Abstract

This qualitative methods study examines teacher responses to an online

survey seeking to understand participation in preservice teacher
preparation. The online survey posed questions to 116 participants from
five school divisions and focused on determining factors that motivate or
deter participation in preservice teacher mentorship. Findings indicate
teachers who engage in preservice mentorship do so as a professional
responsibility and for professional development. Time constraints and
ineffective communication regarding opportunities are barriers for nonparticipants. Possible solutions to low teacher participation include a
more uniform process of communication between institutions and
schools and recognizing professional development in leadership for
teacher mentors.
Keywords: preservice teacher preparation, partner teacher, preservice teachers, mentorship, leadership

Albertas education system is acknowledged as an excellent model, with students

performing very well in various national and international standardized assessments (Alberta
Education, 2015a, Walker & von Bergmann, 2013). A key component to the success of this
system is with teachers supporting student learning in Alberta classrooms (Alberta Education,
2015b). Educators in Alberta are expected to have a professional disposition, while also being
innovators, content experts, reflective, sensitive to differentiation, and inclusive (Levin, 2010).
To graduate teachers with these dispositions, teacher preparation programs in Alberta rely on a
partnership between teachers in the field to provide practical experiences and faculty to foster
understanding about pedagogy and theory. Albertas Teaching Quality Standard (Alberta
Education, 2013; Alberta Education, 2015) detail the specific requirements preservice teachers
must demonstrate for teacher certification. Their competency in these standards, are evaluated
during field experience. These standards include but are not limited to demonstrating content
knowledge, demonstrating the ability to foster relationships that support student learning,
designing inclusive learning environments, and adhering to legal frameworks and policies.
Partner teachers (PT) are an integral component of preservice teacher preparation in
Alberta. Preservice teachers (PST) can attain their Bachelor of Education accreditation through a
consecutive (2 year after degree programme) or concurrent degree, with a minimum requirement
of 10 weeks in supervised field placements, of which all programmes in Alberta exceed. While
this format benefits preservice teachers, the demand for placements puts strain on the partner
teachers and schools supporting those preservice teachers. A survey of recent graduates
conducted by Alberta Education reported field experience as the greatest contributor to their
professional learning (Alberta Education, 2002), a finding supported by numerous studies on the
topic (Borko & Mayfield, 1995; McDonnough & Matkins, 2010; Nahal, 2010; OBrian, Stoner,
Appel, & House, 2007). A shortage of teachers willing to mentor preservice teachers is
detrimental to the preparation of teachers entering into the profession, and the health of the
retention of teachers in the profession. Immersing preservice teachers in cultures of collaboration
with a partner teacher, allows them to begin their career understanding the value of the
collaboration, reflection and mentorship.
As a Director of Field Education at teacher preparation university in Alberta, the most
significant challenge I face working with the field is finding enough placements for our
preservice teachers. This hurdle is not limited to our programme - colleagues placing preservice
teachers in other local programmes have reported the same challenge. We have engaged in
conversations at the institutional level to determine how we might manage the demands on the
local school districts - for example, we collaborated to develop a schedule of the various field
experience s taking place in the province to determine when there might be heavier demand for
placements and where there may be lulls. While this might help ease the burden on the partner

schools for placements, it is necessary we engage teachers to understand what motivates them or
deters them from participating so that we can begin a collegial dialogue that invites the
perspectives of all participants.
The aim of this study is to initiate a dialogue between the teaching profession and the
teacher preparation programmes about the experiences, misconceptions and concerns about
teacher participation in pre-service teacher mentorship. To begin a dialogue about PT
experiences in Alberta PST preparation programmes, I have formulated four key questions to
explore through this study:
1. Do teachers agree or disagree supporting pre-service teacher preparation is a valuable
undertaking?
2. What factors motivate or deter teacher engagement in pre-service teacher preparation?
3. Do institutional or district level barriers contribute to teacher disengagement in pre-service
teaching?
4. Which incentives or compensation might facilitate teacher involvement in pre-service
teacher field experience?
My interest in the study is with understanding how teacher preparation programmes may address
the concerns of teachers in the field, support those who are committed to preparing new teachers,
and how the narrative about pre-service teacher preparation can be framed and made accessible
to Bachelor of Education programmes. To understand the barriers to PT recruitment for PST field
experience, I have invited qualified teachers from five local school divisions to share their
experiences and opinions about factors that motivate or deter them from mentoring upcoming
educators using an online survey. This paper will discuss the qualitative findings that are relevant
to the partner teacher recruitment process. The qualitative results will be summarized and shared
with the field experience departments of local institutions and the relevant policy personnel at
partnering school districts.
Definitions of Key Terms
Partner teacher refers to the evaluating teacher who assumes responsibility for completing
the classroom assessment of the preservice teachers (also termed student teacher, and preprofessional teacher in some documentation) in collaboration with the university consultant. The
term partner teacher is interchangeable with mentor teacher and cooperating teacher in the
research literature. The university consultant, also referred to as the university facilitator or
university evaluator, supports the partner teacher and preservice teacher with the evaluation
process of the practicum and contributes to the evaluation of the preservice teacher. The field
experience (or practicum) is defined as the period of time during which a preservice teacher is
placed in a classroom environment to demonstrate and practice competencies defined by the

evaluating institution. The field experience provides opportunity for feedback, mentorship,
practice and reflection between the preservice teacher, partner teacher and university consultant.
Literature Review
To better understand what factors may contribute to the commitment those who do work
with preservice teachers, I conducted an ERIC search using the terms preservice teacher
education, motivating factors, and partner teacher. The themes that emerge from the 451 results
included studies that addressed preservice teacher reflection practices, preservice teacher content
knowledge, and preservice teacher self- efficacy. A search of the terms preservice teacher
education, in-service teachers and practicum from 2010 to current resulted in 645 results. Adding
the term motivating narrowed the results to 50 articles. Themes that emerged in the search results
include preservice teacher and partner teacher communication, preservice teacher attitudes
toward diversity and subject specific skill development, and how to foster relationships between
the two in e-learning instructional environments. Finally, a search using the terms barriers,
partner teacher, in-service teacher, preservice teacher education, and practicum yielded 38
results. The resulting themes were varied, but generally focused on partner teacher coaching
styles, mentoring reflection, and tools that support collaboration.
To help narrow the research to teacher education, I read the abstracts and editorials for the
teacher preparation journals Journal of Teacher Education and Teaching and Teacher Education
from 2010 to the current issue, and conducted a journal review. Both journals invite contributions
to the body of research in teacher education, providing me a sense of the current research
available. Of the studies concerning themselves with partner teachers, the focus of studies was
content of feedback to the preservice teachers, communication patterns between partner teacher,
preservice teacher, and university facilitator (Cochrane-Smith & Villegas, 2015). I excluded
articles whose content did not address either partner teacher experiences or the role of field
experience from a partner teacher or teacher preparation aspect. To ensure I accessed the most
relevant research regarding partner teachers and the role of field experience in preparing
preservice teachers, I reviewed the reference sections of the remaining 45 articles, adding three
more articles to the review.
The literature review affirmed the important role field experience plays in a preservice
teachers development and understanding of the complexities of teaching. Although the literature
suggests the current format for field experience can be improved on to integrate theory and
practical application, the involvement of partner teachers is crucial to the process. Although a
gap in the research exploring factors that motivate or deter teacher engagement in preservice
preparation, the professional development teachers experienced as a result of their mentorship of
preservice teachers was a recurring theme. In the literature review below, I will share the
representative research that addresses the role of both field experience and partner teachers. The

literature review is organized in the following sections: the purpose of field experience in
preservice teacher preparation, teacher preparation mentorship as professional development and
gaps in our understanding about engaging partner teachers. These topics will provide context for
the investigation into factors that motivate or deter teachers from participating in preservice
preparation.
Purpose of field experience in preservice teacher preparation
Numerous studies have reported the practicum experience as being the most impactful
learning during teacher preparation, as reported by the preservice teacher. (Bolye-Baise &
McIntire, 2008; Clarke, 2001, 2006; Gardner, 2006; Koskela & Ganser, 1998; Watts, 1987).
Benefits of practicum experiences for preservice teachers include networking, skill development,
mentorship, preparation for interviews, support, reflection, and feedback (McBee & Moss, 2002,
Pohan, 2003). Yet many partner teachers lack the understanding of the scope of their contribution
to the learning of the next generation of teachers, and tend to view preservice teacher mentorship
as a time-consuming favour to someone who has requested they participate (Mason, 2013). In a
study conducted by McIntyre and Foxx (1996), most partner teachers indicated their own partner
teacher played a significant role in their development during their field experience. Based on
these findings, one would expect enrolling teachers as mentors for preservice teacher field
experiences would be an easy task. However, with
While much attention has been placed on the development of teacher education pedagogy,
Knight et al. (2014) noted that little research has been conducted on the motivations, quality and
training of partner teachers. A small-scale study conducted by Patrick (2013) focused the
interviews on perceived challenges in preservice teacher education from the perspectives of
partner teachers and student teachers, he did note that each of the partner teachers reported a
sense of responsibility to the profession as a reason for engaging in the field experience.
Teachers are committed to the best interest of their students while preservice teachers are
committed to developing their own sense of professional identity, which often means trying new
ideas and strategies (Patrick, 2013). Developing an understanding of the attributes and attitudes
of teachers who are interested in working with preservice teachers, as well as those who are
averse to the experience can help me target and foster relationships with more ideal candidates
for our programme.
Kruger, Davies, Eckersley, Newell and Cherednichenko (2009) argued that schools are not
just a learning environment for students, but act as a learning environment for teachers as well,
research that is supported by Kurtz (2009). Le Cornu and Rosie (2012) research demonstrates a
commitment to in service teacher and university partnerships in preparing preservice teachers
for the profession results in higher quality learning experiences for teachers and preservice
teachers. Irby (2012) noted the focus on the classroom required by teachers in practice is

sometimes at odds with role with mentor and evaluator. The primary guiding principles of a
teacher tend to be the local policies and responsibilities, rather than fostering a collaborative
approach to mentoring preservice teachers. Tension between responsibilities in field experience
could be a deterrent for some teachers, unless they have significant support from their
administration.
Role of the partner teacher in preservice teacher preparation
The most common model for teacher preparation programs are higher education/school
based mentorships, which rely heavily on partner teachers in the field (Furlong, J., Barton, L.,
Miles, S., Whiting, C. & Whitty, G., 2000). Zeichner, Payne, and Brayko describe the primary
role of the programmes under these models as one of transferring theory into application through
practice. Beck and Kosnik (2000) describe two of the common conceptions of mentor-based
preservice teacher preparation within this model. The first, coined practical initiation model is
embraced by partner teachers and programmes looking to prepare new teachers for the school
system in its current framework. The second framework, the critical interventionist model,
fosters a mentality of changemakers and collaborative pair teaching. Preservice teachers are
encouraged to be reflective and critical of the current system, and partner teachers facilitate the
process. The ambiguity in the defined role of the partner teacher between institutions and school
districts creates complications in the process (Beck & Kosnik, 2000). Many partner teachers do
believe their primary role is to be supportive and nurture preservice teachers (Williams, 1994;
Borko & Mayfield, 1995; Beck & Kosnik, 2000), to hold preservice teachers to a high standard,
which in turn influences positive student outcomes (Beck & Kosnik, 2000; Boyd, Grossman,
Lankford, Loeb, Wyckoff, 2009; Jensen & Reichel, 2011).
Few teachers experience formalized training in mentorship of preservice teachers,
resulting in a mentorship style that is rooted in personal philosophy and experience (Beck &
Kosnik, 2000; Nielsen, Triggs, Clarke, & Collins, 2010). However, Beck and Kosnik (2000) also
found that few potential partner teachers are eager to enroll in mentorship courses because they
already engage in formalized professional development and their time is committed elsewhere.
The partner teachers are often assumed to be the expert in the field, and therefore the transfer of
their knowledge is adequate for preparing preservice teachers Zeichner, et al. 2015). This can
place a significant burden on the partner teacher, especially if the partnership with the teacher
preparation lacks a strong collaborative partnership (Beck & Kosnik, 2000). Conversely, Beck
and Kosnik (2000) found partner teachers who have supportive relationships with the university
consultant report being satisfied with their role and responsibility.
Shillingstad, McGalmery, Davis and Gilles (2015) noted that mentors assist in shaping the
knowledge, skills and dispositions of their mentees and their colleagues (p. 13), and ultimately
contribute to a positive, collaborative school culture (Kurtz, 2009). Teacher engagement with

preservice teachers fosters conversations and practice in the school community that contributes
to a sense of connecting with current trends and best practices. Jaipal (2009) described this type
reciprocal mentoring. With more teacher engaging in leadership opportunities inside and
outside the school community (Harrison & Killian, 2007), there may be an opportunity to
redefine the role of partner teacher mentorship in a leadership capacity.
Gaps in current research and recommendations for future study
According to a comprehensive review of research in the area of teacher preparation
programmes, research tends to focus on knowledge acquisition, curriculum development, teacher
preparation programme policy, diversity and accountability in teacher education programmes
(Cochran-Smith et al., 2015). The authors suggest future research explore the type of changes
needed to improve teacher preparation programmes going forward from the perspective of the
collaborating school partner. Mason (2013) suggests more research be done with partner schools
to understand which mentorship models are embraced, and how teacher perspectives regarding
mentorship versus apprenticeship versus collaborative learning can be challenged. Steel,
Shambaugh, Curtis and Schrrum (2015) suggest future research in the area of ongoing
relationship dynamics between universities and school cultures when designing field experience.
Peer reviewed literature indicates teacher preparation relationships that foster professional
development and collaboration benefit the profession as a whole. New teachers are better
prepared, in-service teachers engage in reflective practice and students gain teachers who are
cognizant of current practices. A limitation in the currently published research regarding
preservice teacher education is the absence of insight into what motivates or discourages teacher
engagement in the mentorship of upcoming teachers. Considering the valued role partner
teachers play in pre-service teacher development during field experience, it is important to
understand what motivates teacher engagement in preservice education as well as what barriers
to participation exist for others.
Methodology
According to Hesse-Bider (2010) qualitative research problems usually focus on
understanding the subjective experience as a source of knowledge building. (p. 179) The
qualitative data gathered is used to extrapolate trends in participant responses collectively as well
as by school division. Qualitative responses provided opportunity for personalized responses
about previous preservice teacher mentoring experiences, potential incentives for participation in
teacher preparation and factors contributing to their engagement or lack of engagement in
preservice teacher education. I opted to use a survey for data collection to facilitate sample
generalizability from a large sample of diverse respondents (Creswell, 2013).
The survey facilitated anonymous contributions from teachers in five targeted school
divisions. This data would be examined for factors that motivated or deterred teachers from

engaging in preservice teacher education, teacher support of practicum model field experiences,
potential institutional or school district barriers to participation and preferred incentives.
Sample size and Data Collection
Because our programme seek placements with numerous school districts and schools
with a range of philosophies and specialized programmes, it was important I engage a large
sample of diverse participants in those school districts (see Figure 1). These results would
facilitate diversity in responses, while bringing forth possible generalizations that could be
applied to the profession at large (Creswell, 2013; Hendricks, 2013). The five school boards
invited to participate in the study were selected for the perspectives they may provide in regards
to teacher enthusiasm for mentoring preservice teachers with our institution. A total of 120
participants completed the survey. Targeted participants were limited to those who qualify to be
partner teachers in Alberta schools. Using the requirements defined by to Alberta Education,
participants had to have a minimum of three years of teaching experience, hold a permanent
Alberta teaching certificate and currently teach in an Alberta classroom. Respondents who did
not fit the minimum teaching requirement or did not work for the participating school boards
were not included in the data analysis. Four respondents contributions were removed from the
data because they did not meet the minimum teaching experience to qualify as a partner teacher.
All data has been tabulated based on the remaining 116 respondents.
For the purpose of comparing data between schools in locations with high demand for
placements and schools who do not face the same high demand, the school boards were divided
into two groups. Four of the participating school boards are in close proximity to each other and
to four teacher preparation institutions (school districts A, B, C and D). The other school board
(school district E) has a significant rural population over a large area, with some schools located
in close proximity to a separate institution, making it an excellent contrast to the challenges faced
by the school boards who face an abundance of preservice teachers.

Figure 1: School District Representation

Research Context

Respondents were recruited in a variety of methods, dependent on the school divisions Research
Ethics protocol.
School Division A required administrator permission to contact teachers, and administrator
invitation to participate to staff.
School Division B required administrator permission to recruit teachers, as well as a signed letter
of Informed Consent before the survey link could be shared to the individual participants.
School Division C sent communication through the Superintendents office and invited teachers
through a personal email containing the survey link.
School Division D shared the invitation to participate and the survey link via the biweekly
central office newsletter emailed to all teachers.
School Division E sent communication through the Superintendents office and invited teachers
through a personal email containing the survey link.
A trial survey was completed by a small sample of teachers to ensure the language and
intent of the questions were consistent with their purpose. Changes to terminology were made to
improve clarity where needed. The survey was open for a period of three and a half months to
account for individual school board ethics approval processes. The survey comprised of 15
multiple option and open-ended questions designed to extrapolate participant past experience
with preservice teacher field experiences, attitudes toward partner teacher mentorship, and
factors that might motivate or deter participation in teacher preparation. The questions were
designed to facilitate grouping responses based on data identifying years of teaching experience,
school district employment and previous experience as a partner teacher for internal institutional
purposes. Data was collected using the responses and reports features in the online survey tool,
FluidSurvey. The survey tool stored responses in accordance with Canadian privacy laws,
created charts and tables of the responses and grouped data according to custom requests. The
data was sorted into responses shared by teachers who had previously worked with preservice
teachers and those who had not, as well as by school division, and years of teaching experience,
and will not be discussed in this article.
Responses to the qualitative questions were grouped together using keywords and
themes. The responses were then listed in a table, with repeat answers noted with a checkmark.
The number of times a response was recorded was then added up, and divided by the number of
total contributions to the question to obtain the percentage of participants articulating the
response. The responses were then ranked by most frequently stated to the least frequently stated.
The results were grouped by theme, and their relevance to the dialogue explored in the
Discussion section of this report.
Findings

The qualitative data were examined and summarized to analyze the themes and
experiences of teachers with preservice teacher preparation. The results section reported the
studys main themes, including the summary of the relevant qualitative data. Responses were
summarized in relation to the four Key Questions:
1. Do teachers agree or disagree supporting preservice teacher preparation is a valuable
undertaking?
2. What factors motivate or deter teacher engagement in preservice teacher preparation?
3. Do institutional or district level barriers contribute to teacher disengagement in preservice
teaching?
4. Which incentives or compensation could facilitate teacher involvement in preservice
teacher field experience?
To conclude, I will address the limitations of the study and implications for future dialogue and
research.
Demographics
Qualitative data facilitated grouping responses by previous experience with preservice
teachers, school districts and previous years of teaching experience see. To determine the degree
to which participants believe preservice teacher preparation should continue using the practicum
model, participants were asked to select the statement that represents their views on teacher
mentorship. This study revealed teachers in the field also believe it is a vital component of
teacher preparation that should continue to be supported by the department of education and
school districts. Of the 116 respondents, the vast majority selected statements supporting teacher
preparation mentorship by teachers in the field (see Figure 2). That more than three-quarters of
participants would like to see mentorship as a requirement of the profession indicates teachers in
the field value the contributions of partner teachers to the process of preparing new teachers. A
very small group of respondents had no interest in working with a preservice teacher, and a few
felt it was an important initiative, but not more than any others. The vast majority of teachers
eligible to work with practicum students believe the current model of practicum experience is
valuable.

Figure 2. Should teachers mentor preservice teachers?

Narratives
The following discussion explores the five major themes that emerged from this study and
can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Five major themes emerging from research

Professional responsibility. Teachers in Alberta are required to share their professional

expertise to the benefit of others in their schools, communities and profession (p. 4, Alberta
Education, 2013). Hall and Schultz (2003) note that professionalism as an educator competency
begins in teacher preparation programmes and continues through the life of a teacher.
Participation in preservice teacher education has been primarily driven by a sense of professional
responsibility, as indicated in Table 1. Nearly half of the participants described their participation
in teacher preparation programme as an opportunity to contribute to the profession by providing
a learning environment for upcoming professionals, as exemplified by statements such as:
fulfill a desire to pay ahead while investing in tomorrows teachers,
I needed to have a partner teacher to do my practicum, so I wanted to do the same
for another upcoming teacher and
we all needed someone willing to get us started so the payback is important to me.

These results may indicate that over the course of their profession, most teachers would
willingly mentor a preservice teacher if barriers to their involvement are removed or addressed.
Professional development. Alberta teachers are required to demonstrate ongoing
professional development to develop their practice (Alberta Education, 2013). Hall and Schultz
(2003) share that much of the literature regarding professional development for teacher
improvement explores the tension between teacher initiated topics and district or school driven
topics. In this study, a frequently cited reason for mentoring a preservice teacher was the
opportunity for professional growth and development. Some respondents communicated a desire
to take advantage of the professional development they experienced working with a preservice
teacher. Some examples of the desire to give back and learn include:
service to the profession and mutually beneficial learning,
First, I think it makes me a better teacher as I question and reflect on my own
practice, Second, I get to share my love of this profession.
I felt like it would be a good learning experience for me
I learned so much from my pre-service teacher.
It was an opportunity for me to gain insight into current methodologies It is a
valuable two-way relationship. I learn as much from them and they bring fresh,
new ideas into my classroom
I want to learn from new people and support future teachers
Some respondents suggested vouchers for professional development as a possible
incentive for teachers who mentored a preservice teacher. The incentives were conceptualized in
various ways, including credits for courses or conferences, and being invited onto campus to
share their classroom experiences. Reframing preservice teacher mentorship as professional
development may reduce the perception that it requires time teachers dont have and instead
reframe it as an option for improving ones own practice.
Communication. When planning TPP /school based partnerships, it is imperative both
parties engage in a systematic plan, including effective communication, that supports all
stakeholders who are immediately impacted the school board, partner teachers, students, the
preservice teachers, and the institution (Allen & Peach, 2007; Steel, Shambaugh, Curtis &
Schrum, 2015). Poor communication protocols were identified as an obstacle to participation in
preservice teacher preparation. Lack of invitation from the administration posed a barrier for
other potential partners, as they are unsure if their administrator felt they were competent
enough to take a preservice teacher. If invited to, many teachers indicated they would participate
in the programme. Others mentioned the desire to put their name forward as a mentor, but were
not sure what the process was. While some teachers may be unwilling or unable to commit their

time to the mentorship of a preservice teacher, others who would, are not aware of the
opportunity when presented with it.
Lack of direct communication with the teachers proved a barrier at the institutional and
school district level. Respondents identified an invitation to mentor would facilitate their
involvement (see Table 1), and the absence of an invite proved to be a barrier to working with a
preservice teacher (see Table 1). The following responses exemplify how communication about
the opportunity or process impacts participation in field experience mentorship:
Being offered to take a placement, and an awareness that a placement is needed
and
knowing how to sign up
I dont feel my administration feels I am prepared because I have not been
asked
More information about opportunities is needed
Yearly reminders about signup deadlines would help
I would be willing to have a preservice teacher if I was given information and
support
Awareness of students looking for placements
Responses indicate the need for school districts and university programmes to revisit the
method of communication that currently exists. This was also exemplified in the rate of
response to the survey invitation. The two school districts whose ethics approval required an
invitation to participate in the research through the administration had the lowest rate of teacher
participation in the study. Further study into the communication between administration and
teacher preparation institutions would be imperative in addressing this issue, as the placements
in Alberta schools must all be arranged through the administration.
Time. According to Spencer (2007) teachers are motivated by intrinsic factors such as
more autonomy over their own mentorship development, release time and involvement in
mentorship (Spencer, 2007) than any extrinsic incentives. In addition to professional
development and a sense of professional responsibility, teachers value their professional time.
Time was the most commonly cited concern for those who have not mentored a preservice
teacher. A frequent theme when discussing challenges with preservice teacher mentorship or
potential barriers to engagement from all participants was they did not have the time to meet with
the preservice teacher to plan, provide feedback and engage in mentorship. Others also indicated
they already had too many other professional commitments that were prioritized over working
with a preservice teacher. Examples of the statements include the following
I have other responsibilities and tasks that I am required to do at the time of the
potential practicum

taking on a preservice teacher is a lot of work, and no support is given for the time
commitment
Additional time to debrief and prep with the preservice teacher. They are like a
high needs student being added to your class - they just need extra time and
support
My current workload is not conducive to having a student teacher
When asked what potential non-monetary compensation or honoraria for mentoring a
preservice teacher would be most valued, the results indicated a desire for time to collaborate,
reflect and provide feedback with the preservice teacher as compensation for mentoring a
preservice teacher. The top three suggestions for compensation reflected the value teachers place
on improving practice, either through sharing their knowledge with new teachers or increasing
their own competency (see Table 1). Examples of the suggestion for time, and how it could be
used include:
time would be most valuable, as it would add in more collaboration time with the
preservice teacher,
to provide sub time so I could complete the evaluation or give feedback,
the best of all possible gifts is time. Blocks of it with the student teacher would
be helpful,
provide sub time for a partner teacher who would otherwise spend hours of their
personal time outside of school mentoring a preservice teacher,
release time to plan with the preservice teacher,
the notion that a teacher gives freely of his time to train new teachers is archaic
and
release time to fully support a preservice teacher with their goals.
Creative solutions to teachers concerns about time may facilitate teacher engagement in
preservice teacher mentorship. Survey responses indicated some educators view their
engagement with preservice teacher preparation as professional development. To capitalize on
the teacher preparation model currently in place, it may be valuable to revisit how teacher time
can be freed up to work with preservice teachers and contribute to the health of the incoming
educators.
Leadership. Leadership emerged as a theme in a variety of areas. In response to factors
that motivated participation in preservice teacher mentorship, some respondents felt their
leadership was a valuable asset to the preservice teacher. Those who had not participated in
mentorship desired more leadership for themselves before or during their supervision of a
preservice teacher. A final group looked at the opportunity to work with preservice teachers as a

preparation for a future in administration or other leadership roles. Statements about leadership
included:
As a veteran teacher I feel I have a lot of expertise to share
It was recommended by my principal that I share my insights as a leader in our school
community
I am back in the classroom now, but when I was an administrator I found mentoring
brought out leadership skills in many of our teachers
I was hopeful I could share my expertise and experience - I have had so many unique ones
that I wanted to give a variety of perspectives to someone just starting their career
I would require support from my administration to sign up for the commitment
I am not aware of what is being taught at the institution now, and would like some support
from someone who does
I already feel overwhelmed with my current year expectations, and need my own
mentorship before I can mentor others
Acknowledgement and mentorship from my own administration so we can dialogue about
leadership strategies and I felt supported
I am completing my Masters Degree in Leadership and found I could apply my learning in
real time, with meaningful reflection with my student teacher
I would work with a student teacher - it would allow me the opportunity to increase my
own skills in being a positive mentor
A voucher I could use for a class on leadership
I would like access to a course related to leadership or mentoring
Riveros, Newton and Burgess (2011) note the Underlying assumption in professional
learning communities is that peer collaboration has the potential to transform teaching practices
in ways that will bring about higher rates of student achievement (p. 204), which aligns with the
intended outcome of preservice teaching preparation models used in Canadian programmes.
Harrison and Killian (2007) demonstrated the various opportunities teachers have at their
disposal for professional development, with leadership being one of them. They note that
teachers engage in leadership that are formal and informal, within the local learning community
and outside the immediate learning community. Recognizing preservice teacher mentorship as a
leadership role, that comes with mentorship and support of its own, may foster dialogue about
the important role partner teachers play in preparing new teachers for the workforce.
Discussion: Limitations and Implications

Limitations
Limitations in this study align with those that also emerged as challenges teachers brought
forward in their responses. Teachers who indicated some level of interest in pre-service teacher
education were likely more inclined to complete the survey on pre-service teacher education,
biasing the results to teacher who are more likely to participate in pre-service teacher mentorship
at some point. Second, communicating to teachers through administration posed a barrier to
teacher autonomy in their participation in the survey. Of the teachers I followed up with in
person after the survey had closed, none had received the email invitation to participate from
their administrator. While these limitations may have impacted the total number of responses
received, they also reflect the challenges both teachers in the field and the institutions trying to
reach out to potential partners face when recruiting partner teachers.
Participant interest in preservice teacher preparation. A limitation of the study is the
likelihood teachers who do not place value on preservice preparation may not have contributed to
the results. This could bias the findings regarding perceived barriers to participation in preservice
teacher education, and the level of importance attributed to teacher involvement in the field
experience. That being said, if the teachers who responded to the survey are more likely to
participate in preservice teacher mentorship at some point, given the right conditions, these
responses are valuable to the recruiters and school divisions as they are the target audience.
Ethics Processes. The various ethics processes of each school division likely impacted
the scope of participation. School divisions with the most contributors to the survey (School
Division C and D) recruited teacher participants through the Superintendents newsletter or
through direct invitation from the Superintendent. The school district with the lowest total
participants (School Division B) required I find each administrators email address from the
school website and contact them directly. Many school sites did not have the administrators
contact posted, or had not updated the administrators information after changes to staffing.
Emails were sent to the general school email address if phone messages were not returned, with
no follow up of receipt of the invitation. The administrator was not required to forward the
invitation to participate to preservice teachers. The school division with the lowest percentage of
its teachers participate (School Division A) had the most rigorous process for recruiting
participants for the survey. Only one school division required participant signed consent before
receiving the survey link. The participation rate for this school division was 0.001%, a
surprisingly low rate of participation considering the volume of preservice teachers who are
placed in the district. Communication with school districts who have multiple steps that prohibit
engaging directly with the targeted participant to re-evaluate their ethics process may foster
changes that allow for teacher engagement.

Administrator as point of contact. Under the current model, the administrator has
significant control over communication with the teachers on their staff, which limits teacher
autonomy. All local institutions communicate their request for partner teachers through the
administration or through an administration appointed liaison, as well as through teacher
representatives participating in field experience committees. It was during one of the committee
meetings the realization that recruitment communication was being sent but not received by the
teachers that led to this research. Communication between the teacher preparation programme
and the teachers we are trying to target is inadequate and ineffective, and could be eased by
improved communication between the schools and the programmes.
Discussion
Teacher preparation often feels like an isolated component of teacher professional
development. The challenging process of finding eager partner teachers exemplifies how
removed this component of the profession is from the teaching field. To understand why this is
and how we can begin a dialogue that fosters change, engaging perspectives from the field is
paramount. While there is ample literature that explores mentorship models, dialogue models
between partner teacher and pre-service teacher, and the lived experiences of the people involved
in pre-service teacher preparation, there is a gap in research that explore factors that engage
practicing teachers in pre-service teacher mentorship. Themes emerged across school districts,
indicating a universality to the challenges, rewards, concerns and perceptions teachers hold when
considering pre-service teacher education.
The results of this study are encouraging practicing teacher consider pre-service teacher
field experience a vital component to professional preparation, and there is evidence of a desire
to provide learning environments for upcoming teachers. For some, the motivating factor is a
sense of reciprocity, while for others their participation is a form of professional development
and leadership practice. Identifying willing partners in the classrooms and capitalizing on their
enthusiasm and positive experiences is an important first step to shifting the narrative around
pre-service teacher mentorship. Communicating the professional benefits of the mentorship
experience, including growth and rejuvenation of ones own practice, shared praxis and
contribution to the profession, through teacher associations and teacher conventions is an
authentic forum to highlight the vital work being done. Respondents interested in mentoring have
indicated their desire for mentorship and support. Providing partner teachers and their school
communities access to professional development offered by the faculty and institution may also
bridge the gap between theory and practice for everyone involved, while contributing to that
desire for professional development in the teachers own practice. Integrating mentorship for
partner teachers may alleviate some of their concerns about their lack of preparedness and
provide professional support with challenging placements.

Dialogue with targeted school divisions to improve streams of communication and

increase awareness about the various programmes and field experience opportunities is a logical
step to address the communication gap. The challenges expressed in the responses are rooted in
concerns that can be negotiated if there is a will to embrace, foster and nurture pre-service
teacher preparation. More uniform communication between teacher preparation programmes and
schools may address teachers concerns about receiving information and knowing how to
indicate their own interest in participating as a mentor. That being said, the administration as
gatekeeper between the teacher preparation programme and the partner teacher requires further
study for real change to occur. Understanding the preconceptions, assumptions and concerns that
drive administrators to limit or not encourage a community that mentors pre-service teachers and
comparing them to the administrators who openly foster and encourage a culture of mentorship
would facilitate more realistic steps to bridging the gap that exists in the need for placements
with willing partners in the field. Personal experience has demonstrated enthusiastic potential
mentor teachers can be hindered by an administration that declines to support their mentorship.
The process of recruiting participants and participant responses affirm this barrier, and should be
examined more closely as a follow up study.
It is hoped the results of this study contribute to the dialogue between teacher preparation
institutions, as well as between school divisions and the local institutions. Sound decision
making when evaluating changes can be based on the lived experiences of the teachers we are
trying to reach in an effort to improve preservice education. By engaging teacher voices in the
processes of understanding the realities and perceptions of teachers working in the field and in
the search for solutions is vital to our partnerships.

References
Alberta Education (2002). Excellent teachers and school leaders: Improve teacher preparation
programs and experiences for beginning teachers. Retrieved from:
https://education.alberta.ca/department/ipr/archive/commission/report/reality/excellent/te
achprep/
Alberta Education. (2013). Teaching quality standard applicable to the provision of basic
education in Alberta, Ministerial Order #016/97. Retrieved from:
education.alberta.ca/media/1626523/english-tqs-card-2013_3.pdf
Alberta Education. (2015a). Annual Report 2014-2015. Retrieved from: http://
education.alberta.ca/media/1626451/aberta_education.annual_report_2014-15.pdf
Alberta Education (2015b). Stakeholders satisfaction with education in Alberta surveys:
Summary report 2015. Retrieved from: http:// education.alberta.ca/media/482177/albertaeducation-survey-summery-report-2015.pdf
Alberta Education. (2016). Draft Teaching Quality Standard. March 2, 2016. Retrieved from:
http://www.lethsd.ab.ca/documents/general/Teaching%20Quality%20Standard%20%20Draft%202016%2003%2002.pdf
Allen, J.M., & Peach, D. (2007). Exploring connections between in-field and on-campus
components of preservice teacher education program: A student perspective. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Cooperative Education, 8, 23-36.
http://www.apjce.org/files/APJCE_08_1_23_36.pdf
Borko, H. & Mayfield, V. (1995). The roles of cooperating teacher and university supervisor in
learning to teach, Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 501-518.
DOI: 10.1177/0022487102053001002
Bolye-Baise, M., & McIntire, D. J. (2008). What kind of experience? Preparing teachers in PDS
or community settings. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E.
Borko, H. & Mayfield, V. (1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor
in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 501-518.
Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation
and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416-440.
DOI:10.3012/0162373709353129 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25621593
Calderhead, J. & Shorrock, S. (1997). Understanding Teacher Education London: Falmer.
Catelli, L. A., Marino, J., Jackson, V., & Perry, S. M. (2014). Commitment to change and action:
A holistic and transformative PDS partnership. In D. Polly, T. Heafner, M. Chapman, M.
Spooner (Ed.), Professional Development Schools and Transformative Partnerships (pp.
37-60). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Clarke, A. (2001). The recent landscape of teacher education: Critical points and possible
conjectures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(5), 599-611. DOI: 10.1016/S0742051X(01)00016-6
Clarke, A. (2006). The nature and substance of cooperating teacher reflection. Teacher and
Teacher Education, 22(7), 910-921. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.039

Cochran-Smith, M. & Villegas, A. (2015). Framing teacher preparation research: An overview of

the field, Part I. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 7-20. DOI:
doi.org/10.1177/0022487114549072
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications, Inc.
Epanchin, B. C., & Colucci, K. (2002). The professional development school without walls: The
partnership between a university and two school districts. Remedial and Special
Education, 23(6), 350-359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/07419325020230060501
Ferrara, J. (2014). Forward. In D. Polly, T. Heafner, M. Chapman, M. Spooner (Ed.),
Professional Development Schools and Transformative Partnerships (pp. XIX-XX).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Furlong, J., Whitty, G., Whiting, C., Miles, S., & Barton, L. (2000). Teacher education in
transition: Re-forming professionalism? Buckingham: Open University Press.
Gambhir, M., Broad, K., Evans, M. & Gaskell, J. (2008). Characterizing initital teacher
education in Canada: Themes and Issues. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education, University of Toronto.
Gardner, S. (2006). Producing well-prepared teachers. Education Digest, 71(6), 42-46.
Glickman, C. & Bey, T. (1990). Supervision, in W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of Research on
Teacher Education (New York, Macmillan).
Hall, C. & Schultz, R. (2003). Tensions in teaching and teacher education: professionalism and
professionalisation in England and Canada. Compare: A Journal of Comparative
Education, 33(3), 370-383. DOI: 10.1177/07419325020230060501
Harrison, C., & Killian, J. (2007). Ten Roles for Teacher Leaders. Educational Leadership,
65(1), 74-77. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/sept07/vol65/num01/Ten-Roles-for-Teacher-Leaders.aspx
Hendricks, C. (2013). Improving Schools through Action Research: A reflective practice
approach (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Mixed Methods Research: Merging Theory with Practice. New York,
US: Guilford Press.
Howe, E. R. (2014). A narrative of teacher education in Canada: Multiculturalism, technology,
bridging theory and practice. Journal of Education for Teaching 40(5), 588-589. DOI:
10.1080/02607476.2014.956540
Irby, B. (2012). Editors overview: from mentoring synergy to synergistic mentoring. Mentoring
and Tutoring: Partnerships in Learning, 20(2), 175-179. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2012.687160
Jaipal, K. (2009). Re-envisioning mentorship: Pre-service teachers and associate teachers as colearners. Teaching Education, 20(3), 257-276. doi:10.1080/10476210902887503
Jensen, B. & Reichel, J. (2001). Better teacher appraisal and feedback: Improving performance.
Melbourne, Vic: Grattan Institute.

Knight, S. L., Lloyd, G. M., Arbaugh, F., Gamson, D., McDonald, S.P., Nolan, Jr., J. (2014).
Professional development and practices for teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 65(4) 268-270. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487114542220
Koskela R., Ganser T. (1998). The cooperating teacher role and career development. Education,
119, 106-114.
Kruger, T., Davies, A., Eckersley, B., Newell, F., & Cherednichenko, B. (2009). Effective and
sustainable university-school partnerships. Beyond Determined Efforts by Individuals.
Canberra: Teaching Australia.
Kurtz, S. (2009). Teacher leadership. Leadership, 39(1), 12-14.
Le Cornu, Rosie J. (2012). "School Co-Ordinators: Leaders of Learning in Professional
Experience." Australian Journal of Teacher Education 37(3), 18-33. DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n3.5
Levin, B. (2010). Education improvement in Alberta. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 81-82.
Mason, K. O. (2013). Teacher involvement in preservice teacher education. Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19(5), 559-574. DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2013.827366
McBee, R. H., & Moss, J. (2002). PDS partnerships come of age. Educational Leadership, 59,
61-64.
McDonnough, J.T. & Matkins, J.J. (2010). The role of field experience in elementary preservice
teachers self-efficacy and ability to connect research to practice. School Science and
Mathematics, 110(1), 13.DOI: doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.00003.x
McIntyre, D.J., Byrd, D. Foxx, S. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences in J. Sikula (Ed).
Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. New York: Macmillan.
Nahal, S. P. (2010). Voices from the field: Perspectives of first-year teachers on the disconnect
between teacher preparation programs and the realities of the classroom. Research in
Higher Education Journal, 8, 1-19. Retrieved from: go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?
p=AONE&sw=w&u=ucalgary&v=2.1&id=GALE
%7CA206465261&it=r&asid=51e04301abcd0c308ec23fb99f867bcb.
Nielsen, W. S., Trigges, V., Clarke, A. & Collins, J. (2010). The teacher education conversation
of cooperating teachers. Canadian Journal of Education, 33(4), 837-868. Retrieved from:
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ps/i.do?
p=AONE&sw=w&u=ucalgary&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE
%7CA259841139&sid=summon&asid=b986959fd01301fea2b55acbf4d40c65
OBrian, M., Stoner, J., Appel, K., & House, J. (2007). The first field experience: Perspectives of
preservice and cooperating teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(4),
264-275. DOI: doi.org/10.1177/088840640703000406
Patrick, R. (2013). Dont rock the boat: Conflicting mentor and preservice teacher narratives of
professional experience. Australian Association for Research in Education, 40, 207-226.
DOI: doi.org/10.1007/s13384-013-0086-z
Pohan, C. (2003). In partnership: Classroom teachers and university professors working together
to prepare future teachers. Issues in Teacher Education, 4, 3-15.

Riveros, A., Newton, P., & Burgess D. (2011). A situated account of teacher agency and learning:
Critical reflections on professional learning communities. Canadian Journal of
Education, 35(1), 202-216.
Schaefer, L., Long, J. S., Clandinin, D. J. (2012). Questioning the research on early career
teacher attrition and retention. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58(1), 106-121.
Spencer, T.L. (2007). Cooperating teacher as a professional development activity. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 211-226. DOI: doi.org/10.1007/s11092-0089057-8
Steel, S., Shambaugh, N., Curtis, R., & Schrum, L. (2015) The Benedum Collaborative:
Evaluating a strategic plan for simultaneous renewal. In D. Polly, T Heafner, M.
Chapman, and M. Spooner (Eds.). Professional Development Schools and
Transformative Partnerships (pp 1-21). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Walker, J., & von Bergmann, H. (2013). Teacher education policy in Canada: Beyond
professionalization and deregulation. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(4), 65-92.
Watts, D. (1987). Student Teaching. Advances in Teacher Education, 3, 161-167.
Williams, A. (1994). The mentor, in A. Williams (Ed). Perspectives on Partnership: Secondary
Initial Teacher Training. London: Falmer.
Zeichner, K., Payne, K., & Bayko, K. (2015). Democratizing teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 66(2), pp. 122-135. DOI: 10.1177/0022487114560908