SECTION 3: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW FINDINGS

This section of the chapter presents findings from semi-structured interviews conducted with ten Learning Mentors. Eight of the participants were teaching mentors and two non-teaching mentors. Of the eight teaching mentors, three occupied leadership roles and five had more than ten years of teaching experience. The following ten questions with an open-ended format were used in each interview:

Table 6-6: Learning Mentor Semi-Structured Interview Questions

Quest.

No. Question

1 Can you comment on the Learning Mentor Program in terms of its aims and organisation?

2 Can you comment on the Learning Mentor Period in terms of frequency, focus and content?

3 As a Learning Mentor can you comment on the following:

- Training/Professional Learning made available to you before commencing in the role

- Your understanding of the role of Learning Mentor - Your relationship with your Learning Mentor Group 4 What are the best things about the Learning Mentor Program? 5 What are the Learning Mentor Program’s current challenges? 6 What are the best things about being a Learning Mentor? 7 What are the challenges of being a Learning Mentor?

8 What benefits have accrued for you personally as a result of participating in the Program?

9 What changes (if any) would you make to the Learning Mentor Program? 10 Any other comments you would like to make about the Learning Mentor

Program?

As evidenced in the semi-structured interview transcripts (see Appendix 24), a mix of prompts (to elicit the mentor’s ideas, opinions and experiences) and probes (to further explore a particular response) were used throughout the interview.

Observations from the Data

On scanning the data it became obvious that the identification of substantive differences between sub-group contributions could not be made with confidence and

therefore the data are reported through the single lens of All Learning Mentors. The following four response fields were identified from the interviews:

1. Program Infrastructure and Processes 2. Mentor role – best things

3. Current challenges 4. Changes

Within each response field a number of themes were identified. Where 60% or more of the cohort (i.e. six or more mentors) identified a common observation/experience in their dialogue, it was recorded as a theme. The key themes that emerged from the

All Learning Mentor interview data are listed in Table 6-7 along with the percentage

response rate.

Table 6-7: All Learning Mentor Semi-Structured Interview Data

Key Themes % Response Rate

Program Infrastructure and Processes

Adequate time allocated to the LPR - (1 x 72 minutes) + (5 x 8

minute) weekly 80

LPR has sound structure: 6 Learning Communities and LMGs 80

Mentor Role – Best Things

Relationships developed with mentees 90

Celebrating mentee achievements 70

Relationships developed with families 60

Daily contact with the mentees 60

Getting to know mentees outside their regular classrooms 60

Supporting mentees socially and emotionally 60

Challenges

To confirm the purpose and direction of the LPR ₈₀ For the LPR to have impact on the learning lives of mentees 80 To decrease the great variation in both the understanding and

execution of the LM role 70

Changes

Ensure adequate training of mentors occurs prior to role occupancy

to prepare for and support their operation in the role 100 Develop a more relevant learning focussed curriculum for the

Program that caters for the needs of all six Year Levels 80 Set expectations of LMs and LCLs and monitor performance 80

Provide ongoing professional learning for LMs 80

Provide the LPR schedule at the start of each term 70 Review aims and impact of the Program with all stakeholders 60

Examples of mentor voice from each of the four identified response fields follow:

On Program Infrastructure

The community structure seems to work well. I think it generates a lot of community and enthusiasm throughout the school and throughout the different events and activities and things like that. (Learning Mentor)

On Mentor Role: Relationships with Mentees

I like the information that the kids come and share with you as well. It could be something as small as they've got a new dog, or mum or dad is getting remarried, or they're going on an overseas trip. I love that spark and the fact that those kids seek you out to come and talk to you about their concerns, or just to celebrate good things. (Learning Mentor)

On Challenges: Program Impact on Learning Lives of Mentees

I don’t think we’re seeing a really strong connection between students learning’ and what happens in LM …… there were missed opportunities to make connections with what the kids do in LM with what they’re doing in the classroom. We need to look at this. (Learning Mentor)

On Changes: Review of Aims and Impact

Obviously it [the Learning Mentor Program] was a huge shift [from the previous model]. The first few years it was all about introducing the Program, but now we need to be really clear on what its role is, how it is tracking and whether or not it has achieved its aims. (Learning Mentor) Whilst recognizing that the non-teacher mentor cohort for this data-gathering technique was small, it is noteworthy that setting expectations of Learning Mentors

Key to Table 6-7

LMG = Learning Mentor Group LPR = Learning Mentor Program LM = Learning Mentor LCL = Learning Community Leader % = Percentage of respondents

and monitoring their performance failed to present in both of the non-teacher mentor

interview dialogues.

Overall, the findings from the semi-structured interview sessions are supportive of the key findings from the Learning Mentor Questionnaire data – both open- and closed-response sets in terms of Infrastructures (see Table 6-1, Q.8 and Q.11),

Learning Mentor Role (see Table 6-2, Q.14 and Q.15), Relationship Development

(see Table 6-3, Q.19, Q.20 and Q.22; Appendix 23 Q.18(a) and Q.40) and Program

Impacts (see Appendix 23, Q.39 (b)).

6.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY

The findings presented in this chapter detail mentors’ experience of a whole-school approach to mentoring through an inclusive, school-based Learning Mentor Program in terms of program infrastructure, mentoring role, relationship development and program outcomes. The voice of this stakeholder group was captured through two data collection instruments: i.e. a questionnaire consisting of closed- and open- response items and ten semi-structured interviews.

Across the categories of responses, similarities as well as differences of experience of the Program emerged across the sub-groups. What follows is a summary of the major and minor findings from the inquiry, with the major findings presented in a thematic format.

6.4.1 Major Findings

The following major findings presented from mentors’ experience of a whole school approach to mentoring students through a Learning Mentor Program:

1. Infrastructures

The school organisational frame (specifically designed to house and facilitate the operation of the Learning Mentor Program within the learning facility) was identified as a significant feature of the whole-school approach (see Table 6-1, Q.8; Table 6-7). In addition, dosage of mentoring activity and its division across the weekly teaching and learning schedule (see Table 6-1, Q. 11; Table 6-7), clarity of program aims (see Table 6-1, Q.6), and mentor role (see Table 6-2, Q.16) were

identified as significant infrastructural influences on the initiative by this cohort of participants.

2. Mentor Role and Relationship Development

The building and sustaining of trusting relationships with mentees, within the caring, supportive and encouraging environment of the Learning Mentor Group, emerged as the priority of mentors and the lead outcome from the program (see Table 6-3, Q.20; Table 6-4, Q.26; Table 6-7; Appendix 23, Q.18 (a) and Q.40). Under these conditions mentees connect to a significant adult (the mentor) who advocates for and recognises achievements of the individual throughout the duration of the dyad (see Table 6-3, Q.19 and Q.22; Table 6-7).

3. Program Design

For mentoring programs to impact directly on improved learning outcomes for the mentee, differentiated sub-programs by year level that respond to the specific needs and learning stage of each cohort (through a defined focus, content and activities) were recognised as a critical pillar of program design, and a requisite for engaging mentees (see Appendix 23, Q.39 (b); Q.41; Table 6-7). In addition, the fostering and enabling of peer mentoring within Learning Mentor Groups was identified as a key practice of a full school approach (see Table 6-4, Q.27). In summary, Program design needs to enable participants to reach the stated anticipated outcomes.

4. Mentor Source

Within the mentor data, a number of differences in the way the Learning Mentor Program was experienced emerged from subgroup response sets.

(a) Non-Teacher Mentors and Teacher Mentors

A key learning outcome from the mentoring experience for non-teacher mentors was knowing how their mentees learn best (see Table 6-3, Q.21). In addition, there was recognition by this sub-group that the Program activities and content delivered in the weekly long Learning Mentor Period were interesting, relevant to Program intent (see Table 6-1, Q.10) and supported the development of mentees’ learning independence and teamwork skills (see Table 6-4, Q.29 and Q.33). Non-teacher mentors also recognised that the Program helped motivate students to improve their own learning (see Table 6-4, Q.38). These experience trends were not evident in the

teacher mentor data. Furthermore, unlike teacher mentors, non-teacher mentors affirmed that the Program had met their expectations (see Table 6-1, Q.7) and that it was an important part of their weekly work schedule (see Table 6-4, Q.25). In terms of the change data submitted, there was no reference to the implementation of performance accountability measures for Learning Community Leaders and Learning Mentors in any non-teaching mentor data (see Appendix 23, Q.41 and Q.42).

(b) Teacher Mentors in Leadership Roles and Teacher Mentors Not in Leadership

Roles

Teacher mentors in leadership roles registered that they often reflect on their effectiveness as a mentor (see Table 6-2, Q. 17) and considered the extended Learning Mentor Period to be an important part of their weekly schedule of classes (see Table 6-4, Q.25). In addition, there was recognition by this sub-group that the activities completed within the Program helped mentees to consolidate relationships within the Learning Mentor Group (see Table 6-3, Q.24), become more independent learners, and set learning goals (see Table 6-4, Q.29 and Q.34). Leader teacher mentors also acknowledged that the Program activites supported mentees to understand how they learn best (see Table 6-4, Q.28). These experience trends were not evident in the non-leader teacher mentor responses.

(c) Teacher Mentors with ≤ 10 Years Teaching Experience and Teacher Mentors

with > 10 Years Teaching Experience

Two key differences of experience emerged from the data from this set of sub- groups. Teacher mentors with more than 10 years teaching experience registered that they often reflect on their effectiveness as a mentor (see Table 6-2, Q. 17). This response trend was not evident in the partner sub-group data. The second difference emerged from teacher mentors with 10 years or less of teaching experience, with this cohort of respondents recognising that the activities completed in the Learning Mentor Program helped mentees to consolidate relationships within their Learning Mentor Group (see Table 6-3, Q.24). This response trend was not evident in the more than 10 years teaching experience sub-group data set.

6.4.2 Minor Findings

Two minor findings presented in the data. Both findings were related to the pre- program planning phase and highlighted the need for their inclusion in initiatives of similar intent.

1. Minor Finding 1

All mentors should complete a defined mentor training program prior to occupation of the mentoring role so that they are cognizant of effective mentoring within the school setting and can demonstrate the skills and attitudes it requires (see Table 6-2, Q.14; Table 6-7).

2. Minor Finding 2

A performance monitoring structure for Learning Mentors and Learning Community Leaders should be developed and implemented in order to track the degree of equity of experience and outcome for mentees within and across Learning Mentor Groups and across Learning Communities. This finding was sourced from teacher mentor data only, as there was no reference to monitoring structures in non-teacher mentor data (see Table 6-7, Appendix 23, Q.41 and 42).

Moving Forward

In Chapter 7, a summary of the key findings from this stakeholder group will be mapped to the research questions along with the findings from the student stakeholder group presented in Chapter 5. In the final chapter of the thesis, Chapter 8, these findings will be discussed in relation to the research questions.