http://aei.sagepub.

com/
Intervention
Assessment for Effective
http://aei.sagepub.com/content/38/3/154
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1534508412457873
2013 38: 154 originally published online 11 September 2012 Assessment for Effective Intervention
Sarup R. Mathur, Rebecca Gehrke and Seong Hee Kim
and the Mentoring Experience
Impact of a Teacher Mentorship Program on Mentors' and Mentees' Perceptions of Classroom Practices

Published by:

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Assessment for Effective Intervention Additional services and information for

http://aei.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://aei.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

What is This?

- Sep 11, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Sep 14, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Apr 23, 2013 Version of Record >>

at PORTLAND STATE UNIV on July 20, 2014 aei.sagepub.com Downloaded from at PORTLAND STATE UNIV on July 20, 2014 aei.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Assessment for Effective Intervention
38(3) 154 162
Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2012
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1534508412457873
aei.sagepub.com
Special Series: Data-Based Decision Making
The urgency to support beginning teachers in decisions and
practices that affect student outcomes has been compounded
in the United States by two separate federal legislative acts:
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Individuals
With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004.
These legislative mandates require that school districts
maintain a highly qualified teaching force, that teachers
engage in evidence-based practices, and that evidence of
student learning be documented and made public. In part, to
meet these requirements, school districts have responded by
creating mentoring support structures wherein mentor
teachers and mentee teachers engage in reciprocal exchanges
to positively influence teachers day-to-day decisions and
subsequent classroom practices (Shriner & Ganguly, 2007).
A review of the literature (e.g., Hobson, Ashby, Malderez,
& Tomlinson, 2009; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Strong, 2005)
related to mentoring structures and mentormentee relation-
ships revealed that teachers who are new to a district or are at
the beginning stages of their teaching career often seek sup-
port from mentors for practices that they can use to produce
better outcomes for their students. Findings of two recently
published reports (Fletcher & Strong, 2009; Stanulis &
Floden, 2009) indicated that mentoring influenced teachers
instructional practices. Fletcher and Strong (2009) found that
student academic gains were greater for classrooms in which
the beginning teacher had access to consistent mentoring
supports. Stanulis and Floden (2009) reported that beginning
teachers who were exposed to an intense level of structured
mentoring experiences demonstrated higher levels of student
engagement than those who were not. These studies suggest
that rigorous, well-structured mentorship programs hold
great promise for improving beginning teachers day-to-day
decisions and practice and for positively affecting students
academic growth.
Within mentoring structures, teachers new to the district/
teaching are engaged in an experiential process in which
they learn how to make effective decisions about curriculum,
assessment, and instructional practices (Huling & Resta,
2001; Moir, 2009). Green (2006) noted that mentor teachers
are commonly tasked with providing beginning teachers
with a structured means of examining their decisions that
affect classroom practice. Through a structured system of
support, beginning teachers have opportunities to reflect on
457873AEI38310.1177/1534508412457873Asse
ssment for Effective InterventionMathur et al.
2012
2011 Hammill Institute on Disabilities
Reprints and permissions:
1
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
Corresponding Author:
Sarup R. Mathur, Division of Educational Leadership and Innovation,
College of Education, Arizona State University, ED 418 C Farmer
Building, Mail Code 1811, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA.
Email: Sarup.Mathur@asu.edu
Impact of a Teacher Mentorship
Program on Mentors and Mentees
Perceptions of Classroom Practices
and the Mentoring Experience
Sarup R. Mathur, PhD
1
, Rebecca Gehrke, PhD
1
, and Seong Hee Kim, MA
1
Abstract
Teachers perceptions of their classroom practices were examined within the framework of a year-long mentorship
experience in a K-12 public school district. A total of 43 mentors and 41 newly hired mentees completed an online survey
developed by the authors that focused on teacher perceptions of classroom decisions and practices during one school
year and their overall mentorship experiences. A 2 2 factorial ANOVA was conducted and showed significant differences.
Mentors perceived the greatest benefit of mentoring to be the opportunity to reflect, whereas mentees found mentorship
experiences beneficial in increasing their knowledge of classroom, school, and district assessment practices. Limitations of
the study and implications for the use of mentoring supports to improve day-to-day teacher decisions and practice are
presented.
Keywords
teacher mentoring, decision making, practice, mentor, mentee
at PORTLAND STATE UNIV on July 20, 2014 aei.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Mathur et al. 155
their lesson planning, delivery of instruction, and use of var-
ious instructional strategies. As they reflect on their teach-
ing, they seek guidance and support from their mentors. The
goal of mentoring is twofold as noted by Parker, Ndoy, and
Imig (2009): While it is vital to offer mentoring to novice
teachers, it is equally as important to improve the quality of
these experiences to help new educators become more effec-
tive and reduce beginning teacher attrition (p. 330).
Mentoring not only inculcates effective procedures for
enhancing daily decisions but also helps beginning teach-
ers reflect on their long-term commitment to the teaching
profession (Billingsley, 2005; Gschwend & Moir, 2007;
Long, 2009). Mentoring programs have been shown to
positively influence beginning teachers decisions to
remain in teaching (Hobson et al., 2009; Smith & Ingersoll,
2004; Strong, 2005). Whitaker (2000) studied perceptions
of beginning special educators regarding mentoring and its
impact on their decisions to remain in special education.
Whitakers results indicated that perceived effectiveness of
mentoring positively correlated with the beginning teach-
ers decision to remain in the profession and positive job
satisfaction ratings. In addition, Whitakers study provided
guidance on specific structures of effective mentoring for
special educators. One recommendation was to select a spe-
cial education mentor as opposed to a nonspecial educator.
Additional benefits of mentoring included receiving emo-
tional support and learning the mechanics of the job.
More recently, using specific items from the North Carolina
Teacher Working Conditions Survey, Parker et al. (2009)
examined the relation of beginning teachers decisions to
remain in their positions with their reported perceptions of
the frequency and type of support they received from their
mentors. Beginning teachers who were matched with a men-
tor teaching at the same grade level, those who reported
receiving a lot of help from a mentor, and those who met
with their mentors several times a month were more likely to
report their intent to stay in teaching (Parker et al., 2009).
Kardos and Johnson (2010) examined mentoring experi-
ences across multiple school districts and states. They found
differences in mentoring across high-income and low-income
schools, across elementary and secondary grade levels, and
across content area teaching assignments. Kardos and
Johnson noted that there is a critical need to identify spe-
cific aspects of mentoring that lead to better teacher prac-
tice, improved decision making, and enhanced student
outcomes. Although research highlights the benefits of
mentoring as an effective tool for teacher support, there is
limited research that examines the relation between mentor-
ing variables and teacher decision making and classroom
practices. More research is needed to better understand the
perceptions and preferences of beginning teachers to further
refine mentorship programs (Fletcher & Barrett, 2004;
Gersten, Keating, Yovanoff, & Harniss, 2001; Griffin,
Kilgore, Winn, & Otis-Wilborn, 2009).
An emerging literature on mentoring outcomes also has
posed questions about the possible positive effects of quality
mentoring relationships on the mentors in terms of day-to-
day decisions, classroom practice, job satisfaction, enhance-
ment of leadership skills, and improved practice (Andrews
& Quinn, 2005; Hanson & Moir, 2008; Hobson et al., 2009;
Huling & Resta, 2001; Moir, 2009; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004;
White & Mason, 2006). In their brief review of the literature,
Huling and Resta (2001) identified four benefits of serving
as a mentor: improved professional competence, increased
reflection on the mentors own practice, a reported sense of
renewal, and a building of the mentors capacity for leader-
ship. Based on their follow-up data collected from trained
mentors, Hanson and Moir (2008) reported that teachers
who served as mentors in districts participating in the Santa
Cruz New Teacher Project (a) reported a deeper understand-
ing of teaching and learning, (b) often worked in positions of
leadership in their current school settings, and (c) brought a
professional learning community perspective to their prac-
tice on concluding their roles as mentors. Experienced teach-
ers in Jewells (2007) study reflected on their mentoring
relationships and reported that they saw mentoring as a
reciprocal process involving two willing partners (mentors
and mentees) in which both participants learned, improved
in making effective decisions, and grew as teachers.
Based on this literature review, we gathered mentors
and mentees perceptions of their decision making and
classroom practices as well as how they came to participate
in the mentorship program. Because research that investi-
gates the relation between decision making and teacher
practice and satisfaction with the mentoring experience is
limited, we situated our inquiry within the strand of litera-
ture that reported the effects of mentorship for enhancing
six areas of teacher growth: (a) knowledge and understand-
ing of teaching and learning, (b) job satisfaction and com-
mitment to the profession, (c) ability to effectively collaborate
and build collegiality, (d) ability to reflect on ones own prac-
tice, (e) the development of teacher leadership skills, and
(f) perceptions of self-efficacy and competence (Bandura,
1997; Berliner, 1988; Kagan, 1992; Moir & Bloom, 2003;
Wolters & Daugherty, 2007).
Our ongoing work with public school districts in a large
suburban area of the Southwest and a continuous review of the
most current research led us to pose the following questions:
1. What are the perceptions of mentors and mentees,
and how do they differ in their views of decision
making and practices?
2. How do special and general education teachers
perceptions of decision making and practices dif-
fer?
3. How do mentors and mentees, and special and
general educators differ in their perceptions of the
mentorship experience?
at PORTLAND STATE UNIV on July 20, 2014 aei.sagepub.com Downloaded from
156 Assessment for Effective Intervention 38(3)
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from a public school district
located in a suburban area of a large city in the southwestern
United States. A total of 15% of students were eligible for free
or reduced lunch. With 5,100 employees and 2,050 teachers,
this district served Grades K-12 with an enrollment of 37,000
students in 37 schools consisting of 4 high schools, 6 middle
schools, and 27 elementary schools. The racial/ethnic mix
was 72% White, 5% African American, 17% Hispanic, 5%
Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1% American Indian.
The participating district reported a high turnover rate
for new teachers. In its quest to reduce teacher turnover and
improve teacher practice, the district had recently started a
mentoring program designed to meet the needs of begin-
ning educators and those who were new to the district. All
teachers new to the district completed 20 hr of professional
development that focused on three themes: building trust,
building relationships, and building communities. The dis-
trict provided opportunities for new teachers to observe sea-
soned teachers and to debrief with district personnel (e.g.,
reading specialists, special education directors) and men-
tors. Mentors were assigned and trained at the district level
and matched by teaching assignment at the building level.
The district director for induction services sent a link to
an online survey developed by the authors to all newly
hired teachers who had completed the district mentorship
program for 1 year (n = 66) and their mentors (n = 66).
Instructions for the online survey asked potential respon-
dents to participate in research designed to evaluate
their mentoring experiences and to examine the degree
to which the mentoring had affected their perception of
various aspects of their own classroom practices. Their
participation was voluntary, and not all district mentors
and mentees responded to the survey. Respondents identi-
ties remained confidential.
A total of 43 of 66 mentors and 41 of 66 mentees com-
pleted the survey and participated in the study without com-
pensation. Of the 43 mentors, 41 (95.3%) were female and 2
(4.7%) were male. Of the mentees, 35 of the 41 (85.4%)
were female and 6 (14.6%) were male. The average age of
mentors and mentees was 39 and 33 years of age, respec-
tively. For the 43 mentors, areas of licensure were 33 (76.7%)
elementary, 6 (14.0%) secondary, and 17 (39.5%) special
education. For the 41 mentees, areas of licensure were 21
(51.2%) elementary, 12 (29.3%) secondary, and 15 (36.6%)
special education. Teaching experience of both groups var-
ied. In all, 19 (44.2%) of the mentors had 6 to 10 years expe-
rience, 11 (25.6%) had more than 15+ years experience, and
7 (16.3%) had 3 to 5 years experience. For the mentees, 12
(29.2%) had more than 3 years experience, and the rest had
less than 3 years experience. All mentormentee relation-
ships were approximately one school year in length at the
time of their participation in this study, with all mentors and
mentees reporting that they were paired with an individual
with a teaching assignment in the same building and in the
same content or grade-level area as themselves. Demographic
information of the participants and the district comparisons
are presented in Table 1. The table shows that the sample in
this study was representative of the district in terms of gen-
der, grade level, and years of experience.
Instrumentation
Based on the review of literature and our prior work, we
developed a survey that measured perceptions of mentors
and mentees decision making and practice (Andrews &
Table 1. Description of Demographics of Mentors and Mentees in the Participating District.
Demographic Mentor Mentee District
Response rate 43/66 (65.2%) 41/66 (62%) N = 2,050
Gender
Male 2 (4.7%) 6 (14.6%) 293 (14.3%)
Female 41 (95.3%) 35 (85.4%) 1,757 (85.7%)
Average age 39 years 33 years 35 years
Areas of licensure
Elementary 33 (76.7%) 21 (51.2%) 1,332 (65%)
Secondary 6 (14.0%) 12 (29.3%) 656 (32%)
Special education 17 (39.5%) 15 (36.6%) 779 (38%)
Teaching experience
Less than 3 years 1 (2.3%) 29 (70.7%) 205 (10%)
35 years 7 (16.3%) 6 (14.6%) 410 (20%)
610 years 19 (44.2%) 3 (7.3%) 1025 (50%)
1115 years 5 (11.6%) 2 (4.9%) 205 (10%)
More than 15 years 11 (25.6%) 1 (2.4%) 205 (10%)
at PORTLAND STATE UNIV on July 20, 2014 aei.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Mathur et al. 157
Quinn, 2005; Gehrke, 2006; Kortman & Enz, 2002; Whitaker,
2000) in six areas: (a) knowledge and understanding of
teaching and learning, (b) job satisfaction and commitment
to the profession, (c) ability to effectively collaborate and
build collegiality, (d) ability to reflect on ones own practice,
(e) developing teacher leadership skills, and (f) perceptions
of self-efficacy and competence (Kagan, 1992; Moir &
Bloom, 2003; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). The survey was
pilot tested using the following process: An expert group of
3 teacher educators and 3 researchers generated a list of
items fitting the six categories, and the items were then cross-
referenced with 5-point response items from three more
comprehensive teacher surveys (Andrews & Quinn, 2005;
Kortman & Enz, 2002; Whitaker, 2000). Each of these sur-
veys had been implemented independently with preservice
educators. Whitaker (2000) reported correlation coefficients
ranging from .74 to .93 for their testretest reliability. In
addition, prior to use in this study, the survey was piloted
with 67 special education teachers (Gehrke, 2006). As a
result of the pilot study, wording and survey items were fur-
ther modified and refined by district personnel that included
two induction specialists, one director of professional devel-
opment, and one director of special education to further align
the items with the research questions of this study.
The language of the 5-point response items was changed
as necessary for the two groups. For instance, serving as a
mentor was changed to having a mentor in the survey
items (see Table 2 for 5-point response items). The eighteen
5-point response items asked respondents to rate the degree
to which participating in mentoring had affected various
aspects of their own decision making and classroom prac-
tice. For example,
Item 1 (Mentor version): The degree to which serving
as a mentor has improved my confidence in my
own teaching is
1 2 3 4 5
No effect Significant effect
Item 1 (Mentee version): The degree to which having
a mentor has improved my confidence in my own
teaching is
1 2 3 4 5
No effect Significant effect
The revised survey contained five additional survey items
related to the structure of mentormentee relationships.
Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Each 5-Point Response Item for Teacher Group (Mentor and Mentee) and Teacher Type
(General and Special Education).
Teacher Group Teacher Type

Mentor
(n = 43)
Mentee
(n = 41)
General Education
(n = 55)
Special Education
(n = 29)
Item M SD M SD M SD M SD
1. Confidence in teaching 3.60* .21 2.85 .21 3.60* .17 2.85 .24
2. Ability to reflect 3.91*** .20 2.93 .20 3.61 .17 3.23 .23
3. Knowledge of student learning 3.33 .20 2.82 .20 3.44* .17 2.71 .23
4. Awareness of evidenced-based practices 3.35* .22 2.57 .22 3.10 .19 2.82 .25
5. Knowledge of special education policies/procedures 3.04 .22 2.70 .22 2.79 .18 2.95 .25
6. Job satisfaction 3.65 .21 3.23 .21 3.59 .17 3.30 .24
7. Engage and motivate students 3.32* .21 2.71 .21 3.32* .17 2.71 .24
8. Intention to remain in teaching 3.21 .24 2.66 .23 3.23 .20 2.65 .27
9. Lesson planning and implementation 3.44* .21 2.72 .21 3.58*** .18 2.58 .24
10. Listening skills 3.58*** .21 2.40 .21 3.12 .17 2.86 .24
11. Collaboration with general/special educators 3.24 .21 3.09 .21 3.53* .18 2.80 .24
12. Knowledge of new teaching techniques 3.15 .21 2.85 .21 3.61*** .17 2.39 .24
13. Knowledge of classroom/district/state assessments 2.75 .22 3.49* .22 3.40 .19 2.85 .25
14. Relationship with the building principal 2.77 .24 2.62 .24 3.04* .20 2.35 .27
15. Examine and adjust instruction 3.47* .20 2.81 .20 3.57* .17 2.17 .23
16. Additional leadership opportunities 3.03 .23 2.48 .23 3.12* .19 2.39 .27
17. Professional development goal 3.11 .21 2.66 .21 3.17 .18 2.60 .24
18. Classroom management 3.09 .21 2.66 .21 3.31* .18 2.44 .24
*p < .05. ***p .001.
at PORTLAND STATE UNIV on July 20, 2014 aei.sagepub.com Downloaded from
158 Assessment for Effective Intervention 38(3)
These five items focused on obtaining information relevant
to the teaching assignments of respondents, the frequency
and type of mentormentee contact, the matching process,
the most common topic discussed by the parties, and satis-
faction with mentoring (see Table 3). The survey concluded
with one open-ended question about where the participants
saw themselves professionally in the next 5 years.
Data Analysis
Prior to data analysis, the data were checked for outliers and
missing values, and no outliers or missing values were
found. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics
and inferential statistics. We used the analysis of variance
(ANOVA) with one extracted factor from the eighteen 5-point
response items and with each item separately. We were inter-
ested not only in the simple main effect of teacher group and
teacher type but also in the interaction between teacher group
and teacher type; therefore, we ran a 2 2 ANOVA using
SPSS 18. Frequency counts were used for coding and cate-
gorizing responses in the open-ended, qualitative data. For
five items related to the structure of mentormentee relation-
ships, descriptive statistics were prepared.
Results
Analysis of 5-Point Response Items
A 2 (teacher group: mentors/mentee) 2 (teacher type:
special education/general education teachers) ANOVA with
Table 3. The Mentorship Process.
Teacher Group Teacher Type
Item
Mentor
(n = 43),
n (%)
Mentee
(n = 41),
n (%)
General
Education
(n = 55), n (%)
Special
Education
(n = 29), n (%)
Frequency of contact
Daily 30 (69.8%) 19 (46.3%) 35 (63.6%) 14 (48.3%)
Weekly 12 (27.9%) 9 (22.0%) 13 (23.6%) 8 (27.6%)
Twice a month 0 (0%) 5 (12.2%) 3 (5.5%) 2 (6.9%)
Once a month 1 (2.3%) 5 (12.2%) 3 (5.5%) 3 (10.3%)
Less than once a month 0 (0%) 3 (7.3%) 1 (1.8%) 2 (6.9%)
Type of contact
E-mail 2 (4.7%) 2 (4.9%) 2 (3.6%) 2 (6.9%)
Face to face unscheduled (informal) 36 (83.7%) 35 (85.4%) 49 (89.1%) 22 (75.9%)
Face to face scheduled (formal) 3 (7.0%) 2 (4.9%) 1 (1.8%) 4 (13.8%)
Phone 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Large group sessions 2 (4.7%) 2 (4.9%) 3 (5.5%) 1 (3.4%)
Mentor/mentee matching
Similar teaching assignments and grade level 27 (62.8%) 14 (34.1%) 25 (45.5%) 16 (55.2%)
By principal or administration 10 (23.3%) 7 (17.1%) 13 (23.6%) 4 (13.8%)
Close distance and site 1 (2.3%) 7 (17.1%) 4 (7.3%) 4 (13.8%)
Other 3 (7.0%) 6 (14.6%) 7 (12.7%) 2 (6.9%)
No idea 2 (4.7%) 7 (17.1%) 6 (10.9%) 3 (10.3%)
Topic of support
Curriculum 14 (32.6%) 10 (24.4%) 19 (34.5%) 5 (17.2%)
Instruction 4 (9.3%) 7 (17.1%) 6 (10.9%) 5 (17.2%)
Managing student behavior 8 (18.6%) 4 (9.8%) 11 (20.0%) 1 (3.4%)
Emotional issues 2 (4.7%) 2 (4.9%) 4 (7.3%) 0 (0%)
Procedures related to special education 10 (23.3%) 5 (12.2%) 4 (7.3%) 11 (37.9%)
School/district policies and procedures 2 (4.7%) 11 (26.8%) 7 (12.7%) 6 (20.7%)
Other 3 (7.0%) 2 (4.9%) 4 (7.3%) 1 (3.4%)
Satisfaction with mentoring program
Extremely positive 24 (55.8%) 13 (31.7%) 26 (47.3%) 11 (37.9%)
Positive 12 (27.9%) 11 (26.8%) 16 (29.1%) 7 (24.1%)
Neutral 7 (16.3%) 11 (26.8%) 10 (18.2%) 8 (27.6%)
Negative 0 (0%) 4 (9.8%) 2 (3.6%) 2 (6.9%)
Very negative 0 (0%) 2 (4.9%) 1 (1.8%) 1 (3.4%)
at PORTLAND STATE UNIV on July 20, 2014 aei.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Mathur et al. 159
the factor, teacher decision making and practice, was con-
ducted to answer the following research questions:
Research Question 1: How did mentors and mentees
who went through a year-long mentoring experi-
ence view their own decision making and practice?
Research Question 2: How did special and general
education teachers view their decision making and
practice?
The results of the ANOVA indicated a significant main
effect for the mentor/mentee group, F(1, 80) = 4.117, p = .046,
a significant main effect for teacher type, F(1, 80) = 6.08, p =
.02, and a significant interaction between mentor/mentee
group and teacher type, F(1, 80) = 5.11, p = .03. The means
and standard deviations for teacher decision making and prac-
tice as a function of the two factors (teacher group and teacher
type) are presented in Table 4.
Because the interaction between teacher group (mentors
and mentees) and teacher type (special and general education)
was statistically significant, we separately examined the dif-
ference between special education mentors and mentees and
general education mentors and mentees. Within the type of
teachers, special education mentors viewed their own deci-
sion making and practice more positively than did special
education mentees, F(1, 80) = 7.03, p = .01, whereas no sig-
nificant differences were found between mentors and mentees
within general education teachers, F(1, 80) = 0.04, p = .84
(see Table 4). Within the mentee group, general education
teachers viewed their own decision making and practice more
positively than did special education teachers, F(1, 80) =
11.21, p < .01. However, within the mentor group, there were
no significant differences between general education and spe-
cial education teachers, F(1, 80) = 0.2, p = .89 (see Table 4).
As a result of their year-long mentoring experience, men-
tors viewed themselves as more confident in teaching (Item 1)
and more aware of evidenced-based practices (Item 4) than
did mentees. They perceived themselves as having a compar-
atively higher ability to reflect and listen (Items 2 and 10),
engage and motivate students (Item 7), plan and implement
lessons (Item 9), and examine and adjust instruction (Item 15)
than did mentees. Mentees viewed themselves as having more
knowledge about classroom/district/assessments (Item 13)
than mentors did. No significant differences were found
between the mentors and mentees with regard to the items
related to knowledge of student learning, special education
policies, intention to remain in teaching, seeking additional
leadership opportunities, and professional development goal.
Both mentors and mentees had low mean ratings for Item 5,
knowledge of special education policies and procedures, and
Item 14, relationship with the building principal. Similarities
in views of mentors and mentees were noted in ratings of job
satisfaction (Item 6) and collaboration (Item 11; see Table 2).
General education teachers rated themselves significantly
higher as compared with special education teachers in confi-
dence in teaching (Item 1), knowledge of student learning
(Item 3), engaging and motivating students (Item 7), lesson
planning and implementation (Item 9), collaboration with
general/special educators (Item 11), knowledge of new
teaching techniques (Item 12), maintaining relationship with
the building principal (Item 14), examining and adjusting
instruction (Item 15), seeking additional leadership opportu-
nities (Item 16), and classroom management (Item 18; see
Table 2). Both general and special educators viewed them-
selves as more reflective as a result of their year-long men-
torship experience. Special educators noted its limited value
in examining and adjusting instruction as reflected in their
lowest rating for this item.
Analysis of Forced-Choice Items
When asked to select the frequency of contact (daily, weekly,
twice a month, once a month, or less than once a month) with
their assigned mentor/mentee, 30 (69.8%) mentors and 19
(46.3%) mentees said they had daily contact. In terms of the
type of contact experienced with their mentor/mentee, 36
(83.7%) mentors and 35 (85.4%) mentees reported that
face-to-face, unscheduled/informal contact was their most
Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations for Teacher Group and Teacher Type.
Teacher Group
Mentor (n = 43) Mentee (n = 41) Total (N = 84)
Teacher Type M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
General education (n = 55) 0.17 (.18) 0.22**
a
(.19) 0.19*
b
(.13)
Special education (n = 29) 0.12**
c
(.25) 0.81 (.24) 0.34 (.18)
Total (N = 84) 0.14*
d
(.15) 0.30 (.15)
a
Difference between general education and special education mentees.
b
Difference between general education and special education teachers.
c
Difference between special education mentors and mentees.
d
Difference between mentors and mentees.
*p < .05. **p .01.
at PORTLAND STATE UNIV on July 20, 2014 aei.sagepub.com Downloaded from
160 Assessment for Effective Intervention 38(3)
common type of contact. Other options for this item also
included e-mail, phone, and large group settings. A total of
27 of the 43 mentors and 14 of the 41 mentees reported that
they were matched by similar teaching assignments. In all, 7
of the mentees had no idea how they were matched with
their mentors (see Table 3).
Respondents from both groups were also asked to select
the one most common topic of support or information they
shared and discussed with each other. The following list of
topics based on the review of the literature (Bandura, 1997;
Berliner, 1988; Kagan, 1992; Moir & Bloom, 2003; Wolters
& Daugherty, 2007) was provided: curriculum, instruction,
managing student behavior, emotional issues, and proce-
dures related to special education, school/district policies
and procedures, or other. The groups varied in their percep-
tions about the support they offered or received on the top-
ics shared. Among special education teachers, procedures
related to special education and school district policies and
procedures were viewed as most often discussed topics,
whereas among general educators, curriculum was viewed
as the most commonly discussed topic (see Table 3).
With regard to overall satisfaction with the mentoring
program, 24 (55.8%) mentors rated their experience as
extremely positive as compared with 13 (31.7%) mentees.
A total of 6 of the 41 mentee respondents rated the experi-
ence as negative or very negative (see Table 3).
Analysis of Open-Ended Item
Respondents were asked to complete the following open-
ended statement: Five years from now I expect to be. . ..
Responses were analyzed using Miles and Hubermans
(1994) process for coding and categorizing qualitative data.
After identifying the themes that emerged in the initial
analysis, specific responses were coded. Results from this
analysis indicated that 29 of the 43 mentors saw themselves
still teaching in 5 years, whereas 4 mentors saw themselves
in leadership roles rather than teaching in a classroom set-
ting. Examples of their responses included assuming a
leadership role, possibly getting involved with administra-
tion, serving as a consultant, or owning their own school. In
all, 4 of the 43 mentors reported expecting to leave the
profession because of retirement. It is interesting that all
but 2 of the 41 mentees viewed themselves continuing as a
classroom teacher. A total of 7 of the mentees also noted
that they would continue their education and complete a
masters degree in the next 5 years. One of the mentees
stated, I would like to enhance my skills, maybe go for a
graduate study in the next few years. Other mentee com-
ments included, I plan to have a masters degree, be
national board certified, and would like to be a mentor
teacher myself and I expect to be able to teach at a high
school, or postsecondary level, but that will be determined
by the state and its budget.
Discussion
In this investigation, we examined three questions: (a) What
are the perceptions of mentors and mentees, and how do they
differ in their views of decision making and practices? (b)
How do special and general education teachers perceptions
of decision making and practices differ? (c) How do mentors
and mentees, and special and general educators differ in their
perceptions of the mentorship experience? This study found,
as has previous research, that the mentorship experience was
positively viewed by experienced and more novice teachers
in perceptions of their decision making and practices (Green,
2006; MacPherson, 2010). However, mentors viewed them-
selves as more competent and rated themselves as a group
much higher as compared with mentees in all decision-
making areas and practices except knowledge of classroom/
district/state assessments. These findings extend the current
research in the field in terms of identifying specific areas,
such as confidence in teaching and ability to reflect and lis-
ten, in which veteran teachers decision making and profes-
sional practice may be enhanced by serving in mentorship
roles (Andrews & Quinn, 2005; Hanson & Moir, 2008;
Huling & Resta, 2001; Jewell, 2007).
This study extends the existing research by identifying
discernible differences between the perceptions of the men-
tors and mentees as to the value/effectiveness of specific
aspects of their relationships in various decision-making
practices. The extent to which mentors and mentees differed
on various aspects of teaching practice and decision making
was also reported. Both mentors and mentees perceived ben-
efits of mentoring experiences in various practices. Mentors
viewed that their role as a mentor helped improve their abil-
ity to reflect. Mentees found mentorship experiences benefi-
cial in increasing their knowledge of classroom/district/
school assessments. Nevertheless, future research may seek
to examine the urgency with which mentor teachers address
the critical need for information on the part of their mentees
as these novice teachers seek to make effective decisions
that impact their instructional decision making.
Findings related to the perceptions of special educator men-
tors and mentees are concerning. Special educators had signifi-
cantly lower ratings as compared with general educators in
items relating to confidence in teaching, knowledge of student
learning, engaging and motivating students, lesson planning
and implementation, collaboration with general/special educa-
tors, improving knowledge of new teaching techniques, rela-
tionship with the building principal, examining and adjusting
instruction, seeking additional leadership opportunities, and
fostering effective classroom management. These skills are
critical for effective teaching and decision making for teachers
who are accountable for the academic progress of students
with special needs (Griffin et al., 2009; White & Mason, 2006).
As suggested by these findings with a small sample size, there
is a need to further explore why special education mentors and
at PORTLAND STATE UNIV on July 20, 2014 aei.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Mathur et al. 161
mentees reported less positive experiences and lower ratings
on teacher decision-making practices (Gersten et al., 2001) as
compared with general education teachers.
Responses to the open-ended question indicated that
mentees as a group were more certain about their continua-
tion as classroom teachers, whereas mentors as a group
viewed themselves as moving into different professional
roles of leadership or as seeking retirement. Mentors viewed
themselves in leadership roles, possibly getting involved
with administration, serving as a consultant, or owning their
own school. One of the mentors commented, Being a men-
tor helped me in developing leadership skills and may
enhance opportunities to include student teaching supervi-
sion. Another one indicated the intention to continue to
support new teachers. In general, the open-ended responses
indicated satisfaction with the teaching profession from
mentors and mentees. It is unclear how much of their intent
was related to the mentoring program in which they partici-
pated. The researchers were unable to follow up to deter-
mine whether the participants remained in the district for
the next school year. Future studies could take the prelimi-
nary findings discussed in this article and investigate the
long-term effects of a mentoring program on mentors and
mentees, their teaching experiences, and their retention.
Our research supports previous findings that the effec-
tiveness of mentoring partnerships depends on (a) the fre-
quency of contact with beginning teachers and (b) the
matching of new teachers to veteran teachers with similar
teaching assignments who are located in the same school
building (Fletcher, Strong, & Villar, 2008; Parker et al.,
2009; Strong, 2005; Whitaker, 2000). Following the works
of Smith and Ingersoll (2004), Moir (2009), and Kardos and
Johnson (2010), the findings of this investigation support the
need for further clarifying the type of mentoring structures,
frequency of contact, and matching process that will enhance
the effective teaching practices of mentors and mentees.
This study reported only descriptive data on existing men-
toring structures but did not seek input on how to improve
mentorship structures and processes. To more effectively
present or enhance mentormentee relationships, partici-
pants need to be clear about the purpose, structure, and goals
of a program in order that the mentoring partnerships realize
their full potential. The study highlighted the importance of
systematically collecting data within a district context and
making teacher support decisions accordingly.
The majority of mentors and mentees in this study val-
ued their partnerships and indicated their intent to stay in
teaching within the context of this specific district. Other
districts and universities can use this information to further
refine their own professional learning and mentoring mod-
els. The variation in the amount of training required and/or
provided to mentors is an area that must be studied further
given that some participants were unsure about the match-
ing process. Location, grade level, subject matter, and spe-
cial versus general education are other factors that are
important when matching mentors with mentees. Future
research needs to evaluate mentor/mentee assignments,
roles, and structures within the mentorship process and how
these factors influence teacher practices.
One of the limitations of this study is its use of a conve-
nience sample. The sample was selected because of its con-
venient accessibility to the researchers. Given that the
sample is not representative of the teacher population, the
results of the study cannot speak for that population.
However, the results have some use for the participating
district. It is clear that participants avoided using extreme
response categories in evaluating their perceptions on the
5-point response items. This may be because of the central
tendency bias (Mehrens & Lehmann, 1984), which needs to
be addressed in future research by developing a more
sophisticated instrument that combines forced-choice items
with more open-ended comments.
Finally, student learning and achievement in relation to
teacher decision making need to be further studied. Future
work that examines different mentoring practices and
models within and across public school districts would be
of significant value to teacher educators and program
developers in general as public school districts seek
to meet the demands of current legislative mandates
by maintaining a highly qualified teaching force that
engages in evidenced-based practices to impact student
achievement.
Implications for Practice
Effective teacher decision making influences not only
teacher practices in the classroom but also long-term
choices about remaining in the profession. The findings
from this study have implications for developing mentoring
supports taking into consideration the views of mentors and
mentees who are special education or general education
teachers. When special and general educators view them-
selves as better decision makers and engage in more effec-
tive classroom practices, they may experience greater job
satisfaction, improve their instructional capacity, and, in
doing so, positively impact student achievement. The find-
ings of this study imply that districts need to engage in
continuous evaluation of their mentoring processes and
mentormentee relationships to provide the most effective
support for all of their teachers.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all colleagues and teachers from
the district who participated in this study. Special thanks to Dr.
Shana Hornstein for her invaluable contribution to the mentor-
ship project and her review of the earlier drafts of the study.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
at PORTLAND STATE UNIV on July 20, 2014 aei.sagepub.com Downloaded from
162 Assessment for Effective Intervention 38(3)
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Andrews, B. D., & Quinn, R. J. (2005). The effects of mentoring
on first-year teachers perceptions of support received. Clear-
ing House, 78, 110117.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New
York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
Berliner, D. (1988, February). The development of expertise peda-
gogy (ERIC Document Reproductive Services No. ED 298
122). Washington, DC: AACTE Publications.
Billingsley, B. (2005). Cultivating and keeping committed special
educators: What principals and district leaders can do. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fletcher, S., & Barrett, A. (2004). Developing effective beginning
teachers through mentor-based induction. Mentoring & Tutor-
ing, 12, 321333.
Fletcher, S., & Strong, M. (2009). Full-release and site-based
mentoring of new elementary grade teachers: An analysis of
changes in student achievement. New Educator, 5, 329341.
Fletcher, S., Strong, M., & Villar, A. (2008). An investigation of
the effects of variations in mentor-based induction on the per-
formance of students in California. Teachers College Record,
110, 22712289.
Gehrke, R. (2006). An investigation of factors leading to the reten-
tion of first year special educators. (Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation). Arizona State University, Tempe.
Gersten, R., Keating, T., Yovanoff, P., & Harniss, M. K. (2001).
Working in special education: Factors that enhance special
educators intent to stay. Exceptional Children, 67, 549567.
Green, K. (2006). No novice teacher left behind: Guiding novice
teachers to improve decision-making through structured ques-
tioning. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 4(1),
19. Retrieved from www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ852617.pdf
Griffin, C., Kilgore, K., Winn, J., & Otis-Wilborn, A. (2009).
First-year special educators: The influence of school and
classroom context factors on their accomplishments and prob-
lems. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 4563.
Gschwend, L., & Moir, E. (2007). Growing together. Journal of
Staff Development, 28, 2024.
Hanson, S., & Moir, E. (2008). Beyond mentoring: Influencing the
professional practice and careers of experienced teachers. Phi
Delta Kappan, 89, 453458.
Hobson, A., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. (2009).
Mentoring beginning teachers: What we know and what we
dont. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 207216.
Huling, L., & Resta, V. (2001, November). Teacher mentoring as
professional development (No. ED460125). Washington, DC:
ERIC Clearing House on Teaching and Teacher Education.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004,
Pub. L. No. 108-446, 20 U.S.C. 1400, H.R. 1350.
Jewell, M. (2007). What does mentoring mean to experienced
teachers? A phenomenological interview study. Teacher Edu-
cator, 42, 289303.
Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and begin-
ning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62, 129169.
Kardos, S., & Johnson, S. (2010). New teachers experiences of
mentoring: The good, the bad, the inequity. Journal of Educa-
tional Change, 11, 2344.
Kortman, S., & Enz, B. (2002). The BEST beginning teacher expe-
rience: Program facilitator guide. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Long, J. (2009). Assisting beginning teachers and school commu-
nities to grow through extended and collaborative mentoring
experiences. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning,
17, 317327.
MacPherson, S. (2010). Teachers collaborative conversations
about culture: Negotiating decision making in intercultural
teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 271286.
Mehrens, W. A., & Lehmann, I. J. (1984). Measurement and eval-
uation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative analysis. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Moir, E. (2009). Accelerating teacher effectiveness: Lessons
learned from two decades of new teacher induction. Phi Delta
Kappan, 91, 1421.
Moir, E., & Bloom, G. (2003). Fostering leadership through men-
toring. Educational Leadership, 60, 5860.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110.
Parker, M., Ndoy, A., & Imig, S. (2009). Keeping our teachers!
Investigating mentoring practices to support and retain novice
teachers. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnerships in Learning,
17, 329341.
Shriner, J. G., & Ganguly, R. (2007). Assessment and accom-
modation issues under the No Child Left Behind Act and the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act.
Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 231243.
Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004). What are the effects of induc-
tion and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American
Educational Research Journal, 41, 681684.
Stanulis, R., & Floden, R. (2009). Intensive mentoring as a way to
help beginning teachers develop balanced instruction. Journal
of Teacher Education, 60, 112122.
Strong, M. (2005). Teacher induction, mentoring, and retention: A
summary of the research. New Educator, 1, 181198.
Whitaker, S. D. (2000). Mentoring beginning special education
teachers and the relationship to attrition. Exceptional Chil-
dren, 66, 546566.
White, M., & Mason, C. (2006). Components of a successful men-
toring program for beginning special education teachers: Per-
spectives from new teachers and mentors. Teacher Education
and Special Education, 29, 191201.
Wolters, C., & Daugherty, S. (2007). Goal structures and teachers
sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching
experience and academic level. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 99, 181193.
at PORTLAND STATE UNIV on July 20, 2014 aei.sagepub.com Downloaded from