Co-Mentoring – Critical Reflection in Practice

MUL05659

Co-mentoring –

Critical Reflection in Practice

Barbara Mullen Melton Secondary College

1 ABSTRACT

As the need for schools to attract and keep new teachers increases concurrently with more experienced teachers reaching retirement age, mentoring has been seen as increasingly important as a means to support teachers in their role. Co-mentoring is a development beyond induction mentoring and is suitable for all teachers at any stage. A co-mentoring program was therefore, developed and implemented at a Melbourne outer west suburban school, Melton Secondary College (MSC).

Co-mentoring encourages shared reflective practice to improve teaching. A collaborative relationship is developed in which each participant is both learner and teacher. In collaborative mentoring both parties are equal: the potentially negative imbalance of power that can often develop between teacher and learner should not exist. The relationship between co-mentors is based on mutual trust and openness.

This paper explores the development of a co-mentoring program from the early planning stages, through to its implementation in 2004 and subsequent evaluation.

INTRODUCTION

As the need for schools to attract and keep new teachers increases concurrently with more experienced teachers reaching retirement age, mentoring has been seen as increasingly important as a means to support teachers in their role. Co-mentoring is a development beyond induction mentoring and is suitable for all teachers at any stage. A co-mentoring program was therefore developed and implemented at a Melbourne outer west suburban school, Melton Secondary College (MSC).

Co-mentoring encourages shared reflective practice to improve teaching practice. A collaborative relationship is developed in which each participant is both learner and teacher. In collaborative mentoring both parties are equal: the potentially negative imbalance of power that can often develop between teacher and learner should not exist. The relationship between co-mentors is based on mutual trust and openness.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the development of the Co-mentoring Program at MSC, as an initiative devised, implemented and evaluated from the bottom up. While studying issues in management for change, undertaken towards the completion of a Master of Education degree, I was investigating how to create a learning organisation at MSC. As a fulltime classroom teacher and the school’s Equal Opportunity Co-ordinator, I could see the need for a mentoring program. My study and work coalesced and I began researching.

This paper first explains the background to MSC. Like many other government schools, it is a school experiencing much change and the workplace culture is under pressure. The development of a learning organisation at MSC was seen as a way to support teachers and teaching practice and, consequently, a study of the different models of mentoring was undertaken. An appreciation of how co-mentoring was different from past mentoring experience identified this practice as a possible solution for MSC. An historical investigation of developments in teaching and the needs of teachers confirmed the importance of mentoring, and co-mentoring, in particular. All these issues are discussed in this paper.

This then led to the challenge to introduce a cohesive mentoring program at MSC which incorporated, as seamlessly as possible, both induction mentoring for teachers new to MSC and co-mentoring for existing teachers. This paper therefore describes the development of the MSC structured mentoring program and the training program for co-mentors. The final part of the paper considers the evaluation of the co-mentoring program, and identifies some key areas for the continuation of the journey towards its improvement at MSC.

2 CONTEXT

As the first secondary college of Melton, established in 1975, MSC has been the largest of the secondary colleges in Melton. Enrolments at Year 7 however have been dropping in recent years: from 241 in 1999, to 130 in 2005. The school is considered ‘traditional’ and is still known locally as the High School. Overall, there is a gender imbalance in favour of girls.

According to the Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority (VCAA) description of MSC, there are very low proportions of LOTE (Languages other than English) speakers at home. Almost one third of the students, however, are recipients of the EMA or Youth Allowance and Melton residents tend to be on low to middle incomes (Shire Profile, 1999-2000). Indeed, many students at MSC experience economic hardship. Yet this does not necessarily lead to students who are highly motivated to succeed educationally in order to improve their economic status. In 1996, 51.9% of the Melton population had left school before they were 16 years of age (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1996). This supports anecdotal evidence that education is not highly valued among these secondary level students.

The staff at MSC has experienced considerable change in the last ten years. While there has been a core group of long term staff, there have been many teachers who have come and gone over that time. The workplace culture at MSC has also been under pressure both from changes imposed by governmental policies and the need for adjustment that changes in student numbers bring about.

It was deemed important to develop a focus for critical reflection on teaching practice to support teachers in these times of change; this could then have the potential to produce a learning organisation at MSC.

A PLAN TOWARDS DEVELOPING A LEARNING ORGANISATION

A learning organisation is a dynamic, productive, supportive workplace where employees are encouraged to develop their own and their organisation’s potential. A working definition of a learning organisation was derived from Field (1995), in which he identifies three key factors: reflection on practice; learning how to learn; and learning supports, such as leadership. Strategies to incorporate these key factors were considered and it was decided that mentoring was the most effective immediate response. Furthermore, mentoring could be implemented from the bottom up at MSC.

It was in 2003 that a structured mentoring program was made a priority by the Equal Opportunity Working Party at MSC. This group had been formed in response to the increased numbers of new staff who felt keenly the challenge of being beginning teachers at MSC. As a result of recommendations of this Working Party, a position was created for a Mentoring Co- ordinator to implement a mentoring program in 2004. A time allocation of 50 minutes a week was allowed for this.

During 2003, research into what form of mentoring would be adopted by the school was undertaken. In order to work towards achieving a learning organisation, a variety of perspectives and models of mentoring were considered and an investigation of these revealed the importance of co-mentoring as the most appropriate model to adopt.

Different perspectives on mentoring

The three perspectives below provide an understanding of what mentoring encompasses. Having defined the theoretical and empirical perspectives, it becomes possible to appreciate the development of the postmodern perspective in encouraging reflective practice amongst peers.

3 A Theoretical Perspective A theoretical understanding of mentoring may be based in the history and etymology of the word. From the myths of ancient Greece, the word describes a nurturing process where a more skilled or more experienced person takes a less skilled or less experienced person under their wing. The mentor becomes a role model, a teacher, who sponsors, encourages, advises and develops a friendship with the protégé. The objective of this ongoing relationship is the professional promotion and/or personal development of the protégé (Anderson & Shannon, 1988).

The mentor is one who can open themselves to others, who can lead incrementally and who can express care and concern. The mentor is a role model, a nurturer and a care-giver. Five separate functions of the mentor are defined by Shannon and Anderson (1988). The teaching function involves modelling, informing, confirming or disconfirming, prescribing and questioning. The sponsoring function involves protecting, supporting and promoting. The encouraging function involves affirming, inspiring and challenging. The counselling function involves listening, probing, clarifying and advising. The befriending function involves accepting and relating. The activities used to achieve this are demonstration lessons, observations and feedback and support meetings.

An Empirical Perspective Field studies of student teachers participating in induction programs in teacher education in the UK are a rich source of data for the understanding of mentoring. Furlong and Maynard (1995) describe various stages in mentoring for new teachers:

Stage 1: beginning teaching, where rules, rituals and routines are learnt. The mentor role here is one of a role model. The strategies for the mentoring process include observation by the new teacher and collaborative teaching between mentor and new teacher. Stage 2: learning to teach, where the teaching competencies are learnt. The mentor role here is as a coach. The strategies for learning involve observations by and of the new teacher and feedback on their performances. Stage 3: understanding students and becoming effective teachers. The mentor role here is as a critical friend. The strategies defined for this phase are observation by the new teacher and re- examination of lesson plans. Stage 4: autonomous teaching. The mentor here is a co-enquirer. The learning is described as investigating the grounds for practice. The strategies are those of a partnership with both parties as partners in teaching and supervising each other.

Their study revealed that a clear understanding of both learning processes and their role is necessary for a mentor to fulfil their role. Mentoring strategies ‘cannot be developed in a vacuum’ (Furlong & Maynard, 1995, p. 195).

A Postmodern Perspective A postmodern perspective of mentoring, based on action research conducted by Mullen et al (1997), defines a circular model of dense layers. The role of the mentor is flexible and supportive and concerned with equalising power in the relationship. Taking the ideal of a learning organisation further, Mullen describes the attributes of an ‘organic organisation’. Based on the work of Freire, this postmodern mentoring will lead to a culture circle which will free participants from ‘institutional forms of isolation, competition and abandonment’ (Mullen, 1997, p. 201).

It is this postmodern insight that leads to the concept of collaborative learning. It goes beyond the concept of mentoring as a process of induction for new teachers, to an organic learning process (Beckett, 1999). It is in co-mentoring that reflective practice can evolve, where critical reflection on practice can occur, and where the beginning of an evolution towards a learning organisation can begin to embrace and shape the culture of an organisation.

4 Mentoring models

Mentoring has a rich history. It can be a simple activity in practice but complex in design. It requires careful planning born of sound understanding. To understand how co-mentoring came to be adopted as the most appropriate model for MSC, an analysis of the developments in mentoring of more recent times is helpful.

The Apprenticeship Model Brookes and Sikes (1997) identified six models of mentoring, beginning with the apprenticeship model. In this model the mentor is a skilled craftsperson and the new teacher an apprentice. This model tends to overlook that the new teacher of today is highly educated in the profession already. This model can be adapted to describe the mentor as a role model who can guide the new teacher into practice. This can be a positive strategy for new teachers starting out. However, to engage in reflective learning requires more than this. The relationship between the mentor and the new teacher contains an imbalance of power and while this may be unavoidable for a new teacher at first, hopefully this is short-lived. The apprenticeship model may have a role in the very early stages of teaching.

The Competency Model In the competency model (Brookes & Sikes, 1997), the mentor is a trainer. This behaviourist model is similar to the apprenticeship model however, in this case a training program is defined and specific competencies are assessed against criteria which the new teacher must meet. This model has been widely used in the UK but can be limiting in its scope; to be a successful teacher is seen as requiring more than training. Ticking off boxes is mechanistic and narrow and provides limited opportunities for reflective learning.

The Reflective Practitioner Model For the reflective practitioner, ‘learning to teach becomes a much more tentative, exploratory, context-specific, value-laden activity shaped in and through experience’ (Brooks & Sikes, 1997, p. 23). This is a model of mentoring that complements the learning organisation. The mentor in the reflective practitioner tradition may follow the work of Schön (1991), who identified reflection-on-action and reflection-in-action to describe critical thinking both during and after the event as key components of workplace learning. This model combines Aristotle’s phronesis (practical wisdom) and techne (technical skills) in the environmental context with a view to making sound judgements.

Using these ideas, Elliott (1991) contrasted the model of the infallible expert with the new professional leader. The new leader is a leading learner who collaborates to identify, clarify and resolve problems; appreciates the importance of communication and empathy and can understand the other’s point of view; places emphasis on an holistic understanding, rather than a more atomistic view of the world; and practises self reflection, in particular to combat stereotyped judgements and responses. Reflective practice is the objective. However, further exploration was required to construct a satisfactory model for the needs of staff at MSC.

The Reflective Coach Model In the model of the mentor as reflective coach (Brookes & Sikes, 1997), the new teacher is assisted in developing the use of reflection as a tool for learning. This role for a mentor is not a passive, contemplative one. Rather, it requires active, planned and systematic interventions to encourage new teachers to analyse their practice and question their values and assumptions in order to improve their own teaching.

It is through dialogue that the mentor and the new teacher can generate new learning and act upon it. In this model, the ideas of the apprenticeship model and even the competencies model are incorporated into the reflective practice tradition. A crucial difference between the two is that, while the mentor is seen as some sort of expert and therefore the relationship of expert

5 and inexpert contains an imbalance of power, the new teacher is able to take responsibility for the learning and resultant action. This coach is not telling but is guiding the new teacher towards new understandings as a result of their dialogue. This model both supports the new teacher and challenges them, allowing the new teacher to be in control. It describes a temporary approach to mentoring the new teacher and is appropriate until the new teacher feels able to undertake reflective practice alone. It provides us with a partial answer to the problem of how to mentor at MSC.

The Critical Friend Model The task for a mentor of being a critical friend is a difficult one. The new teacher is primarily concerned with survival in both the classroom and the staffroom. As a result, they tend to be self-focussed. As this sense of urgency eases, the new teacher is better equipped to focus on effective teaching practice. There is a transition from the new teacher’s concern with their performance to their role as a facilitator of learning. The model incorporating the role of the teacher as a critical friend (Brookes & Sikes, 1997) helps to ease this transition to assist the new teacher in becoming a reflective practitioner in their own right.

The Co-enquirer Model Implicit in the description of the mentor as co-enquirer, is the relationship between equals; it is not a relationship containing an imbalance of power (Brookes & Sikes, 1997). This makes it immediately attractive. It requires the experienced teacher, as mentor, to allow the new teacher to take control of their learning. The key techniques enabling this to happen are observation and collaborative teaching.

This practice involves the mentoring pair identifying an area for observation. One mentor observes and the other then provides an evidence-based response to that observation. This would then be reciprocated. The new teacher is encouraged to reflect on their practice using the observations of their mentor, and both are co-enquirers. An extension of this is collaborative teaching, which many have come to understand as team teaching. In team teaching both parties plan, develop and implement the partnership in teaching.

In practice, team teaching at MSC would be difficult to undertake in the short term because of staffing restrictions and timetabling issues. However, observations in the classroom, while not easy to manage, are possible. This could be a strategy our mentors might choose to use. A mentorship of co-enquiry is one that could result in creative change in the classroom and as such it could lead to challenging deep seated assumptions and values and lead to improved outcomes.

The Mentor as Co-mentor, or Collaborative Mentoring Collaborative mentoring extends the co-enquirer model and is also centred on the practitioner. It is ‘experiential, research oriented, reflective, and empowering . . . it is an opportunity for professionals to become directly involved in each other’s learning and to provide feedback while developing along an agreed path’ (Mullen, 2000, p. 5).

This type of mentoring is also based on social equality. It is intended to be proactive and thus be a catalyst to challenge traditional practices, the hierarchical systems within teaching and the stale cultures that can develop in schools. Its scope is wider than other mentoring models.

Co-mentoring is thus seen as an evolution in mentoring that meets the needs of a school juggling the challenges of teaching in the new millennium: a changing workforce; a change in student numbers; and the imposition of governmental policies, including curriculum reform. Understanding the development of these challenges is valuable in further recognising the importance of co-mentoring for teachers.

6 Teaching changes and changing teachers

The teaching profession has changed over time and the mentoring needs of teachers change over their working life. An appreciation of these changes informs the mentoring program developed at MSC.

The Four Ages of Professionalism In their work on mentoring, Hargreaves and Fullan (2000) linked various approaches to mentoring with what they describe as the four ages of professionalism. Although based on developments in the USA, it is seen as relevant to experience in Australia.

The pre-professional age describes teaching up until the early post-war years. It was the beginning of mass education and teachers were seen as those with the know-how in a factory like environment where rote learning was the rule. For new teachers, mentoring was non- existent, apart from some kind words of encouragement if you were lucky.

The age of the autonomous professional is where many teachers are still stuck today. Coming out of the social revolutions of the 60s era, this new age saw an improvement in the professional status of teachers. Teachers worked in isolation as professionally autonomous, and this affected their ability to be innovative. Teachers were reluctant to stand out from the group and mentoring was, if it existed, for new teachers only. If an experienced teacher wanted to be mentored, then it was considered a cry for help from someone who was not coping.

The age of the collegial professional arrived when it became acknowledged that teaching was becoming increasingly difficult and complex. The individual efforts of teachers to be innovative and adaptive were ad hoc, uncoordinated with colleagues and based on personal skills and knowledge. This saw the beginning of the development of learning cultures within schools to ‘replace patterns of staff development that are individualised, episodic, and weakly connected to the priorities of the school’ (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2000, p. 52).

The fourth professional age is a natural progression from the third age. A fundamental feature of this age is that teachers will need to work with communities and also with the parents of their students. Teaching practice is no longer isolationist. Further, the teacher of the new millennium must keep abreast of new professional learning and widen and deepen their understandings. Also, the teacher of today will be working with others to bring about positive reforms in education. The teaching practitioner is at the forefront, as well as ‘in the midst of intense pressure and contradictory trends of centralisation and school based management’ (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2000, p. 52).

Mentoring may be seen as an essential intervention to meet these challenges which will lead to a redefinition of teaching itself. Having identified the need for induction mentoring and the value of co-mentoring, the task was then to discover how to integrate the two mentoring programs seamlessly.

The relationship between Induction Mentoring and Co-mentoring The traditional understanding of the new teacher, who needs a guiding hand in adapting to the demands of teaching, is in need of clarification. Often the new teacher has much to teach the experienced teacher. To see the role of the new teacher as the only learner in a mentoring relationship is limiting the opportunities that mentoring can offer. To persist in a mentoring program that is solely for induction, especially in the often insecure employment circumstances of contract teacher, is only to encourage adaptation to the existing culture. In years to come, as older teachers retire in the large numbers expected in the near future, many new teachers will be entering schools. It may even see the experienced teachers outnumbered

7 as the new teachers create their own cultural dynamic. To avoid this, the mentoring approach best suited to a learning organisation needs careful consideration.

How should the transition be made from mentoring to co-mentoring? In the development of their work on mentoring, and calling on previous research in this area by Merriam and Thomas (1986), who defined four cycles in mentoring, and the work by Kram (1991) who identified four phases of mentoring, Kocham and Trimble (2000) arrived at four phases of mentoring that are ‘fluid, sometimes repeated, overlapping, and connected processes or layers’ (Kochan & Trimble, 2000, p 26). These phases and their relationship to each other appear below:

Merriam and Thomas Kram Kocham and Trimble Initiation Initiation Groundwork Duration Cultivation Warmup Termination Separation Working Assumption of leadership role Redefinition Long term status

As a result of their action research into mentoring, Kocham and Trimble have redefined the relevance of co-mentoring for both new and established staff. They have determined that: this relationship is likely to go through the phases described above; for the relationship to be truly collaborative it needs to be open and trusting; and ongoing discussion of the status of the relationship can be beneficial in establishing whether it needs to stay the same, change or dissolve.

THE MENTORING PROGRAM DEVELOPED AT MSC

Induction mentoring

The introduction of a structured mentoring program coincided with the Victorian Department of Education’s initiatives in that area, in conjunction with the Victorian Institute of Teaching. Induction mentoring was tied to gaining registration for beginning teachers. Teacher registration was determined by a structured process that culminated, at the end of the year, in assessment by the school leadership of documentary evidence on teaching practices by the new graduates, which incorporated classroom observations. To supplement the information and training provided by the department, at MSC, an intensive, structured program for four new staff was instigated.

The first days at school were critical for both mentors and new teachers, and the first term was intensive in supporting both groups in coming to grips with their work. Mentors from the teaching areas of the new staff were sought and both mentors and beginning teachers were trained in their roles within the mentoring relationship. Constant close monitoring of the process occurred as a natural consequence of providing support to the pairs. Meetings of the Professional Development Co-ordinator and the Mentoring Co-ordinator, both with pairs and the whole group, were timetabled over the first two days and subsequently, once during the following week. Two more structured meetings were held during the first and second term to discuss preparation for reporting and parent-teacher interviews and to revisit student welfare and discipline policies. Informal ad hoc meetings with both parties individually were conducted throughout the year, to provide support and to monitor progress closely. The new graduates and their mentors were encouraged to join the co-mentoring program that commenced at the end of term two.

8 Co-mentoring

At the end of 2003, all staff were advised in writing of the mentoring program that was being introduced for beginning teachers and the co-mentoring program for all teachers. Nominations for participation were sought. The response was enthusiastic.

At the start of the co-mentoring program, in June 2004, twenty eight teachers (39% of all teachers) expressed interest in participating. This number declined to twenty two (31% of teaching staff) once the program began. This decline was a result of the compulsory requirement to attend the training program, a commitment some were unable to make.

The Program Structure The mentoring program at MSC needed to integrate new graduates, experienced teachers new to the school and established, experienced teachers (old hands). To accommodate the varying mentoring needs of all participants a model of the process, adapting the work of Kocham and Trimble (2000) and Furlong and Maynard (1995), was adopted (see Table 1 below); the mentoring program was designed to fit the school year. The first semester focussed on the needs of the new graduates and experienced teachers new to MSC. The priority was to assist them in their understanding of school rules, rituals and routines, the students and the Melton school community. During this time, potential co-mentors were individually provided with written and verbal information on the co-mentoring program to be implemented, as a part of the ground-work and warm-up phases. On the commencement of term three, all participants came together for the training programs on co-mentoring, and concurrently co-mentoring practice began. All training sessions and all co-mentoring meetings were conducted in the teachers’ own time. No time was made available in the school timetable. The training sessions were held during lunchtime. Each session was conducted twice in the same week to enable all teachers to attend.

MSC MENTORING Old Hand New Graduate New at MSC PROGRAM BY TERM 1. Ground Understanding school Understanding school Introduction to work rules, rituals, routines rules, rituals, routines mentoring program Understanding students Understanding students and the community and the community

2. Warm up Understanding teaching Becoming autonomous Getting started: in a ‘real’ classroom preparation towards merging mentors Becoming autonomous

3. Working Working Working Underway: co- mentoring begins

4. Long Term Status Long Term Status Long Term Status Progressing: co- mentoring is established

Table 1: Integrating induction mentoring and co mentoring.

9 The Training Program Co-mentoring as critical reflection in practice, leading to action and change, was a concept many teachers were struggling with, and a training program was essential to guide teachers through the process of co-mentoring.

There were four distinct training sessions. The first was an introduction to the concept of co- mentoring; the other three were based on the learning program, 4MAT (McCarthy, 2000). This program was selected as the most appropriate, as it details the critical reflective process of both a teacher and a learner and complements the objective of co-mentoring as an empowering process. All co-mentors were encouraged to keep a reflective journal.

4MAT Briefly, the 4MAT model (McCarthy, 2000) identifies a cyclical process of feeling, leading to reflecting, then thinking leading to doing. The feeling and thinking elements are in the dimension of working with perceptions, while the elements of reflecting and doing are processes to work through. In moving from feeling to reflecting, the learner finds meaning; in moving from reflecting to thinking, the learner conceptualises; moving from thinking to doing, the learner is solving the problem; and finally, moving from doing to beginning the process again, is the stage of transformation.

This model assists in providing a complex understanding of the role of a learner and the role of a teacher in the mentoring process. In the teaching role, for each of these stages described above, a co-mentor would move from being a motivator, advisor and coach to a cheerleader and promoter for their co-mentor. For each of the stages, key questions are defined to guide the learner. Four learning styles are identified that correspond with each of the key elements, and include the imaginative learner, the analytical learner, the common sense learner and the dynamic learner.

As can be seen, the use of the 4MAT model is beneficial for co-mentors in working with each other, as well as being of benefit in their teaching practice.

PROGRAM EVALUATION

The co-mentoring program was a new concept and initiative at MSC and its evaluation was conducted by the Mentoring Co-ordinator with the Professional Learning Co-ordinator.

Methods of evaluation The Mentoring Co-ordinator closely monitored the whole process from 2003 until the end of 2004, recording observations in a reflective journal. Given the nature of the program, there was constant informal and ad hoc interaction with participants, instigated by both the participants and the co-ordinator. Two written responses were sought: one was a mid-process monitoring form, the other a questionnaire at the end of the year.

The monitoring form was designed to assess the effectiveness of the program structure, the training programs and the support mechanisms available to co-mentors. In a covering letter to the co-mentors, a definition was provided to the effect that, ‘effective mentoring relationships develop when there is a commitment to an ongoing process of: taking stock of where things are at exploring options for improvement agreeing on a course of action’

Co-mentors were asked to respond to a series of statements testing aspects of the relationships between co-mentors, for example, ‘expectations of the mentoring relationship are openly shared and understood’. Respondents were asked to assess their response to each statement as

10 satisfactory or not, and they were also asked to identify whether they believed improvement in that area was required or not. Each statement also allowed for individual comment.

Following the findings of the mid-process monitoring form, the end-of-year questionnaire was designed to assess individual commitment to the program. The questionnaire asked the respondents to reflect not on the commitment of their co-mentors, but on their own. The co- mentors were asked to rate their responses to statements such as, ‘my commitment to my co- mentor has been’, on a five point scale ranging from ‘very good’ and ‘good’ through ‘ok’ to ‘not good’ and ‘bad’. The questionnaire included open-ended statements, for example, ‘my relationship with my co-mentor could have been better if…’ Also being explored was the degree of success of the application of the 4MAT learning model. Four open-ended responses were sought, based on the 4MAT process of feeling, reflecting, thinking and doing. Finally, one response was sought to elicit an overall reflection.

On completion of the program for the year, two focus groups were also held. The co-mentor pairs were separated and all twenty-two co-mentors participated in the focus groups, run simultaneously by the Mentoring Co-ordinator and the Professional Development Co- ordinator. These two separate focus groups involved all co-mentors. The end-of-year questionnaire containing fourteen questions immediately preceded the focus groups and served to concentrate the thoughts of the co-mentors on particular issues. The purpose of each focus group was to assess the overall value of the program in the eyes of the co-mentors and to consider whether co-mentoring should continue or not.

Findings

The Mid-Process Monitoring Form

Twenty-one respondents (96%) returned their questionnaires and the responses were revealing.

As anticipated, of considerable concern was the lack of time to meet, the inability to timetable regular meetings and the lack of preparation prior to meeting. Six co-mentors (29%) assessed the time constraints as unsatisfactory and five of the six commented that their co-mentor had availability concerns. This could have been due to time-table clashes and simply a lack of opportunity to meet due to these.

Overwhelmingly however, 95% of the responses indicated a satisfactory sharing and understanding of the co-mentoring relationship. Yet 14% identified this as an area that still required improvement, while 10% felt that no improvement was needed for them - 72% appeared unsure as to whether improvement was needed or not. Interestingly, two respondents wrote, ‘what is a co-mentor?’ and ‘co-mentor knows better’. This appeared to indicate a confusion as to the role of a co-mentor.

All responses agreed that communication between co-mentors was relaxed and friendly, although one written response pointed out that their co-mentor was ‘not committed’.

That the practice of critical reflection is integral to co-mentoring, and that eighteen (86%) of the respondents believed that this was indeed a part of their relationship, was heartening; three respondents (14%), however, identified this as an area of their practice that required improvement.

While co-mentoring was generally received warmly by participants, not all co-mentor relationships were running smoothly. This supported anecdotal evidence recorded in the reflective journal of one particularly unsatisfactory co-mentoring relationship.

11 The End-of-Year Questionnaire

All twenty-two co-mentors responded. Overall, co-mentors believed that their commitment to their co-mentor was positive: 68% assessed their commitment as ‘good’ or ‘very good’, while 9% thought their commitment was ‘not good’ or ‘bad’. This meant some 23% felt equivocal regarding their commitment to their co-mentor.

The responses to the co-mentoring program were also positive: 73% indicated that their commitment to the co-mentoring program was ‘good’ or ‘very good’, while 18% considered it was ‘ok’, neither good nor bad. A further 9%, representing two people, replied in the negative: for one person their commitment to co-mentoring was ‘not good’ and for one other, it was ‘bad’.

Given the largely positive responses, it would appear that the program and its objectives were generally supported and valued. However, the negative responses should not be overlooked. Given the voluntary nature of the co-mentoring program, it could be assumed that these participants began with good intentions. It may be that these responses came from the co- mentoring relationship that was identified in the mid-year process as unsatisfactory. It does show that while co-mentoring was an overwhelmingly positive experience, it did not suit everyone all the time.

The open-ended responses to the questionnaire following the self-assessments described above included some interesting insights. Again, they were positive in their nature. The individual responses were grouped where possible in order to identify trends within the co- mentoring experience. Answers included four (18%) who considered the program was good; three (14%) who added they felt they had support; and two (9%) who identified their need to listen better. Other individual responses included comments that ‘this has to be a priority’ and that ‘official support (for the program was) essential’. These comments confirmed the observations made during the implementation of the program.

In describing the co-mentoring relationships, the responses were especially positive, 91% reporting their relationship was either ‘very good’ or ‘good’. However, 9%, representing 2 co- mentors, reported a negative relationship. This highlights the personal commitment most co- mentors made to each other. The open-ended responses which followed identified the difficulties in meeting. Seven respondents (32%) said it would have been better if they had met more often, and six (27%) commented that they wanted a time allotment to meet. One pair had a teaching timetable that made it difficult to meet. Again, time was identified as a major factor in successful co-mentoring. Other insights affecting the co-mentoring relationships included the personal requirement to make co-mentoring a priority and the self- reflection that, ‘my co-mentor relationship could have been better if I didn’t presume’, perhaps indicating a need for improved communication.

The question which asked how participation in the program could have been better brought the expected reaction relating to time. Eight comments concerned time constraints. Also identified here were observations by two respondents that a better understanding of the program objectives would have improved their participation.

The five unfinished statements requiring completion, which were designed to assess the effectiveness of the 4MAT learning model, indicated that many participants had not absorbed it fully. Nevertheless, many comments by co-mentors in this section of the questionnaire indicated personal reflection on their participation within the program. Once more, the benefit of the co-mentoring program was powerfully endorsed; twenty-seven of the open-ended responses throughout this section, (25%), highlighted the benefits of the program.

12 The Focus Groups

Again, the issue of time was discussed and the difficulty of time constraints. It was commented upon that the key to a successful program is whether time is spent together, both in co-mentoring partnerships and group co-mentor meetings, and whether it was enjoyable within the overall framework of the program.

Co-mentors observed that, while the training meetings were experienced initially as tedious, their need became obvious. The point was made that it would have been helpful to see the 4MAT model in action. Further, if a co-mentor missed a training session, they felt ‘out of the loop’; therefore it was reinforced that attending the training sessions needed to be a priority commitment.

The focus groups were asked to imagine that they had one minute to tell the Principal, a staff meeting, or a KLA meeting, about the points they thought were most important in co- mentoring. They chose to highlight that the objectives of the program were to effect change within the school, to identify how to implement that change and to create a climate of mutual support and friendliness. The program was seen as essential, but the point was made that it should not be compulsory – a voluntary program being better in building morale.

In conclusion, the group found that the co-mentoring program values the individual teacher and gives them time to reflect. It provides positive reinforcement and is non-judgemental, helping teachers to improve classroom practice. One person said, ‘It’s like having a favourite aunt who doesn’t judge, you know, someone who just loves you for who you are’.

The Reflective Journal

The observations recorded in the reflective journal kept by the Mentoring Co-ordinator tended to validate the data acquired from other sources. Many of the observations recorded related to difficulties encountered in the implementation of the program. The training program based on 4MAT was not as effective as desired. The concepts of co-mentoring in the abstract were difficult to digest over the lunchtime meetings. While the willingness of participants to be involved in the program was noted, many believed that they already understood the process of co-mentoring, especially as it related to reflective practice. However, observations indicated that they did not.

Another ongoing concern recorded was the need for the mentoring program to be integrated into the school’s timetable and the need for support for the program by the school leadership. In particular, the expectation for staff to attend training programs in their lunchtimes was burdensome. For teachers to commit one teaching period a week for co-mentor meetings was an additional challenge and interruptions frequently encroached on mentoring time. To avoid them, teachers tried to meet off-campus, involving the expenditure of even more valuable time. Managing the mentoring program was also time-consuming.

Co-ordinating the mentoring program overall was a challenging task. At the start of the school year, induction mentoring was very time consuming. A further problem was encountered when a teacher began at the school mid-year. To assist these teachers was more difficult as the mentoring program timetables had already begun. Also, co-mentors had wanted to begin co-mentoring earlier in the year, but in that first year it was not possible.

13 Recommendations

The recommendations fall into two categories: those concerned with making co-mentoring easier for mentors and those more related to the management of the program. A discussion of the findings in relation to each recommendation explains the rationale underlying the recommendation.

For Mentors

1. Participation in the co-mentoring program should be voluntary. It is seen as important to harness the goodwill and support of the program participants by keeping the program voluntary in nature.

Participants in the co-mentoring program were enthusiastic and the value of a co-mentoring program was strongly endorsed. If a program is successful and meets the needs of teachers, then it will continue and grow.

2. Mentors need to meet often and regularly. The mentor program would benefit from being integrated into the school professional learning program and time within that program allocated to it.

A teacher’s life is very busy and often teachers get caught up in day-to-day crises and other impositions on their time. Mentors found it difficult to meet; there were interruptions and the heavy workload made it hard to maintain the momentum of the program. For co-mentoring to be effective, mentors need to meet for about one hour, on a weekly basis, for a period of six weeks, to establish the relationship. Meetings can then be less frequent; however, a regular commitment is recommended. For teachers who could be interrupted continually, the importance of meeting off the school grounds was also considered important.

3. The training for co-mentors should be a priority. Each year, the 4MAT training program should open the co-mentoring program and teachers need particular encouragement to use their reflective journal. Supplementary training aides need to be developed to guide mentors in critical reflective practice. Group meetings of co- mentors were identified as a valuable learning practice and mentors should meet as a group at least once a term following the initial training.

Mentors regretted not making that extra commitment to their learning in the training programs and during their mentor meetings. Some felt that they could have used their time together more productively had they applied the concepts imparted in the training sessions. With continued exposure to the concepts in 4MAT however, the capacity to apply the model automatically should develop over time, while the practice of critical reflection should also become more structured and understandings of the concepts deepen.

4. Emphasis on the practice of active listening is important. An important part of the supplementary training should involve assisting co-mentors in applying and developing their listening and questioning skills to guide the reflective process.

Telling students what to do and helping them to solve problems is a significant part of teaching. However, in co-mentoring, the emphasis is not so direct; it requires asking the right questions to elicit a thoughtful response to assist the other in reflective practice. All participants needed to work on critical listening skills. In addition, the reflective process is a difficult one for teachers who are great at thinking on their feet in the classroom – solving crises, anticipating students’ actions – but are often not so adept at reflecting on their actions afterwards. Also, as the people in control in classrooms, teachers are accustomed to talking rather than listening.

14 For Co-ordinators

It is valuable to note that setting up a program is relatively easy; keeping the program running effectively is not so easy. The recommendations below, if implemented, should ease that task.

5. The active support of the senior staff is required. The co-mentoring program needs to be a part of the leadership agenda. At a personal level, the school leadership should model the characteristics required of a co-mentor; they need to be trusted, to listen and to show a capacity for critical reflection. Further, nurturing the key factors that support the development of a learning organisation, defined by Field (1995) and referred to earlier, is the responsibility of the school leadership.

There is a challenge in harnessing the enthusiasm and energies of new teachers, but without isolating practised teachers who have acquired wisdom and experience over many years. Both groups need to feel valued and all teachers need to feel included. There is a danger that, without strong leadership, staffrooms could be divided into older and younger teachers, where each group excludes and devalues the other (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2000).

6. Co-mentoring requires a small management committee to direct program implementation and to assist the monitoring and evaluation process. The members of this group of two or three plus the co-ordinator should have a deep understanding of co-mentoring and its importance as a management tool, together with knowledge about how to keep the process alive within the school.

The small number for this group is recommended because of possible confidentiality concerns regarding the matching of and support for mentors, together with the monitoring of the program. The team needs to be accessible to all mentors and needs to be trusted.

7. The choice of co-ordinator requires careful consideration. To be an effective co- ordinator requires both skills in managing the program as well as the personal qualities that reflect trustworthiness. However, a co-ordinator does not have to have had years of teaching experience, nor a deep understanding of the underlying principles or rationale for co-mentoring. But, if they do not have these qualities, their management team should have, and the co-ordinator should show willingness to learn from others.

Success of the program relies on the wise choices made here. Apart from considering the matching of and training of mentors, the development of activities for the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the program, the mentoring co-ordinator should appreciate that individual mentors’ thinking and learning skills are not all the same. Individual needs vary. Further, of particular importance to all mentors is the need to feel individually supported by the co-ordinator.

CONCLUSION

The co-mentoring program at MSC is still in place and plans are in hand for next year’s program. After the first flush of success following its initial year of implementation in 2004, the program has experienced many ups and downs, though many of the recommendations mentioned above have been or are being implemented. The positive effect of co-mentoring and its possibilities were noted by school leadership and, as a result, it is supported at MSC.

Co-mentoring is one strategy designed to contribute towards the development of a learning organisation and experience shows that it is successful in that regard. Further, co-mentoring has the potential to be of immediate practical support to teachers beyond MSC and can have a direct influence in improving classroom practice. Co-mentoring is highly recommended.

15 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, E.M. and Shannon, A.L. (1988). Towards a conceptualisation of mentoring. Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (1).

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1996).

Beckett, D. (1999). Past the guru and up the garden path: the new organic management learning. Understanding Learning at Work. London & New York: Routledge.

Brooks, Val & Sikes, Pat. (1997). The Good Mentor Guide – Initial Teacher Education in Secondary Schools. Buckingham UK & Bristol USA: Open University Press.

Community Education Plan. (1999-2000). Shire Profile. Shire of Melton.

Department of Education and Training. (2002). Teacher Mentoring – A Professional Development Kit. Victoria.

Elliott J. (1991). A model of professionalism and its implications for teacher education. British Educational Research Journal, 17 (4).

Field, L. (1995). Managing Organisational Learning. ‘Learning’ in a Learning Organisation, Sydney: Longman Cheshire.

Furlong, J. and Maynard, T. (1995). Mentoring Student Teachers: the Growth of Professional Knowledge. London: Routledge.

Hargreaves, Andy and Fullan, Michael. (2000). Mentoring in the new Millenium. Theory into Practice, Vol 39, Issue 1, Columbus.

Jipson, Janice and Paley, Nicholas. (2000). ‘Because no-one gets there alone: Collaboration as co-mentoring’ in Theory into Practice, Vol 39, Issue 1, Columbus.

Kochan, Frances K and Trimble, Susan B. (2000). ‘From Mentoring to Co-mentoring’ in Theory into Practice, Vol 39, Issue 1. Columbus.

Kram, K. E. (1991). Mentoring at Work: Developmental relationships in organisational life, Glenview IL: Scotts Foresman.

Melton Secondary College Charter, 2001-2003.

Merriam, S.B. and Thomas, T. K. (1986). The role in the career development of community college presidents, Community/Junior College Quarterly Research and Practice, 10.

Melton Secondary College. (2001 – 2003). School Self Assessment, Triennial Review.

Mullen, Carol A. (snr. ed.). (1997). Breaking the Circle of One: Redefining Mentorship in the Lives and Writings of Educators. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Mullen, Carol A. (2000). ‘Constructing co-mentoring partnerships’ in Theory into Practice, Vol 39, Issue 1. Columbus

Owen, J.M. & Rogers, P.J. (1999). Program Evaluation: Forms and Approaches. 2nd Edition. NSW Aust: Allen & Unwin.

16 Raelin, J. A. (2000). Work-based Learning The New Frontier of Management Development, Public Reflection as the basis of Work-based Learning, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Schön, D. (1991). Educating the Reflective Practitioner, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Leader’s New Work: Building Learning Organisations, Sloan Management Review Reprint Series, Vol 32, No.1. New York.

VCAA (February 2004). VCE Data System Report.