National Mentoring Framework

Chapter 2, where it was identified as an important issue mentioned in the ITE literature (section 2.5.6). The data in this study also indicates the importance of a national policy for the ITE system, to develop the CTs role in STs’ professional learning.

This was expressed through participants’ demands for a clear framework of criteria to choose CTs (all 12 participants), to undertake specific preparation courses covering the CTs’ role (two MOE officials and all six CTs), and a list of specific responsibilities for CTs to carry out and later be held accountable for (one MOE official, one HT and three CTs), as well as a dedicated department\staff in the MOE to be responsible for STs’ school practicum (two MOE officials). This finding was consistent with the view that a formal framework is necessary for any mentoring process to be effective (Cochran-Smith et al., 2015; Garza et al., 2019). As discussed in Chapter 1 (section 1.4), ITE systems, such as the ones in Scotland, Ireland and Singapore employ formal frameworks that recognise the role of mentoring in STs’ professional learning. The Irish ITE framework highlights continuous teacher’s learning, collegial professionalism, and the key role of mentoring in induction (Conway, Murphy and Rath, 2009); all of which are key points raised by this study’s findings in relation to the ITE literature, as reviewed in Chapter 2.

The data also revealed three skills the participants considered to be vitally important for CTs to have: communication skills, interpersonal skills and good teaching skills. In the international literature, communication skills are identified as critical for effective mentoring (Ambrosetti, 2012; Cochran-Smith et al., 2015; Powell, 2016; Nolan and Molla, 2017). Active listening, good questioning and the ability to evaluate were all examples of communication skills shared by participants; this concurred with recommendations in the literature regarding the communication skills mentors should have (Hudson, 2013a; Rizvi and Nagy, 2015; Powell, 2016).

Interpersonal skills were also identified in the literature as important for “supporter teachers”, “mentors” and “CTs”, if they are to maintain good working relationships with their STs to advance their professional learning (Delaney, 2012;

Frels, Zientek and Anthony, 2013; Nasser-Abu Alhija and Fresko, 2014; Cochran- Smith et al., 2015; Vong and Kaewurai, 2017). However, the characteristics identified with good interpersonal skills were found to be highly subjective; this situation is described by researchers as commonplace in the absence of a clear framework or competency chart (Weiss and Weiss, 2001; Bloomfield, 2009; Gareis and Grant, 2014; Alomair, 2015).

Finally, the data also affirms the viewpoint in the literature, which states that good teaching skills are essential for teachers to model or engage in good practice. However, perceptions about how CTs’ teaching skills are measured varied among participants. The CTs’ annual evaluation scores were mentioned by all 12 participants as measures of how good CTs can be identified. Class management was also considered a common indicator of good teaching (1HT and six CTs), as were years’ of experience (one MOE official, three HTs and three CTs linked good teaching skills with experience), and having attended more PD courses than other teachers (three MOE officials, one HT and two CTs).

To conclude, although the participants expressed awareness about the importance of the above skills to the CTs’ role in the professional learning of STs, all 12 agreed there was a lack of specific skills training (as discussed above, section 4.2 and in the literature in Chapter 2, section 2.6.4). Thus, the data highlights the importance of tailoring CTs’ training towards the attainment of vital skills if the effectiveness of their role is to be enhanced. Clarke et al. (2014), reported that trained “CTs” demonstrated better skills and awareness of STs’ professional learning needs than untrained CTs did (Clarke, Triggs and Nielsen, 2014). Significantly, Margolis (2007) argues that training would enable CTs to forge different identities, separate from that of classroom teacher, when taking on the role of mentor (Margolis, 2007).

All 12 participants emphasised the importance of allocating sufficient time to the effective planning and implementation of STs’ practicum, as is also recommended in the international literature (Arnold, 2006; Barrera, Braley and Slatec, 2010; Frels, Zientek and Anthony, 2013; Tahir et al., 2015; Garza et al., 2019), where

knowledge and skills. Similarly, the findings revealed the duration of STs’ practicum in schools to be a challenge. All 12 participants concurred that spending a period of just three or four weeks in school was not enough. However, the literature does not agree upon an ideal duration for STs’ practicum, with some scholars suggesting that a shorter practicum (fewer than six weeks) is best (van Ginkel, Verloop and Denessen, 2015), while others recommend that STs spend a full academic year in school, to properly prepare for the reality of teaching (Darling-Hammond 2000; Rucker 2014).

As reported in the findings chapter (section 4.6.1), all three MOE officials stressed that for Saudi teachers to raise their level of professionalism some kind of framework or competency chart must be implemented. The MOE officials also raised the point that the lack of a clear ITE framework means there are no clear job descriptions defining the CT’s role, which limits the professional accountability of and to all stakeholders. CTs either volunteered, or were chosen and therefore did not view their role as important.

All three HTs agreed with the three MOE officials that supervising/training for STs should be included in teachers’ job descriptions; which reinforced the view that being a mentor is generally not mandated as an integral part of a teacher’s job (van Ginkel, Verloop and Denessen, 2015, p. 103), and that teachers generally volunteer for the role and rely on limited training, limited formal knowledge of supervising STs’ professional learning, and limited support and facilitation (Hobson et al. 2009). However, no one explained changing teachers’ job descriptions would help, beyond possibly encouraging teachers to more willingly accept the role of CT. None of the 12 participants addressed this.

Moreover, the MOE officials and HTs did not communicated plans for any specific preparation to be associated with this role. They only mentioned that CTs should ideally be selected from among the school’s best teachers (based on their annual evaluations), and preferably those who have also completed some general CPD courses; such as, leadership and use of technology in the classroom. Notably, the preparation for the CT role did not seem to be a priority in terms of the intention to issue specific policy documents. Two MOE officials, one HT and four CTs,

demanded that universities either clarify in writing what they expect from school based CTs during STs’ practicum and publish it, or as one MOE official recommended, CTs should be trained by the universities (section 4.6.1.2).

The above view challenges the literature concerning teachers’ CPD (discussed above in section 5.3.1), in that it should not be restricted to supporting only school-based mentors or teacher educators (Livingston 2014). Rather, it should be inclusive; open to all teachers, to meet their diverse professional learning needs by applying multiple learning approaches to access knowledge, skills and expertise in practice and research. The continuous professional learning approach reinforces the necessity for stronger partnerships between ITE providers (in the Saudi system case: University and school) and the fostering of greater interaction and interdependence, especially since both are unified under the MOE. In this case, the unity within the Saudi education system is an advantage, as it makes collaboration much easier; there is one policy, one budget, and one top legislation board able to make decisions swiftly and guarantee funding and logistical support.