Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Mentoring outcomes in education: the perceived impact for mentors in induction programs
(USC Thesis Other)
Mentoring outcomes in education: the perceived impact for mentors in induction programs
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
MENTORING OUTCOMES IN EDUCATION: THE PERCEIVED IMPACT FOR
MENTORS IN INDUCTION PROGRAMS
by
Jessica C. Decker
_________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2008
Copyright 2008 Jessica C. Decker
ii
DEDICATION
I chose to embark upon this journey on my own, but I didn’t complete it that way.
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Andrew, and my son, Ethan, who
inspire me each and every day. The completion of this endeavor was dependent upon
their love and support, as well as the love and support of my parents, Jonathan and
Sylvia, who instilled within me a deep appreciation for learning and the belief that all
things are possible with faith and determination. This accomplishment is given
meaning simply because I have so many loved ones with whom I share it.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am indebted to my committee for their invaluable insight and feedback:
Dr. Margo Pensavalle, Committee Chair
Dr. Gisele Ragusa
Dr. Reynaldo Baca
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
Abstract vii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 7
Importance of the Study 7
Limitations 8
Delimitations 8
Assumptions 9
Summary of Methodology 9
Definition of Terms 9
Chapter Two: Literature Review 12
Introduction 12
Historical Perspective of Mentoring 13
Mentoring in the Corporate World 15
Mentoring in Education 18
Outcomes of Mentoring 46
Support for Methodology 66
Summary 68
Chapter Three: Methodology 69
Introduction 69
Sample and Population 70
Instrumentation 72
Data Collection 85
Data Analysis 86
Summary 88
Chapter Four: Findings 89
Introduction 89
Context 91
Perceived Short-Term and Long-Term Effects of Mentoring 93
Perceived Career Benefits of Mentoring 100
v
Perceived Professional Detriments of Mentoring 114
Impact of Colleagues’ Perceptions 134
Discussion 141
Chapter Five: Summary, Discussion, and Implications 143
Introduction 143
Overview of Study 143
Summary of Research Findings 144
Connections to Prior Research 146
Recommendations 148
Conclusion 151
Implications for Future Research 151
References 154
Appendix A: Survey Cover Letter 160
Appendix B: Survey 162
Appendix C: Focus Group Protocol 167
Appendix D: Information Sheet 171
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Overview of Methodology 74
Table 2: Correspondence of Survey Questions to Research Questions –
Cost Items
75
Table 3: Correspondence of Survey Questions to Research Questions –
Benefit Items
77
Table 4: Correspondence of Focus Group Questions to Research
Questions
80
Table 5: Sample Descriptors 92
Table 6: Comparison of Mean Scores by Mentor Experience 94
Table 7: Independent Groups T-Test by Mentor Experience 96
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics for “Rewarding Experience” Factor 101
Table 9: Descriptive Statistics for “Improved Job Performance” Factor 105
Table 10: Descriptive Statistics for “Recognition by Others” Factor 110
Table 11: Descriptive Statistics for “Generativity” Factor 112
Table 12: Descriptive Statistics for “More Trouble Than Worth” Factor 116
Table 13: Descriptive Statistics for “Dysfunctional Relationship” Factor 119
Table 14: Independent Groups T-Test for “Dysfunctional Relationship”
Factor by Mentor Experience
121
Table 15: Independent Groups T-Test for “Nepotism” Factor by Mentor
Experience
125
Table 16: Independent Groups T-Test for “Bad Reflection” Factor by
Mentor Experience
128
Table 17: Independent Groups T-Test for “Energy Drain” Factor by
Mentor Experience
131
vii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the present study was to investigate perceived mentoring
outcomes from the mentor’s perspective. One research question with four sub
research questions was developed to guide this study: (1) What perceived impact
does mentoring have on those who serve as mentors? (1a) What are the perceived
short-term and long-term effects of serving as a mentor? (1b) What are the
perceived career benefits that exist for those who serve as mentors? (1c) What are
the perceived professional detriments for those who serve as mentors? (1d) What
impact do the perceptions of mentoring held by mentors’ colleagues have on the
mentors themselves?
A mixed methods approach was used to accomplish an in-depth analysis of
the above research questions. The study focused on mentors serving in the BTSA
induction program of a Southern California school district, Tower Unified School
District. The district was purposefully sampled based on the fact that it meets
statewide standards for BTSA programs and employs a consistent cadre of mentors.
Data analysis revealed that mentors in the BTSA program perceive a range of
costs and benefits associated with their positions. Perceived costs include the time
commitment involved in the position and the energy expended through mentoring
activities. Perceived benefits included creating interpersonal relationships with
novice teachers, refreshing classroom practice, and learning from their mentees.
Four major findings emerged from this study: (1) the differences between
perceived short-term and long-term effects of mentoring appear to be limited to
viii
costs; (2) the perceived benefits of mentoring are both personal and professional in
nature; (3) perceived costs of mentoring that emerged from this study were limited to
the time commitment of the position and the amount of energy expended; (4) the
impact of colleagues’ perceptions appears to be minimal in the case of the TUSD
BTSA program. Recommendations for mentoring programs include minimizing the
perceived costs of mentoring while publicizing the perceived benefits as a recruiting
tool. Suggestions for future research include increasing the sample size and
accessing those who have left mentoring, as well as those who have never been
mentors.
1
Chapter One
Overview of the Study
Introduction
With historical roots in apprenticeships, mentoring is a common method of
new employee support and development across several fields. The concept of
mentoring involves a teaching and learning relationship between two individuals,
typically one novice and one experienced. Many definitions of mentoring exist, but
there are several common elements recognized within the literature. A mentor
typically has more experience or knowledge than the mentee and offers guidance to
assist the mentee in growing and developing (DuBois & Karcher, 2005). The
relationship between the mentor and mentee is typified by an interpersonal
connection that often involves an element of trust (DuBois & Karcher, 2005).
Mentoring was originally largely a function of the corporate world, but it has since
become a popular professional development method in the field of education.
Theoretical framework.
The theoretical framework driving this research is a combination of both the
constructivist and developmental theories. Vygotsky’s theories of development
propose that learning is an inherently social process, aided by others who are more
capable (Vygotsky, 1978). His social constructivist perspective and the concept of
the zone of proximal development can be used to describe the interactions between
mentors and their mentees (Vygotsky, 1978).
2
Erik Erikson’s developmental theory can also be applied to mentoring with
regards to the developmental stages of those involved. His psychosocial theory
includes the stages of generativity, identity and intimacy (Erikson, 1963). The
generativity stage may be the stage in which many mentors find themselves, driven
to engage in such relationships by their desire to help younger generations (Erikson,
1963). Through the process of helping the younger generations, the mentor
reinforces his or her sense of self-worth and achievement (Erikson, 1963). In
contrast, the mentees may be in the identity formation stage or the intimacy stage
(Erikson, 1963). In these stages, the mentee is seeking to establish either his or her
identity, possibly career-related, or relationships with others (Erikson, 1963).
Together, both the social constructivist and developmental theories drive this study.
Background of the problem.
Mentoring has been integrated into many induction programs as a tool for
assisting novice teachers. The effects of such efforts on novice teachers have been
studied at length with varying conclusions. However, little is known about the
effects, perceived or actual, on those who serve as mentors in education.
The use of mentoring in education is relatively recent, with the first programs
beginning in the 1980s. Prior to the introduction of mentoring in education, it was
generally used in other fields such as business and health services. Much more
extensive research has occurred in these fields; thus, much of the literature presented
is representative of this fact.
3
Mentoring in the field of business has been recognized as a tool for
supporting new employees’ professional needs. Businesses invest in mentoring to
ensure employees are competent, fulfill employees’ professional needs, and sustain
the company’s ability to compete successfully (Aryee, Chay, & Chew, 1996).
Mentoring in business is also seen as a tool for developing future leaders for the
company and assisting mentees in securing promotions (Dreher & Ash, 1990).
Studies have found that mentees in the business arena generally exhibit greater job
satisfaction, are promoted within the organization more quickly, stay with the
organization for longer periods of time, and earn higher salaries than their non-
mentored counterparts (Allen & Eby, 2003; Dreher & Ash, 1990; Fagenson, 1989;
Scandura, 1992). Educators hope to replicate these indicators of success, and others,
by implementing mentoring programs for novice teachers.
Novice teachers have been recognized as a population that needs support.
Novice teachers exhibit high rates of attrition (Johnson, Berg, & Donaldson, 2005).
Hypothesized causes for this high attrition rate include everything from individual
teacher characteristics to the settings in which the teachers work (Ingersoll, 2001).
Induction programs seek to reduce high attrition rates by offering additional support
to novice teachers. Induction programs assume different formats; however, many
states include mentoring as part of their induction programs in an effort to improve
teacher quality, decrease attrition rates among novice teachers, and improve student
achievement (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004).
4
Designed to increase school accountability and student achievement, the No
Child Left Behind Act (2002) focuses in part on teacher quality. Title II (Preparing,
Training, and Recruiting High Quality Teachers and Principals) specifies that states
who receive federal grants must use a portion of the funds to provide support for
teachers new to the profession. Within Section 2113, specific programs for
delivering this support are identified, including mentoring programs.
Mentoring has been widely implemented in educational systems across the
country as a tool for supporting novice teachers and improving teacher attrition
(Feiman-Nemser, 1996). Mentoring is intended to ease the transition into teaching
and lessen the isolation felt by novice teachers (Feiman-Nemser, 1996). Although
the benefits of mentoring for novice teachers have yet to be agreed upon in the
literature, and significant program variation exists, mentoring programs are thought
to be an answer to improving teacher quality during the induction phase.
The role of mentor is typically filled by experienced teachers. The role of
the mentor in education is complex and includes several different responsibilities.
Mentors assist novice teachers with organizational needs such as locating materials,
designing curriculum, and assessing students; they also provide emotional support
and encouragement (Carver & Katz, 2004). In the case of formal mentoring
programs such as the California Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA)
Program, mentors are guided by a formative assessment system that dictates their
interactions with novice teachers. Other programs, such as the California
Certificated Staff Mentoring Program (CSMP), allow the mentors to determine the
5
activities in which they engage with their mentees. The relationships between
mentors and their mentees also vary. Mentors typically offer guidance regarding
instructional strategies, but many tend to avoid offering feedback of a critical nature
(Bullough, 2005). Effective relationships between mentors and mentees are vital if
mentoring is to have an impact.
Research has examined the effects of mentoring on novice teachers. Quality
mentoring can lead to positive results as long as it is “linked to a vision of good
teaching, guided by an understanding of teacher learning, and supported by a
professional culture that favors collaboration and inquiry” (Feiman-Nemser, 1996, p.
1). On the other hand, questions remain regarding the impact of mentoring on those
who serve as mentors. There are potential effects both personally and professionally.
Mentors may benefit from the training that is associated with serving in a
mentoring program (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Mentors frequently receive training in
skills such as cognitive coaching and strategies for working with adults (Stansbury &
Zimmerman, 2000). Mentors may also learn from the novice teachers with whom
they work (Mullen & Noe, 1999). Novice teachers, as recent graduates of teacher
preparation programs, may have more recent knowledge of teaching pedagogy or
content that may transfer to the mentors who serve them (Stansbury & Zimmerman,
2000). Mentors may also benefit in terms of their efficacy as teachers.
Efficacy in the field of teaching relates to a teacher’s beliefs regarding his or
her ability to be successful in the classroom (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Gibson and
Dembo (1984) delineate two areas of efficacy in teaching: personal teaching efficacy
6
and teaching efficacy, based on Bandura’s (1977) efficacy construct. Personal
teaching efficacy is related to the teacher’s beliefs regarding his or her own ability to
be effective (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Teaching efficacy is a more general construct
related to the effectiveness of the teaching profession as a whole, in light of the
external elements that must be faced (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Serving as a mentor
may enhance both forms of efficacy related to teaching, an impact that may be
considerable to a mid-career teacher.
Ultimately, the perceived effects of mentoring on the mentor are unknown.
While the mentee is typically the focus of the mentoring relationship, the mentor
cannot be forgotten. Mentors stand to gain from their service, and the impact of
serving in such an important role must be considered.
Statement of the Problem
School systems across the country are turning to mentoring as a panacea for
improving the experiences and effectiveness of novice teachers (Feiman-Nemser,
1996). Mentoring as a model has been studied from many perspectives including
effective mentoring program characteristics (Evertson & Smithey, 2000), effective
mentor characteristics, roles and skills (Achinstein & Athanases, 2005; Danielson,
2002), and relationships between mentors and mentees (Allen, Day, & Lentz, 2005;
Allen & Eby, 2003). Many studies outline how to establish effective mentoring
programs and nurture effective mentoring relationships.
Quality mentoring can impact novice teachers (Evertson & Smithey, 2000).
However, many questions remain regarding the outcomes of mentoring for those who
7
serve as mentors. Experienced teachers invest significant time and effort in
mentoring novice teachers. What benefits do they receive in return for their
investment? Do mentors learn from the process of assisting novice teachers? What
costs do mentors incur through the process of assisting novice teachers? This is an
area that has not been researched sufficiently; therefore, this study focused on how
the mentoring process and relationship affect the mentor.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to identify the effects of mentoring on those who
serve as mentors. Therefore, the research was framed by the following questions:
1. What perceived impact does mentoring have on those who serve as mentors?
a. What are the perceived short-term and long-term effects of serving as a
mentor?
b. What are the perceived career benefits that exist for those who serve as
mentors?
c. What are the perceived professional detriments for those who serve as
mentors?
d. What impact do the perceptions of mentoring held by mentors’ colleagues
have on the mentors themselves?
Importance of the Study
This study will contribute important knowledge for those who administer
mentoring programs. Although mentoring is widely used as a technique for assisting
novice teachers, little research exists regarding the perceived effects for those who
8
serve as mentors. Identifying these perceived effects will provide insight into the
mentor’s experience that may then be used to improve the mentoring program.
Through knowledge of the mentor’s perspective, directors of mentoring
programs may be able to identify the potential obstacles to recruiting mentors.
Directors will also be able to implement this knowledge in designing a program that
more effectively utilizes and sustains mentors over time. By identifying, hiring and
sustaining effective mentors, directors can ensure a consistent cadre of mentors. This
consistency may lead to increased benefits for the novice teachers being served.
Limitations
The data for this study was collected over a four-month period. This
shortened time frame may have affected the depth or breadth of the data collected. In
addition, the data collected through the selected methodology may have been
influenced by outside factors due to the fact that the mentors’ input is perceptual in
nature. Specifically, data collected through focus groups will be open to variability.
Delimitations
This study used a mixed methods approach to gather data from an identified
mentoring program. This program has been purposefully sampled because it was
identified as a program that exhibits success in recruiting and sustaining a consistent
cadre of mentors. This sampling strategy may limit the generalization of the study
results; however, the program studied was chosen for the depth of data and relevance
of information it would offer.
9
Assumptions
In selecting the mentoring program to be studied, it was assumed that it
would offer rich information regarding the mentor’s perspective. In addition, the
interviewees and respondents to the surveys were assumed to be honest in their
responses.
Summary of Methodology
This research utilized a mixed methods approach, including a survey and
focus groups. Purposeful sampling was employed in selecting a mentoring program
that would offer insights into the mentor’s perspective (Patton, 2002). Once
identified, subjects within the mentoring program, including the directors and the
mentors, were consulted using the above data collection techniques. Content analysis
was then used to identify trends and patterns regarding the mentor’s perspective.
The survey was administered to the mentor population in its entirety, as well
as the program director. In the cover letter for the survey, participants were asked to
contact the researcher if they were interested in participating in the focus groups.
Participants for the focus groups were selected from the pool of volunteers. Results
of the surveys and focus group interviews were combined to produce a
comprehensive picture of perceived effects of serving as a mentor.
Definition of Terms
Several key terms are used throughout this study. Those terms are defined
below within the context of this research, based on the current body of literature:
10
ATTRITION – Refers to a teacher who leaves his or her teaching assignment, also
referred to as turnover (Ingersoll, 2001)
BTSA – The Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment program, a statewide
program in California designed to support novice teachers (Athanases & Achinstein,
2003)
INDUCTION – the entry period of the teaching profession when teachers take
responsibility for their own classes (Fulton, Yoon, & Lee, 2005), often described as
the first three years of a teacher’s career (Feiman-Nemser, 2001)
INDUCTION PROGRAM – A professional development program typically designed
to provide support, guidance, and orientation to the teaching profession for novice
teachers (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Fulton, Yoon, & Lee, 2005; Smith & Ingersoll,
2004)
INTERN TEACHER – A teacher who is in the process of completing an alternative
certification program in pursuit of a teaching credential (Bullough, 2005)
MENTEE – Someone who is served by a mentor, also called protégé (Allen & Eby,
2003; DuBois & Karcher, 2005)
MENTOR – An experienced teacher who serves and supports a novice teacher
through activities such as preparing lesson plans, accessing instructional materials,
and assessing student learning (Carver & Katz, 2004; DuBois & Karcher, 2005;
Hoover & Frieman, 2002)
MENTORING PROGRAM – An established program designed to guide the mentor
and mentee toward novice teacher development through activities such as modeling
11
and coaching (Achinstein & Athanases, 2005; Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1992;
Fulton, Yoon, & Lee, 2005; Little, 1990; Koki, 1997)
NCLB – The No Child Left Behind Act [NCLB] dictates requirements for highly
qualified teachers, accountability expectations, and professional development
methods, including mentoring (NCLB, 2002)
NOVICE TEACHER – A beginning teacher, usually in the induction phase of his or
her career, often described as the first three years (Feiman-Nemser, 2001)
PRESERVICE PROGRAM – A program of study offered at the university level that
prepares students for a career in teaching through developing a vision for teaching,
subject matter knowledge, and basic understandings of the learning process, also
referred to as a teacher preparation or teacher education program (Feiman-Nemser,
2001)
PRESERVICE TEACHER – An individual who is in the process of studying to be a
teacher but is not yet serving in the classroom, may be engaged in student teaching
(Awaya, McEwan, Heyler, Linsky, Lun, & Wakukawa, 2003)
RETENTION – Refers to teachers who remain at their assigned school site, typically
presented as a numerical or percentage rate (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004)
TEACHER EFFICACY – A teacher’s beliefs in his or her ability to successfully
teach students (Gibson & Dembo, 1984)
12
Chapter Two
Literature Review
Introduction
Given the recent attention regarding mentoring as an induction strategy for
novice teachers, a great deal of research has examined the components and outcomes
of mentoring. The body of research is diverse in both its approaches and
conclusions. This chapter will provide an overview of the research regarding
mentoring and will identify the gaps in the literature that led to the present study.
This review of the literature is divided into several sections. First, a historical
perspective of mentoring is presented, including mentoring theory and other
applicable theoretical perspectives. After establishing the theoretical lens, the
concept of mentoring both in the corporate world and education is reviewed. Within
the field of education, the role of the mentoring process and the specific
responsibilities of the mentor are presented. Next, a closer examination of the
relationship between the mentor and mentee leads into an overview of expectations
and outcomes of the mentoring process. The review closes with literature related to
the chosen methodology.
Much of the presented research regarding mentoring has been completed in
the fields of business, management, and career development. However, given the
conceptual similarities between the corporate use of formal mentoring and mentoring
in education, many of the conclusions brought to light by such research are
applicable to this study.
13
An Historical Perspective of Mentoring
Historically, the concept of mentoring is thought to originate in Greek
mythology. Homer’s Odyssey detailed Ulysses’ entrusting his son’s care to Mentor,
a family friend, while he is away. Mentor was responsible for guiding Ulysses’ son,
acting as a pseudo-parent. Mentoring also has roots in apprenticeships. Both share
the purpose of assisting a novice to grow and develop. Modern versions of
apprenticeships, or mentoring, have been implemented in several fields as a method
for integrating and educating new employees. The practice of mentoring has been
linked to several theoretical perspectives.
Vygotsky’s (1962) constructivist theories lay the foundation for the work
mentors engage in with their mentees. His theory posits that, not only is learning a
social event, it is constructed through the process of discourse (Vygotsky, 1962).
Discourse involves multiple people working together to construct meaningful
learning experiences (Vygotsky, 1962). By its very nature, then, mentoring can be
defined as a process of discourse on the path to social constructivist learning.
Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development describes those
activities the individual is capable of accomplishing with assistance (Vygotsky,
1978). These activities stretch the learner’s capabilities, unlike those activities that
the individual is capable of completing without assistance. This social constructivist
perspective served as a foundation for the practice of mentoring, in which a more
capable other guides the learner. Vygotsky suggested that the more capable other
does not need to be someone older or more experienced; peers can also serve the
14
same purpose (Vygotsky, 1978). Through the interaction between the mentor and
mentee, not only does the mentee learn new skills, but he or she is also exposed to
the culture behind the practice (Santrock, 2008), an important experience for novice
teachers.
Erik Erikson’s (1963) developmental theory also applies to mentoring,
specifically to the roles of the mentor and mentee in navigating developmental
stages. His psychosocial theory consisted of several life stages that corresponded to
developmental periods. Erikson asserted that most people in middle adulthood are
dealing with the conflict between generativity and self-absorption (Erikson, 1963).
Generativity involves a desire to assist the next generation, as opposed to self-
absorption, or not assisting (Erikson, 1963). Through the process of helping the
younger generation, the mentor reinforces his or her sense of self-worth and
achievement and enacts a desire to care for future generations. Those individuals
who serve as mentors may be motivated by a sense of generativity, or the desire to
help younger teachers be successful.
In contrast, the mentees may be in one of two stages. The identity formation
stage is a period in which the individual seeks to establish his or her role in life
(Erikson, 1963). This can include vocational roles and identities. It is possible that a
young teacher may still be working to establish his or her career identity, in which
case a mentor may be of assistance. If a career identity has already been successfully
established, the mentee may instead be in the intimacy stage (Erikson, 1963). In this
15
stage, the mentee is seeking to establish relationships with others, and a satisfactory
relationship with a mentor may again be beneficial to the mentee’s development.
Mentoring in the Corporate World
Mentoring is a popular strategy for initiating and advancing new employees
in the field of business. In business professions, both informal and formal mentoring
programs have been utilized.
Viator (1999) performed a study of mentoring relationships in public
accounting firms in an effort to identify whether formal mentoring relationships
influenced mentee satisfaction or contributed to barriers in identifying mentors.
Viator (1999) defined informal mentorships as those that are generally solicited by a
mentee who selects his or her own mentor. These relationships are not governed by
any particular program or structure (Viator, 1999). Formal mentoring, on the other
hand, usually entails a similar structure to mentoring programs in education in that
mentors are assigned to mentees. Viator (1999) sampled 723 employees of public
accounting firms and surveyed them about their experiences in an attempt to identify
characteristics of formal mentoring programs that lead to increased mentee
satisfaction. Viator (1999) found such characteristics included well-matched pairs of
mentors and mentees, frequent and regular meetings between the two, and
establishment of goals and objectives for the mentee (Viator, 1999). While Viator
(1999) examined mentee satisfaction in his study, he did not look at outcomes for
mentors.
16
Mentee satisfaction with the mentor is not the only identified outcome of such
relationships. Several studies examined other outcomes of mentoring relationships
that included increased job satisfaction, higher pay, promotions, career mobility and
opportunities across varied contexts (Dreher & Ash, 1990; Fagenson, 1989;
Scandura, 1992).
Dreher and Ash (1990) administered a questionnaire to a group of 440
business school graduates that inquired about their backgrounds, employers,
positions, mentoring practices, compensation, and compensation satisfaction. Dreher
and Ash (1990) examined their data within the context of gender differences in
compensation. They hypothesized that women were less successful in accessing
mentoring relationships, and this lack of access may have been responsible for
differences in compensation and job satisfaction. In actuality, Dreher and Ash
(1990) found no gender differences with regard to mentoring activities.
Similar to Dreher and Ash (1990), Fagenson (1989) compared outcomes of
mentoring for different groups of mentees. In this study, in addition to studying
differences between genders, Fagenson (1989) compared outcome measures for
mentees and non-mentees. This study surveyed 246 individuals working for large
companies in the healthcare industry. Again it was found that individuals who were
mentored reported increased job satisfaction, mobility, recognition, and promotions,
particularly when compared to those who were not engaged in mentoring
relationships (Fagenson, 1989). Gender and job level were not found to have an
effect on the outcomes of the mentoring relationship (Fagenson, 1989). This
17
confirms the findings of Dreher and Ash (1990). Fagenson (1989) suggested that
further research is needed, particularly in the area of outcomes for mentors.
Mentors in the field of business may be selected by their mentees, or they
may volunteer to assist new employees. Research has examined mentors’
motivations for getting involved in mentoring. Aryee, Chay, and Chew (1996) found
that both personal characteristics and the work environment influenced people in
becoming mentors. Their study, based in Singapore, focused on a sample of
employees in managerial positions with at least ten years of experience. None of the
respondents’ employers had formal mentoring programs in place at the time of the
study. Aryee, Chay, and Chew (1996) utilized a series of questionnaires that
measured positive affectivity, altruism, organization based self-esteem, opportunities
for interaction on the job, reactions to an employee-development reward system, and
motivation to mentor. The motivation to mentor questionnaire was based on that of
Dreher and Ash (1990). Questionnaire responses indicated that personal
characteristics such as altruism were strong factors in decisions to mentor (Aryee,
Chay, & Chew, 1996). However, situational characteristics such as an employee-
development reward system, were also important factors (Aryee, Chay, & Chew,
1996). Although the authors identified characteristics that led individuals to mentor,
these characteristics do not convey the outcomes mentors experience.
It is hypothesized that mentors benefit from being involved in the process of
mentoring new employees. Scandura (1992) studied outcomes for both protégés and
mentors. The sample for Scandura’s (1992) study consisted of 350 middle level
18
managers at a large technology manufacturing firm in the United States. Participants
completed a survey about their mentoring experience. Results of the survey
suggested a link between not only mentoring and promotions for protégés, but also a
link between support provided by mentors and managerial careers (Scandura, 1992).
Scandura’s (1992) study did not employ a longitudinal or experimental research
design, thereby limiting causal conclusions; however, Scandura (1992) does
recommend that such research be completed.
Mentoring in the field of business takes on many forms, just as it does in
education. The wide variety of formats and functions makes conclusive research
difficult. However, those who participate in mentoring programs, mentors and
mentees, report perceived benefits to the interaction (Dreher & Ash, 1990; Fagenson,
1989; Viator, 1999; Scandura, 1992). Such perceptions cannot be ignored when
determining the outcomes of mentoring programs.
Mentoring in Education
As a historically isolated profession in which teachers value autonomy and
often work alone, education does not seem a logical career in which to find
mentoring practices. The very concept of mentoring is contradictory to the
traditionally private and personal roles held by teachers. However, in the 1980s,
mentoring began to take hold in the field of education as a popular strategy for
assisting novice teachers (Feiman-Nemser, 1996; Little, 1990; Wang & Odell, 2002).
Since then, the concept has been further explored and refined (Wang & Odell, 2002),
as it has been continuously implemented across the country.
19
Mentoring program models.
Mentoring in education may serve several different purposes. Mentoring
programs can assist novice teachers through the induction phase, provide a sense of
renewal for experienced teachers, and create a local resource for future professional
development (Little, 1990). In what has become an often-cited piece of literature
around educational mentoring, Little (1990) took a critical look at mentoring
research. Little’s (1990) meta-analysis found the body of research around mentoring
to be insufficient. Little (1990) synthesized the research at that time, describing basic
mentor behaviors that included providing guidance to new teachers during the
induction phase, acting as teacher leaders for the larger faculty group, and
functioning as the main supports during curricular or programmatic development
phases. In examining the effectiveness of mentors, Little (1990) explained that many
mentors provided social and emotional support, not support in development of
teaching practice. This characteristic of mentoring behaviors was attributed to the
organizational cultures that deter true mentoring (Little, 1990).
Little (1990) examined the difference between formal mentors in the field of
education and informal mentors in business and industry who were typically driven
by career advancement opportunities. The differences between business and
educational mentoring settings invite further exploration through research.
Many districts utilize one-on-one mentoring in a more formal vein as a part of
their induction programs. In a report prepared for the National Commission on
Teaching and America’s Future, mentoring was cited as a worthwhile induction
20
strategy, but only as one component of a more comprehensive induction program
(Fulton, Yoon, & Lee, 2005). Fulton, Yoon, and Lee’s (2005) report reviewed many
induction programs both in the United States and abroad. Many programs assumed a
survival approach, seeing their goal as helping novice teachers survive the first year
(Fulton et al., 2005). The report recommended a stronger focus on developing an
inclusive educational community that pursues continuous professional growth with
an emphasis on structured mentoring activities such as observation, reflection, and
lesson design (Fulton et al., 2005). Such structure may mitigate the problems
associated with the type of mentoring relationships highlighted by Little (1990) that
provide more moral support than career-related support.
In many cases, mentoring has been implemented without a clear vision or
goals, leading to programs that exhibit limited effectiveness (Feiman-Nemser, 1996).
In her review of mentoring in education, Feiman-Nemser (1996) suggested that
mentors can play a part in improving teacher retention; however, there remain many
questions as to the most effective program models. Feiman-Nemser (1996)
recommended a mentoring model that utilizes those experienced teachers who are
also seeking reform in schools. Those mentors who are active in seeking new ways
of teaching can instill values of reform in the new teachers with whom they work
(Feiman-Nemser, 1996). Feiman-Nemser (1996) proposed that further research in
the area of mentoring is needed to identify effective practices, particularly if it is
expected to be a vehicle for educational reform.
21
Mentoring has often been cited as a method for furthering the learning of
novice teachers and changing the culture of the educational environment (Wang &
Odell, 2002). Just as there are varied purposes for mentoring programs, there are
also varied conceptions regarding the structure of such programs. In their review of
the literature regarding mentoring, Wang and Odell (2002) described three main sets
of assumptions that drive most mentoring programs, including humanistic
assumptions, situated apprenticeship assumptions, and critical constructivist
assumptions.
The humanistic perspective may be responsible for programs such as those
described by Little (1990) that do more for novice teachers’ social and emotional
development than their professional development (Wang & Odell, 2002). Programs
driven by a humanistic assumption focus largely on reducing the psychological
stresses faced by new teachers (Wang & Odell, 2002). Mentors in such programs
typically need interpersonal skills to be effective in their work with novice teachers
(Wang & Odell, 2002). Programs guided by a situated apprenticeship perspective
typically assume that novice teachers lack practical knowledge related to teaching
(Wang & Odell, 2002). Mentors in these programs tend to assume the role of experts
who demonstrate and model proper teaching practices, scaffolding their support as
the novice teacher grows and learns (Wang & Odell, 2002). Finally, mentoring
programs with a critical constructivist perspective typically operate from a position
of critique and reform (Wang & Odell, 2002). The role of the mentor in this case is
to be a change agent, encouraging the novice teacher to advocate for educational
22
reform and transform his or her teaching practices (Wang & Odell, 2002). Mentoring
programs may be driven by any one of these three assumptions, resulting in wide
variation in program models and structure. Wang and Odell’s (2002) analysis found
that if mentoring programs are to move beyond retention efforts and truly affect the
process of learning to teach, they need to change their underlying assumptions that
center around short-term support and survival strategies to instead focus on
standards-based education and teaching.
Walkington’s (2005) review of literature and analysis of data described a
mentoring model that may be seen as a combination of the assumptions presented by
Wang and Odell (2002). Walkington (2005) described a consultative mentoring
model that acknowledges the novice teacher and his or her individuality as the
driving force in the mentoring relationship. By focusing on this individuality, the
mentor can more effectively employ reflective practices in an attempt to challenge
the novice teacher’s preformed notions related to teaching (Walkington, 2005).
Although Walkington’s (2005) study examined preservice teachers in Australia, the
basis and function of the mentoring relationship, to develop the novice teacher’s
professional identity, are similar to those underlying many of the mentoring
programs employed in the United States. Walkington (2005) emphasized the
importance of reflective dialogue in the work completed by the mentor and mentee.
This model of mentoring is yet another that may be adopted by programs.
23
Different programs adopt different structures and approaches. Regardless of
the approach, proper training and orientation of mentors is vital if the program is to
be successful.
Training for mentors.
Much like novice teachers, those who serve as mentors need a considerable
knowledge base if they are to be effective. The literature identifies several key areas
for mentor training.
Mentoring programs must offer adequate training and support for those who
will serve as mentors. The process of serving as a mentor is often approached in the
same way as serving as a teacher (Yendol-Hoppey, 2007), a perspective that does not
always allow for success. In an eighteen-month ethnographic case study of two
mentor teachers working with interns, Yendol-Hoppey (2007) found several common
themes in the two cases. Both mentors approached the task of assisting novice
teachers much like they approached the task of instructing students in the classroom
(Yendol-Hoppey, 2007). The mentors employed similar constructivist approaches
and encouraged risk taking on the part of the novice teachers with whom they
worked (Yendol-Hoppey, 2007). Yendol-Hoppey (2007) pointed out that, while such
constructivist approaches are worthwhile, mentors may need the ability to move
beyond the ways in which they were mentored to be successful.
Understanding the context in which the novice teacher is working is vital to
the success of the mentoring relationship. In their qualitative study of mentoring,
Achinstein and Athanases (2005) attempted to identify the knowledge base required
24
for mentors to be successful. Through both a questionnaire and open-ended
reflection questions administered to a group of leaders of induction programs in
Northern California, Achinstein and Athanases (2005) identified key areas for mentor
training and development. Many of the identified areas centered on pedagogy related
to equity and diversity (Achinstein & Athanases, 2005). The authors emphasized
that mentors need knowledge of equity and diversity issues both as they relate to
teaching students and as they relate to teaching novice teachers to work with students
(Achinstein & Athanases, 2005). In addition, Achinstein and Athanases (2005)
identified contextual knowledge for teaching and the mentor’s self-awareness of
attitudes and assumptions around teaching in diverse classrooms as important.
Achinstein and Athanases (2005) asserted that proper mentor training and education
should include such topics, along with information around adult learning theory.
In addition to knowledge of issues facing the novice teacher, mentors also
need knowledge of how to facilitate reflective practice (Harrison, Lawson, &
Wortley, 2005). Harrison, Lawson, and Wortley (2005) completed a case study in
which they analyzed interactions between 30 mentors and their mentees, who were
novice secondary school teachers in England. The authors, through their study,
underscored the importance of developing reflective practice in novice teachers and
discussed the need for mentor training in this area (Harrison et al., 2005). Their
study examined the effects of mentor training in support tools that were identified as
aids in engaging novice teachers in reflective practices (Harrison et al., 2005). These
support tools included a list of reflective strategies that could be used with the
25
mentee, as well as training directed at reflective or inquiry-based questioning that
involved modeling and demonstration (Harrison et al., 2005). The authors found that
by engaging the mentors in training that involved critiquing modeled practice as well
as their own practice, they were able to affect a significant change in the mentors’
behavior with their mentees (Harrison et al., 2005).
In addition to contextual knowledge, awareness of equity issues, and the
ability to facilitate reflective conversations, mentors also need knowledge of a variety
of teaching strategies (Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005). In a case study of two
mentoring relationships in a district utilizing the California Beginning Teacher
Support and Assessment (BTSA) Program, Norman and Feiman-Nemser (2005)
concluded that mentors should have a collection of such strategies and know how and
when to apply them in varying contexts. In particular, the authors contended that
novice teachers need support in functioning within the larger context of the school
(Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005). The mentors who offer this support should be
equally interested in furthering their own learning (Norman & Feiman-Nemser,
2005). The authors also described situations in which mentees seemed to regress,
moving away from effective practices (Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005). In such
situations, mentors need to be able to use a combination of teaching and mentoring
skills and strategies (Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005). Norman and Feiman-
Nemser (2005) caution that, while mentoring can be a useful activity, its
effectiveness can be altered by the expectations of the participants.
26
Orland-Barak and Yinon (2005) completed a qualitative study of 20 mentors
in Israel. They identified several challenges unique to the mentoring process in
Israel, such as programmatic influence from several parties, changing agendas, and
variations in suggested approaches (Orland-Barak & Yinon, 2005). Although the
setting and challenges faced by the mentors are unique, Orland-Barak and Yinon
(2005) came to some of the same conclusions through their research as other studies
of more traditional settings.
Orland-Barak and Yinon (2005) analyzed the mentoring experience through
reports of critical incidents or memorable incidents that presented challenges to the
mentors’ assumptions and practice. Through the mentor’s descriptions of these
incidents and their responses, Orland-Barak and Yinon (2005) concluded that, when
faced with conflict or challenge, the mentors often behaved as novices, yet reasoned
as experts. This dissonance between thought and action was found to lead to
reflection on the part of the mentors, thereby deepening their understanding of the
experience (Orland-Barak & Yinon, 2005).
Through the study of these critical incidents, Orland-Barak and Yinon (2005)
developed an approach to training mentors involving placing them in practice
settings that present novel situations, thereby creating cognitive dissonance. This
training is different from the more technical approach in that it requires the mentor to
be challenged to change his or her perceptions of the mentoring role. Orland-Barak
and Yinon (2005) argued that mentors should participate in simulated situations of
dissonance because such simulations can better teach them how to employ the
27
constructivist approach with their mentees. Such a skill leads to a more in-depth
experience from which both the mentor and mentee may learn (Orland-Barak &
Yinon, 2005). Frequently, mentors are seen as experts in teaching, leading the
mentee to simply accept the mentor’s perspective without question (Orland-Barak &
Yinon, 2005). Such behavior challenges neither the mentor nor the mentee and tends
to inhibit the constructivist approach that is desired in the mentoring process.
Mentors need to be able to view the teaching setting from multiple
perspectives. The mentor needs to be able to consider not only the novice teacher’s
learning, but also the learning of the students in the novice teacher’s classroom
(Athanases & Achinstein, 2003). Athanases and Achinstein (2003) conducted a
study of mentors and mentees in Northern California. They conducted a
questionnaire of induction program leaders and completed an in-depth case study of
two novice teachers working with mentors (Athanases & Achinstein, 2003). The
study illuminated those skills and abilities thought necessary for a mentor to create an
effective relationship with a novice teacher. Among those skills thought most salient
were general pedagogical knowledge, strategies for teaching and engaging students,
assessment strategies, and knowledge regarding formative assessment of the novice
teacher (Athanases & Achinstein, 2003). Through training in such topics, Achinstein
and Athanases (2003) suggested that the mentor would be able to help the novice
teacher develop the ability to assess and focus on individual students within the
classroom.
28
Assuming multiple perspectives allows the mentor to critique the mentee’s
practice, not only from the viewpoint of effective teaching strategies, but also from
the viewpoint of student learning (Athanases & Achinstein, 2003). The mentor needs
a working knowledge of student assessment, standards-based curricula, and
formative assessment practices to be able to assume this bi-level focus (Athanases &
Achinstein, 2003). Through this lens, the mentor can focus the mentee on individual
student learning, an important skill that novice teachers must acquire.
Above all, mentors need adequate time for training, collaboration with
colleagues, and work with mentees (Achinstein & Athanases, 2005; Harrison et al.,
2005; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005). The structure of the mentoring program
must be such that it allows for all of the above to happen. These are critical elements
in a successful mentoring program, and without adequate training, mentors cannot
properly assist their mentees.
Mentor roles and responsibilities.
Adequate mentor training prepares experienced teachers to assist novice
teachers through the induction phase of their careers. An educational mentor serves
several roles and takes on many responsibilities in this process.
Feiman-Nemser and Parker (1992) identified three potential roles that
mentors tended to fulfill through their case study of two mentoring programs. The
authors interviewed and observed mentors working with mentees in an effort to
identify typical roles and behaviors (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1992). The first
mentor role was categorized by a short-term approach that emphasized emotional
29
support, what Feiman-Nemser and Parker (1992) termed local guides. Mentors in
this role provided immediate assistance with needs such as locating instructional
materials, sharing procedures, and explaining policies (Feiman-Nemser & Parker,
1992). Once the novice teacher became acclimated to the basic workings of the
classroom and school, Feiman-Nemser and Parker (1992) found that the local guide
mentor would often pull back and assume that the novice teacher was capable of
surviving without further support. This short-term approach was found to lead to
early termination of the mentoring relationship.
Unlike the short-term perspective of the local guide mentor, educational
companion mentors see their role as long-term (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1992).
Educational companion mentors typically employ an inquiry approach, questioning
the novice teacher regarding his or her practice in an effort to guide reflection and
growth (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1992). Mentors who view themselves as
educational companions are likely to define their roles in terms of helping novices
examine student learning (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1992).
The third mentoring role is a combination of the first two. Mentors who
define themselves as agents of change see their roles as long-term educational and
emotional supporters of novice teachers (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1992). As the
term implies, these mentors seek to end the isolation typically experienced by
teachers and encourage novices to become part of a larger, collaborative community
(Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1992). This approach to mentoring combines both
30
emotional and educational support in an effort to help novice teachers develop into
effective professionals who engage in shared inquiry and reflective practice.
Mentors have responsibilities beyond helping novice teachers with
instructional and organizational needs such as accessing materials and meeting the
needs of their students (Carver & Katz, 2004). Carver and Katz (2004) completed a
two-year case study of a mentor in California. They interviewed the mentor and
observed his interactions with novice teachers (Carver & Katz, 2004). This mentor
was originally part of a larger study the authors were completing, but Carver and
Katz (2004) selected him for a separate study when several unique themes emerged
through their examination of his practice. In the study of the mentor’s interactions
with his novice teachers, Carver and Katz (2004) noted a pattern of behavior that
included demonstrated weakness on the part of the novice teachers that was left
unaddressed by the mentor. These missed learning opportunities occurred several
times over the course of the two year relationship (Carver & Katz, 2004).
Carver and Katz (2004) identified several possible reasons why the mentor
did not address his mentees’ areas of weakness, including insufficient training in
strategies for dealing with challenging mentees, supporting novice teachers who are
struggling, and how to give direct feedback. In addition, the program of which this
mentor was a part was lacking a system of accountability for its mentors (Carver &
Katz, 2004). The authors highlighted the importance of offering training in all of
these areas to enable mentors to perform their jobs effectively (Carver & Katz, 2004).
They contended that mentors need to feel comfortable counseling ineffective teachers
31
out of the profession (Carver & Katz, 2004). Finally, Carver and Katz (2004)
highlighted the importance of changing the expectations of a professional culture that
does not typically support colleagues critiquing each other’s practice. All of these
steps were deemed necessary for mentors to fully engage in their roles.
Mentor roles and responsibilities are further clarified in the literature. Lipton
and Wellman (2003) specified three tasks of the educational mentor, including
offering support, creating challenge, and facilitating a professional vision. In their
book on mentoring, Lipton and Wellman (2003) suggested that a mentor should have
a growth orientation and see his or her role as building capacity in others. They also
described several stances mentors assume during their interactions with mentees,
including coaching, collaborating, and consulting (Lipton & Wellman, 2003).
Mentors need to be able to move between all three stances and fulfill all three tasks
to be successful in working with mentees (Lipton & Wellman, 2003), depending
upon the context or situation.
McNally and Martin (1998) continued the theme of researching the balance
between mentors supporting and challenging the novice teachers with whom they
work. They completed a qualitative study of mentors’ practice with novice teachers.
They interviewed mentors regarding their approaches to working with novice
teachers, specifically in terms of support and challenge (McNally & Martin, 1998).
Although mentors verbalized their understanding of a need to challenge mentees’
practice to incite growth, many of them also admitted that they didn’t truly challenge
their mentees (McNally & Martin, 1998). In addition, McNally and Martin (1998)
32
identified three mentor profiles, each of which is typified by different levels of
support and challenge of the mentee. These profiles include the laissez-faire mentor,
the collaborative mentor, and the imperial mentor (McNally & Martin, 1998). The
three profiles exist along a continuum of interaction from the laissez-faire mentor,
who allows the interaction to be guided largely by the novice teacher, to the imperial
mentor, who controls the interactions entirely (McNally & Martin, 1998).
Mentors need the ability to assess their mentees and plan interactions
accordingly. In their study of mentors’ perceptions of their roles, Kwan and Lopez-
Real (2005) collected questionnaire and interview data. They found that many
mentors described their most important role as a provider of feedback, but those
whose perceptions changed over time tended to describe important roles as those of a
counselor, equal partner, or critical friend (Kwan & Lopez-Real, 2005). This shift in
thinking was seen as a function of the mentors’ work with and learning from the
mentees they served (Kwan & Lopez-Real, 2005). Over time, the mentors
demonstrated an understanding that their role needed to move beyond the simple
provision of feedback if the novice teacher was to make any progress.
In some cases, mentors shy away from the role of critical friend, preferring to
avoid addressing problems with the mentees (Bullough, 2005). In his case study of a
mentor and two novice teachers, Bullough (2005) collected data through a set of
protocols emailed regularly to participants that asked them to reflect on their teaching
or mentoring practice and how things were progressing. In the data, Bullough (2005)
saw two basic patterns of interaction between mentors and mentees occur. The
33
majority of the mentors tended to adopt a responsive stance, offering support for only
those areas in which the mentee expressed a desire for assistance (Bullough, 2005).
Other mentors adopted a more directive stance, particularly at the beginning of the
school year, guiding the interactions according to what they believed their mentees’
needs to be (Bullough, 2005). Mentors in a directive stance tended to focus their
assistance on beginning of the year procedures and orientations (Bullough, 2005).
Bullough (2005) found that once the mentees moved beyond the opening of the
school year, the mentors then assumed a more responsive stance.
Being critical and challenging the novice teacher and his or her practice is
necessary; however, mentors may feel such action is in conflict with their perceived
identity as a source of support (Bullough, 2005). Bullough (2005) reported rarely
finding mentors who were critical in their feedback, and specified that many mentors
went out of their way to avoid interfering in what they felt was the novice teacher’s
development of autonomy. In his conclusions, Bullough (2005) suggested that
mentors have a moral and professional obligation to challenge novice teachers’
weaknesses and help them to develop effective teaching practices. Assuming a
responsive stance or avoiding critical feedback can not only be harmful to the
development of the novice teacher, but also to the development of the students in the
novice teacher’s classroom (Bullough, 2005). Bullough (2005) asserted that mentors
must be willing to initiate difficult conversations around teaching practice.
Feiman-Nemser, Parker, and Zeichman (1992) studied mentors working with
novice teachers in California. They observed three mentors working with three
34
novice teachers in an attempt to describe the quality of mentoring (Feiman-Nemser,
Parker, & Zeichman, 1992). Ultimately, what was found was that mentors were not
challenging the novice teachers’ demonstrated weaknesses (Feiman-Nemser et al.,
1992). While the authors observed mentors instructing novice teachers in the areas
of classroom management and instructional strategies, they also observed mentors
who did not question novice teachers about their knowledge of students, subject
matter, or lesson design (Feiman-Nemser et al., 1992). Not only did mentors avoid
questioning their novice teachers, but they also did not share their own thinking and
decision-making practices with the novice teachers (Feiman-Nemser et al., 1992).
Such observations led the authors to conclude that the effectiveness of this particular
mentoring setting was limited and novice teachers were missing valuable learning
opportunities (Feiman-Nemser et al., 1992).
Mentors may feel their responsibility to the novice teacher is one of
assistance, not assessment (Feiman-Nemser, 1996). Ultimately, mentors have a
responsibility to both the novice teacher and his or her students to engage in a
process of assessment and address issues of concern. Mentors may not feel
adequately prepared to deal with such challenges. Mentors need specific strategies
based on clear standards to deal with novice teachers who are ineffective or
exhibiting inappropriate practices (Carver & Katz, 2004). Mentors need tools to deal
with ineffective novice teachers. In addition to such tools, mentors also need to have
established a trusting and effective relationship with the mentee in order to
successfully address issues of practice.
35
Mentoring relationships.
Kram’s (1983) research regarding mentoring relationships is regarded as
some of the most influential research on mentoring. Kram (1983) established four
stages of mentoring relationships: initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition.
The initiation phase occurs at the beginning of the mentoring relationship when the
mentor and mentee are just beginning to know each other (Kram, 1983). They may
not fully trust each other yet; however, the formal relationship has been established
(Kram, 1983). In the cultivation stage, the mentor is becoming directly involved in
the mentee’s career development (Kram, 1983). Trust is beginning to develop, and
the relationship is beginning to evolve into a true mentoring relationship (Kram,
1983). The separation phase occurs when the mentee feels the relationship has
served its purpose, and he or she is seeking to regain independence from the mentor
(Kram, 1983). Finally, the redefinition stage is when the mentoring relationship
takes on the characteristics of a collegial relationship rather than one characterized by
differences in rank (Kram, 1983). Kram (1983) also described two different types of
mentor interactions including career-related behaviors and psychosocial support.
Mentors in education typically provide both.
Mentoring is sometimes seen not as a role to be fulfilled, but rather a
relationship between two people (Awaya, McEwan, Heyler, Linsky, Lum, &
Wakukawa, 2003). In this particular study, the authors interviewed novice teachers
and mentors who were involved in mentoring relationships in Hawaii (Awaya et al.,
2003). They found five characteristics of effective mentoring relationships including
36
the ability to view the mentoring relationship as a journey, equality between the
mentor and mentee, the mentee’s ability to view the mentor as a knowledgeable
resource and source of support, and the mentor’s ability to give the mentee space
(Awaya et al., 2003). When such characteristics were in place, a mentoring
relationship emerged that allowed for both the mentor and mentee to learn and grow
(Awaya et al., 2003). Two obstacles to establishing such relationships also emerged.
The authors found that if the mentor was unable or unwilling to assist the novice
teacher or the novice teacher was unable to view the mentor as an equal, effective
mentoring relationships were difficult to establish (Awaya et al., 2003). In particular,
novice teachers who lacked confidence or communication skills were most likely to
fail in establishing meaningful mentoring relationships (Awaya et al., 2003). The
quality of the mentoring relationship is dependent upon several factors on the part of
both the mentor and the mentee.
The effectiveness of the mentoring relationship can be assessed through
several characteristics. In their study of mentoring relationships, Allen and Poteet
(1999) identified several factors that enhanced or limited the effectiveness of
mentoring relationships. Through semistructured interviews with 27 mentors from
various industrial fields, Allen and Poteet (1999) assessed participants’ perceptions
of important relationship characteristics. Among the top desired characteristics of
mentoring relationships were an open communication system that allowed for
reciprocal feedback, goal setting and clear expectations for the relationship, and a
sense of trust (Allen & Poteet, 1999). Suggested methods for developing or
37
enhancing these characteristics included team and trust building activities, role
playing communication activities, and setting expectations for mentoring behaviors
(Allen & Poteet, 1999). The authors suggested that their study needed to be followed
up by other studies in an attempt to identify the influence of these factors on the
effectiveness of the mentoring relationship (Allen & Poteet, 1999). Further research
is needed in this area.
As mentioned above, mentors assist novice teachers with both organizational
and emotional needs (Rippon & Martin, 2006). The approach to meeting those needs
can determine the type of relationship that exists between the mentor and mentee.
Rippon and Martin (2006) studied mentoring relationships within the context of a
teacher induction program in Scotland. They designed a questionnaire administered
to a sample of 271 novice teachers that sought to identify the type of support needed
by such teachers (Rippon & Martin, 2006). The questionnaire was followed up by a
focus group designed to further illuminate questionnaire responses (Rippon &
Martin, 2006).
Rippon and Martin (2006) found that if the mentor is viewed as the expert in
the relationship, the novice is seen as less knowledgeable, and a deficit viewpoint
emerges. Instead, it is more constructive to view the mentor and mentee relationship
as reciprocal in nature (Rippon & Martin, 2006). Indeed, mentors have the potential
to learn from the novice teachers they serve. In addition to viewing the relationship
as reciprocal, mentors also need to ensure a balance in the types of interactions in
which they engage. Mentors need to combine procedural types of support with
38
counseling types of support (Rippon & Martin, 2006). Mentors also need to attend to
their approach in working with mentees. Mentees, when interviewed, cited that they
desired mentors who were approachable, knowledgeable, credible, and motivational
(Rippon & Martin, 2006). In other words, mentors need to be more than just good
teachers; they also need to know how to help and inspire the mentees whom they
serve.
In his exploration of the social learning of new teachers, Street (2004)
approached the research through a lens that combined both sociocultural and
apprenticeship theories. Through his study, Street (2004) attempted to identify those
factors that enhanced the development of mentoring relationships. Utilizing a
naturalistic inquiry approach, Street (2004) met monthly with fifteen mentors and the
novice teachers with whom they worked. He interviewed participants and
videotaped conferences between mentors and novices. Data were analyzed using
qualitative methods including identifying patterns and emergent category designation
(Street, 2004). Street (2004) found that the balance between support and challenge
was an important factor that influenced the mentors’ and novices’ perceptions of
their relationships. Supportive behavior on the part of the mentors provided novices
with an environment that felt safe and comfortable (Street, 2004). This environment
permitted the novice teachers to take risks and pursue new ideas (Street, 2004). In
contrast, the challenging behaviors presented by the mentors allowed the novices to
recognize new perspectives and shape their growth (Street, 2004). It was a balance
of the two that led mentors and novices to describe their relationships as effective
39
(Street, 2004). These results are in line with those studies mentioned earlier that
highlight the importance of the mentor’s role in challenging the novice’s perspective
(Bullough, 2005; Carver & Katz, 2004; Feiman-Nemser et al., 1992; McNally &
Martin, 1998). Street (2004) found that the differing levels of supportive and
challenging behavior affected the quality of the relationship between the mentor and
the novice teacher.
Street (2004) also found that the social relationship between mentor and
novice teacher was of high importance to the novice teacher. The collaborative work
that the mentor and novice teacher engaged in played an important role in developing
their relationship (Street, 2004). Working together toward a common goal of
improving the novice teacher’s practice through both supportive and challenging
behaviors of the mentor united the two in a joint relationship that many novice
teachers described as satisfying (Street, 2004). Street (2004) specified that mentors
and novice teachers need to be provided the time to engage in such work if an
effective relationship is to be established.
Determining the effects of mentee and mentor matching on the mentoring
relationship is a source for debate. Hawkey (1998) found that some level of
mismatch between mentor and mentee teaching styles led to dissonance and
ultimately increased the mentee’s metacognitive awareness of what he or she had
learned from the mentor. This dissonance led to greater growth, as it inspired the
mentee to more purposefully explore his or her teaching practices in light of the
contradictory views presented by the mentor (Hawkey, 1998). While this argument
40
sounds logical, Hawkey’s (1998) case study was based on one relationship between
one mentor and one mentee. Therefore, the results may be limited in their
generalizability.
Since the publication of Hawkey’s (1998) study, it has been argued that
mentors and mentees needed to perceive each other as similar in order for them to
establish an effective relationship (Allen & Eby, 2003). Allen and Eby (2003)
distributed surveys to 2,600 people from two business organizations. The survey
inquired about whether the participant had ever been engaged in a mentoring
relationship, what type of mentoring relationship it was, how similar the mentor and
mentee in the relationship perceived themselves to be, and the duration and quality of
the mentoring relationship (Allen & Eby, 2003). In general, respondents consistently
identified perceived similarity between mentor and mentee as an important indicator
of the quality of the mentoring relationship (Allen & Eby, 2003). This similarity did
not include gender similarity, which did not appear to be an important factor to those
who responded (Allen & Eby, 2003). Allen and Eby (2003) concluded that both
perceived similarity and the length of the mentoring relationship were important
factors. They suggested that future research focus on the outcomes of the mentoring
experience from the mentor’s perspective, including the effects of serving as a
mentor on the mentor’s career, job satisfaction, and learning (Allen & Eby, 2003).
Allen and Eby (2003) also suggested that longitudinal research in the area of
mentoring is needed to further understand the complexities of the mentoring
relationship.
41
Much of the research regarding mentoring relationships has been completed
in the corporate arena, and it remains undecided whether the relationship
characteristics of business mentoring relationships transfer to the world of education.
Whether or not perceived similarity is important, the fact remains that the tone of the
relationship between mentor and mentee is significant. Such relationships will
override mandated roles and responsibilities and determine the effectiveness of the
mentor (Hawkey, 1998).
Expectations of mentoring.
In addition to the relationship between mentor and mentee, expectations also
play an important role. The effectiveness of mentoring is controlled, in part, by the
expectations of the mentor and mentee, as well as how those expectations play out in
the relationship (Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005). Osgood’s (2001) case study
focused on novice teachers in industrial or trade classrooms. Through a study of six
mentoring triads that included a mentor, novice teacher, and administrator, Osgood
(2001) interviewed participants as to their understanding of the expectations of the
mentoring relationship. Administrators indicated that their expectation of the
mentoring relationship was that it would help support the novice teacher and get him
or her through the first year of teaching (Osgood, 2001). Detailed expectations were
not voiced; instead, administrators expressed vague expectations that mentors would
assist novice teachers in feeling comfortable in their classrooms and the larger school
system (Osgood, 2001). Mentors also expressed a lack of clarity regarding
expectations of their work with novice teachers (Osgood, 2001). Many mentors in
42
the study described their expectation that the relationship would aid the novice
teacher in reaching self-sufficiency through the completion of paperwork and some
observation of the novice teachers in their classrooms (Osgood, 2001). Finally, some
of the novice teachers also expressed a lack of understanding of expectations
(Osgood, 2001). They tended to expect that the mentoring relationship would
provide some type of support and general assistance, largely through a process of
peer evaluation (Osgood, 2001). These unclear expectations led to mentors and
novice teachers not meeting as frequently as they were required to meet, and led their
meetings to be focused on processes and paperwork related to the observations
(Osgood, 2001). Participants in the study rarely took part in any kind of goal setting
or sharing of expectations during their meetings (Osgood, 2001). Osgood (2001)
concluded that such lack of clarity regarding expectations resulted in a mentoring
relationship that did not truly assist the novice teacher. Based on these observations,
Osgood (2001) suggested that mentoring relationships may, at times, prove to be
more of a hindrance to the novice teacher than a help, and further research is needed
to determine the extent of this phenomenon.
Young and Perrewe (2004) have completed research regarding the role of
expectations in mentoring relationships. Young and Perrewe (2004) administered
two surveys, one to a group of protégés and one to a group of mentors. Their protégé
sample was based on a group of doctoral students in the dissertation phase, while
their mentor sample was based on faculty members who had recently chaired
dissertation committees (Young & Perrewe, 2004). The surveys for the two groups
43
examined the same constructs, although one was worded from the protégé’s
perspective while the other was worded from the mentor’s perspective (Young &
Perrewe, 2004). The authors found that there was a relationship between the level of
expectations for support and the perception of support received (Young & Perrewe,
2004). Specifically, both levels of expectation for social support and career-related
support appeared predictive of the perception of social support received (Young &
Perrewe, 2004). Additionally, Young and Perrewe (2004) found that female protégés
tended to demonstrate higher levels of expectations. Ultimately, Young and Perrewe
(2004) concluded that managing expectations in the mentoring relationship is
important, and programs can take specific steps in doing so. They specified that
clear goals and guidelines for the mentoring program should be established, and
those goals and guidelines should be communicated to participants (Young &
Perrewe, 2004). Young and Perrewe (2004) acknowledged limitations of their study,
including differing sample sizes between protégés and mentors and the fact that
participants were typically involved in mentoring relationships that had been in
existence for some time. Young and Perrewe (2004) suggested, in addition to further
research in this area, that future studies focus on newer mentoring relationships in the
earlier stages of their formation in order to study a phase of the relationship when the
role of expectations is more salient.
The organization of which the mentor and mentee are a part can also
influence expectations. Organizational variables, such as support for the mentoring
process and professional growth, can enhance or lessen the expectations of both the
44
mentor and mentee (Young & Perrewe, 2004). In addition, the program that governs
the mentoring relationship has a responsibility to clarify expectations. The
mentoring program needs to clarify expectations for mentor and mentee interactions
and other appropriate program elements (Osgood, 2001). Mentors need to know
what they are expected to do in terms of frequency and length of meetings with
mentees, theoretical frameworks under which they operate, and how they are to
assess and support the novice teachers with whom they work.
Hoover and Frieman (2002) suggest use of a formal mentoring agreement
between the mentor and mentee. They completed case studies of mentoring
relationships between professors and student teachers that utilized a formal
mentoring agreement (Hoover & Frieman, 2002). The agreement included
statements designed to govern four main aspects of the mentoring relationship
including respect, power, boundaries, and professionalism (Hoover & Frieman,
2002). The authors hypothesized that a clear understanding of expectations and roles
would lead to increased satisfaction with the mentoring relationship (Hoover &
Frieman, 2002). Although Hoover and Frieman (2002) studied relationships that
used the formal mentoring agreement, they did not assess the overall effectiveness of
these mentoring relationships. While the formal agreement may have enhanced the
clarity of expectations, not enough is known about how it influenced the overall
effectiveness of the mentoring relationship.
Mentoring is an inherently personal process. The needs of each mentee differ
depending upon several variables. Rigler (2000) completed a phenomenological
45
analysis of mentoring relationships among male and female novice teachers. The
author found that gender differences existed between male and female teachers, not
only in terms of the expectations of their mentors, but also in terms of how those
expectations were voiced (Rigler, 2000). Male teachers were forthright and direct in
explaining their expectations, while female teachers did not directly state their
expectations, choosing instead to make statements that implied what they needed
from their mentors (Rigler, 2000). Aside from gender differences, Rigler (2000)
suggested that there may also be differences in expectations for novice teachers with
more or less experience, different grade levels and content areas, or different school
settings. Rigler (2000) asserted that mentors need to take steps to identify such
expectations in order to enhance the effectiveness of the relationship.
In their work comparing formal and informal mentoring relationships, Baugh
and Fagenson-Eland (2007) found significant differences between the two. The
authors suggested that there may be differences in expectations of mentees engaged
in mentoring relationships in formal and informal settings (Baugh & Fagenson-
Eland, 2007). When mentees are engaged in a formal mentoring relationship, Baugh
and Fagenson-Eland (2007) hypothesized that mentee expectations may be lower,
simply for the reason that the relationship is forced. Mentors in formal programs are
typically assigned to mentees, rather than selecting them on their own (Baugh &
Fagenson-Eland, 2007). The authors also hypothesized that mentees in formal
mentoring relationships may have higher expectations because they have been
selected to participate in a program and their mentors are receiving specific training
46
(Baugh & Fagenson-Eland, 2007). More research is needed to clarify any
differences in expectations between formal and informal mentoring program
participants.
Ultimately, the more expectations are made transparent and explicit, the more
likely the mentoring relationship is to be effective (Hoover & Frieman, 2002).
Mentors, mentees, and the mentoring program as a whole all need to make their
expectations known (Osgood, 2001). This should be done as early in the mentoring
process as possible to have the greatest impact.
Outcomes of Mentoring
Given the focus on mentoring that is occurring in many school systems, there
is a vested interest in the outcomes of the mentoring process. Many studies presented
earlier in this review examined mentoring outcomes in the field of business and
identified several benefits for mentees (Dreher & Ash, 1990; Fagenson, 1989;
Scandura, 1992). Research regarding benefits for mentees in educational mentoring
is less conclusive, largely due to the extreme variation in mentoring models studied.
Benefits for mentees.
Smith and Ingersoll (2004) conducted a study of the effects of induction
programs on teacher attrition. The authors used data from the Schools and Staffing
Survey (SASS) from the 1999-2000 cycle to examine the effects of many induction
activities including mentoring, group induction activities, reduced workloads, and
provision of extra resources while controlling for teacher and school characteristics
(Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). The study indicated that mentoring in education,
47
particularly when the mentor had a background in education, benefited novice
teachers, specifically in the area of retention (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Having a
mentor from the same field reduced the likelihood of leaving at the end of the first
year of teaching by about thirty percent (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). When mentoring
was utilized in conjunction with other quality induction activities, it also impacted
teacher retention (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). These findings are significant in light of
the high rates of teacher attrition many districts experience; however, wide variations
in induction program models may affect the success of mentoring relationships
(Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Smith and Ingersoll (2004) specify that for a mentoring
relationship to have a positive effect on the novice teacher’s retention, it must be
quality mentoring and, preferably, be part of a larger system of quality induction
activities.
Specific benefits experienced by novice teachers who participate in mentoring
are varied. According to Evertson and Smithey (2000), these benefits are largely
mediated by the mentor. Their study of mentoring relationships included an
experimental group of mentors and a comparison group of mentors (Evertson &
Smithey, 2000). The experimental group of mentors received training prior to the
start of the school year and follow-up training at monthly mentor meetings
throughout the year, while the comparison group received only the training prior to
the start of the school year (Evertson & Smithey, 2000). The mentors who had the
ongoing training and preparation tended to have mentees who experienced additional
benefits compared to those whose mentors had not been provided such training
48
(Evertson & Smithey, 2000). The formal mentor training translated into novice
teachers who were better able to organize and manage their classrooms from the
beginning of the year with increased skills in instruction, student discipline, and
student engagement (Evertson & Smithey, 2000). Just the process of mentoring may
not be sufficient. Mentees may experience better results with mentors who have
proper training and knowledge of how to improve novice teacher practice in order to
experience positive outcomes.
Benefits for mentors.
Outcomes for the mentors themselves are less clear. In their study of
mentoring outcomes, Ragins and Scandura (1994) examined gender differences in
expected outcomes of mentoring. They hypothesized that female mentors would
anticipate greater costs and benefits than male mentors (Ragins & Scandura, 1994).
The authors developed a Likert-scale instrument designed to measure expected costs
and benefits of engaging in mentoring relationships. The sample for the study
included 160 mentors who were assigned to matched groups by gender (Ragins &
Scandura, 1994). After administering both the expected costs instrument and an
intention-to-mentor instrument, the authors found no significant differences in either
expected outcomes or intention to mentor between the two genders (Ragins &
Scandura, 1994).
In a follow-up to the 1994 study, Ragins and Scandura (1999) again utilized
their Likert-scale outcomes instrument to measure expected costs and benefits of
mentoring. In this study, rather than separate mentors by gender, they examined the
49
differences between mentors who were grouped according to their levels of
experience in mentoring (Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Specifically, the authors were
focused on the impact of expected costs and benefits of mentoring on future
intentions to mentor (Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Their sample consisted of 275
high-ranking executives in managerial positions with mentoring experience (Ragins
& Scandura, 1999).
Ragins and Scandura (1999) found that outcomes of mentoring were
significantly related to experience in a mentoring relationship. Specifically,
individuals with no mentoring experience were more likely to anticipate more costs
and fewer benefits of mentoring than those with experience (Ragins & Scandura,
1999). In addition, those with mentoring experience were more likely to report it as a
rewarding experience that led to a sense of satisfaction (Ragins & Scandura, 1999).
This study was completed with mentors in managerial or business settings, and it is
worth attempting to replicate the findings with educational mentors in school
settings.
In other areas of mentoring outcomes, it is hypothesized that mentoring
relationships can be reciprocal in nature in terms of the learning that occurs (Feiman-
Nemser, 2001). In a review of the literature, Feiman-Nemser (2001) suggested that
mentors themselves experience professional development through the process of
serving their mentees. Mentors have the opportunity to develop skills of observation,
analysis, assessment, inquiry, and coaching (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). These skills
then not only benefit the mentors, but also the school systems in which the mentors
50
work, as they become resources for professional development (Feiman-Nemser,
2001). Further research is needed to determine whether mentors are actually being
used as resources for professional development at their schools or applying their
training in their own classrooms.
Mullen and Noe (1999) suggest that mentors can learn from their mentees
who may have more recent pedagogical or theoretical knowledge. Mullen and Noe
(1999) distributed surveys to groups of mentors and mentees inquiring about
information seeking behavior. The study attempted to identify whether reciprocal
information seeking was taking place and what relationship characteristics led to
such behavior (Mullen & Noe, 1999). The results of the study indicated that mentors
did, at times, seek information from their mentees; however, in order for this
behavior to occur, several conditions had to exist (Mullen & Noe, 1999). The mentor
needed to view information seeking behavior as appropriate and also needed to
perceive the mentee as competent (Mullen & Noe, 1999). In addition, information
seeking behavior on the part of the mentor was more likely to occur if he or she
engaged in vocational mentoring functions as opposed to psychosocial mentoring
functions (Mullen & Noe, 1999). The final indicator of mentor information seeking
was the perceived influence of the mentee (Mullen & Noe, 1999). If the mentor and
mentee had a close relationship, the mentor was more likely to engage in information
seeking behavior (Mullen & Noe, 1999). While the authors identified a potential
limitation of a low response rate in their study, Mullen and Noe (1999) felt strongly
that their conclusions warranted future research in this area. Mullen and Noe (1999)
51
suggested that future studies focus on the type of information mentors seek from their
mentees.
Mentor outcomes have been studied more explicitly in other fields. Allen,
Poteet, and Burroughs (1997) studied informal mentoring relationships in several
organizations including government, health care, finance, communications, and
manufacturing. In a qualitative approach, mentors were interviewed regarding their
experiences (Allen et al., 1997). Questions focused on four areas including
individual reasons for mentoring, organizational factors that influenced mentoring,
factors related to mentee attraction, and outcomes for mentors engaged in mentoring
relationships (Allen et al., 1997). Mentors who were interviewed reported benefits
such as the building of support networks, career-related rewards, self-satisfaction,
and acquisition of new knowledge from the mentee (Allen et al., 1997). Overall,
mentors reported more benefits than costs of mentoring, and the rewards indicated
varied (Allen et al., 1997). Much like the conclusions reached by Mullen and Noe
(1999), mentors in this study reported learning as much from their mentees as their
mentees learned from them (Allen et al., 1997). Allen, Poteet, and Burroughs (1997)
suggested that such benefits and rewards could be used to recruit mentors.
In another study, Allen, Lentz, and Day (2006) identified benefits for mentors
serving in a health care organization that included increases in salary, promotions,
and other areas of career-related success. Surveys were distributed to employees
engaged in informal mentoring relationships, as opposed to those who were part of a
formal mentoring program, with the purpose of comparing mentors to those who had
52
not previously engaged in a mentoring relationship (Allen et al., 2006). Results of
the surveys indicated that mentors experienced greater salaries and promotions and
stronger subjective career success than non-mentors (Allen et al., 2006). The authors
suggested that a low response rate and a self-report methodology may have limited
the generalizability of their findings (Allen et al., 2006). What remains to be decided
is whether the benefits identified in this study translate to formal mentoring
relationships or to the field of education where career-related benefits may be more
intangible. In a field where promotions and salary increases are more regulated and
less individualized, benefits for educational mentors may be more closely related to
self-satisfaction and acquisition of new knowledge.
Studies of outcomes for mentors in industrial fields have found benefits
relating to career success and satisfaction; however, there exists a significant gap in
the literature regarding the outcomes for mentors in formal, educational mentoring
programs.
Teacher efficacy.
Teacher efficacy is one area in which both mentors and mentees may benefit
from their relationship. Gibson and Dembo (1984) developed an instrument for
measuring teacher efficacy based on Bandura’s (1977) model of self-efficacy. Two
types of teacher efficacy were described, including general teaching efficacy and
personal teaching efficacy (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). General teaching efficacy
refers to beliefs about the ability of the teaching profession as a whole to make a
difference with students given external factors such as home environment, while
53
personal teaching efficacy centers on the individual teacher’s perceptions of his or
her ability (Gibson & Dembo, 1984).
Gibson and Dembo (1984) sought to identify the effects of teacher efficacy
on teachers’ classroom behavior through observations of teachers with both high and
low teaching efficacy. Highly efficacious teachers were found to engage in more
whole group instruction, avoid the use of criticism in feedback, and persist with
students in failure situations (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). In contrast, teachers with
low teaching efficacy were found to engage in more small group instruction, utilize
criticism in student feedback, and did not typically persist with students in failure
situations (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Both personal and professional growth may
affect teacher efficacy. The influence of teacher efficacy on mentoring behaviors and
the influence of mentoring behaviors on teacher efficacy are both areas that merit
future study.
Rushton (2003) completed a case study of two preservice teachers during
their student teaching experiences, identifying again the issue of cognitive dissonance
and its role in the learning process. Rushton (2003) studied two preservice teachers
from middle-class backgrounds who were struggling with their student teaching
assignments in an inner-city elementary school. Both teachers described their
teaching assignments as a culture shock, leading them to experience cognitive
dissonance (Rushton, 2003). Rushton (2003) argued that this experience of
dissonance led to improvements in the preservice teachers’ teaching practice which,
in turn, led to increased self-efficacy. The teachers’ interactions with their mentors
54
played an important role in this process, ensuring that moments of cognitive
dissonance and culture shock were studied through inquiry-based discussions
(Rushton, 2003). Rushton (2003) underscored the important role cognitive
dissonance played in the development of the personal and practical knowledge of the
teachers studied. Rushton (2003) attributed their growth in self-efficacy to the
mentor-led processing of their experiences.
Chester and Beaudin (1996) examined the experiences of novice teachers in
urban settings, finding several causes of increased teacher efficacy and increased
retention. Through their survey of novice teachers in Connecticut schools, Chester
and Beaudin (1996) identified several characteristics of teaching assignments that
contributed to increases in teachers’ efficacy. Characteristics found to mediate
changes in efficacy for novice teachers included the teacher’s age and prior
experience, as well as the opportunities and resources made available at the school
(Chester & Beaudin, 1996). Opportunities for novice teachers to collaborate with
colleagues, specifically those who were more experienced, led to increases in
efficacy for both the novices and the experienced teachers (Chester & Beaudin,
1996). Additional research is needed to replicate these results in formal mentoring
programs.
The process of change.
The mentoring relationship is hypothesized to incite personal and professional
change for both mentors and mentees. Often, the goal of the mentoring relationship
55
is to change or improve the teaching practice of the novice teacher (Feiman-Nemser
& Parker, 1992). The process of change is not automatic.
Nicholson’s (1984) paper presented a theory of work role transitions.
Nicholson (1984) found that when employees experience a work role transition,
several outcomes are possible depending on whether the employee adopts a personal
development strategy or a role development strategy. Personal development
strategies encompass behaviors such as altering personal values or identity-related
attributes depending upon the new role (Nicholson, 1984). Role development
strategies involve changing the role requirements to match the personal identity and
ability (Nicholson, 1984).
Within each strategy, there is the potential for low or high affect, which can
mediate the degree to which employees make adjustments (Nicholson, 1984).
Ultimately, Nicholson (1984) found that transitions can either inspire very little
change or very drastic change in personal and social identity. It is likely that mentors
experience work role transitions when they assume the role of mentor. Depending on
how they cope with such a change in roles, mentors may either reframe their self-
concept according to the role of a mentor, or they may reframe the role of the mentor
to fit more closely with their existing self-concept. Research is needed to both
confirm Nicholson’s (1984) theory of work role transitions and to determine if such a
theory can be applied to those assuming mentoring roles.
Hollingsworth (1989) examined teacher change in terms of instructional
beliefs and practices. Specifically, Hollingsworth (1989) explored changes in
56
teachers’ beliefs about reading instruction while they were still in a preservice
program. A pattern of intellectual change was identified. Those responsible for
facilitating the preservice teachers’ change were in mentor-like roles. They found the
most success when they took into consideration the teachers’ prior knowledge and
beliefs and utilized fieldwork settings that inspired cognitive dissonance, particularly
with regards to the mentor (Hollingsworth, 1989). These findings echoed those of
Hawkey (1998), who proposed that a level of mismatch between mentor and mentee
may enhance learning. Much like Hawkey (1998), Hollingsworth’s (1989)
conclusions are limited by a small sample size. However, the importance of prior
knowledge and beliefs and the power of experiences of cognitive dissonance are not
to be undersold. Mentors who can accomplish both tasks are more likely to see
resulting change in their mentees (Hollingsworth, 1989).
Oakley and Krug (1991) studied change from the perspective of enlightened
leadership, identifying the dynamics of organizational change. Within the context of
organizational change in business, Oakley and Krug (1991) identified four key
phases. The entrepreneurial phase is the first phase, and it is often characterized by
invention and innovation. Most organizations in this phase are in survival mode,
motivated by risk-taking behavior designed to establish the organization as a
successful entity (Oakley & Krug, 1991). The second phase is growth. Once the
organization has survived the entrepreneurial phase, attention turns to developing
effectiveness and efficiency (Oakley & Krug, 1991). Management systems and
procedures are developed in an attempt to secure the organization’s position (Oakley
57
& Krug, 1991). These same policies and procedures that enhance growth early on
may impede later growth, limiting the organization’s creativity and ability to cope
with change (Oakley & Krug, 1991). As the growth cycle peaks, the organization
can either experience renewal or decline, depending upon the ability to cope and
adapt (Oakley & Krug, 1991). If the organization chooses to break free from rigid
policies and procedures developed in the growth phase, the renewal phase can lead
the organization to what Oakley and Krug (1991) term “new life.” However, an
inability to move beyond policies and procedures can lead the organization into a
steady decline (Oakley & Krug, 1991).
Parallels can be made between Oakley and Krug’s (1991) model of
organizational change and the phases of the first year of teaching described by Moir
(1999). According to Moir’s (1999) model, first year teachers begin with
anticipation, frequently progressing immediately into survival mode. Survival mode
leads to a phase of disillusionment, during which the first year teacher questions his
or her ability to be successful (Moir, 1999). With the development of confidence in
teaching practice that occurs over time, disillusionment can then lead to rejuvenation,
or a recommitment to teaching (Moir, 1999). This recommitment then leads to
phases of reflection and anticipation of the following year (Moir, 1999). Were a first
year teacher to remain in the disillusionment phase, he or she may experience a
decline in teaching practice similar to the organization that experiences a decline in
success.
58
O’Toole’s (1996) book explored the notion of resistance to change. Based
within the context of resistance to organizational change, notably within the business
and management arenas, O’Toole (1996) highlighted possible causes for such
resistance as organizational culture and established ideologies. O’Toole (1996)
posited that organizational cultures, over time, can limit an organization’s ability to
adapt and innovate. While such cultures may have been initially based in sound
practice and theory, blindly following the established culture can be limiting
(O’Toole, 1996). Ultimately, O’Toole (1996) concluded that the ideology of
comfort, or the idea that change is an uncomfortable process feared by many, can be
blamed for a resistance to change. O’Toole (1996) described the need for leaders to
incite change without imposing their will on others in order to be effective.
Ultimately, change is a delicate process that takes skilled leadership and a
willingness to be innovative.
Fullan’s (2001) contribution to change literature highlights the importance of
understanding the change process. Particularly, Fullan (2001) described what he
calls the implementation dip, or a dip in performance and confidence that inevitably
occurs as change participants attempt an innovation that requires new learning.
Acknowledging a lack of needed skills can be an intimidating experience that leads
to hesitation or participants’ withdrawal from the change effort (Fullan, 2001). This
is in line with previous studies that described experiences of cognitive dissonance
among novice teachers. When attention is drawn to the lack of knowledge or belief
needed to bring about change, effective coaching is needed to overcome the dip in
59
implementation (Fullan, 2001). Appropriate leadership can help participants
overcome the implementation dip and continue on the path to implementing change
(Fullan, 2001). Returning to Moir’s (1999) phases of the first year of teaching, the
disillusionment phase can also be described as an implementation dip. Caught up in
the awareness of a lack of knowledge or skill, novice teachers frequently question
their ability in the classroom (Moir, 1999). This does not mean that the novice
teacher won’t ever change his or her practice, but rather that effective coaching and
mentoring is needed to pull the novice teacher through the dip in implementation of
appropriate teaching practice.
Hall and Hord (1987) examined the idea of change specifically with regards
to educational settings. This model of change takes into consideration the concerns
of the teacher (Hall & Hord, 1987). In order for effective change to take place, the
teacher’s perceptions of the change need to be taken into account (Hall & Hord,
1987). Hall and Hord (1987) provide a method for assessing these perceptions in
order to more effectively address them. The seven different stages of concern can be
used for this purpose. The different stages, from the least amount of concern to the
most, include awareness, informational, personal, management, consequence,
collaboration, and refocusing (Hall & Hord, 1987). As the individual progresses
through the stages, he or she transitions from concerns with the details of the change
effort to concerns about the personal role to be played in the effort (Hall & Hord,
1987). At the highest level of concern, the teacher is focused on the bigger picture
and impact of the change effort (Hall & Hord, 1987).
60
In addition to considering the teacher’s stage of concern with regards to the
change effort, the level of use must also be examined. The levels of use refer to
whether the teacher is transferring what is being learned to practice (Hall & Hord,
1987). Much like the stages of concern, the levels of use progress from a complete
lack of awareness of the change effort to a full involvement and redefinition of
practice to include the change (Hall & Hord, 1987). The levels of use include
nonuse, orientation, preparation, mechanical use, routine, refinement, integration, and
renewal (Hall & Hord, 1987).
With regards to the practice of mentoring, mentors can benefit from taking
into consideration their mentees’ stages of concern and levels of use. These two
scales can assist the mentor in determining how to best support the mentee in
accomplishing personal and organizational change (Hall & Hord, 1987).
The process of change is often studied from the viewpoint of organizational
change; however, parallels can be drawn to individual change, particularly in the case
of novice teachers. Useful tools exist to aid in assessment of readiness or openness
to change efforts.
Negative outcomes.
Not all outcomes of mentoring relationships have been found to be positive.
In some cases, the mentoring relationship can become dysfunctional, leading to a
negative impact for the participants. Negative or dysfunctional mentoring
relationships have received much less attention in the literature than positive
outcomes.
61
Scandura’s (1998) review of the literature identifies types of dysfunctional
mentoring behaviors and the potential outcomes of a dysfunctional mentoring
relationship. Scandura (1998) cautions that dysfunctional mentoring relationships
can harm not only the mentor and mentee involved, but also the larger organization
of which they are a part. The impact of a dysfunctional mentoring relationship can
be quite serious.
Dysfunctional mentoring relationships are defined as those in which the needs
of both parties are not being met (Scandura, 1998). Behaviors that emerge from such
relationships can impact both psycho-social and vocational facets of the participants’
careers (Scandura, 1998). Negative relations develop when bullying occurs within
the mentoring relationship (Scandura, 1998). Such bullying can lead to a relationship
that is abusive to the mentee. Sabotage can occur on either side of the relationship,
and it involves either the mentor or mentee taking revenge on the other (Scandura,
1998). On a less direct level, difficulty can arise when the mentor and mentee have
good intentions, but psycho-social problems in the way they communicate or relate
become obstacles (Scandura, 1998). When an act of betrayal occurs, perceived or
actual, the mentoring relationship can be spoiled (Scandura, 1998). The responses
and emotions evoked by such an act can prevent the mentoring relationship from
continuing to be productive (Scandura, 1998).
Due to the inherent imbalance of power in the mentoring relationship, several
dysfunctional behaviors may occur. The first is described as submissiveness, which
emerges when the mentee decides to purposefully engage in submissive behavior in
62
exchange for benefits (Scandura, 1998). Another dysfunction that may occur due to
the imbalance of power is harassment, either sexual harassment, or gender or race
discrimination (Scandura, 1998). Finally, deception may occur, in which a member
of the relationship manipulates information as a method of manipulating the other
member of the relationship (Scandura, 1998). All of these dysfunctional behaviors
can have a severe impact on the mentor, mentee, or organization for which they
work.
Scandura (1998) described one of two possible outcomes of dysfunctional
mentoring relationships. First, the relationship may be terminated. In some cases,
however, the relationship is maintained, which can lead to negative outcomes for
both the mentor and the mentee. In the case of the mentor, increases in stress,
anxiety, jealousy, betrayal, overdependence, and overestimation may occur
(Scandura, 1998). In addition, the mentor may be less inclined to engage in
mentoring behavior in the future (Scandura, 1998). For the mentee, outcomes may
include a decrease in self-esteem, job satisfaction, and likelihood of becoming a
mentor in the future (Scandura, 1998). There may also occur increases in stress,
anxiety, absenteeism, and turnover (Scandura, 1998). These outcomes may hinder
the progress of the mentor, mentee, or organization.
Eby, Butts, and Lockwood (2004) conducted a study involving multiple
cohorts of mentors and their mentees. Utilizing a previously created taxonomy of
negative mentoring experiences, the authors studied both the types of negative
63
experiences and the point in the mentoring relationship at which they typically
occurred (Eby et al., 2004). Five themes of negative experiences were examined.
A mismatch within the dyad referred to significant differences between the
mentor and mentee that hindered the relationship (Eby et al., 2004). Distancing
behavior was another type of negative experience that included mentors’ neglect or
exclusion of the mentee, particularly in settings that would aid advancement of the
mentee’s career (Eby et al., 2004). Mentors who engaged in manipulative behavior
were categorized into one of two themes including position power (taking advantage
of one’s higher-level position) and politicking, or engaging in selfish political
behavior at the mentee’s expense (Eby et al., 2004). Lack of mentor expertise was
also a theme in negative mentoring experiences (Eby et al., 2004). This lack of
expertise can be either interpersonal or technical (Eby et al., 2004). Finally, general
dysfunctionality refers to either a mentor’s negativity toward the organization or
personal problems, either of which may interfere with a positive mentoring
relationship (Eby et al., 2004). In this particular study, mismatches within the dyad
and distancing behavior were the two most common types of negative experiences
reported (Eby et al., 2004).
Kilburg and Hancock (2006) also studied negative effects of mentoring
relationships. Defined as “collateral damage”, these negative effects impacted both
the mentor and the mentee (Kilburg & Hancock, 2006). Through this study, the
authors studied 149 mentoring teams over the course of a two-year period (Kilburg &
Hancock, 2006). They identified the most common recurring problems in the
64
mentoring relationships that led to collateral damage. In the first year of the study,
the most common recurring problems in mentoring relationships that led to negative
impacts included a lack of time, mismatches between mentor and mentee, poor
communication and coaching skills, and a lack of emotional support (Kilburg &
Hancock, 2006). In the second year of the study, many of the same recurring
problems were discovered. In addition to previous problems, differences in
geographic location between mentors and mentees, high mentee to mentor ratios, and
personality conflicts led to further negative outcomes for participants (Kilburg &
Hancock, 2006).
Within the timeframe of the study, mentors and mentees who reported
experiencing any of the above problems were provided with potential solutions by
the leaders of the mentoring program (Kilburg & Hancock, 2006). Mentors and
mentees were encouraged to select a solution from those provided and implement it
in an effort to mediate the problems (Kilburg & Hancock, 2006). After
implementing the potential solutions, mentors and mentees were asked to report back
with their success (Kilburg & Hancock, 2006). The authors felt that the process of
reflection on the part of the mentors and mentees was just as helpful in mitigating
negative outcomes as the suggested solutions were (Kilburg & Hancock, 2006).
Feldman (1999) presents a different perspective of negative mentoring
outcomes. He argues that, while many negative mentoring outcomes are blamed on
the mentor, the mentee can be just as responsible for creating a dysfunctional
relationship (Feldman, 1999). Specifically, Feldman (1999) examined factors that
65
lead to what he calls “poor initial linkages”, as well as what allows those linkages to
develop into dysfunctional relationships. Finally, he examined the outcomes of such
dysfunctional relationships for both mentors and mentees (Feldman, 1999).
Factors that contributed to poor initial linkages included motivations for
getting involved in mentoring, differences in personality styles, stages of career
development, and role conflicts, among others (Feldman, 1999). What caused poor
initial linkages to develop into dysfunctional relationships were factors such as
interdependence, commitment to the mentoring relationship, and the stage of the
mentoring relationship (Feldman, 1999). Finally, negative outcomes for mentees
were found to include increased stress and anxiety, lower self-esteem, and higher
voluntary turnover (Feldman, 1999). Negative outcomes for mentors included
increased feelings of anger and betrayal, lessened interest in future mentoring
activities, and lessened involvement in the organization (Feldman, 1999). In addition
to negative outcomes for mentees and mentors, Feldman (1999) also found that there
were negative outcomes for the organization as a whole, including lower levels of
trust between employees, decreased collaboration, and increased age-discriminatory
behavior.
Although negative outcomes of mentoring are rarely reported in discussions
around mentoring, they certainly exist. Organizations that employ mentoring
programs must take necessary steps to prevent such dysfunctional relationships from
developing.
66
Support for Methodology
A mixed methods approach was chosen for this study. This approach allowed
for the ability to expand an understanding of the mentor’s experience between
methods, and confirm findings from different sources of information (Creswell,
2003). Data was collected simultaneously in an effort to better understand the
outcomes experienced by mentors.
This study employed purposeful sampling, identifying a particular district for
study, as well as particular subjects within that district. Purposeful sampling
involves the selection of those subjects, usually small in number, who can offer the
most insight into a particular setting or phenomenon (Creswell, 2003; Patton, 2002).
Unlike probability sampling, purposeful sampling allows for an emphasis on in-depth
understanding. Purposeful sampling does limit the generalizability of results.
Knowledge developed from this study may lead to future research efforts that are
specifically quantitative or qualitative in nature; however, the present study examined
perceptual data that was best assessed through a mixed methods design.
Surveys and focus group interviews were used to collect data related to the
research questions. A Likert-scale survey was used with the intent of gathering a
broad range of data from the group (Creswell, 2003). Open-ended questions, such as
those employed in the focus group interviews, allowed subjects’ perceptions and
opinions to be assessed without limiting them to a fixed scale or response (Patton,
2002). These types of questions led to rich, in-depth dialogue that enhanced the
67
researcher’s understanding of the setting being studied based on data gathered
through the survey.
This study’s methodology is not without its limitations, stemming largely
from the qualitative portion of the study. Patton (2002) cautions that qualitative
inquiry related to perceptions, specifically interview data, is highly susceptible to
distorted or inaccurate responses. Interview responses may be biased or colored by
the interviewee’s emotional state (Patton, 2002). In addition, recall error may come
into play, particularly if the questions being asked relate to past experiences (Patton,
2002). Finally, interviewees may react to the interviewer and potentially provide
responses altered for the purpose of pleasing the interviewer (Patton, 2002). All of
these limitations must be taken into consideration when completing qualitative
research and analysis.
Data collection and analysis in this study will employ several measures that
attempt to validate the findings of the research. Use of comparative data involves
exploring the same research questions through several methods and sources
(Creswell, 2003). This particular study gathers comparative data through the use of
both a survey and focus group interviews. In-depth, rich descriptions of findings also
lend to the study’s validity (Creswell, 2003). In addition, identifying the researcher’s
personal bias at the outset of the study increases the validity (Creswell, 2003). These
particular steps are just a few of the ways researchers can increase the validity of an
inquiry.
68
A mixed methods approach was employed in this study. Every effort was
taken to reduce the effect of the researcher’s bias and limitations of the methodology
and increase the validity of the findings.
Summary
While the literature regarding mentoring is extensive, particularly in the field
of business, little has been done to examine the outcomes educational mentors
experience. Given the significant investment of time and energy mentors contribute,
the question of how they benefit from the interaction is a worthwhile one. In
addition to revealing insight into the mentor’s experience, such answers can also lead
to improvements in mentoring programs in terms of how they support and sustain
their mentors.
The reviewed literature contributes to this study through the establishment of
a conceptual framework. Mentoring theory, among others, informs program design
and implementation. Previous research regarding mentees’ experiences and
outcomes for mentors in business drove the inquiry of this study, as well as provided
the conceptual framework for data analysis.
69
Chapter Three
Methodology
Introduction
This chapter outlines the design, population, sample, instrumentation, data
collection process, and data analysis process for the study. The purpose of the study
is to identify the perceived outcomes associated with serving as an educational
mentor. A group of mentors in one Southern California school district were studied
in an effort to answer the following research questions:
1. What perceived impact does mentoring have on those who serve as mentors?
a. What are the perceived short-term and long-term effects of serving as a
mentor?
b. What are the perceived career benefits that exist for those who serve as
mentors?
c. What are the perceived professional detriments for those who serve as
mentors?
d. What impact do the perceptions of mentoring held by mentors’ colleagues
have on the mentors themselves?
This study utilized a mixed methods approach to acquire in-depth information
regarding the mentors’ experiences and perceived outcomes in one particular school
district. Ragins and Scandura’s (1994) survey regarding perceived costs and benefits
of mentoring was used to collect data related to the above research questions. The
survey was followed up with a focus group designed to collect more in-depth
70
information related to the results of the survey and the research questions. The focus
group protocol was developed using the theoretical framework of the study based on
the identified elements of the research questions and the body of literature.
Sample and Population
This study focused on a single Southern California school district.
Specifically, the focus of the study was the mentors who serve in the Tower Unified
School District’s
1
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) program.
This district was purposefully sampled based on its reputation for having a quality
BTSA program and a consistent cadre of mentors. The district’s BTSA program
meets state standards for induction programs.
Overview of district and program.
Tower Unified School District is a school district in a large, urban county that
serves approximately 25,000 students in grades kindergarten through twelve. There
are seventeen elementary schools, eight middle schools, and five high schools in the
district. The district is a Title I district with an Annual Performance Index (API)
score of over 800 that consistently meets its Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO)
and makes Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) according to the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2002.
The district’s BTSA program serves approximately 175 first and second year
teachers who are working to earn their professional clear credentials. Currently,
1
Tower Unified School District is a pseudonym that has been used to protect the anonymity of the
participants in this study.
71
roughly seventy-five support providers act as mentors to the novice teachers as a part
of the BTSA program. There are two program administrators including the district’s
Director of Curriculum and a staff development resource teacher. The resource
teacher oversees the day-to-day functions of the BTSA program. He is, in turn,
supervised by the Director of Curriculum.
Mentors.
The mentors who serve in the district are representative of the larger teaching
population. District-wide there are approximately 1,300 teachers, 95% of whom are
fully credentialed. Mentors have provided varying years of service to the district’s
BTSA program. Some of the mentors have been with the program since its inception
in 1998. Others are new to the program for the 2007-2008 school year. Within the
context of the BTSA program, the mentors are referred to as support providers.
Mentors in the BTSA program typically work with beginning teachers
through a two-year cycle. During this two-year cycle, their work together is guided
by the California Formative Assessment and Support System for Teachers (CFASST)
which uses an inquiry-based model to guide examination of the teacher’s
instructional practice. The CFASST system is broken into Year One and Year Two.
Typically, efforts are made to keep the mentor and beginning teacher together for
both years or a full cycle. For purposes of this study, mentors’ level of experience
will be determined both by the number of years they have completed as support
providers in the BTSA program and whether they have completed at least one full
cycle of the CFASST program.
72
Program administrators.
The district’s BTSA program is overseen by the Director of Curriculum.
Day-to-day operations are the responsibility of the staff development resource
teacher. Both the director and the resource teacher have been associated with the
district’s BTSA program since its inception. The resource teacher, in addition to
daily program implementation, is also responsible for acting as a support provider to
novice teachers in the program.
Instrumentation
The research questions for this study were developed based upon the
mentoring literature. Questions were based, in part, on studies regarding mentoring
outcomes for mentors that were completed in fields outside of education. Questions
were also based on an identified gap in the educational literature on mentoring
outcomes for mentors. The instruments to be used are a survey and focus groups.
A survey was chosen because it allows for the collection of a wide range of
data from many subjects. The survey allowed perceptual, subjective data to be
collected anonymously. A survey created by Ragins and Scandura (1994) was
selected for this study because the items corresponded with the study’s research
questions. Ragins and Scandura’s (1994) Expected Costs and Benefits to Being a
Mentor instrument consists of thirty-eight items.
The focus group was chosen as a method for further confirmation and
clarification of data collected through the surveys. The focus group allowed for the
collection of subjects’ perceptions within the social context of a group, and
73
interactions between subjects participating in the focus group enhanced the depth of
the information gathered (Patton, 2002). Uniformity of focus group questions was
ensured through the use of a focus group protocol.
Mentors were represented across both instruments to varying degrees. The
entire population of mentors was asked to participate in the survey in order to gather
as much data as possible. A smaller group of mentors was chosen for the focus
group from those who volunteered to participate. All mentors who volunteered were
selected. With regards to the program administrators, only the resource teacher
participated. The Director of Curriculum does not oversee the day-to-day operations
of the BTSA program, nor does she interact with the mentors on a regular basis;
therefore, the study focused on the resource teacher who participates in such
activities. In addition, the resource teacher’s role as support provider qualified him
to participate.
Table 1 provides an overview of the methodology for this study, including a
description of the rationale, population, and implementation plan. Table 2 shows the
correspondence between the research questions for the study and the questions on the
cost scale of the chosen survey (Ragins & Scandura, 1994). Table 3 shows the
correspondence between the research questions for the study and the questions on the
benefit scale of the survey. Table 4 displays the correspondence between the
research questions for the study and the questions contained in the focus group
protocol. Each instrument is discussed in detail in the sections that follow.
74
Table 1
Overview of Methodology
Instruments Rationale Population Implementation
Likert-scale
Survey
o yield comparative
data
o allows for
collection of large
range of data
o 73 mentors
o 1 program
administrator
o administered to
all subjects via
online survey
platform during
the month of
January 2008
Focus
Group
o yield comparative
data
o data collected
within the context
of a social group
o interaction
between group
subjects enhances
depth of
information
o 1 group of 5
mentors
o held at a central
location in the
district after
school hours
during
February 2008
o two meetings,
each
approximately
1 hour in length
75
Table 2
Correspondence of Survey Questions to Research Questions – Cost Items
Item RQ
1a
RQ
1b
RQ
1c
RQ
1d
Being a mentor is more trouble than it’s worth. x x
Mentoring takes more time than it’s worth. x x
There are more drawbacks to being a mentor than
advantages.
x x
Mentoring takes too much time away from one’s own
job.
x x
The mentor-protégé relationship can become
unhealthy.
x x
Protégés can end up taking the mentor’s job. x x
Mentors run the risk of being displaced by successful
protégés.
x x
Mentors can be backstabbed by opportunistic
protégés.
x x
The mentor-protégé relationship is often exploitative. x x
Members of the organization often view mentors as
playing favorites with their protégés.
x x x
Mentors are often viewed by others as giving unfair
advantages of their protégés.
x x x
76
Table 2
Correspondence of Survey Questions to Research Questions – Cost Items (continued)
Item RQ
1a
RQ
1b
RQ
1c
RQ
1d
Mentors run the risk of being viewed as developing a
political cadre with their protégés.
x x x
Choosing a poor protégé is a negative reflection on
the mentor’s judgment.
x x
A poor protégé can ruin a mentor’s reputation. x x
Protégés can be a negative reflection on the mentor’s
competency.
x x
The major drawback of being a mentor is the time
commitment.
x x
Mentoring is an energy drain. x x
77
Table 3
Correspondence of Survey Questions to Research Questions – Benefit Items
Item RQ
1a
RQ
1b
RQ
1c
RQ
1d
Mentors get a sense of fulfillment by passing their
wisdom on to others.
x x
Serving as a mentor can be one of the most positive
experiences of one’s career.
x x
Mentoring makes one feel better about oneself. x x
The rewards that come from being a mentor more than
compensate for the costs.
x x
Mentors gain a sense of satisfaction by passing their
insights on to others.
x x
The advantages to being a mentor far outweigh the
drawbacks.
x x
One’s creativity increases when mentoring others. x x
One’s job performance is likely to improve when one
becomes a mentor.
x x
Mentoring has a positive impact on the mentor’s job. x x
The mentor’s job is usually rejuvenated by the
relationship.
x x
Mentoring is a catalyst for innovation. x x
78
Table 3
Correspondence of Survey Questions to Research Questions – Benefit Items
(continued)
Item RQ
1a
RQ
1b
RQ
1c
RQ
1d
Mentoring has a positive impact on the mentor’s job
performance.
x x
Protégés can be a positive reflection on the mentor’s
competency.
x x
Mentors can count on their protégés to be loyal
supporters.
x x
Protégés are trusted allies for their mentors. x x
Mentors obtain positive recognition in their organization
for assuming a mentoring role.
x x x
Mentors achieve recognition from their superiors for
developing the talent of their protégés.
x x x
Mentors gain status amongst their peers for their
mentoring activities.
x x x
Mentors are able to relive their lives through their
protégés.
x x
By mentoring others, mentors gain a sense of
immortality.
x x
79
Table 3
Correspondence of Survey Questions to Research Questions – Benefit Items
(continued)
Item RQ
1a
RQ
1b
RQ
1c
RQ
1d
Mentors view protégés as a younger version of
themselves.
x x
80
Table 4
Correspondence of Focus Group Questions to Research Questions
Item RQ
1a
RQ
1b
RQ
1c
RQ
1d
1. How does serving as a mentor affect teachers’
careers?
x x x
o What short-term outcomes do you think they
experience?
x
o What long-term outcomes do you think they
experience?
x
o What professional benefits do you think they
experience?
x
o What professional detriments do you think they
experience?
x
o How does serving as a mentor affect mentors’
classrooms and students?
x x x
o How does mentoring increase collegiality? x
2. What do mentors gain from interactions with their
mentees?
x x
o What do mentors learn from their mentees? x x
o How does working with mentees increase mentors’
skills as teachers?
x x
81
Table 4
Correspondence of Focus Group Questions to Research Questions (continued)
Item RQ
1a
RQ
1b
RQ
1c
RQ
1d
o How does working with mentees increase mentors’
job satisfaction?
x x
o How does working with mentees revitalize mentors’
careers?
x x
o How does mentoring enhance mentors’ leadership
skills?
x x
3. How do you feel your colleagues perceive mentoring? x
o Do your colleagues voice opinions regarding
mentoring?
x
o Do your colleagues demonstrate interest in mentors’
roles?
x
o How do colleagues’ perceptions of mentoring affect
mentors?
x x x x
o Is serving as a mentor viewed as a privilege or an
additional duty? Cite specific examples.
x
o Do non-mentors demonstrate interest in serving as
mentors? Cite specific examples.
x
82
Table 4
Correspondence of Focus Group Questions to Research Questions (continued)
Item RQ
1a
RQ
1b
RQ
1c
RQ
1d
o How do site administrators support mentor roles
and responsibilities?
x
o How do district administrators support mentor roles
and responsibilities?
x
83
Survey.
The survey, Expected Costs and Benefits to Being a Mentor, found in
Appendix 2, was written by Ragins and Scandura (1994) in their exploration of
expected outcomes of mentoring relationships. Items on the survey were evaluated
on a seven-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging from “strongly disagree” to
“strongly agree” (Ragins & Scandura, 1994). Ragins and Scandura (1994) separated
the items on their instrument into a cost scale and a benefit scale. Reliability was
established separately for each scale. Reliability for the cost scale was α = .76, and
reliability for the benefit scale was established as α = .91 (Ragins & Scandura, 1994).
They established discriminant validity through a principal components factor analysis
(Ragins & Scandura, 1994). Content validity was established through a procedure in
which master’s of business administration degree candidates classified items into the
categories of cost, benefit, and neither cost nor benefit (Ragins & Scandura, 1994).
Only those items that received seventy percent or more of their points in the
appropriate category were retained for the survey (Ragins & Scandura, 1994).
In a separate study, Ragins and Scandura (1999) again utilized the Expected
Costs and Benefits to Being a Mentor instrument. For this study they conducted
separate principal components factor analyses for the cost and benefit scales,
readmitting those items that had been previously excluded as a result of the content
validity procedure (Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Through these analyses, Ragins and
Scandura (1999) identified five factors from the cost scale (more trouble than worth,
dysfunctional relationship, nepotism, bad reflection, and energy drain) and five
84
factors from the benefit scale (rewarding experience, job performance, loyal base of
support, recognition by others, and generativity) on which the items loaded. These
factors became the major themes through which data for this study were analyzed.
The survey was administered to the entire group of 73 mentors, as well as the
program administrator (resource teacher). The surveys were distributed using an
online survey platform during the month of January 2008. Administering the survey
in January allowed time for the mentors’ and program administrators’ roles,
responsibilities, and schedules to be well-established for the year. A cover letter,
included in Appendix 1, introduced the survey and explained the purpose of the study
and instrument (see Appendix 1). In addition, because the survey was originally
created for the field of business, it used the terms “mentor” and “protégé” (Ragins &
Scandura, 1994). The survey respondents refer to themselves as support providers.
The cover letter instructed them to use the term “mentor” to refer to their roles as
support providers and the term “protégé” to describe the teachers they serve in the
mentoring relationships. The information sheet, found in Appendix 4, detailed the
purpose, potential risks, and potential benefits of participation in the study. Twenty-
eight mentors responded to the survey for a response rate of 38%.
Focus group.
The focus group protocol, found in Appendix 3, consists of three main
questions, each with accompanying probing questions. The focus group took two
sessions of approximately one hour each to complete. The open-ended questions
asked about topics related to those covered in the survey. This served the purpose of
85
confirming and clarifying information gathered through the survey, as well as aided
in content analysis and deriving conclusions. Specifically, focus group questions
were phrased with regards to a general focus as opposed to the individuals’
experiences. The focus group protocol was informed by the mentoring literature.
One focus group was conducted over the course of two sessions. The group
consisted of five mentors. This group size was based on the number of volunteers for
the focus group and the constraints presented by having one facilitator to manage it
effectively in the time allotted. Focus group participants were purposefully sampled
based on their cycles of experience as mentors to ensure that participants in the group
had, at minimum, experienced the full range of service as a mentor in the program
through both years of the CFASST cycle.
The focus group was conducted following the administration of the survey in
February 2008. This time period allowed for recruiting of focus group participants
and helped mediate scheduling conflicts. The group met twice for approximately one
hour each time. The two meetings were held approximately one week apart.
Meeting with the group twice allowed for rapport to be built during the first meeting.
It also afforded the opportunity for clarifying questions to be asked during the second
group meeting.
Data Collection
The data collection for this study was conducted between January and
February of 2008. Prior to the collection of data, the researcher contacted the district
Director of Curriculum for consent. The researcher presented the Director of
86
Curriculum with a written proposal for the study through e-mail. Prior to collecting
data, the researcher coordinated with the Director of Curriculum and the program
administrator to confirm the process by which data collection was to occur.
Data collection began with the administration of the survey through an online
survey platform in January 2008. Both the mentors and the resource teacher
completed the survey. Prior to completing the survey, the participants read the cover
letter (see Appendix 1) and information sheet (see Appendix 4).
The focus group took place in February of 2008, following the administration
of the survey. The focus group sessions were audio recorded. In addition, the
researcher took notes during the session to aid in the analysis of the transcribed
interviews.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this study is to identify the perceived outcomes for mentors
who participate in the mentoring process. The data collection methods specified
addressed the study’s purpose through examination of the research questions.
Accuracy and validity of the findings were ensured through several processes
including use of comparative data through the implementation of multiple sources
(surveys and focus groups), rich descriptions, and clarification of researcher bias
(Creswell, 2003).
The researcher’s bias in this study derives from prior experience with the
BTSA program, albeit in a different district. The researcher’s bias stemmed from the
belief that mentoring is a worthwhile endeavor that benefits all involved. Due to this
87
preexisting bias, the researcher took careful consideration not to allow interference
with data collection and analysis. This was accomplished through the use of focus
group protocols, tape recording of focus group sessions, and the identified conceptual
framework used for content analysis.
Survey.
The online survey platform utilized for this study generated a file with
individual responses for each item. This data set was downloaded and entered into a
database for analysis. Next, data from the survey were transferred to a statistics
software program. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to determine
frequency, mean scores, and standard deviation of responses by item number.
After a primary descriptive statistical analysis was run, the responses were
split into two groups according to the respondent’s indication of whether they had
completed at least one full cycle of the CFASST program. Those who indicated they
had completed at least one full cycle of CFASST were assigned to group one, and
those who had indicated they had not completed at least one full cycle of CFASST
were assigned to group two. The responses to each item were compared across the
two groups. An independent groups t-test was run to determine any significant
differences between the mean responses of the two groups. This analysis was
performed by item for each item on the cost scale and each item on the benefit scale.
Focus groups.
Focus group audio recordings were first transcribed, then categorized using a
multi-step content analytic procedure. The specific approach to analyzing focus
88
group data was a combination of classificatory and thematic organization. Potential
classifications were drawn from the factor analysis completed by Ragins and
Scandura (1999) on their Expected Costs and Benefits to Being a Mentor instrument.
These classifications were “more trouble than worth”, “dysfunctional relationship”,
“nepotism”, “bad reflection”, “energy drain”, “rewarding experience”, “job
performance”, “loyal base of support”, “recognition by others”, and “generativity”
(Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Focus group data were first divided into these
classifications.
After the classificatory organization was complete, a thematic organization
process was employed for those data that remained. Data that did not fit the above
classifications were then organized by new themes as they emerged in the process.
Points that did not fit the above classifications were grouped by their meaning.
Groups were then given a title that appropriately captured the meanings. This
analysis allowed for confirmation of information collected through the survey.
Summary
This chapter provided information regarding the research design and methods
utilized for this study, the sample, the theoretical concepts that framed the study,
instrumentation, and data collection and analysis procedures. In chapter four, the
findings of the research and analysis of these findings are presented.
89
Chapter Four
Findings
Introduction
This chapter presents an analysis of the data collected in the current study,
whose purpose was to investigate the perceived outcomes of serving as a mentor.
Specifically, the study looked at perceived costs and benefits of mentoring from the
mentor’s perspective. A mixed methods design was used to collect data from the
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment induction program in a school district in
Southern California. The data for the current study was collected using a Likert-
scale survey of the program’s active mentors regarding perceived costs and benefits
of serving as a mentor and a series of focus group interviews with a select group of
mentors focused on gathering in-depth perceptions of the mentoring experience.
The data gathered through the course of the research was analyzed in an
attempt to answer the research questions posed by this study:
1. What perceived impact does mentoring have on those who serve as mentors?
a. What are the perceived short-term and long-term effects of serving as a
mentor?
b. What are the perceived career benefits that exist for those who serve as
mentors?
c. What are the perceived professional detriments for those who serve as
mentors?
90
d. What impact do the perceptions of mentoring held by mentors’ colleagues
have on the mentors themselves?
The concept of mentoring has been studied at length, largely from the
perspective of the mentee. Outcomes for mentors are less well-known. This
particular study was an attempt to identify what perceived impact mentoring has on
the mentor. To accomplish this goal, the impact for mentors was further defined
through the sub research questions.
The chapter is organized into sections according to the themes presented by
the research questions. The main research question has been divided into four sub
questions, each of which is presented separately. Each of the sub questions
represents a different theme or type of outcome mentors may experience. Within
each section, findings are presented within the context of the themes. These themes
were derived from the ten factors identified by the factor analysis completed by
Ragins and Scandura (1999) for their Costs and Benefits of Mentoring Instrument.
The survey instrument used was broken into a cost scale and a benefit scale, each of
which was categorized into five factors (Ragins & Scandura, 1999). The cost scale is
composed of the factors “more trouble than worth”, “dysfunctional relationship”,
“nepotism”, “bad reflection”, and “energy drain” (Ragins & Scandura, 1999). The
benefit scale consists of the factors “rewarding experience”, “improved job
performance”, “loyal base of support”, “recognition by others”, and “generativity”
(Ragins & Scandura, 1999). These factors became the themes by which data were
analyzed and presented.
91
Context
This study focused on the mentors in the Tower Unified School District
2
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment induction program. The Tower Unified
School District is a school district in Southern California that serves approximately
25,000 students in grades kindergarten through twelve. The district’s BTSA program
serves approximately 175 teachers who are working toward their professional clear
credentials. Those teachers are served by approximately seventy mentors who meet
with them on an individual basis throughout their two years in the program.
Mentors in the BTSA program facilitate their mentees’ progress through a
formative assessment system known as CFASST (California Formative Assessment
and Support System for Teachers). The CFASST system is completed over the
course of the two years in the induction program. While the Tower USD BTSA
program has over 100 trained mentors, only 73 were actively employed for the 2007-
2008 school year.
Both the Likert-scale survey and focus groups were open to the entire
population of active mentors. The survey and focus group invitation were distributed
to 73 mentors. The mentors who participated in this study had a range of teaching
experience from 7 years to 16 or more years in the classroom. Some of them were in
their first year as mentors in the BTSA program, while others had been involved with
the program for as many as ten years. Seventy-five percent of the survey respondents
2
Tower Unified School District is a pseudonym that has been used to protect the anonymity of the
participants in this study.
92
were white, and twenty-five percent represented other ethnicities including Korean
and Hispanic. Typically, the mentors were assigned up to three beginning teachers
during the 2007-2008 school year.
The mentors who participated in this study represented a variety of grade
levels and subject areas across both elementary and secondary levels in both general
and special education. While most were currently assigned to the classroom, two of
the mentors were resource teachers who were out of the classroom. Many of the
mentors were involved in other adjunct opportunities both at the school site and
district levels such as advising student groups and participating in committees. Table
5 illustrates the similarities between the sample for this study and the larger
population of teachers in the Tower Unified School District.
Table 5
Sample Descriptors
Trait Sample Percentage District Percentage
Ethnicity – White 75% 72%
Ethnicity – Other 25% 28%
Grade level –
Elementary
39% 37%
Grade level – Secondary 43% 46%
Note: District information from Ed-data, http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us
93
Perceived Short-Term and Long-Term Effects of Mentoring
The first phase of analysis examined the differences between perceived short-
term and long-term effects of serving as a mentor. This question was designed to
identify differences in perceived effects for experienced mentors when compared to
those who had just entered the mentoring role. Data for this question were collected
from the Likert-scale survey and the focus group interview.
Analysis of the data regarding short-term and long-term effects was
completed by separating the data into two groups. Mentors who had not yet
completed a two-year cycle of the CFASST program were considered to be
representative of short-term effects, while mentors who had completed at least one
two-year cycle of the CFASST program were considered to be representative of
long-term effects. An independent groups t-test was run on the mean responses to
each item for both groups and significance was considered at the p < .05 level
(Howell, 2004).
Table 6 displays the mean scores and standard deviations for those items with
significant differences.
94
Table 6
Comparison of Mean Scores by Mentor Experience
Question New Mentors
n = 5
Experienced Mentors
n = 23
Mean SD Mean SD
mentors backstabbed by protégé 1.00 .000 1.70 1.396
exploitative relationship 1.00 .000 1.18 .395
mentors play favorites 1.00 .000 1.41 .796
mentors give unfair advantages 1.00 .000 1.23 .429
mentors develop political cadre 1.00 .000 1.27 .550
protégé ruin mentor’s reputation 1.00 .000 1.45 .739
protégé negative reflection 1.00 .000 1.55 .800
time commitment 2.00 1.414 4.14 2.007
energy drain 1.40 .548 2.50 1.766
The independent groups t-test revealed few significant differences in means.
Significant differences were found only on the cost scale, and in all cases where a
significant difference occurred, experienced mentors had higher mean scores than
new mentors. This indicates that experienced mentors tend to perceive greater costs
of mentoring than their less experienced counterparts.
Of additional interest are the mean scores for the new mentors. With regards
to those items that revealed significant differences, new mentors unanimously rated
seven of the nine items as “strongly disagree.” These seven items included potential
95
costs regarding the relationships between mentors and mentees, specifically in terms
of the development of exploitative or politically motivated relationships. The mean
scores for new mentors indicate that they do not perceive such relationships as a
possibility. This suggests that the new mentors may be more focused on the positive
aspects and potential of their work than the negative. They may instead have an
optimistic outlook regarding their roles and may not be capable of conceiving
negative outcomes with regards to mentoring novice teachers.
The contrast between the two groups of mentors suggests that with time and
experience, mentors become more able to conceive of the development of negative or
dysfunctional relationships. This may occur as they experience such relationships
themselves, or it may be a result of lessening optimism with regards to their work.
Mentors with experience also rated the costs of time commitment and energy
drain significantly higher than their less experienced peers. New mentors were less
likely to perceive the time commitment and energy drain as noteworthy costs. Again,
there may exist a degree of optimism among new mentors that influences their
perceptions of the costs of mentoring.
Independent groups t-test results indicated significant differences across
several of the factors; however, as stated above, all items with significant differences
between the groups fell within the cost scale. There were no significant differences
between the groups with regards to the benefit scale. Table 7 displays the t-test
results for those items with significant differences.
96
Table 7
Independent Groups T-Test by Mentor Experience
Levene’s Test for
Equality of Variances
Question Eq. Var. F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mn.
Dif.
Std. Er.
Dif.
mentors backstabbed by protégé assumed 3.674 .066 1.098 26 .282 .696 .634
not
assumed
2.390 22.00
0
.026 .696 .291
exploitative relationship assumed 6.803 .015 1.014 25 .320 .182 .179
not
assumed
2.160 21.00
0
.042 .182 .084
mentors play favorites assumed 6.523 .017 1.131 25 .269 .409 .362
not
assumed
2.409 21.00
0
.025 .409 .170
mentors give unfair advantages assumed 10.931 .003 1.167 25 .254 .227 .195
not
assumed
2.485 21.00
0
.021 .227 .091
mentors develop political cadre assumed 7.369 .012 1.091 25 .286 .273 .250
not
assumed
2.324 21.00
0
.030 .273 .117
protégé ruin mentor’s reputation assumed 13.034 .001 1.355 25 .187 .455 .335
not
assumed
2.887 21.00
0
.009 .455 .157
97
Table 7
Independent Groups T-Test by Mentor Experience (continued)
Levene’s Test for
Equality of Variances
Question Eq. Var. F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mn.
Dif.
Std. Er.
Dif.
protégé negative reflection assumed 9.814 .004 1.501 25 .146 .545 .363
not
assumed
3.196 21.00
0
.004 .545 .171
time commitment assumed 1.021 .322 2.241 25 .034 2.136 .953
not
assumed
2.798 8.174 .023 2.136 .764
energy drain assumed 3.228 .084 1.359 25 .186 1.100 .809
not
assumed
2.449 21.92
2
.023 1.100 .449
*p < .05
98
Within the “dysfunctional relationship” factor, experienced mentors were
more likely to believe that mentors could be backstabbed by opportunistic protégés (t
= 2.390, p = .026), and that the mentor-protégé relationship is often exploitative (t =
2.160, p = .042). With regards to the “nepotism” factor, experienced mentors had
higher mean scores in the areas of mentors being viewed as playing favorites with
their protégés (t = 2.409, p = .025), giving unfair advantages to their protégés (t =
2.485, p = .021), and developing a political cadre with their protégés (t = 2.324, p =
.030). Within the “bad reflection” factor, experienced mentors were more likely to
state that a poor protégé can ruin a mentor’s reputation (t = 2.887, p = .009) and that
protégés can be a negative reflection on the mentor’s competency (t = 3.196, p =
.004). Finally, within the “energy drain” factor, experienced mentors stated
agreement more often that the major drawback of being a mentor is the time
commitment (t = 2.798, p = .023) and that mentoring is an energy drain (t = 2.449, p
= .023).
As mentioned above, it is possible that new mentors in this case held a more
optimistic view of their work with novice teachers than experienced mentors. The
differences in results between the two groups indicate that experienced mentors tend
to anticipate greater costs than new mentors. Again, this may be a direct result of
experiences they have had with novice teachers. Experienced mentors may be more
likely to have experienced negative relationships or perceived costs.
During the focus group interviews, experienced mentors indicated they did
not feel the outcomes of mentoring had changed over time. Mentors spoke of many
99
outcomes of their service; however, significant differences in short-term outcomes
versus long-term outcomes were not recalled. When asked if they felt whether the
outcomes of mentoring over time had changed, the mentors described largely how
their experiences had changed from one mentoring program to another. When asked
how the outcomes of mentoring had changed over time, one mentor said, “[The
concept of] mentor in our district was very different. Mentor meant you were
helping everybody at your school, whether or not they were a beginning teacher…”
Many of the mentors had been mentors outside of BTSA, and they indicated that the
work load had lessened significantly since the inception of the BTSA program. The
mentors in the focus group did not specifically identify short-term and long-term
outcomes.
Overall, focus group data did not indicate significant differences in outcomes
between the short-term and long-term; however, the number of years of experience
as mentors may have hindered participants’ ability to recall any salient differences,
as described by Patton (2000) in his description of focus group interview limitations.
Summary.
Within the context of short-term versus long-term effects of mentoring, the
survey results seem to indicate that mentors with more experience tend to feel there
are stronger costs associated with the role. Mentors with less experience more often
indicated strong disagreement (scale rating of 1) on the cost scale, presenting a mean
score of 1 with a standard deviation of 0 for eight of seventeen cost items. These
results indicate a potential difference in short-term perspectives of mentoring
100
outcomes and long-term perspectives of mentoring outcomes. Research in the area
of mentoring outcomes has indicated that mentors typically describe more benefits
that result from their work than costs (Allen et al., 1997). Data collected through this
study show there may be slight differences in mentors’ perceptions of outcomes
depending upon their level of experience as a mentor. With regards to research sub-
question 1a, the differences between perceived short-term and long-term effects of
mentoring appear to be limited to costs.
Perceived Career Benefits of Mentoring
In the next phase of analysis, perceived career benefits of mentoring were
examined. The focus was on the positive outcomes of mentoring relationships for
the mentors involved. Data for this research question were collected from the benefit
scale of the survey and the focus groups.
Data from the benefit scale on the survey were divided into five themes
according to the process of factor analysis completed by Ragins and Scandura
(1999). The five benefit themes were “rewarding experience”, “improved job
performance”, “loyal base of support”, “recognition by others”, and “generativity”
(Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Within each of these themes, mean scores and standard
deviations varied.
Rewarding experience.
The “rewarding experience” factor included statements such as “mentors get
a sense of fulfillment by passing their wisdom on to others”, “serving as a mentor
can be one of the most positive experiences of one’s career”, “mentoring makes one
101
feel better about oneself”, “the rewards that come from being a mentor more than
compensate for the costs”, “mentors gain a sense of satisfaction by passing their
insights on to others”, “the advantages to being a mentor far outweigh the
drawbacks”, and “one’s creativity increases when mentoring others” (Ragins &
Scandura, 1999). Table 8 displays the mean scores and standard deviations for each
item within the “rewarding experience” factor for the whole group of respondents.
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics for “Rewarding Experience” Factor
Question Mean SD
mentors gain fulfillment 5.70 1.409
positive experience 5.81 1.495
one feels better about oneself 5.48 1.397
rewards compensate for costs 5.19 1.524
mentors gain satisfaction 5.35 1.413
advantages outweigh drawbacks 5.23 1.681
creativity increases 5.77 1.366
Within this factor, mean scores for items ranged from 5.19 (the rewards that
come from being a mentor more than compensate for the costs) to 5.81 (serving as a
mentor can be one of the most positive experiences of one’s career); however,
standard deviations for these two items were 1.524 and 1.495, respectively. Overall,
standard deviations were high in this factor, with all items showing a standard
102
deviation of greater than 1.00. This suggests that there was a considerable level of
disagreement within the group that bears further exploration. However, in spite of
this disagreement, the group indicated through their responses that they did perceive
mentoring to be a rewarding and positive experience.
When the descriptive statistics for the “rewarding experience” factor are
disaggregated by the mentors’ levels of experience, there is no significant difference
between the mean scores of each of the items according to an independent groups t-
test. Overall, mentors indicated agreement with the idea that mentoring is a
rewarding experience.
Focus group interviews yielded similar results within this theme. Mentors,
when asked what benefits of mentoring they had experienced, cited several positive
outcomes of their work with novice teachers that indicated they perceived it to be a
rewarding experience. One mentor stated, “I think the best part of the program for
me is actually just working with the individual. I just love to help people, and
especially new teachers.” Another said, “I know it connects us more to the new
teachers. I feel like they’re not this person who, I’m doing my job, but they’re trying
to get through there.” Mentors also spoke to the interpersonal rewards of the
position and the interaction with their teachers: “I love working with my
participating teachers. I love everything about that. I just love walking in a room. I
love having her come in mine and hearing her compliments, too. I just love that
whole part of it.” These mentors described the establishment of a community of
practice in which interpersonal relationships were built between teachers.
103
Developing an inclusive educational community that pursues continuous
professional growth was among the recommendations in Fulton, Yoon, and Lee’s
(2005) report for the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. It
was suggested that such a focus would enhance the effectiveness of mentoring
relationships in induction programs (Fulton et al., 2005). The mentors who
participated in this study perceived that they were creating such an environment
through their interactions with novice teachers.
The group also identified benefits of mentoring such as increased collegiality
with novice teachers, building relationships, and passing along information to novice
teachers. Several comments were made indicating that the rewarding experience
was what kept them coming back to mentor novice teachers. One mentor stated,
“…if you figured out the hourly rate, you’re not doing it for the money.” When
asked if they consider mentoring because of the leadership opportunities it affords,
one mentor responded saying, “I think it is a good program and…I’m not doing it to
be recognized as a leader. I’m doing it…to give someone a little more
encouragement so they can stick it out during the rough part and find the benefit of
being a teacher.” Altruism has been identified in the literature as a predictor of
motivation to mentor (Aryee, Chay, and Chew, 1996). The mentors in this study
appeared to be describing altruistic intentions when they spoke of the rewards
involved in helping others and creating collegial relationships with novice teachers.
Data within this factor confirm outcomes reported in the mentoring literature.
Some of the specific rewards mentioned in previous studies for those who serve as
104
mentors included building support networks, gaining career-related rewards, and
increasing self-satisfaction (Allen et al., 1997; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Mullen &
Noe, 1999). Data for this study indicated that mentors felt their jobs were rewarding
in much the same way, particularly in terms of self-satisfaction and building
interpersonal relationships with novice teachers. However, in contrast to benefits for
mentors in business or industry (Allen et al., 2006), educational mentors who
participated in this study did not report increased salaries or promotions as a direct
result of their roles.
Improved job performance.
The “improved job performance” factor included items that stated “one’s job
performance is likely to improve when one becomes a mentor”, “mentoring has a
positive impact on the mentor’s job”, “the mentor’s job is usually rejuvenated by the
relationship”, “mentoring is a catalyst for innovation”, “mentoring has a positive
impact on the mentor’s job performance”, “protégés can be a positive reflection on
the mentor’s competency” (Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Table 9 contains the mean
scores and standard deviations for this factor.
105
Table 9
Descriptive Statistics for “Improved Job Performance” Factor
Question Mean SD
job performance improves 5.31 1.692
mentoring has positive impact 5.58 1.447
mentor’s job rejuvenated 5.54 1.529
catalyst for innovation 5.19 1.470
impacts mentor’s job performance positively 5.31 1.668
positive reflection on mentor’s competency 4.15 1.642
As with the previous factor, items in the “improved job performance” factor
were rated high by the whole group with considerable variance. An independent
groups t-test revealed no significant differences between the mean scores of the two
groups of mentors. Mean scores for this factor were generally high, with the
exception of the responses to question 30, “protégés can be a positive reflection on
the mentor’s competency.” Potential causes for this lower rating may be the
structure and function of the mentor’s role in the BTSA program. Mentors may not
believe their perceived competency to be directly related to the performance of their
mentees.
Within the focus group sessions, there was a strong theme tied to the factor of
“improved job performance.” Mentors in the focus groups repeatedly commented
that serving as a mentor was helpful to their careers. One mentor commented, “I
106
jump on being a master teacher for student teachers or a support provider because it
kind of reinvigorates me.” Another echoed a similar sentiment, saying, “…it
requires me to do a lot more thinking than I would if I were not a support provider.”
She explained that she frequently anticipates the needs of her teachers and tries to
prepare accordingly by reading and learning about the pertinent topics. Feiman-
Nemser (2001) described a similar occurrence of mentors learning from their
mentees. This reciprocal learning occurs not only through the direct work with the
mentee, but also through the training and preparation in which the mentor engages
(Feiman-Nemser, 2001). This particular mentor who seeks knowledge in
anticipation of her mentee’s needs is engaging in this type of learning.
The mentors also explained their roles help them keep “fresh” and stated that
serving as a mentor forces them to keep current with their teaching pedagogy.
Several of the mentors also explained that they learned from the experience of
working with novice teachers. One said, “I like that you’re always learning
something new from them, just as they’re learning from you.” Another mentor said,
“I think it makes us not be stale teachers because there’s always something new and
something you didn’t know about.” They also spoke to the idea that mentoring
helped them remain effective teachers in their own classrooms. Each of the mentors
spoke to the power of the mentoring experience and its influence on their job
performance. Mullen and Noe (1999) explained that mentors may learn from their
mentees who have more recent theoretical or pedagogical knowledge. The mentors
107
in this study described keeping up with the educational lingo and buzzwords through
their work with novice teachers.
Data for the “improved job performance” factor confirmed some of the
findings of previous research in mentoring outcomes. Little (1990) described
mentoring outcomes that included a sense of renewal for mentors. Little (1990) also
described mentors feeling as though their own practice was renewed through their
work with novice teachers. Mentors in this study cited the same outcomes, often
referring to the experience of learning as much from their mentees as their mentees
learned from them (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Mullen & Noe, 1999; Rippon & Martin,
2006).
Loyal base of support.
Ragins and Scandura (1999) hypothesized that mentors would find in their
protégés a loyal base of support. Items on the survey that corresponded with this
factor included “mentors can count on their protégés to be loyal supporters” and
“protégés are trusted allies for their mentors.” In comparison with the mean scores
of the other factors, the items in the “loyal base of support” category were relatively
low. The mean scores were 3.69 and 3.58, respectively, with standard deviations of
1.761 and 1.793. These scores may be a result of the language used on the survey in
this area. The educational mentors in this study did not describe their mentees as
allies, nor did they indicate that the act of mentoring created a loyal base of support.
The mentors in this study did not appear to conceive of their mentoring relationships
108
in this fashion, perhaps because the focus of the relationship is on the development
of the novice teacher’s professional practice.
Again, the independent groups t-test did not reveal any statistically
significant differences between the mean scores of the two groups of mentors for this
factor. Ragins and Scandura’s instrument was originally created for the purpose of
evaluating mentoring relationships in the business field. Mentoring in the field of
business, where this survey originated, may be seen as a much more political venture
than mentoring in the field of education, where it is typically used for induction
purposes. Although the structures and processes of mentoring in the business field
are typically similar to mentoring in education, this particular factor, “loyal base of
support”, may be a point of difference between the two industries. Mentoring in the
business world is often viewed as a means to achieve career mobility and promotions
(Dreher & Ash, 1990). In the field of education, mentoring is typically utilized as a
tool for inducting novice teachers into the profession. This difference in motivation
may lead to differing interpretations of the “loyal base of support” factor.
Educational mentors may not view their role as one that is political in nature, as
indicated by the low responses to items in this category. Further research is needed
to explore this concept.
Participants in the focus group interviews did not have much to say on this
particular topic. None of the mentors referenced building a loyal base of support
through mentoring activities. However, at a couple of points, the mentors did refer
to their mentoring activities having resulted in friendships or long-term relationships.
109
One mentor said she appreciated the interpersonal side of being a mentor, stating, “I
think you get a lot of good friends out of it, too.” While none of the mentors
described these friendships or interpersonal relationships as allies or loyal supporters,
they may likely serve the same function.
As stated above, research in mentoring relationships has found outcomes in
the area of building networks with mentees (Allen et al., 1997). In this study, the
mentors who participated did not refer to having allies or loyal supporters, but rather
defined the resulting relationships as friendships. This confirms earlier research that
found interpersonal benefits to engaging in a mentoring relationship.
Recognition by others.
The “recognition by others” factor included three items on the survey that
stated “mentors obtain positive recognition in their organization for assuming a
mentoring role”, “mentors achieve recognition from their superiors for developing
the talent of their protégés”, and “mentors gain status amongst their peers for their
mentoring activities” (Ragins & Scandura, 1999). This category assessed the level
of recognition mentors felt as a result of their mentoring activities.
The mean scores and standard deviations for the “recognition by others”
factor are presented in table 10.
110
Table 10
Descriptive Statistics for “Recognition by Others” Factor
Question Mean SD
recognition within organization 4.23 1.904
recognition from superiors 3.54 2.177
mentors gain status amongst peers 3.08 1.875
Overall, the ratings for items in this factor were lower than those in other
factors, with higher standard deviations. In general, mentors did not indicate that
their roles increased recognition received either within the organization or amongst
their peers. The high standard deviations indicate disagreement within the group
surveyed. The lowest rated item in this theme, gaining status amongst peers, is
indicative of the mentors’ understanding of their colleagues’ perceptions. These data
indicate that mentors feel their peers do not grant status to their work, a perception
that was reinforced by those who participated in the focus groups.
The mentors who participated in the focus group commented that they felt
they received little recognition for their work as mentors, other than the stipends they
received from the district. One mentor spoke about the support she receives from her
principal. She said, “I’ve found my principal’s very supportive…I think our
principal’s recognizing there is a lot of work that’s involved.” At this mentor’s
particular school, BTSA support providers are listed on the school’s adjunct duty
111
chart. The mentor stated feeling supported by her principal’s recognition of her
workload.
With regards to recognition from colleagues or peers for their work, the
mentors stated they didn’t feel they received much. One mentor stated of the BTSA
program and mentoring, “I don’t think all teachers know that it really exists if they
haven’t gone through it, because it doesn’t affect them.” A lack of awareness of the
program and its purpose was cited by many of the mentors as a potential part of the
reason they didn’t feel recognized by peers for their work. The mentors in the focus
group did state that they were feeling more support from administrators, but not
necessarily recognition.
Research in the area of mentoring outcomes has identified the potential
impact of organizational variables on mentoring relationships (Young & Perrewe,
2004). Such organizational variables may include items such as support for the
mentoring process, opportunities for professional growth, and clarity of expectations
for the mentoring relationship (Young & Perrewe, 2004). Potentially, the
recognition inquired after in this portion of the study could be considered such an
organizational factor that may enhance or hinder the mentoring relationship.
Generativity.
The final factor on the benefit scale was “generativity.” Based on Erikson’s
(1963) theory of developmental stages, the “generativity” factor included items that
stated, “mentors are able to relive their lives through their protégés”, “by mentoring
others, mentors gain a sense of immortality”, and “mentors view protégés as a
112
younger version of themselves” (Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Data for this factor
showed varying responses between the survey and the focus group interviews. The
descriptive statistics for the “generativity” factor are displayed in table 11.
Table 11
Descriptive Statistics for “Generativity” Factor
Question Mean SD
mentors relive lives through protégés 1.96 1.341
mentors gain sense of immortality 1.65 1.056
view protégés as younger version of self 1.85 1.434
The mean scores for each of the items in the “generativity” factor were
comparatively lower than those in other factors, translating to a “strongly disagree”
or “disagree” on the Likert-scale used for the survey. Mentors did not agree that
their mentoring activities resulted in the ability to relive their lives through their
protégés, nor did they result in a feeling of immortality. This may be a function,
again, of the language used on the survey. Mentors disagreed with the idea that they
gain a sense of immortality through their work with novice teachers; however, the
responses may have been different if the items were phrased differently. This was
apparent in the responses to this theme in the focus group sessions.
Within the focus group interviews, mentors expressed a different, and much
stronger, viewpoint regarding the “generativity” factor. Almost all of the mentors
cited becoming involved in mentoring because of their own experiences as novice
113
teachers. Many of the mentors cited having no support as novice teachers. One
mentor shared her story:
The reason I got involved in this [is] because when I started teaching the first
time…no one ever helped me. I mean, I taught a whole semester of Spanish
and never had the teacher’s workbook, never had the teacher’s textbook,
because the librarian just didn’t give it to me. I didn’t even know one
existed. So I kind of got into it from the back door, because I didn’t want
anyone to have to go through what I went through. I mean, it was torture. It
was literally torture.
The other mentors shared similar stories. One cited her experience as her
motivation for assisting all new teachers. She said, “…how could you ever forget
the day when you stepped into that classroom for that first time, as a first-year
teacher, no matter how many years ago it was….” Several of the mentors in the
group agreed that mentoring novice teachers takes them back to their own first days
of teaching, and they feel great empathy for novice teachers. This empathy was the
reason many of them gave for returning to their mentoring positions each year.
Erikson’s (1963) theory of generativity posits that those within this particular stage
may feel a desire to help future generations. The mentors in the focus group
indicated this was the case.
The focus group responses conflict with the responses from the survey,
perhaps because of the wording used in the survey items in the “generativity” factor.
Phrases such as “relive their lives through their protégés” and “gain a sense of
immortality” may have used language that was too strong. The mentors in the focus
group did cite reasons for mentoring that fit Erikson’s (1963) theory of generativity
and the desire to assist future generations.
114
Summary.
Overall, the mentors rated items on the survey in the “rewarding experience”
factor highest. The mentors in the focus group interviews confirmed the results of
the survey, citing that mentoring was, in itself, a rewarding experience. The mentors
in the focus group explained that they were not involved in mentoring because of the
pay, but rather because they felt strongly that novice teachers need assistance and it
is worthwhile giving of their own time to provide such assistance. These results
were in line with the current body of literature regarding outcomes for mentors.
Mentors in this study typically reported greater benefits than costs within their roles
(Allen et al., 1997). They also described varied benefits including growth as a
teacher (Feiman-Nemser, 2001), reciprocal learning (Mullen & Noe, 1999), engaging
in interpersonal relationships and community building (Fulton et al., 2005), and
experiencing a sense of renewal and rejuvenation (Little, 1990). Mentors indicated
they perceived their positions as worthwhile and helpful to the novice teachers with
whom they work.
Perceived Professional Detriments of Mentoring
In an effort to identify the perceived professional detriments of mentoring,
this study examined potential negative outcomes of mentoring relationships. Data
for this research question were collected from the cost scale of the survey and the
focus group sessions.
Research in the area of negative outcomes of mentoring relationships has
focused largely on differences in expectations. Rigler (2000) has suggested that
115
expectations of the mentoring relationship differ greatly depending upon the novice
teacher being mentored, and that these expectations must be made clear for the
relationship to be successful. This study took a more detailed look at some of the
drawbacks, or costs, of mentoring.
The cost scale on the survey was divided into five factors through the process
of factor analysis completed by Ragins and Scandura (1999). The five cost factors
were listed as “more trouble than worth”, “dysfunctional relationship”, “nepotism”,
“bad reflection”, and “energy drain” (Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Within each of
these factors, mean scores and standard deviations varied.
More trouble than worth.
The “more trouble than worth” factor was comprised of items that stated,
“being a mentor is more trouble than it’s worth”, “mentoring takes more time than
it’s worth”, “there are more drawbacks to being a mentor than advantages”, and
“mentoring takes too much time away from one’s own job” (Ragins & Scandura,
1999). The descriptive statistics for survey items in this category are summarized in
table 12.
116
Table 12
Descriptive Statistics for “More Trouble Than Worth” Factor
Question Mean SD
more trouble than it’s worth 2.39 1.792
takes more time than worth 2.54 1.915
more drawbacks than advantages 2.14 1.671
takes too much time away from one’s job 2.57 1.731
As a group, the mentors indicated through survey responses that they did not
perceive mentoring to be more trouble than it is worth. Although standard deviations
were high in this theme, the mean scores were well within the “strongly disagree” to
“disagree” range. In particular, the mentors surveyed disagreed that there were more
drawbacks than advantages to mentoring. This may be because the mentors included
in this particular study tend to describe mentoring as a positive experience. In
general, the group of mentors surveyed has been mentoring for several years. In
itself, this may be an indication that they perceive the time spent mentoring to be
worthwhile.
Overall, mentors’ responses in this factor were low on the survey. The
mentors in the focus group interviews expressed that they didn’t feel mentoring
activities took away from their teaching. When asked if being a BTSA mentor took
away from time in their classrooms, one mentor stated, “I would say absolutely not,
except the paperwork.” The aforementioned formative assessment program used in
117
BTSA (CFASST) consists of folders for each of the twelve events. Each folder
contains forms that the mentor and novice teacher complete together. This
paperwork is what the mentor referred to above. A few of the mentors stated feeling
as though the paperwork associated with their role as a BTSA mentor was
cumbersome.
Several of the mentors who participated in the focus group had been mentors
in a different program prior to the BTSA program being established in their district.
The former mentoring program was much more informal, and mentors worked with
all teachers at the school instead of just novice teachers. For this reason, a few of the
mentors felt that the BTSA program was much more structured. One mentor said,
I guess maybe because I was in the old mentoring system…and it was pure
help. It was pure team….I can’t think of any way or anything that would be
negative in any way, especially negative toward my own teaching in a
classroom, except for the paperwork.
When asked specifically about negative outcomes of mentoring and whether
it was more trouble than it was worth, none of the mentors in the focus group felt
that way. Aside from issues with the amount of paperwork, all of the mentors in the
group stated that the benefits outweighed any of the potential negative outcomes of
mentoring (Allen et al., 1997).
Dysfunctional relationship.
The “dysfunctional relationship” factor dealt with the interpersonal aspect of
the mentoring relationship. This factor included survey items that stated, “the
mentor-protégé relationship can become unhealthy”, “protégés can end up taking the
118
mentor’s job”, “mentors run the risk of being displaced by successful protégés”,
“mentors can be backstabbed by opportunistic protégés”, and “the mentor-protégé
relationship is often exploitative” (Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Mean scores and
standard deviations for this factor are listed in table 13.
119
Table 13
Descriptive Statistics for “Dysfunctional Relationship” Factor
Question Mean SD
relationship can become unhealthy 2.00 1.466
protégés can take mentor’s job 1.32 .863
mentors displaced by protégés 1.14 .448
mentors backstabbed by protégé 1.57 1.289
exploitative relationship 1.15 .362
Responses within this factor on the survey were low, with mean scores
between one and two. Standard deviations for this factor were also much lower than
those in other factors. Scores were particularly low for items relating to the chance
that mentees could take mentors’ jobs. Again, this may point to the differences
between business mentoring and educational mentoring explained earlier. Teachers’
job security, particularly for those who hold tenure, is rarely an issue for concern.
Experienced teachers, except in extreme circumstances, typically do not have to fear
being replaced by another teacher against their will.
In addition, the mentors surveyed disagreed with those items relating to the
risk of developing dysfunctional or exploitative relationships. These results are
particularly interesting in light of the literature regarding dysfunctional relationships.
Kilburg & Hancock (2006) described potential factors that could lead to the
development of dysfunctional mentoring relationships, including mismatches
120
between mentor and mentee. In a program such as the BTSA program, where
mentoring relationships are typically assigned without input from mentor or mentee,
mentoring relationships are at a greater risk for developing dysfunctional
characteristics. However, the mentors in this study did not indicate that this was a
concern, perhaps because few of them have experienced dysfunctional mentoring
relationships.
The “dysfunctional relationship” factor also yielded significant differences in
mean scores when mentors were split into two groups according to their level of
mentoring experience. The final two items in this factor regarding mentors being
backstabbed by opportunistic protégés and the mentor-protégé relationship being
exploitative had significantly different mean scores between the two groups. Table
14 displays the independent groups t-test results for the “dysfunctional relationship”
factor.
121
Table 14
Independent Groups T-Test for “Dysfunctional Relationship” Factor by Mentor Experience
Levene’s Test for
Equality of Variances
Question Eq. Var. F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mn.
Dif.
Std. Er.
Dif.
relationship can become unhealthy
assumed .737 .398 1.010 26 .322 .730 .723
not assumed 1.422 10.111 .185 .730 .514
protégés can take mentor’s job assumed 11.987 .002 -1.392 26 .176 -.583 .419
not assumed -.722 4.147 .509 -.583 .807
mentors displaced by protégés
assumed 10.311 .004 -1.443 26 .161 -.313 .217
not assumed -.774 4.182 .480 -.313 .404
mentors backstabbed by protégé assumed 3.674 .066 1.098 26 .282 .696 .634
not assumed 2.390 22.000 .026 .696 .291
122
Table 14
Independent Groups T-Test for “Dysfunctional Relationship” Factor by Mentor Experience (continued)
Levene’s Test for
Equality of Variances
Question Eq. Var. F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mn.
Dif.
Std. Er.
Dif.
exploitative relationship assumed 6.803 .015 1.014 25 .320 .182 .179
not assumed 2.160 21.000 .042 .182 .084
*p < .05
123
As mentioned previously, the last two items in this theme (mentors
backstabbed by protégé and exploitative relationship) had a mean score of 1.00 and a
standard deviation of 0 in the new mentor group. New mentors did not agree with
the possibility that mentoring relationships could be exploitative, perhaps because
they employ a more optimistic perspective with regards to their work. The
experienced mentors were less likely to strongly disagree with the two items,
producing a mean score of 1.70 and 1.18, respectively. Again, this may be an
indication that the new mentors’ optimism fades with time and experience in the
role.
Mentors in the focus group interviews did not cite occasions where they felt
the mentoring relationship had become dysfunctional or unhealthy. In fact, they
frequently described the opposite, providing examples of mentoring relationships
that had turned into friendships, even after novice teachers had left their school site.
One mentor described a situation where the novice teacher with whom she was
working had a negative attitude toward her participation in the BTSA program. She
said,
The one issue I had this year was one of my people…in her second year…she
just didn’t understand why she had to do BTSA. She was on the WASC
committee and she’s department chair and she’s supposed to meet with me
weekly for BTSA. …and it wasn’t a personality conflict in any sense of the
word, because I’ve known her for a while, but it just was one more thing that
was on her plate that she didn’t want to do and didn’t see any need to do it. It
became a negative, even though it had really nothing to do with me.
Even when she worked with a teacher who had a negative perception of their
work together, the mentor did not describe the relationship as dysfunctional or
124
unhealthy. It may be that the teacher’s background and experience led her to have
different expectations of the mentoring relationship (Rigler, 2000). As identified in
the literature, the novice teacher’s background can significantly alter the expectations
of the mentoring experience (Rigler, 2000).
Potentially, the “dysfunctional relationship” factor may be another case
where the survey did not translate from the world of business to the world of
education. Experienced teachers with tenure are not typically at risk of being
directly replaced by their protégés. Competition for teaching jobs is much different
than it is in most business fields. Certainly there may be cases where mentoring
relationships become exploitative (Eby et al., 2004; Kilburg & Hancock, 2006;
Scandura, 1998); however, none of the mentors involved in this study described
experiencing such a situation.
Nepotism.
The “nepotism” factor of the survey was comprised of items including
“members of the organization often view mentors as playing favorites with their
protégés”, “mentors are often viewed by others as giving unfair advantages to their
protégés”, and “mentors run the risk of being viewed as developing a political cadre
with their protégés” (Ragins & Scandura, 1999). The items in this factor speak to
how others view mentoring relationships and the motivations that drive them. The
results of the independent groups t-test for this theme are displayed in table 15.
125
Table 15
Independent Groups T-Test for “Nepotism” Factor by Mentor Experience
Levene’s Test for
Equality of Variances
Question Eq. Var. F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mn.
Dif.
Std. Er.
Dif.
mentors play favorites assumed 6.523 .017 1.131 25 .269 .409 .362
not assumed 2.409 21.000 .025 .409 .170
mentors give unfair advantages assumed 10.931 .003 1.167 25 .254 .227 .195
not assumed 2.485 21.000 .021 .227 .091
mentors develop political cadre assumed 7.369 .012 1.091 25 .286 .273 .250
not assumed 2.324 21.000 .030 .273 .117
*p < .05
126
As with the other items on the cost scale of the survey, mentors typically
rated the items in the “nepotism” factor as “strongly disagree” or “disagree.”
However, all three items within this factor yielded statistically significant differences
between mean scores when the group was divided by mentoring experience. The
new mentors, who had not yet completed a full cycle of the CFASST program,
unanimously rated the three items in the “nepotism” factor as strongly disagree
(mean score = 1.00, SD = .000). As mentioned previously, new mentors may be
more likely to employ an optimistic perspective with regards to their work than
experienced mentors. The above data certainly indicate that this is a possibility.
As stated above, significant differences in means were found for all three
items within this factor, with new mentors unanimously rating all three items
“strongly disagree.” With regards to experienced mentors, the mean scores for the
three items in the “nepotism” factor were 1.41 (SD = .796), 1.23 (SD = .429), and
1.27 (SD = .550), respectively. Although the differences between the means were
statistically significant, in actuality, the experienced mentors still tended to strongly
disagree with the statements. It would be worth further study to identify what that
difference looks like in practice.
As with the previous factor, the mentors who participated in the focus group
had not had experiences related to the “nepotism” factor. The mentors did not
express a concern that colleagues viewed them as granting unfair advantages to their
protégés (Ragins & Scandura, 1994). Again, as with other cost factors, educational
mentors’ roles do not typically allow them to give direct advantages, unfair or
127
otherwise, to their mentees. This may account for both the low ratings on the survey
and the lack of supporting comments in the focus group interviews.
Bad reflection.
Ragins and Scandura’s (1999) “bad reflection” factor included three
statements: “choosing a poor protégé is a negative reflection on the mentor’s
judgment”, “a poor protégé can ruin a mentor’s reputation”, and “protégés can be a
negative reflection on the mentor’s competency.” An independent groups t-test
revealed significant differences in mean scores between new mentors and
experienced mentors for two of the three items in this factor. These results are
included in table 16.
128
Table 16
Independent Groups T-Test for “Bad Reflection” Factor by Mentor Experience
Levene’s Test for
Equality of Variances
Question Eq. Var. F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mn.
Dif.
Std. Er.
Dif.
negative reflection on judgment assumed 4.055 .055 .898 25 .377 .318 .354
not assumed 1.914 21.000 .069 .318 .166
ruin mentor’s reputation assumed 13.034 .001 1.355 25 .187 .455 .335
not assumed 2.887 21.000 .009 .455 .157
negative reflection on competency assumed 9.814 .004 1.501 25 .146 .545 .363
not assumed 3.196 21.000 .004 .545 .171
*p < .05
129
As mentioned previously, there was a significant difference in means
between the two groups for the last two items in the “bad reflection” factor. New
mentors were more likely to “strongly disagree” with the idea that poor protégés
could ruin a mentor’s reputation or be a negative reflection on the mentor’s
competency. On these two particular items, the new mentors again had a mean score
of 1.00 with a standard deviation of 0. The experienced mentors had higher means
for these two items, with scores of 1.45 and 1.55, respectively. This may indicate
that experienced mentors view themselves as slightly more vulnerable to the effects
of working with a poor novice teacher, while newer mentors view their own
reputations as disconnected from their work with novice teachers. However,
additional research is needed to identify whether this is truly the case.
The first item in this factor, “choosing a poor protégé is a bad reflection on
the mentor’s judgment”, is not typically an issue in the case of the mentors who were
surveyed. Though BTSA support providers volunteer for their positions, they are
typically assigned a novice teacher based on close matches in grade level, subject-
matter, and school site. Thus, the mentors who completed this survey do not choose
their protégés, but rather have them assigned to them. This may have affected the
responses to this particular item on the survey.
With regards to negative mentoring outcomes, poor initial linkages or
mismatches between mentor and mentee can lead to dysfunctional relationships (Eby
et al., 2004; Feldman, 1999; Kilburg & Hancock, 2006). While the matching process
may cause mentors to feel safe in terms of their reputations or perceived
130
competency, it may also hinder the effectiveness of the relationship and even lead to
the emergence of a dysfunctional relationship.
The focus group participants did not indicate that they were concerned for
their reputations as a result of their work with novice teachers. Rather, they
expressed a concern for their mentees. The mentors spoke of school site
administrators who approached them for feedback regarding the novice teachers with
whom they worked. One described her experiences, saying it had recently improved
due to administrators being trained in the mentors’ role: “They’re [administrators]
not coming up and saying, “How are they doing?” Because if I say “good” and then
next year, you ask me about the next person and I don’t say anything, well, then, that
meant not good.” At no point during the interviews did the mentors express that they
felt their work could endanger their reputations or cause colleagues to doubt their
judgment. Again, this could be a function of the nature of the BTSA mentors’ roles
and the fact that novice teachers are assigned to them, rather than selected.
Energy drain.
The final factor on the cost scale was “energy drain.” The items within this
factor included “the major drawback of being a mentor is the time commitment” and
“mentoring is an energy drain” (Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Again, these two items
resulted in statistically significant differences between the means of experienced
mentors and new mentors. The results of the independent groups t-test are displayed
in table 17.
131
Table 17
Independent Groups T-Test for “Energy Drain” Factor by Mentor Experience
Levene’s Test for
Equality of Variances
Question Eq. Var. F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mn.
Dif.
Std. Er.
Dif.
time commitment assumed 1.021 .322 2.241 25 .034 2.136 .953
not assumed 2.798 8.174 .023 2.136 .764
energy drain assumed 3.228 .084 1.359 25 .186 1.100 .809
not assumed 2.449 21.922 .023 1.100 .449
*p < .05
132
As in the other cases of significant differences between the means, the
experienced mentors were more likely to agree with the two statements in this factor
than the new mentors. The mean scores for experienced mentors were 4.14 (SD =
2.007) and 2.50 (SD = 1.766), respectively. The mean scores for new mentors were
2.00 (SD = 1.414) and 1.40 (SD = .548). It is interesting to note the difference in
mean scores for the item regarding the time commitment of being a mentor.
Experienced mentors perceive the time commitment involved in mentoring to be a
greater cost. It is possible that new mentors, in the excitement of a relatively new
position, do not mind the time commitment involved. It is also possible that the
experienced mentors hold significant duties in addition to mentoring that increase the
impact of the time commitment. Additional research should more closely examine
the differences between the two groups with regards to such outside commitments
and the perceived time commitment of being a mentor.
The mentors who participated in the focus group interviews spoke to the idea
that mentoring could be an energy drain. For example, the mentors spoke about
other mentors they knew who were taking a break from mentoring. One stated, “I’ve
got a few support providers at my school, at least three off the top of my head that I
know are not doing BTSA this year. It kind of burned them out.” Other mentors
agreed, saying, “I’ve heard that people…they’ll do it a couple years and they’ll say,
‘I’m taking a break this year.’ It could be they start having kids…or they’ve started
doing other things.” A third mentor simply stated, “Well, you get tired.”
133
When asked to specify the reason mentors get tired or experience burnout, the
focus group participants explained the demands of the position. One shared that she
had considered taking the year off as a mentor to pursue her master’s degree, but she
was talked into another year by two novice teachers who wanted her to be their
mentor. She said, “I am finding it time-consuming. I used to do all the writing for
them to lighten their load, and I found that I was adding to my load trying to lighten
their load, so I kind of put it back on them…” Other mentors, instead of citing the
paperwork as time consuming, mentioned the meetings they were required to attend.
One explained, “…when we have the BTSA meetings…I keep thinking, ‘Oh, I wish
I could get home. I have to cook dinner. Is the kids’ homework done?’” Finally,
one mentor described how her role, on occasion, is emotionally draining. She said,
“… it does [drain me] emotionally because I put so much [into it], you know – well,
they’re friends, too.” She went on to explain that she frequently gives up her lunch
time to meet with her novice teachers.
In the literature, mentors are thought to engage in several types of mentoring
activities. Kram (1983) delineates between career-related support and psychosocial
support. Mentors in this study described engaging in both, helping their mentees
with classroom practice and organizational needs as well as the emotional demands
of the induction period. Assistance with both organizational and emotional needs
may create more demands on the mentor’s time and energy (Rippon & Martin,
2006), depending upon the theoretical approach taken. In particular, if mentors
engage in their role with the perspective of trying to incite change or reform (Wang
134
& Odell, 2002), such an approach would be much more demanding than one of
purely short-term, emotional support (Wang & Odell, 2002). These factors may
contribute to the kind of burnout described by the mentors in this study.
It seems there are many reasons why mentors consider their work to be an
energy drain. Between the survey and the focus group interviews, mentors
mentioned the substantial time commitment, pressure, and emotional energy required
by the position. However, none of these sources of energy drain were enough to
keep these particular mentors from returning to their positions each year to assist
novice teachers.
Summary.
Responses on the cost scale and in the focus group interviews indicated that
mentors did feel there were drawbacks to being in a mentoring relationship. These
drawbacks were varied and included the time commitment, paperwork involved, and
emotional impact of assisting novice teachers. Although the mentors described their
work as time consuming and demanding, none of them described experiencing
dysfunctional relationships (Scandura, 1998) or the negative impact of such
relationships (Feldman, 1999).
Impact of Colleagues’ Perceptions
In addition to perceived costs and benefits of mentoring, this study examined
the impact of colleagues’ perceptions on mentors in mentoring relationships. Data
for this research question were collected from the survey and the focus groups.
135
Statements regarding colleagues’ perceptions of mentoring were included on
both the cost and benefit scales of the survey. Within the cost scale, items that
inquired as to colleagues’ perceptions included, “members of the organization often
view mentors as playing favorites with their protégés”, “mentors are often viewed by
others as giving unfair advantages to their protégés”, and “mentors run the risk of
being viewed as developing a political cadre with their protégés” (Ragins &
Scandura, 1999).
As stated above, total group mean scores for these particular items were 1.33
(SD = .734), 1.19 (SD = .396), and 1.22 (SD = .506), respectively. These items were
rated low by the majority of the mentors who took the survey. However, when an
independent groups t-test was run on the mean scores for these three items, those
mentors who had completed a full cycle of the formative assessment system
(CFASST) were more likely to agree with all three, indicating an increased level of
concern with regards to colleagues’ perceptions. The t-test results were significant at
the p < .05 level. The differences in means between the groups may be a function,
once again, of new mentors’ perspective regarding their position. In addition,
experienced mentors may be more likely to have encountered manifestations of
colleagues’ perceptions of mentoring, positive or negative. Therefore, they may be
more aware of their colleagues’ perceptions than new mentors.
With regards to the benefit scale and colleagues’ perceptions, items included
the statements, “mentors obtain positive recognition in their organization for
assuming a mentoring role”, “mentors achieve recognition from their superiors for
136
developing the talent of their protégés”, and “mentors gain status amongst their peers
for their mentoring activities” (Ragins & Scandura, 1999). Unlike the items in this
area that were on the cost scale, the items on the benefit scale yielded no significant
difference between groups when mean scores were compared. The whole group
mean scores were varied, calculating at 4.23 (SD = 1.904), 3.54 (SD = 2.177), and
3.08 (SD = 1.875), respectively. The high standard deviations for these items
indicate variation in ratings that imply public recognition for service as a mentor is
inconsistent.
The data from focus group interviews were less defined. Mentors spoke about
several different aspects of colleagues’ perceptions. To begin with, many mentors
expressed the feeling that their colleagues didn’t understand their jobs as mentors,
nor did they understand the intent or purpose of the BTSA program in general. One
mentor said,
I think they [colleagues] probably think it’s like being a master teacher, in
that your role is to kind of guide them [novice teachers]. Other than that,
they know you go to a lot of meetings. I don’t think they know that much,
particularly, about it.
Other mentors echoed similar feelings. One teacher expressed her perception
of why teachers at her school site were reluctant to get involved in mentoring
novices, saying, “I’m not sure they know too much about it. I do think that they
view it as…I must be crazy for wanting to do this extra work and not get paid.”
When asked if they felt the time commitment involved in mentoring prevented
experienced teachers from getting involved, the mentors agreed. The true long-term
137
approach to effective mentoring (Wang & Odell, 2002) requires a significant
investment of time and energy.
Several of the mentors expressed encountering negative attitudes towards the
BTSA program in general and their work, specifically, with novice teachers. One
mentor said, “I hear things like, ‘Oh, you’re still doing that?’” Although the BTSA
program is designed for teachers in their first years of teaching, some participants
have had more years of experience. This leads to situations like the one described
below:
I know that the ones [novice teachers] that I’ve worked with in the last few
years, with the exception of maybe two, had all been teaching for a while. So
the message they were getting from the rest of the staff was, “That’s
ridiculous. You’ve been teaching for five years and now you have to do
this.” So they’re getting kind of that message. My standard answer is,
“Well, we’ll make it fit for you. I’m obviously not going to treat you like
you’ve never been in the room before.”… But I do know that they hear that
[negativity], because I am right there when they’re hearing it. I just kind of
smile and then we talk privately about that, but that’s the message, even from
people who’ve been support providers.
This situation, in which the mentors’ colleagues react strongly to an
experienced teacher being required to participate in BTSA, result from a mindset like
that described in the literature. Fulton, Yoon, and Lee (2005) describe many
educators’ perceptions that mentoring is a short-term fix, designed to help novice
teachers survive the first year of teaching. This short-term, survival approach tends
to take on a humanistic perspective, focusing largely on the psychosocial needs of
the novice teacher (Wang & Odell, 2002). Mentoring, as a practice, can extend help
beyond the first year. If a true long-term or perspective is employed (Wang & Odell,
138
2002), the novice teacher can continue to benefit after the first year of teaching.
Feiman-Nemser and Parker (1992) described the roles of educational companions
who take an inquiry approach to improving classroom practice. They also describe
the agent of change role, or the mentor who attempts to truly reform the novice
teacher’s experience (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1992). Both of these relationships
can significantly affect the novice teacher well beyond the first year of classroom
practice (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1992).
The mentors in the focus group described making special efforts to advocate
for the BTSA program. One mentor said, “I work really hard to not be one of those
people saying, ‘Yeah, it’s a lot of work.’ It is a lot of work, but I try not to say that.”
The mentors feel the need to protect their mentees from the negativity expressed by
colleagues. Another mentor explained,
I think if we could get that [benefits of BTSA] out, it might help a little with
the other teachers that are chit-chatting in the staff room because you get
help. You have someone to bounce ideas off of. And in a safe environment,
too. That’s what I think is real key.
With regards to the administrators’ perceptions of their role, mentors again
shared some frustrations regarding striking a balance between collaborating with the
administrator and respecting the novice teacher’s right to confidentiality. The BTSA
program advocates confidentiality between the mentor and the novice teacher. Even
so, there are administrators who struggle with how to best work with the mentor on
the novice teacher’s behalf. One mentor expressed this struggle, saying,
I mean, the issue – the struggle is, with the old mentor program [prior to
BTSA], which is not necessarily the way it should’ve worked either, but I
139
remember it was, “This person’s struggling. Go work with them. You’re my
tool. Go work for them. Go fix them.” A support provider is not supposed
to be a tool.
In spite of the shared frustration in the group, they did agree that, due to
continued training efforts on the part of the BTSA program, site administrators were
beginning to understand more clearly both their role and the mentor’s role in the
BTSA mentoring relationship. Mentors also shared that they saw more
administrators in their district who were products of the BTSA program and that this
had enhanced administrative support for the BTSA program greatly. The importance
of organizational variables, such as support for mentoring activities, has been
demonstrated (Young & Perrewe, 2004). The support of the administrator is one
such organizational variable that can mediate the effectiveness of the mentoring
relationship (Young & Perrewe, 2004).
The final aspect of colleagues’ perceptions discussed in the focus group
interview was the idea of the mentor as a leader. When asked if they felt the role of
BTSA mentor was viewed as a leadership role in their district, most of the mentors in
the group disagreed. One mentor described his experience working at the district
level with hiring practices, saying,
I know that there are some leaders here at – here being EMB [Educational
Materials Building] – that do see support provider training and the
experiences you have as a good leadership experience. I know that they think
about that when they look at applicants and things like that, just because I’ve
heard and they’ve asked me about it. But this is a small handful of people
that I work with every day, not across the street [main district office].
140
Another mentor commented, “… are people being guided to be support
providers or are support providers being tapped as leaders?...I don’t think it’s seen as
a leadership role in that sense.” The group agreed that the role of mentor was not
afforded the same leadership status as other roles at the schools such as grade level
or department chair. Although research has shown a link between mentoring and
progression to managerial careers in the field of business (Scandura, 1992), this
outcome was not described by the educational mentors who participated in this
study.
Finally, with regards to administration at the district level, the mentors in the
group expressed that they didn’t feel much recognition as a result of their roles. One
mentor shared her experience with the superintendent, saying, “I don’t think many of
them [district administrators] know who we are…they’ve seen the list of
names…[the superintendent] came in to observe me the one year, but I highly doubt
he knew I was a support provider.”
Overall, the mentors expressed a lack of recognition and respect for their
work with novice teachers. The mentors also described their colleagues’ lack of
awareness of their role. Several mentors agreed that increased awareness of the
BTSA program could lead to increased recognition for their work, as well as new
recruits for the mentor position. With regards to the impact of colleagues’
perceptions, mentors described their roles as advocates for the program. Others
described feeling the need to protect their novice teachers from the negativity of
141
colleagues. However, none of the mentors expressed that their colleagues’
perceptions hindered their work with novice teachers.
Summary.
Ragins and Scandura (1994) studied the impact of colleagues’ perceptions on
mentoring relationships. Prior to their research, it was believed that some high-
ranking managers, particularly women, would be hesitant to mentor due to social
pressures and competition. Ragins and Scandura (1994) found that this was not true.
Although the same sense of social pressure and competition is not felt in educational
mentoring, mentors still feel the impact of their colleagues’ perceptions of their
work.
Discussion
Through this study, findings indicate that mentors do perceive benefits
resulting from their work with novice teachers. The mentors who participated
described mentoring as a rewarding experience both personally and professionally.
Perceived personal benefits included feeling good about the work they were doing
and building friendships with their mentees. Professional benefits perceived ranged
from feeling their classroom practice was refreshed and rejuvenated to learning about
the latest theory and pedagogy from their mentees. The mentors did describe
negative aspects of their jobs, including the time commitment, lack of colleagues’
awareness of their work, and the energy drain associated with mentoring. However,
they agreed that the benefits outweighed the negatives sufficiently enough to keep
them in the position.
142
New mentors disagreed with experienced mentors across several themes with
regards to costs of mentoring. Overall, new mentors were more positive about their
position and work with mentees than experienced mentors. It is possible that the
new mentors employ a more positive or optimistic perspective than experienced
mentors. However, it is also possible that, as a function of the length of their
involvement, experienced mentors are more likely to have encountered negative
aspects of mentoring and mentoring relationships. These differences in perspective
may have been responsible for the differing results between the two groups on the
survey.
Regardless of the reasons, there do appear to be differences in opinion
between new and experienced mentors with regards to the costs and benefits
involved in mentoring. Further understanding of these differences, and the reasons
behind them, may shed light on important differences between the two groups. In
addition, it may illuminate differences in needs between the two groups in terms of
support.
This chapter provided information regarding the results of the research
completed through this study. Further conclusions and implications are presented in
chapter five.
143
Chapter Five
Summary, Discussion, and Implications
Introduction
This chapter contains the purpose statement, research questions, and key
findings related to the literature. It also includes recommendations for action,
implications for future research, and concluding remarks.
Overview of Study
School systems across the country have implemented mentoring programs in
an attempt to better support novice teachers through the induction phase of their
careers (Feiman-Nemser, 1996). Mentoring has been studied from many
perspectives and it has been found that quality mentoring can impact novice teachers
(Evertson & Smithey, 2000). However, many questions remain regarding the
outcomes of mentoring for those who serve as mentors.
The purpose of this study was to identify the perceived effects of mentoring on
those who serve as mentors. These effects were further specified as short-term and
long-term benefits and detriments.
This study utilized a mixed methods approach to address the above research
questions. A quantitative, Likert-scale survey was used to examine mentors’
perceptions on a broad scale. The results of the survey were analyzed using
descriptive statistics. In addition, an independent groups t-test was utilized to
examine the differences in perceptions between mentors who were grouped
according to their experience as mentors.
144
In addition, qualitative methods were used in the form of focus group
interviews. Two interview sessions were held with a group of five mentors who had
a range of mentoring experience. Mentors in the focus groups were questioned
regarding their experiences and the perceived impact of serving as a mentor. A
multi-step content analysis procedure was used to analyze the focus group data after
it was transcribed. Data were categorized first according to the themes of the
quantitative survey. Secondly, any remaining data were categorized by emergent
themes.
At the time of this study, the targeted mentoring program had 73 active
mentors. All active mentors were provided the opportunity to respond to the survey
and volunteer for the focus group interviews. Twenty-eight mentors responded to
the survey, and five mentors volunteered for the focus group interviews.
Summary of Research Findings
With regards to the research questions, there were four key findings that
emerged from this study. First, the differences between perceived short-term and
long-term effects of mentoring appear to be limited to costs. Specifically, mentors
who are relatively new to the position tend to perceive fewer costs than experienced
mentors. Described differences in experiences over the course of the mentoring
career were focused largely on the differences between mentoring programs in which
the mentors had operated, rather than the differences over the course of the mentor’s
career.
145
Secondly, the perceived benefits of mentoring are both personal and
professional in nature and include creating interpersonal relationships, having a
rewarding experience, and experiencing career rejuvenation. Mentors in this study
described their desire to assist new teachers. Many cited their own induction phase,
often characterized by a distinct lack of support of any kind, as motivation for getting
involved in mentoring. Once involved, the mentors described experiencing learning
from the process and their mentees, as well as gaining a sense of renewal with
regards to their teaching practice. The perceived benefits of mentoring were
described as motivation for returning to the position each year.
Perceived costs of mentoring that emerged from this study were limited to the
time commitment of the position and the amount of energy expended. Many of the
mentors who participated were engaged in multiple roles outside of their classrooms
and tended to have full personal lives as well. They described the need for balance
between duties, particularly between their roles as mentors and their personal
obligations such as family. The mentoring job in the induction world tends to carry
with it expectations for after school meetings and trainings. This was a particular
source of conflict, particularly for those mentors who had children at home.
Finally, the impact of colleagues’ perceptions appears to be minimal in the
case of the TUSD BTSA program. Mentors described feeling the need to advocate
for their program in the presence of skeptical colleagues. They also described the
delicate nature of their interactions with administrators at their mentees’ school sites.
Mentors expressed the feeling that their role was not viewed by others as a typical
146
leadership role. In general, they seemed to feel there was a lack of recognition for
their work on the part of district administrators. However, the mentors involved in
this study expressed their desire to continue mentoring in light of these challenges.
Connections to Prior Research
The findings of this study are similar to findings from other research
regarding the outcomes of the mentoring experience. Little (1990) described the
sense of renewal felt by experienced teachers engaged in mentoring relationships.
Little (1990) explained that working with novice teachers had a rejuvenating effect
on experienced teachers’ careers. Mentors who participated in this study described
similar feelings of renewal as a result of working with novice teachers. Specifically,
working with novices encouraged the mentors to continue developing professionally,
stay abreast of new district initiatives, and keep in touch with new theory and
pedagogy.
In this vein, mentors also described the experience of learning from the
novice teachers with whom they work. Previous research has identified this benefit
of mentoring as a type of reciprocal learning (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Mullen & Noe,
1999; Rippon & Martin, 2006). Mentors in this study described learning about the
above-mentioned theory and pedagogy from their novice teachers who had more
recently exited preservice programs (Mullen & Noe, 1999). Mentors described
learning the new “lingo” and “buzzwords” from their novice teachers (Mullen &
Noe, 1999). They also described learning new teaching strategies and approaches
from observing the novice teachers in practice. While the mentor’s main objective is
147
to assist the novice teacher, it appears that the novice teacher assists the mentor as
well.
It has also been found that mentors gain a sense of self-satisfaction from their
work with novices (Allen et al., 1997). Mentors feel that working with novice
teachers is rewarding and feel good about themselves for engaging in supporting
novices (Allen et al., 1997). In this study, mentors described aspects of their jobs
that were rewarding. They were able to get to know novice teachers at their schools
and maintain positive relationships with them. One mentor expressed that she had
mentored many of the teachers on her school staff, thereby creating a culture of
mutual dependency and support between them in which teachers felt free to ask
others for assistance (Fulton et al., 2005). This climate of continued and cooperative
professional growth was a result of the mentoring relationships she had built (Fulton
et al., 2005). The mentor was proud of the work she had done in helping the novice
teachers at her school to grow and develop.
Overall, mentors typically describe more benefits than costs of their positions
(Allen et al., 1997, Ragins & Scandura, 1999). That was also true of mentors in this
study. Particularly with regards to the focus group interviews, mentors were very
focused on the positive outcomes of their experiences with novice teachers. They
acknowledged various costs such as the time commitment, a lack of awareness of or
recognition for their hard work with novice teachers, and the energy expended
through engaging in mentoring activities. However, they also acknowledged their
148
continued commitment to assisting novice teachers and expressed that the benefits
outweighed the costs.
Some of the findings of this study differed from those of previous studies. In
particular, previous research has found that mentors may experience increased
salaries, promotions, and other career-related success when compared with non-
mentors (Allen et al., 2006). Mentors in this study did not report such benefits.
Increases in salary and promotions are career benefits that do not translate directly to
the field of education. The benefits mentors described in this study were far less
tangible. In fact, several of the mentors expressed a belief that their role as a mentor
was not viewed in the district as a leadership role. They did not feel that the position
of mentor was considered a stepping stone to higher career paths such as school
administration.
None of the mentors engaged in this study described the negative outcomes
associated with dysfunctional mentoring relationships (Feldman, 1999; Scandura,
1998). Through their years of experience, the mentors described largely positive
outcomes of their time as mentors.
The results of this study were in line with previous research regarding the
outcomes of serving as a mentor. However, further research is needed, specific to
educational mentoring, to confirm the findings of this study.
Recommendations
Given the difficulty many mentoring programs experience in recruiting and
retaining effective mentors as described by some of the participants in this study, the
149
above results may prove helpful. Specific recommendations include the following:
(1) mentoring programs should utilize the identified benefits of mentoring in
recruiting efforts; (2) mentoring programs should take steps to minimize the impact
of the perceived costs of mentoring; (3) mentoring programs should take steps to
prevent dysfunctional mentoring relationships from developing; and (4) mentoring
programs should attempt to increase awareness of the mentor’s role and recognition
of the mentor’s efforts.
First, mentoring programs must share the identified benefits of mentoring
when recruiting mentors. Teachers are typically self-proclaimed life-long learners,
and the idea that mentoring can be a learning experience (Feiman-Nemser, 2001;
Mullen & Noe, 1999) should be emphasized. In addition, the concept of creating a
learning community of teachers focused on professional growth (Fulton et al., 2005)
as a result of mentoring relationships is an advantage that can benefit the
organization as a whole. The focus on perceived benefits of mentoring may help to
increase the attractiveness of the position and recruit additional mentors, particularly
in light of previous research that has found those who have never been mentors
typically anticipate greater costs and fewer benefits of mentoring (Ragins &
Scandura, 1999).
Second, mentoring programs should take steps to minimize the impact of
identified costs of mentoring. Research has shown that, for those who have
mentoring experience, future intentions to mentor are more greatly influenced by the
expected costs than the expected benefits (Ragins & Scandura, 1999). The reduction
150
of these costs is important in retaining current mentors. To reduce potential costs,
mentoring programs may take several steps. As described by Ragins and Scandura
(1999), mentoring programs can implement training that realistically explores the
costs and benefits of being a mentor. Alternatively, mentoring programs may choose
to balance the perceived costs by adding to the benefits mentors experience (Ragins
& Scandura, 1999). Creating a balance may lessen the impact of perceived costs of
mentoring.
In addition to reducing the impact of the perceived costs of mentoring,
mentoring programs should also take steps to reduce the likelihood of dysfunctional
relationships. Although the mentors in this study had not experienced dysfunctional
mentoring relationships, they did describe being paired with novice teachers outside
of their own subject area, grade level, and school site. Such mismatches can
ultimately lead to dysfunctional relationships that can be equally harmful to both
mentor and mentee (Eby et al., 2004; Feldman, 1999; Kilburg & Hancock, 2006).
Mentoring programs need to take care in creating matches that are mutually
beneficial and create the time necessary for effective relationships to develop.
Finally, increasing awareness of the mentor’s role may minimize the impact
of colleagues’ perceptions. Prior research has shown that those without mentoring
experience tend to perceive greater costs than those with experience (Ragins &
Scandura, 1999). Educating the organization with regards to the purpose and
activities of the mentoring program may serve to increase collegial respect for the
mentor’s work. This may, in turn, lessen the amount of time mentors spend
151
defending what they do to colleagues, as described by the mentors who participated
in this study. In addition, increasing the awareness of the mentoring program may
also aid in recruiting future mentors.
Conclusion
The results of this study suggest that mentors do perceive positive outcomes
as a result of their work with novice teachers. Mentors may find the experience
rewarding, gain a sense of self-satisfaction, and acquire new knowledge from those
with whom they work. Given the emphasis on mentoring as an induction strategy in
today’s schools, the role of the mentor is vital in ensuring the success of our novice
teachers. With this fact in mind, mentoring programs must take steps to recruit only
those mentors who are most effective, a task with which the results of this study may
be helpful. Above all, efforts must be taken to continue research in this field, as well
as to identify the best ways to recruit, support, and retain effective mentors.
Implications for Future Research
This study examined perceived outcomes for mentors in one BTSA program
in one school district. Due to the limitations of this study, the following
recommendations are made for additional research in this area.
Firstly, it is recommended that this study be conducted on a larger scale with
a larger sample size, so as to increase the response rate and generalizability of the
results (Creswell, 2003). Increasing the sample size may bring to light more detailed
and significant differences between new and experienced mentors’ perceptions. It
152
may also provide a clearer picture with regards to any conflicts between survey and
focus group data.
In addition, it would be helpful to study mentors across several programs
beyond the BTSA program. The BTSA program in particular is faced with
misconceptions as to its goals and purpose. Mentoring relationships in the BTSA
program are formal in nature, and matches are assigned differently from program to
program. Studying mentoring in other educational settings may identify perceived
costs and benefits that differ from those in the BTSA context, as in the case of
previous research (Dreher & Ash, 1990; Fagenson, 1989; Scandura, 1992). It may
also serve to confirm that what is happening in the world of BTSA mentoring is
happening elsewhere.
Future studies should also attempt to identify the link between participating
in mentoring and changes in mentors’ and mentees’ sense of teaching efficacy
(Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Mentors cited learning from their mentees and improving
their classroom practice as a result. A deeper study of both short-term and long-term
effects of mentoring relationships on teaching efficacy may bring to light further
benefits and costs.
Finally, it is recommended that future studies of mentoring outcomes
examine those mentors who have left the position. By nature of sampling active
mentors and soliciting voluntary focus group participants, the sample included only
those who had persisted in the mentoring position. Thus, the sample in this study
may have been more likely to express favorable opinions of the outcomes of the
153
position. Accessing the perspective of those who have left mentoring would allow
for a more well-rounded picture to emerge.
154
References
Achinstein, B., & Athanases, S.Z. (2005). Focusing new teachers on diversity and
equity: Toward a knowledge base for mentors. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21, 843-862.
Allen, T.D., Day, R., & Lentz, E. (2005). The role of interpersonal comfort in
mentoring relationships. Journal of Career Development, 31, 155-169.
Allen, T.D., & Eby, L.T. (2003). Relationship effectiveness for mentors: Factors
associated with learning and quality. Journal of Management, 29, 469-486.
Allen, T.D., Lentz, E., & Day, R. (2006). Career success outcomes associated with
mentoring others: A comparison of mentors and nonmentors. Journal of
Career Development, 32, 272-285.
Allen, T.D., & Poteet, M.L. (1999). Developing effective mentoring relationships:
Strategies from the mentor’s viewpoint. The Career Development Quarterly,
48, 59-73.
Allen, T.D., Poteet, M.L., & Burroughs, S.M. (1997). The mentor’s perspective: A
qualitative inquiry and future research agenda. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 51, 70-89.
Aryee, S., Chay, Y.W., & Chew, J. (1996). The motivation to mentor among
managerial employees. Group and Organization Management, 21, 261-277.
Athanases, S.Z., & Achinstein, B. (2003). Focusing new teachers on individual and
low performing students: The centrality of formative assessment in the
mentor’s repertoire of practice. Teachers College Record, 105, 1486-1520.
Awaya, A., McEwan, H., Heyler, D., Linsky, S., Lum, D., & Wakukawa, P. (2003).
Mentoring as a journey. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 45-56.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bullough, R.V. (2005). Teacher vulnerability and teachability: A case study of a
mentor and two interns. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32, 23-39.
Carver, C.L., & Katz, D.S. (2004). Teaching at the boundary of acceptable practice:
What is a new teacher mentor to do? Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 449-
462.
155
Chester, M.D., & Beaudin, B.Q. (1996). Efficacy beliefs of newly hired teachers in
urban schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 233-257.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Danielson, L. (2002). Developing and retaining quality classroom teachers through
mentoring. The Clearing House, 75, 183-185.
Dreher, G.F., & Ash, R.A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men
and women in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75, 539-546.
DuBois, D. & Karcher, M. (2005). Handbook of Youth Mentoring. Sage
Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Eby, L., Butts, M. & Lockwood, A. (2004). Protégés negative mentoring
experiences: Construct development and nomological validation. Personnel
Psychology, 57, 411-447.
Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and Society. New York: WW Norton.
Evertson, C.M., & Smithey, M.W. (2000). Mentoring effects on protégés’ classroom
practice: An experimental field study. Journal of Educational Research,
93,294-336.
Fagenson, E.A. (1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job expectations of
protégés versus non-protégés. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 309-
320.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1996). Mentoring: A critical review. Washington, D.C.: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED397060).
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to
strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013-1055.
Feiman-Nemser, S. & Parker, B. (1992). Mentoring in context: A comparison of two
U.S. programs for beginning teachers. (Report No. NCTRL-ISSN-1054-
7673). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.
156
Feiman-Nemser, S., Parker, B., & Zeichner, K. (1992). Are mentor teachers teacher
educators? (Report No. NCRTL-RR-92-11). East Lansing, MI: National
Center for Research on Teacher Learning.
Feldman, D. (1999). Toxic mentors or toxic protégés? A critical re-examination of
dysfunctional mentoring. Human Resource Management Review, 9, 247-278.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.
Fulton, K., Yoon, I., & Lee, C. (2005). Induction into learning communities.
Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M.H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.
Hall, G.E. & Hord, S.M. (1987). Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process. New
York: State University of New York Press.
Harrison, J., Lawson, T., & Wortley, A. (2005). Facilitating the professional learning
of new teachers through critical reflection on practice during mentoring
meetings. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 267-292.
Hawkey, K. (1998). Mentor pedagogy and student teacher professional development:
A study of two mentoring relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education,
14, 657-670.
Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach.
American Educational Research Journal, 26, 160-189.
Hoover, M.F., & Frieman, B. (2002). Using a formal agreement to enhance the
mentoring process: A prescription for success. Towson, MD: Towson
University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED464083).
Howell, D.C. (2004). Fundamental Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Belmont,
CA: Thomson Higher Education.
Ingersoll, R.M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational
analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499-534.
Johnson, S.M., Berg, J.H., & Donaldson, M.L. (2005). Who stays in teaching and
why: A review of the literature on teacher retention. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Graduate School of Education, The Project on the Next Generation
of Teachers.
157
Kilburg, G. & Hancock, T. (2006). Addressing sources of collateral damage in four
mentoring programs. Teachers College Record, 108, 1321-1338.
Koki, S. (1997). The role of teacher mentoring in educational reform (PREL
Briefing Paper). Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and
Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED420647).
Kram, K.E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. The Academy of Management
Journal, 26, 608-625.
Kwan, T., & Lopez-Real, F. (2005). Mentors’ perceptions of their roles in mentoring
student teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33, 275-287.
Lipton, L., & Wellman, B. (2003). Mentoring Matters: A Practical Guide to
Learning-Focused Relationships. Sherman, CT: MiraVia, LLC.
Little, J.W. (1990). The mentor phenomenon and the social organization of teaching.
Review of Research in Education, 16, 297-351.
McNally, P., & Martin, S. (1998). Support and challenge in learning to teach: The
role of the mentor. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 26, 39-50.
Moir, E. (1999). The stages of a teacher’s first year. In M. Scherer (Ed.) A Better
Beginning: Supporting and Mentoring New Teachers. ASCD: Alexandria,
VA.
Mullen, E.J., & Noe, R.A. (1999). The mentoring information exchange: When do
mentors seek information from their protégés? Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20, 233-242.
Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 29, 172-191.
Norman, P.J., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2005). Mind activity in teaching and
mentoring. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 679-697.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Oakley, E. & Krug, D. (1991). Enlightened Leadership: Getting to the Heart of
Change. Simon and Schuster: New York.
158
Orland-Barak, L., & Yinon, H. (2005). Sometimes a novice and sometimes an
expert: Mentors’ professional expertise as revealed through their stories of
critical incidents. Oxford Review of Education, 31, 557-578.
Osgood, V.M. (2001). Mentoring for beginning trade and industrial teachers: A case
study. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 38, 6-39.
O’Toole, J. (1996). Leading Change: The Argument for Values-Based Leadership.
Random House Publishing Group: New York.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Ragins, B.R., & Scandura, T.A. (1994) Gender differences in expected outcomes of
mentoring relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 957-971.
Ragins, B.R., & Scandura, T.A. (1999). Burden or blessing? Expected costs and
benefits of being a mentor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 493-509.
Rigler, S.E. (2000). Gender differences in beginning teachers’ metaphors for
mentoring. Georgia: University of Georgia. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED447070).
Rippon, J.H., & Martin, M. (2006). What makes a good induction supporter?
Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 84-99.
Rushton, S.P. (2003). Two preservice teachers’ growth in self-efficacy while
teaching in an inner-city school. The Urban Review, 35, 167-189.
Santrock, J. (2008). Life-Span Development. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Scandura, T.A. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes.
Journal of Management, 24, 449-467.
Scandura, T.A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 169-174.
Smith, T.M., & Ingersoll, R.M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and
mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research
Journal, 41, 681-714.
Stansbury, K., & Zimmerman, J. (2000). Lifelines to the classroom: Designing
support for beginning teachers (Knowledge Brief). Washington, D.C.: Office
159
of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED447104).
Street, C. (2004). Examining learning to teach through a social lens: How mentors
guide newcomers into a professional community of learners. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 31, 7-24.
Viator, R.E. (1999). An analysis of formal mentoring programs and perceived
barriers to obtaining a mentor at large public accounting firms. Accounting
Horizons, 13, 37-53.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walkington, J. (2005). Becoming a teacher: Encouraging development of teacher
identity through reflective practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 33, 53-64.
Wang, J., & Odell, S.J. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standards-
based reform: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72, 481-
546.
Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2007). Mentor teachers’ work with prospective teachers in a
newly formed professional development school: Two illustrations. Teachers
College Record, 109, 669-698.
Young, A.M., & Perrewe, P.L. (2004). The role of expectations in the mentoring
exchange: An analysis of mentor and protégé expectations in relation to
perceived support. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 102-126.
160
Appendix A Survey Cover Letter
Dear Teacher,
I am a co-director for the BTSA Program in Baldwin Park Unified School
District. I am also a current doctoral student at the University of Southern California
working on my dissertation, through which I am studying the effects of mentoring
from the mentor’s perspective. The results of this study will provide insight
regarding the mentor’s experience and may allow programs such as the BTSA
program to more effectively support mentors.
Attached you will find a survey regarding your perceptions of mentoring.
The survey should take approximately 30 minutes to complete.
Your participation is voluntary. Your completion of this survey will
demonstrate your consent to participate. I assure you that this questionnaire is
confidential. Your individual results will not be shared with anyone. No individual
mentors or schools will be named in the narrative of my dissertation. Any analyses
conducted will be based on the total group of mentors who complete the
questionnaire. For additional information regarding the survey and this research
study, please see the Information Sheet that accompanies the survey.
Future steps in the data collection process will include focus groups.
Participants will be selected for these opportunities at a future date. If you are
interested in participating in a focus group interview, please contact me.
161
Due to my involvement in the BTSA Program, I understand the demands on
your time. I appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedule to assist me
with my research.
Thank you,
Jessica Decker
(909) 921-6041
jdecker@usc.edu
162
Appendix B Survey
Please take a moment to respond to the following confidential questions that will be
used only for demographic purposes in the narrative of my dissertation:
1. What type(s) of teaching credential(s) do you hold? ____________________
2. How many (total) years have you been a teacher? ____________________
3. How many years have you served as a BTSA mentor? ____________________
4. How many BTSA participating teachers do you serve? ____________________
5. What grade level/courses do you teach? ____________________
6. What is your gender? Male__ Female__
7. What is your ethnicity? ____________________
Survey
(Ragins & Scandura, 1994)
Taking into consideration your experience as a mentor, please respond to each of the
statements on the following page through use of the rating scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
163
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Being a mentor is more trouble than it’s worth.
2. Mentoring takes more time than it’s worth.
3. There are more drawbacks to being a mentor than
advantages.
4. Mentoring takes too much time away from one’s
own job.
5. The mentor-protégé relationship can become
unhealthy.
6. Protégés can end up taking the mentor’s job.
7. Mentors run the risk of being displaced by
successful protégés.
8. Mentors can be backstabbed by opportunistic
protégés.
9. The mentor-protégé relationship is often
exploitative.
10. Members of the organization often view mentors
as playing favorites with their protégés.
11. Mentors are often viewed by others as giving
unfair advantages of their protégés.
164
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Mentors run the risk of being viewed as
developing a political cadre with their protégés.
13. Choosing a poor protégé is a negative reflection
on the mentor’s judgment.
14. A poor protégé can ruin a mentor’s reputation.
15. Protégés can be a negative reflection on the
mentor’s competency.
16. The major drawback of being a mentor is the time
commitment.
17. Mentoring is an energy drain.
18. Mentors get a sense of fulfillment by passing
their wisdom on to others.
19. Serving as a mentor can be one of the most
positive experiences of one’s career.
20. Mentoring makes one feel better about oneself.
21. The rewards that come from being a mentor more
than compensate for the costs.
22. Mentors gain a sense of satisfaction by passing
their insights on to others.
165
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23. The advantages to being a mentor far outweigh
the drawbacks.
24. One’s creativity increases when mentoring others.
25. One’s job performance is likely to improve when
one becomes a mentor.
26. Mentoring has a positive impact on the mentor’s
job.
27. The mentor’s job is usually rejuvenated by the
relationship.
28. Mentoring is a catalyst for innovation.
29. Mentoring has a positive impact on the mentor’s
job performance.
30. Protégés can be a positive reflection on the
mentor’s competency.
31. Mentors can count on their protégés to be loyal
supporters.
32. Protégés are trusted allies for their mentors.
33. Mentors obtain positive recognition in their
organization for assuming a mentoring role.
166
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
34. Mentors achieve recognition from their superiors
for developing the talent of their protégés.
35. Mentors gain status amongst their peers for their
mentoring activities.
36. Mentors are able to relive their lives through their
protégés.
37. By mentoring others, mentors gain a sense of
immortality.
38. Mentors view protégés as a younger version of
themselves.
167
Appendix C Focus Group Protocol
Introduction and Getting Agreement for the Interview
[Begin audio recording.]
Hi, my name is Jessica Decker and I am a graduate student in the Rossier
School of Education at USC. I am currently working on my doctoral dissertation.
Recently, you completed a survey regarding your experiences serving as a mentor in
your district’s BTSA program. Thank you so much for your participation. I am now
completing interviews as a follow-up. I appreciate you taking the time out of your
busy schedule to be here today.
You may remember from the survey introduction that the next step in the
study is to follow up with a selected group of mentors to get more information about
their experiences. You have been selected for this interview. Your responses will be
used to gain insight into the experience of a mentor and identify strategies for
providing better support to mentors. The questions are asking about your
perceptions and opinions; therefore, there is no one right answer. As you answer
each question, I would like you to think about your general experiences as a mentor,
your training, and your interactions with both program administrators and your
mentees.
You should know that your answers will be treated completely confidentially.
No one, aside from me, will ever see your responses with your name attached. I will
strip all names from data records, and no individual teachers or schools will be
named in any reports. This interview will be recorded; however, names and any
168
other identifying information will be stored separately from audio recordings and
transcriptions. Should you prefer not to be recorded, you may leave the focus group
at this time.
169
Focus Group Questions
Mentors
Numbered questions are to be asked of all participants. Probing questions may or
may not be asked as a function of how much description is collected from the
primary questions. Probing questions may also be adjusted or modified based on the
results of the questionnaire.
1. How does serving as a mentor affect teachers’ careers?
o What short-term outcomes do you think they experience?
o What long-term outcomes do you think they experience?
o What professional benefits do you think they experience?
o What professional detriments do you think they experience?
o How does serving as a mentor affect mentors’ classrooms and students?
o How does mentoring increase collegiality?
2. What do mentors gain from interactions with their mentees?
o What do mentors learn from their mentees?
o How does working with mentees increase mentors’ skills as teachers?
o How does working with mentees increase mentors’ job satisfaction?
o How does working with mentees revitalize mentors’ careers?
o How does mentoring enhance mentors’ leadership skills?
3. How do you feel your colleagues perceive mentoring?
o Do your colleagues voice opinions regarding mentoring?
o Do your colleagues demonstrate interest in mentors’ roles?
170
o How do colleagues’ perceptions of mentoring affect mentors?
o Is serving as a mentor viewed as a privilege or an additional duty? Cite specific
examples.
o Do non-mentors demonstrate interest in serving as mentors? Cite specific
examples.
o How do site administrators support mentor roles and responsibilities?
o How do district administrators support mentor roles and responsibilities?
171
Appendix D Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
********************************************************************
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Mentoring Outcomes in Education: The Perceived Impact for
Mentors
in Induction Programs
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Jessica Decker,
graduate student, and Dr. Margo Pensavalle, Dissertation Committee Chair and
faculty member of the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. The results of this study will contribute to my doctoral dissertation. You
were selected as a possible participant in this study because you are employed by the
BTSA Program in your district. You must be at least 18 years of age to participate. A
total of 73 subjects will be selected from your district BTSA Program to participate.
172
Your participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask
questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether or not to
participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the information sheet. You
may also decide to discuss it with your family or friends. You will be given a copy of
this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of serving as a mentor and how
mentoring programs can better support mentors.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we may ask you to do the following
things:
o Complete the survey administered by the researcher (perceptions regarding the
effects of serving as a mentor);
o Participate in a focus group with other subjects and the researcher. This focus
group will last for two sessions of approximately one hour each and will be
audio recorded. Selected subjects will be participating in the focus group;
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no foreseeable risks to participation in this study. Any discomforts you
may experience with questions may be managed by simply not answering these
questions.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not benefit from this research study.
173
The potential benefits to society are that results will lead to more effective support of
mentors.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive payment for your participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated
with this study. The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a password
protected computer. Audio recordings will be stored in the investigator’s office in a
locked file cabinet.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences
with the dissertation committee, no information will be included that would reveal
your identity.
The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and
then destroyed. All audio recordings used in the collection of data during this study
are for educational purposes and will be destroyed three years after completion of the
dissertation along with transcriptions. As a participant, you have the right to review
and/or edit the recordings in the presence of the researcher. If you do not wish to be
audio recorded, you may still participate in the study.
174
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If audio recordings of
you will be used for educational purposes, your identity will be protected or
disguised.
Guidelines:
o Personal information, research data, and related records will be coded, stored,
and secured by the researcher as to prevent access by unauthorized personnel.
o If the researcher contemplates any other uses of the data of this study, your
consent will be solicited.
o Individual responses to questionnaires, audio recordings, and transcribed
interviews will be destroyed three years after the completion of the dissertation.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate.
175
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research
team to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research
staff can not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice
Provost for Research Advancement, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-1695, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Jessica Decker at (909) 921-6041.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to investigate perceived mentoring outcomes from the mentor's perspective. One research question with four sub research questions was developed to guide this study: (1) What perceived impact does mentoring have on those who serve as mentors? (1a) What are the perceived short-term and long-term effects of serving as a mentor? (1b) What are the perceived career benefits that exist for those who serve as mentors? (1c) What are the perceived professional detriments for those who serve as mentors? (1d) What impact do the perceptions of mentoring held by mentors' colleagues have on the mentors themselves?
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The impact of induction: a study of program designs and teacher quality outcomes
PDF
BTSA mentors: the costs and benefits to mentors and their fidelity to constructivist practice
PDF
Creating connections: an implementation study of promising practices for mentoring in California charter schools
PDF
Beginning teachers' perceptions of effective practices used by their mentor
PDF
What is the impact of same-race alumni mentoring on the career development of African American students attending predominantly White Universities?
PDF
English-learner representation in special education: impact of pre-referral interventions and assessment practices
PDF
The relationship between students’ feelings of belonging to their campus community and racial ethnic identification in undergraduate university students
PDF
The impact of culture on academic achievement among Ghanaian immigrant children
PDF
Globalization, curricular elements, organizational practices and perceived student outcomes in California schools
PDF
Globalization, curricular elements, organizational structures and perceived student outcomes in California schools
PDF
Exploring the promise of multicultural literature: a case study exploring the impact of the use of mulitucultural literature on the engagement of students from diverse backgrounds
PDF
The role of storybook reading in a twilight preschool head start program
PDF
District implementation of California's induction policy: key elements and challenges of developing a high quality program
PDF
Does the colorline still exist in the 21st century: examining racial climate on the campus of a University with a Diverse Student Body (UDSB) as perceived by a group of African American college s...
PDF
On-site impacts of Title I and Title III grant flexibility
PDF
A comparative study of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and retention of beginning urban science teachers
PDF
BTSA and California's beginning teachers: how technology affects California's teacher induction process
PDF
How teacher participation in the identification process impacts the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted programs
PDF
Status of teaching elementary science for English learners in science, mathematics, and technology centered magnet schools
PDF
Mentoring new teachers of color: how induction mentors characterize their preparation and practices that support new teachers of color
Asset Metadata
Creator
Decker, Jessica C.
(author)
Core Title
Mentoring outcomes in education: the perceived impact for mentors in induction programs
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
07/24/2008
Defense Date
03/31/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Education,induction,mentoring,mentors,OAI-PMH Harvest,outcomes
Place Name
California
(states)
Language
English
Advisor
Pensavalle, Margo (
committee chair
), Baca, Reynaldo R. (
committee member
), Ragusa, Gisele (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jdecker@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1407
Unique identifier
UC1213854
Identifier
etd-Decker-20080724 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-198039 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1407 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Decker-20080724.pdf
Dmrecord
198039
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Decker, Jessica C.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
mentoring
mentors
outcomes