: a gap analysis

PDF

School connectedness and teacher reflective practices

PDF

Representation in the teaching force: recruitment of teachers of color

Asset Metadata

Creator Torres, Marthaa S. (author)

Core Title Factors impacting the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national teacher residency

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 11/21/2019

Defense Date 10/18/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag mentor teachers,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher residency

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hasan, Angela (committee chair), Ahmed, Nada (committee member), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member)

Creator Email marthaastorres@gmail.com,mstorres@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-237197

Unique identifier UC11675048

Identifier etd-TorresMart-7947.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-237197 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-TorresMart-7947.pdf

Dmrecord 237197

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Torres, Marthaa S.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA