Program A 84

Wang and Odell’s (2002) conceptions of teacher mentoring programs were used to uncover the nature of the teacher mentoring programs. This was determined by comparing the goals, content, perceived challenges of new teachers, organization, the role of the mentor, methods, and experiences involved within these programs.

The goals of the program were fairly well aligned between the County A, the University, the vice principal, mentor, and newly qualified teachers of School A. The goals of County A sought to induct new teachers into the profession as well as to supply a means of site based professional development within the school. The school owners in County A felt that having confident new teachers by the end of the year of school was an important aspect of mentoring. Teacher induction, retention and confidence are the end goals of humanistic mentoring programs (Wang & Odell, 2002).

School Leadership A felt that new teachers were overwhelmed by the workload of the first year. Thus according to School Leadership A, strategies should be used to encourage workload management and personal development. Beyond School Leadership A’s comments on what mentoring should and does accomplish, she explained the challenge of showing the

new teachers’ challenges gives more evidence to support what is important in her eyes. SLA felt that skills such as grading are valuable, but how the teachers develop in their terms is of higher importance. Further supporting this was her view that the program should last over the course of two to three years. A new teacher needs time to develop into a professional and it is not something that can be learned through skills development.

Mentor A felt that reflection should be encouraged as well as the teacher’s confidence. She highlighted her own experiences and used observation strategies to show new teachers that everyone has good and bad days, in an attempt to the bolster new teachers’ confidence. If Mentor A had different goals of mentoring, she could use observations in another manner which could showcase teaching techniques, or classroom management. The latter example is used to contrast that mentoring at the instructional level is based on a humanistic foundation as opposed to an entirely sociocultural one. Furthermore, Mentor A also explained the challenge of the fine line between giving advice, whilst not judging, and helping to develop the confidence of the new teachers.

The challenges of the novice teachers were seen to be overcoming the hardships of the first year of teaching in County A. Thus, the overall focus of the program emphasized reflection and personal development with themes and topics chosen by the new teachers. This learner- centered focus highlights a humanistic oriented approach to mentoring. The new teachers collaborate with the mentor to decide what their needs are, rather than having pre-chosen and scheduled lectures. As Wang and Odell (2002) explained the teacher centered assumptions of humanistic programs:

Thus   it   is   assumed   that   by   placing   the   learner   at   the   center   and   paying   attention   to   the   development  of  self-­‐esteem,  it  is  possible  to  enhance  the  learning  of  specific  content  as  well   as  personal  development.  (p.493)    

The mentors were selected based on previous experiences with student teachers and how they work with others. Mentor A had interpersonal skills and was in-tune with the newly qualified teachers’ needs. She checked up on the new teachers and initiated meetings if necessary. The agreement that the mentors are not to evaluate the NQTs is revealing. It was set up in a way to put minimal pressure on the new teachers so that they do not feel the additional stresses of constantly being evaluated. The role of the mentor in this case was what Feiman-Nemser and Parker (1992) categorized an educational companion. Someone who works with new teachers and utilizes reflection to help the new teachers develop.

More evidence to support this conclusion goes to how the programs were evaluated. The surveys were sent out to the new teachers, and success was determined by the new teachers’ satisfaction. The reduced workload time was a priority of both the administration of the school and the county, indicating that the problems new teachers faced were related to their workload. As such the time off of teaching was seen as a buffer to reduce the reality shock of the first year. The new teachers were seen to be burdened by the workload of the first year and needed a means to reduce their stresses.

Based on the evidence from the data collection, and the framework from Wang and Odell, the mentoring program in School A was predominantly humanistic in nature. Although the perspectives of the teacher mentoring programs are not entirely separable, and this program does contain elements of other perspectives, the majority of the data supports a humanistic mentoring program. Further, according to Wang and Odell (2002), humanistic programs such as the one in School A can reach their goals if they are aligned between stakeholders. From County A down to the new teachers, the expectations of mentoring are quite similar. This has implications that the newly qualified teachers will be more likely to remain in the profession in a mentoring program such as this. Confirmation of this came from the experiences of the new teachers. They reported that they felt supported and remarked that one of the benefits for having mentoring included time for reflection. In spite of this, they still sought out more practical skills they could implement.