ARTICLE IN PRESS

Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 700–710

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Mentoring in-service teachers: Issues of role diversity

Anjum Halai
Institute for Educational Development, Aga Khan University, IED-PDC, 1-5/B-VII, F.B. Area, Karimabad, P.O. Box 13688,
Karachi 75950, Pakistan

Abstract

This paper reports on the findings from a review of classroom-based action research reports by the masters students of
an in-service teacher education programme offered by the Aga Khan University, Institute for Educational Development in
Karachi, Pakistan. In these reports the students played the roles of researchers and mentors, i.e. they worked as mentors
with teachers in a school, researched the process of mentoring and reported the findings. I undertook this review to report
findings related to impact on schools and classrooms of new approaches to teacher development. While, the findings
stopped short of reporting impact of mentoring on classrooms, it revealed significant issues pertaining mentors’ roles.
There was tension in how these roles were conceptualized within the masters programme and how they were enacted. For
example, the mentors were expected to work in a generalist role as mentors, i.e. to work with teachers irrespective of the
discipline that the teachers taught. However, experiences from the field showed that perceptions of mentor as a subject
specialist dominated the process of mentoring. The paper also reports on other issues pertaining to mentor–mentee
interactions in the context of in-service teacher education in a developing country setting.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mentors; Mentoring; Critical friend; Peer coaching; In-service teacher education

1. Introduction developed by the Pittsburgh school system, which

The Aga Khan University Institute for Educa-
tional Development (AKU-IED) was established in
1993. The purpose of establishing AKU-IED and
the M.Ed. programme offered by it was to develop
models of school improvement through further
professional development of teachers (Ali, Murphy,
& Khan, 1995). The first cohort of masters students
graduated in 1995. Since then seven cohorts have
graduated, i.e. 176 graduates are in the field.
The school improvement model at AKU-IED
was built on the notion of a ‘‘clinical model’’
Tel.: +92 21 6347611; fax: +92 21 6347616.
E-mail address: anjum.halai@aku.edu.
established the Schenley High School Teacher
Centre to provide intensive professional develop-
ment internship in a working school for every high
school teacher in the district. Opportunities pro-
vided by the centre included observing exemplary
instructional activities in a real setting, practicing
new skills, techniques, receiving feedback on
practice and translating theory into practice
(Cornbleth & Ellsworth, 1994). In the case of
AKU-IED, masters students were sponsored by
schools and school systems. The graduates were
expected on their return to work in schools
that sponsored them, demonstrating exemplary
teaching practices, and work as mentors with other
teachers for school improvement through teacher

0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.03.007
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Halai / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 700–710
professional development. To prepare the graduates
to fulfill their roles as school-based mentors, they
were introduced to generic strategies for promoting
teacher professional development, e.g. peer coach-
ing (Joyce & Showers, 1980), action research
(Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000). Additionally,
through discussions in seminars and critical analysis
of cases, students were encouraged to develop the
knowledge, skills and attributes for effective men-
tors, e.g. understanding how teachers learn; skills of
providing critical feedback on observations made
(Jaworski, 1996; Kanu, 1996; Halai, 1998). Lastly,
participants were expected to undertake a small
piece of research for their dissertation. More often
than not participants undertook action research in a
dual role of researcher and mentor. They worked as
mentors with teachers in a school, researched the
process of mentoring and reported on the findings.
2. Impact: issues and dilemas
Approaching its 10th year there was a need felt by
faculty at AKU-IED, and other stake holders such
as the University’s Board of Trustees, to document
through systematic research, evidence of impact on
schools and classrooms of AKU-IED initiatives.
In recent years a discourse is emerging in
education, which emphasizes the study of impact
of in-service teacher education on student out-
comes, more often than not student outcomes are
seen in the form of test scores of academic
achievement. Implicit in this discourse is the view
that impact of in-service teacher education is
directly observable on students outcomes, suggest-
ing that the variables in a school or classroom are
connected in some kind of a causal link. However, it
is problematic to view variables in a social setting
such as a school, or a classroom as being in causal
relationships because social settings are complex, so
that it is not possible to control the variables or the
outcomes. Hence, one cannot convincingly study
the outcomes without also studying the process and
its complexity.
An approach to study impact could be to look at
actually what happens in the classrooms to under-
stand what works and why. Evidence from case
studies and studies using qualitative methodologies
could be used to illuminate why particular initia-
tives are effective, i.e. the process issues or the
reasons why particular programmes or participant
characteristics seem to have an effect on outcomes
(Evans, & Benefield, 2001).
701
Conducting action research studies would be
appropriate to understand how, and if, in-service
teacher education brings about a change in the
classroom. This is because action research is about
bringing around an improvement in a social
situation through participation in cycles of plan-
ning, acting, observing, and reflecting, thereby
creating possibilities for change and transformation
(Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000; Phelps & Hase, 2002;
Pedretti, 1996). I therefore undertook a systematic
review of those masters dissertations which were
action research reports. My purpose in undertaking
this review was to synthesize findings pertaining to
the impact of mentors work in classrooms. How-
ever, findings showed that the thesis did not go
beyond the work of the mentor with teachers to
report the impact of the mentors’ work in schools
and classrooms. This difficulty could be because of
the issues in studying impact that were identified
above. It could also be as McNally (1994) claims,
that the effectiveness of mentoring may be assumed
rather than demonstrated (p. 19). However, I found
that the dissertations reported significant issues
regarding the roles that mentors played in the
context of in-service teacher education in a devel-
oping country setting.
3. Mentoring
Mentoring and coaching in teacher education are
seen as a robust form of teacher development. For
example, in a comprehensive overview of the
dominant narrative of mentoring, Semeniuk and
Worral (2000), claim that there is almost unanimous
enthusiasm among researchers on the value of
mentoring initiatives for promoting teacher devel-
opment. Earlier, in a review of research extant on
mentoring Gray and Gray (1985), and McIntyre,
Hagger, and Wilkin (1994) also concur that
mentoring programmes (to induct beginning tea-
chers) can effectively meet the needs of the protégé.
But, as Colley (2002, p. 259) reports that the
available work is relatively uncritical in nature,
while the concept of mentoring remains elusive.
Moreover, given the plethora of ways in which
mentoring is defined as a practice it may be seen as a
contested concept about which a clear consensus
may not be reached. Earlier, Feiman-Nemser (1996)
had also concluded that enthusiasm for mentoring
has not been matched by clarity about the purposes
of mentoring and claims about mentoring have not
been subjected to rigorous empirical scrutiny.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
702 A. Halai / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 700–710
Colley (2002) goes on to raise questions about
mentoring
Is there something essential about mentoring per
se, which defines it apart from other activities
such as coaching, guidance, tutoring, pastoral
work and so on? Does mentoring have a
distinctive essence which unites its diverse
appearances in various contexts? (Colley, 2002,
p. 259)
While I agree with Colley that there appears to be
a lack of consensus about what constitutes mentor-
ing, I found that the mentoring process was
generally described in terms of roles that the
mentors played. Ganser (1994) found that the
mentors identified at least 20 roles. Some key roles
that the mentors described themselves playing
included, guide and, provider of support and key
information (pertaining to formal policies and
culture) to the beginning teachers. Similarly, Jones
(2001) analysed mentors’ roles in terms of adviser,
trainer, partner, and assessor (p. 75). In a review
Semeniuk and Worral (2000) maintain that the
‘mentoring muddle’ may be sorted out by a closer
look at the language used to promote mentoring as
a useful means of teacher development. They
maintain that organized mentoring porgrammes
could rationalize professional associations at the
expense of more personal relationships.
Relationships which arise spontaneously and
gradually allow teachers to enter more deeply
into considering what it means to be teachers, to
teach better, and to engage more fruitfully with
students. Because, these associations are more
personally created, their likelihood of success
may be greater. For these reasons it might be
wise to eschew ‘mentor’ as an all encompassing
term and seek others which might reflect how
teachers help one another to become sophisti-
cated professionals. (Semeniuk & Worral, 2000,
p. 425)
Implicit in these roles and relationships is the
notion that the mentors provide emotional support
and guidance to the mentees who are novices and in
need of just such support. From these roles certain
relationships accrue such as nurturing relationship
based on mutual trust and a sense of respect for the
mentee.
School-based professional development also
makes use of coaching and the closely related
notion of and clinical supervision (Joyce & Showers,
1980). Coaching is seen as a form of in class support
to provide (novice) teachers with feedback on their
functioning and thereby stimulate reflection and
self-analysis needed to improve instructional effec-
tiveness (Veenman & Denessen, 2001, p. 385).
While, Joyce and Showers, (1980, p. 380) defined
it as hands on in-classroom assistance with the
transfer of skills and strategies to the classroom. But
in the work of Showers and Joyce (1996) there is
distinction between a peer coach and an expert
coach. The prior implies an equality of status, i.e.
peers learning together through observing each
other and providing constructive feedback to each
other. An expert coach is one who has relatively
more expertise than the coached in the area of
intervention. Relatively recently Costa and Garm-
stone (1994) have proposed the notion of ‘cognitive
coaching’ which is based on the assumption that
teaching behaviours cannot be changed until inter-
nal thought processes are modified. According to
them a coach seeks to promote a rational analysis of
teaching through promoting reflection and an
understanding of the assumptions underlying their
practical actions.
But, these relationships, and functions are mostly
in the context of pre-service teacher education,
where the mentors work with student teachers or
newly qualified teachers. A consequence is that
mentoring roles, and relationships are defined in
terms of an overt power differential where authority
lies with the mentor. There is a gap in the research
findings where role that mentors played or could
play in an in-service context is concerned.
In the masters dissertations included in the review
mentoring is defined as a nurturing relationship
based on mutual trust leading to the professional
growth of the mentee and the mentors. For example
Mehta (1995) defines mentoring as follows:
Briefly this (mentoring) involved team teaching,
demonstration lessons by the mentor, collabora-
tive planning and conferencing after the lesson.
My role as mentor was to aid teachers to adopt a
more reflective focus rather than telling, and
instructing though at times that was also
necessary. (Mehta, 1995, p. 5)
Halai (1995) maintains,
For the purpose of this study, I consider
mentoring as a nurturing process aimed at the
personal and professional growth of the mentee.
My role as a mentor required me to carry out
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Halai / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 700–710
functions like teaching, coaching, planning,
observation, feedback and reflection on my own
and the mentee’s learning. I took care to behave
in a supportive encouraging and non-evaluative
manner. I also tried to create an environment
which was safe for learning and professional
growth. (Halai, 1995, p. 11)
While, Karim (2002) says
Thus, for this particular study I define mentoring,
to be a collegial relationship between an experi-
enced (mentor) and less experienced teacher
(mentee) to improve the mentee’s professional as
well as personal aspects of life, where not only the
mentee develops but also the experienced teacher
(mentor) as well. (Karim, 2002, p. 8)
4. The review: methodology and back ground
For this systematic review of the masters dis-
sertations I started by looking at the titles and
skimming through the abstracts of all 142 disserta-
tions (class of 1995–class of 2002) available in the
library at AKU-IED and identified those 20
dissertations which were action research reports
based in mathematics classrooms (see the appendix
for a list of dissertations included). A reason for
narrowing the review to mathematics was to provide
a sharper focus and depth to the discussion.
The action research studies reviewed were quali-
tative in nature, using participant observation and
interviews as major strategies for data generation.
Thick description, and triangulation of data
through multiple sources, e.g. document analysis,
interviews, observations, and informal conversa-
tions lend credibly to the findings of these studies.
Mentees were selected by the mentor-researchers
through a process of negotiation with the principal
and the teachers. The mentees were mid-career
teachers from government and private schools in
Karachi. They taught mathematics to the lower
secondary classes (10–13 yr). Typically the mentee
would have studied mathematics up until secondary
or higher secondary1 school.
Over a 7-week period, mentors worked closely
with the mentees going through cycles of classroom
1
The main system of schooling in Pakistan has three levels. The
primary school is for students from 5 to 10 yr, and the secondary
school for students from 11 to 15 yr. The students may go on for
2 more years to complete intermediate or higher secondary
schooling before going for an undergraduate degree.
703
observations, preceded by pre-observation confer-
ence and followed by a post-observation conference.
From the descriptions in the dissertations I inferred
that during the conferences mentors promoted
discussion through critical questioning, i.e. ques-
tions that would enable the mentees to challenge the
assumptions and routines in their practice. In most
cases both mentors and mentees maintained reflec-
tive journal throughout the course of the work
together. The mentees shared their journals with the
mentors but the reverse was not reported in any of
the dissertations. Accounts of the content and
purpose of reflective journal reveal that the journal
was seen as a document where the writers would
provide and account of the key aspects of their
practice, analyse these key aspects to identify issues,
questions, and future directions. However, the
dissertations report that generally the journal
writings were descriptions of the mentees’ work
with the mentor. Very little data is available on the
journals maintained by the mentors.
Mentors were typically highly qualified with a
masters degree in some discipline which was in
addition to their participation in this masters
programme in teacher education. Mentors in this
study had vast experience of teaching mathematics
in schools.
For analysis I photocopied the methodology and
findings sections of these 20 dissertations and read
them a number of times. My purpose in these
readings was to: identify the focus of action
research; understand the reported process of
change; and identify the patterns in data. I looked
for recurring patterns in the findings and made
notes in the margins. These patterns were then
clustered in themes. For example, I found patterns
in the behaviours exhibited by the mentors. This
pattern of behaviours or role was that of a subject
specialist, i.e. the in mentors work with the mentees
was the focus on subject matter knowledge. I noted
all incidents pertaining to subject matter focus
clustered under them under the theme ‘subject
specialist’. Similarly, other patterns that were noted
and clustered in themes were: mentors as an expert-
coach; critical friend; and learner.
5. Findings and discussion
5.1. Mentor as an ‘expert-coach’
The mentor–mentee interactions described in
these dissertations included the use of coaching
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
704 A. Halai / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 700–710
cycle (Joyce & Showers, 1995; Costa & Garmstone,
1994). This cycle involves iterations of pre-observa-
tion conferences, observations, and post-observa-
tion conference. In the pre-observation conferences
the mentors proposed particular strategies for
teaching (for example, Halai, 1995, use of mean-
ingful talk; Khan (1998), use of pattern seeking in
algebra; Nasim Ara (2000), use of questioning
techniques to enhance student understanding and
so on). The mentors’ role appeared to be that of an
expert proposing innovative instructional ap-
proaches to the mentees and encouraging their
professional growth through reflection on the
process of change initiated.
Mentors working as expert-coach had the im-
plication of creating and/or reinforcing hierarchies
and status differential in the mentor–mentee rela-
tionships. However, the issue that I want to discuss
here is the apparent inadequacy of the general
strategies for promoting reflection. Evidence
showed that strategies for reflection such as critical
questioning were not enabling teachers to analyse
their practice. For example, Tajik (1998) states:
Responding to my question ‘‘what strengths do
you see within yourself as mathematics teacher
and what are the areas which you might want to
strengthen further?’’ she said, ‘‘I do not know
what my strengths are, people (the head and the
mathematics co-coordinator of the school) who
observe might know the areas where I am good
and the areas where I need to improve’’. (Tajik,
1998, p. 62)
Mehta (1995) adds
For Zarina as a teacher without any formal
training in teaching, her experiences as a student
and working with teacher colleagues were her
only reference points. Was I expecting too much
of her? (Mehta, 1995, p. 50)
Tajik and Mehta worked with teachers who had
no formal professional education. In Tajik’s case it
is apparent that the teacher did not have any idea as
to what her strengths and areas of improvement
were. How reasonable it is to expect such a teacher
to come to an understanding of her problems and
their solutions through reflection. Perhaps, Mehta is
right when she says are we expecting too much?
Similarly, during the course of his work with his
mentee Maria, Karim recognized that Maria had
not had an opportunity to observe teaching other
than her own experience of schooling. He deliber-
ates on the implications of this situation and
conjectures that
I conjectured that being an untrained teacher, she
did not have expertise to make an effective
(lesson) plan and implement it in her classroom.
Therefore, co-planning, demonstrating, discuss-
ing, co-thinking might enable her to learn from
my experience. (Karim, 2002, p. 42).
No professional qualifications and inadequate
teacher preparation are issues of pre-service teacher
education and recruitment. But, the current teach-
ing force in Pakistan has teachers who are
inadequately prepared so that their limited knowl-
edge and inadequate preparation ends up becoming
issues for in-service teacher education to deal with
(Khalid, 1996; Warwick & Reimers, 1995). Evidence
from this review seems to suggest that teachers who
had as reference only their own experience of
schooling, required something more than reflection
to analyse and question their own practice. An issue
could be that reconceptualization of own practice
through critical reflection is a slow process and the
mentoring had not been for long enough. Another
issue in the mentees’ apparent difficulty in respond-
ing to the mentors’ questions could be that the
mentors started from their own area of experience
and expertise so that mentors found it difficult to
relate to them. Indeed the discussion in the next
section about mentees subject knowledge needs
seems to indicate that mentors’ different starting
point could be an issue.
Question arises why did the mentors decide to
start with their area of experience and expertise
rather than from the mentees’ needs? It could be
that that the mentors saw coaching from an expert
as an effective approach to bring about change in
the classroom. Indeed, Veenman and Denessen
(2001) claims that coached teachers tend to practice
new instructional strategies more than uncoached
teachers. Another possibility for mentors starting
from the security of their area of expertise could be
that the mentors were themselves at the initial level
of their development. Hence, they were concerned
about the others’ and their own perception of their
role as an expert.
While the mentors started with teaching generic
strategies, and skills it becomes evident in the
discussion in the next section, that the mentoring
interactions were actually more subject focused.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Halai / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 700–710
5.2. Mentors as subject specialists
A predominant focus in the mentoring interac-
tions on subject matter knowledge and related issues
appeared to be a common strand in the report
implying that the mentors were perceived as subject
specialist, i.e. they were expected to have a sound
knowledge and understanding of the subject
content.
For example, Karim (2002) provides an incident
from a post-lesson conference of a lesson he
observed in which his mentee Maria accepted 3 as
the Highest Common Factor of 12 and 18 rather
than the correct one ‘6’.
When Maria could not realize what she had
done, I decided to do mathematics with her. I
said, ‘‘Some students were struggling with this
sum (I referred to the particular sum HCF of ‘12’
and ‘18’), let us think about how it could be
done’’ Maria still perceived it an easy question
and did it the same way as she had done in the
class. Then I started to do the sum and she
seemed to be defensive, I gave some more
examples to support the concept. Then she
realized that it was a mistake and said that she
would clarify that the next day. (Karim, 2002,
p. 41)
As a consequence of this incident Karim and
Maria spent the post-conference on doing mathe-
matics. The result was that Maria was able to
enhance her understanding of this key topic in the
primary school mathematics curriculum. Similar
discussion of the mentor and mentee doing mathe-
matics together with knowledge enhancement is
documented in other dissertations also (for, e.g.
Chambere, 1995; Mehta, 1995; Halai, 1995; Rah-
man, 1995; Ali, F., 1995; Karim, 2002; Ali, 2000;
Khan, 1998).
There is convincing evidence of positive impact
on teachers’ subject matter knowledge because of
the work that they did with mentors. This positive
impact on teachers’ understanding and knowledge
of mathematics not withstanding questions arise
about the role of mentor. For example, Rahman
(1995, p. 85) says:
While working with my mentee I asked myself is
it possible to mentor a teacher who teaches
different subjects than the one I do? If the teacher
has the same problems as my mentee and I have
limited knowledge on that subject then how am I
705
going to mentor the teacher? I might suggest
different strategies to use in class e.g. group
work, discussion, and demonstration and might
help her in classroom management and teach her
in effective ways of using the blackboard. But if
the teacher needed help in the content knowl-
edge? (Rahman, 1995, p. 85)
Deliberating on issues pertaining to teacher’s
inadequate subject knowledge Karim invites com-
ment from his colleagues
Therefore, as a teacher educator I want to invite
my other colleagues to think about the issue
whether or not knowing the subject matter to
teacher is important, because, it seems to
influence teacher’s teaching of mathematics for
understanding as well as to deal with the
uncertain situations and critical incidents. (Kar-
im, 2002, p. 83)
Haji suggests that, issues and questions emerging
from his work with the mentees made doing
mathematics and subject matter knowledge an
important element of the mentoring interactions
thereby reinforcing the role of a mentor as a subject
specialist.
But, it was not simply the mentees’ needs that
pushed the mentors towards taking a more content-
based focus in their approach in mentoring.
Perception of the mentor as a subject expert is also
evident from the manner in which the mentors went
about selecting their mentees. The participants
whom the researcher-mentors worked with were
mathematics teachers. Almost invariably the reason
cited for working with mathematics teachers was
that the mentors previous experience, expertise, and
level of comfort, was in the area of mathematics
teaching and learning, and this is where they would
be expected to work with in their future role as
teacher educators. For example, Raheela Mir an
experienced mathematics teacher now an M.Ed.
student chose to work as a mentor with mathe-
matics teachers as her research participants provides
her rationale for working with mathematics teachers
as follows:
Now that I have seen the feasibility of teaching
mathematics for relational 2understanding at the
primary level, I think this study will be beneficial
2
Skemp (1987) explains that relational learning enables
connection with other schema and enables learning of mathema-
tical rules with reasons.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
706 A. Halai / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 700–710
for me in the future and will help me to perform
my duty as a teacher and as a teacher-educator.
(Raheela Mir, 1999, p. 6)
Mir Afzal Tajik a mathematics teacher now
learning to be a teacher educator also selected
mathematics teachers as his research participants
and chose to work in the field of mathematics. He
says
Another, perhaps the most important reason for
carrying out this research was that soon after the
completion of this M.Ed. course I will be
working with those mathematics teachers who
as I have observed rely on traditional ways
of teaching mathematics [y] I thought that it
might help me to get an insight into the
implications of teachers’ beliefs for their teaching
and their students’ learning and that the experi-
ence of conducting this study might help me
meet the challenges of working with mathe-
matics teachers in schools in my context
when I complete this M.Ed. course. (Tajik,
1998, p. 6)
The discussion above raises several questions:
what led to the mentoring interactions be domi-
nated by doing mathematics? Could the mentor
have supported the mentees’ learning without
making the subject matter a major focus? Mentees’
inadequate subject knowledge comes across as a
major factor that led to content specific work. But,
evidence also points to the mentors’ own insecurity
in working in subject areas where they do not feel
comfortable. For example, Rahman’s question, ‘‘If
[y] I have limited knowledge on that subject than
how am I going to mentor the teacher?’’ suggests
that she was almost afraid of stepping out of the
security of knowledge and expertise in her own
subject area, i.e. mathematics. Loucks-Horsley
(1996) maintains that it is usual for practitioners
in this case the mentors, at an initial stage of an
innovation to be concerned about how their
mentees would perceive and respond to their role
and a feeling that unless they could claim
some expertise the mentees would not accept
them. In this case the mentors were novices
and appear to be at the ‘‘Personal Concerns’’ stage
of their development so that they appear to
have this need of starting from their zone of
comfort.
5.3. Mentor as a critical friend
The role of a critical friend as defined in the thesis
or implied in the mentoring interactions was that a
critical friend was supportive (as a friend) and yet
encouraged the mentee to take a critical stance
towards his or her practice. This role appeared to
have an overlap with the role of a coach but with
additional attributes such as the mentor opening
his/her vulnerabilities and developing an atmo-
sphere based on caring and trust.
Descriptions of the term critical friend and the
functions of a critical friend as used in the
dissertations imply that an element of reciprocity
or sharing was brought into the partnership, which
appeared to be valued by the mentees. For example,
Karim (2002, p. 68) said that ‘‘(as a mentor) I
seemed to play the role of a critical friend who
encouraged, stimulated, and gave support in plan-
ning and implementing lessons and made the
teachers reflect’’. He goes on to say that he shared
stories from his professional life often exposing his
vulnerabilities to the mentees, which, he maintains
helped him to develop a relationship based on
mutual trust
Mehta (1995) also talks about taking up the role
of a critical friend in the course of mentoring
interactions. Her perspective of a critical friend is
similar to that of Watson (1994, p. 4) which includes
mutuality in the relationship which may be lacking
in a formal mentor mentee relationship. Watson
(1994, p. 4) maintains:
I have to be prepared to examine my own work,
and reflect upon it either with a questioning
student, a friend, a colleague or on my own. If
the listening has worked well a student can
become my critical friend for a while. She or he
could be asking me searching questions whose
answers cannot be easily found without some
analysis of my practice. I may end up learning as
much about my practice as the student does. [y]
An important ingredient of the atmosphere is
trust. (Watson, 1994, p. 4)
I interpret this to mean that the role of a critical
friend encompasses the affective aspects of mentor-
ing which may not be accounted for in the technical
and expert guidance provided by an expert coach.
This notion of a critical friend as a supportive and
encouraging person is different from the concept of
critical friend as apparent in Maynard and Furlong
(1993) who claim that the mentor adopts the role of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Halai / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 700–710
a ‘critical friend’ and assists the mentee in the
evaluation of teaching through reflection. But,
Dallat et al. (2000) use the notion of critical friend
such that teachers worked in pairs and analysed
their own teaching practices and identified ways of
improving them. They point out that the process
involving a critical friend was carried out on an
equal rather than a hierarchical basis (Dallat et al.,
2000, p. 179). Hence, Dallas et al. see a critical
friend more as a peer coach. The two-way sharing
implied in the use of the term (critical) friend could
be a significant key to understand the mentoring
roles and relationships in the in-service context
because tensions in mentor–mentee relationships
was an issue that were raised in a number of
dissertations. For example, Halai (1995) and Rah-
man (1995) found that the mentor was often seen as
an evaluator who would be responsible for report-
ing on the mentees. A consequence was that there
was tension in the relationship evident in the lack of
the mentee’s willingness to open up to the mentor.
Similar tensions were also evidenced by Nasim Ara
(2000) and Haji (2002) who maintain that a
relationship based on trust was an important
element in determining whether or not their work
contributed to the mentees’ learning. These studies
then go on to report that to be a ‘‘critical friend’’
and make the relationship two-way they shared
emerging dilemmas, questions, and involving the
mentees in the decision-making.
5.4. Mentor as a learner
A strong strand in the mentors’ perception of
their role was that of looking at themselves as
learners who would also grow as a consequence of
the mentoring interactions. These studies provide
evidence of mentor’s knowledge enhancement of
how teachers learn, their developing or refining
skills of working collaboratively with teachers and
own development of their subject knowledge. For
example, Ali (2000) maintains that support and
challenge were an integral part of her work as a
mentor.
It was found that the teacher (mentee) also
offered support to me in terms of fulfilling the
given task for instance, reading and preparing
activities, sharing ideas openly and actively
participating in the activities to strengthen the
working relation ship. This also encouraged and
motivated me to work more effectively. The
707
challenge provided by the teacher was in terms of
asking questions I had never thought about. (Ali,
2000, p. 64)
Mir (1999, p. 54) maintains,
This study enabled me to develop my own
content knowledge of mathematics as a subject.
When I read different books to teach my selected
topic (place value) I was able to understand it in
more depth. I learnt how different activities can
be prepared to teach place value.
Similarly, mentors’ professional growth is docu-
mented in the earlier studies. For example, Ali, F.
(1995) commenting on her learning from the
masters programme says that ‘‘Many times I felt
that because Ayesha and Amna had more years of
teaching experience than I did, I was learning from
them (p. 108)’’. However, she does not provide
examples of, or discuss what it was that she was
learning. Halai (1995) states that
As we co-taught, observed each other teach and
critiqued the lessons taught, immense opportu-
nities arose for me to see how she learnt. These
opportunities allowed me to deepen my own
understanding of the skills, attitudes and strate-
gies required to be an effective teacher educator.
I realized that there was no fixed method to being
a mentor, there were certain strategies such as
being flexible, open to negotiation of ideas and
reflection on questions and issues arising which
facilitated and enhanced critical dialogue be-
tween the teacher and myself.
Evidence, cited above suggests that the mentor–
mentee interactions were contributing to the
professional growth of mentors, e.g. through their
knowledge enhancement (both pedagogic and con-
tent), improved understanding of processes of
teacher learning. However, the stance as a learner
was not overtly acknowledged. For example, there
was no evidence of mentors sharing their reflective
journals with the mentees. An implication was that
opportunities of learning together were not realized
and the hierarchy implied in the term mentor was
maintained. Question arises, how could the mentors
have overtly recognized their role as learners and
acknowledged the mentees’ contribution in effective
mentoring interactions?
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
708 A. Halai / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 700–710
6. Concluding reflections
From the discussion so far I conclude that the
masters programme at AKU-IED prepared its
graduates to work as field-based mentors who
would play a generalist role, i.e. they would work
with teachers irrespective of the discipline the
teachers taught. The aim was to promote teacher
development through generic strategies such as
action research, peer coaching and maintaining
reflective journals. However, evidence showed that
a number of issues emerged when the mentors set
out to work in the field.
First, the mentors and mentees perceived subject
knowledge expertise as a significant aspect of the
mentor’s role, and working with subject content as
an important element of the mentoring interactions.
Hence, the generalist role of a mentor went in
background and the foreground was a mentor who
was a subject expert.
Second, issues of inadequate teacher preparation
and development albeit not of direct pertinence to
in-service education had to be addressed in the
setting of in-service education. A consequence was
that mentors found that strategies for promoting a
questioning stance towards own practice was not
enough, something more was needed in terms of
exposure to new ideas, new knowledge and under-
standings to enable teacher growth through reflec-
tion.
Third the mentors played diverse roles in the field,
e.g. expert-coach, subject specialist, critical friend
and learner. Typically these mentor roles are found
in the context of pre-service teacher education and
newly qualified teachers and recognized for their
effectiveness (e.g. Semeniuk & Worral, 2000; Gray
& Gray, 1985). The mentors worked with in-service
teachers who had years of service to defend and
vulnerabilities to protect, and who had experience
of supervision and observation by others in the
school which did not necessarily lead to professional
growth (Ali, 2000). This ‘baggage’ of teachers’ prior
experience and resultant beliefs about the role of
other adults in their classrooms would need to be
taken into account when planning mentoring
interactions with them.
An issue could be that the very notion of a
mentor as used at AKU-IED needed to be
problematized. Is too much being expected from
the mentors as generalists? Is a mentor in the
context of in-service teacher education in a devel-
oping country a more experienced subject specialist?
What do the mentees bring to the interaction? How
could the mentees’ experience and understanding of
teaching be capitalized on? These are questions
which emerge and need to be resolved for effective
mentoring interactions.
The discussion so far about the mentors’ diverse
roles and related issues suggests that with an in-
service context where the mentor and mentee bring
experience of teaching the interactions could be
conceptualized as ‘collaborative’ in the sense of
both mentor and mentee coming together to learn.
This re-visioning of the role of mentor could come
about if the mentors position themselves as learners
alongside the mentees. Indeed, the mentors efforts
to play the role of a critical friend and open up their
vulnerabilities to the mentees suggests that breaking
hierarchies was being recognized as a significant
element in effective mentoring. One way to
approach it could be for the returning graduates
to conduct action research with the teachers in the
school into areas of mutual interest and need. Being
co-inquirers with the teachers could help break the
barriers of hierarchy, enable taking into account
contextual factors such as teachers’ need (e.g. work
in the subject content) and help move the school
towards becoming a professional community of
learners (Haggarty, 2003). Building such collabora-
tive professional communities could make the
effect of mentors reach out to a larger number of
teachers.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Iffat Farah, at the
Institute for Educational Development, Aga Khan
University, Pakistan and Dr. Stephen Anderson,
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto
for their valuable and detailed comments on an
earlier version of this paper, which was presented at
a school improvement conference in Uganda, in
November 2002.
Appendix A
List of M.Ed. Dissertations included in the review
and meta-analysis
1. Ali, F. (1995). Working with teachers to
explore a constructivist philosophy of knowledge
and learning in the mathematics classroom.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Halai / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 700–710
Unpublished masters dissertation submitted to
the Institute for Educational Development Aga
Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
2. Ali, Amir, M. (2000). Enabling a mathematics
teacher to teach for understanding. Unpublished
masters dissertation submitted to the Institute
for Educational Development Aga Khan Uni-
versity, Karachi, Pakistan.
3. Chambere, A. (1995). Classroom action research
and teacher development. Unpublished masters
dissertation submitted to the Institute for
Educational Development Aga Khan Univer-
sity, Karachi, Pakistan.
4. Halai, A. (1995). When teachers become lear-
ners: Learning the use of talk in mathematics
classrooms. Unpublished masters dissertation
submitted to the Institute for Educational
Development Aga Khan University, Karachi,
Pakistan.
5. Jahan, A. (2000). Relating the teaching of
mathematics to pupils’ daily life. Unpublished
masters dissertation submitted to the Institute
for Educational Development Aga Khan Uni-
versity, Karachi, Pakistan.
6. Jamaluddin (1999). Constructivism in learning
mathematics: Students’ and teachers difficulties.
Unpublished masters dissertation submitted to
the Institute for Educational Development Aga
Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
7. Karim, H. (2002). Mentoring primary school
mathematics teachers in the classrooms. Unpub-
lished masters dissertation submitted to the
Institute for Educational Development Aga
Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
8. Khan, H. M. (2002). Mentoring primary school
mathematics teachers. Unpublished masters dis-
sertation submitted to the Institute for Educa-
tional Development Aga Khan University,
Karachi, Pakistan.
9. Khan, S. A (1998). Introducing patterns in
teaching mathematics in government schools.
Unpublished masters dissertation submitted to
the Institute for Educational Development Aga
Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
10. Khatta, P. (1995). Studying mathematical dis-
cussion through the work of other teachers.
Unpublished masters dissertation submitted to
the Institute for Educational Development Aga
Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
11. Kinghu, J. (2000). A study of reflective teaching
of mathematics in the Pakistani context. Un-
published masters dissertation submitted to the
709
Institute for Educational Development Aga
Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
12. Mehta, Y. (1995). The impact of mentoring on
teachers’ understanding of learning and teaching
mathematics. Unpublished masters dissertation
submitted to the Institute for Educational
Development Aga Khan University, Karachi,
Pakistan.
13. Mir, R. (1999). Teaching mathematics for
relational understanding. Unpublished masters
dissertation submitted to the Institute for
Educational Development Aga Khan Univer-
sity, Karachi, Pakistan.
14. Nasim Ara (2000). How can teachers’ question-
ing techniques enhance students’ mathematical
understanding in a classroom. Unpublished
masters dissertation submitted to the Institute
for Educational Development Aga Khan Uni-
versity, Karachi, Pakistan.
15. Najmusehar, K. (1998). How can teachers be
helped in dealing with students’ conceptual
problems in algebra at lower secondary level?
16. Naz, S. (1998). Implementation of Do-Talk-
Record strategy in lower secondary mathematics
classroom in government school. Unpublished
masters dissertation submitted to the Institute
for Educational Development Aga Khan Uni-
versity, Karachi, Pakistan.
17. Rahman, K. (1995). A study of errors and the
impact of mentoring to improve the present
situation: A perspective of teachers and students.
Unpublished masters dissertation submitted to
the Institute for Educational Development Aga
Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
18. Rodrigues, S. (1998). The role of concrete
materials in developing children’s understanding
of the properties of quadrilaterals. Unpublished
masters dissertation submitted to the Institute
for Educational Development Aga Khan Uni-
versity, Karachi, Pakistan.
19. Tajik, M. A. (1998). The implications of primary
mathematics teachers’ beliefs about mathematics
for their own classroom practices and students’
learning of mathematics. Unpublished masters
dissertation submitted to the Institute for
Educational Development Aga Khan Univer-
sity, Karachi, Pakistan.
20. Yusuf, M. (2002). Role of discussion in students’
learning of mathematics. Unpublished masters
dissertation submitted to the Institute for
Educational Development Aga Khan Univer-
sity, Karachi, Pakistan.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
710 A. Halai / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 700–710
References
Ali, A. M. (2000). Supervision for teacher development: An
alternate model for Pakistan. International Journal for
Educational Development, 20, 177–188.
Ali, A. M., Murphy, K., & Khan, G. (1995). Documentation and
evaluation of programmes. Report No. 1; prepared for IDRC.
Karachi: Institute for Educational Development Aga Khan
University.
Aga Khan University (1991). First phase proposal: A proposal to
the Board of Trustees Aga Khan University, Karachi,
Pakistan.
Colley, H. (2002). A rough guide to the history of mentoring from
a Marxist feminist perspective. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 28(3), 257–273.
Cornbleth, C., & Ellsworth, J. (1994). Teachers in teacher
education: Clinical faculty roles and relationships. American
Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 49–70.
Costa, A. L., & Garmstone, R. J. (1994). Cognitive coaching:
A foundation for renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Chris-
topher Gordon.
Evans, J., & Benefield, P. (2001). Systematic reviews of
educational research: Does the medical model fit? British
Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 528–541.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1996). Teacher mentoring: A critical review.
Eric Digest Eric-No. ED397060.
Ganser, T. (1994). What do mentors say about mentoring.
Journal of Staff Development, 17(3), 36–39.
Gray, W., & Gray, M. (1985). Synthesis of research on mentoring
beginning teachers. Educational Leadership 43, 37– 42.
Halai, A. (1998). Mentor, mentee, mathematics: A story of
professional development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 1(3), 295–315.
Jaworski, B. (1996). The implications of theory for a new
masters program for teacher educators in Pakistan. In C.
Brock (Ed.), Global perspectives on teacher education. UK:
Triangle.
Jones, M. (2001). Mentors’ perceptions of their roles in school
based teacher training in England and Germany. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 27(1), 76–94.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving in-service training:
The messages of research. Educational Leadership, 37(5),
379–385.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff
developments: Fundamentals of school renewal. New York:
Longman.
Kanu, Y. (1996). Educating teachers for the improvement of
quality of basic education in developing countries. Interna-
tional Journal of Educational Development, 16(2), 73–184.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action
research. In N. Denizen, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook
of qualitative research, 2nd ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Khalid, H. (1996). Teacher education in Pakistan: Problems and
initiatives. In C. Brock (Ed.), Global perspectives in teacher
education. UK: Triangle.
Loucks- Horsley, S. (1996). A critical and professional develop-
ment for science education: A critical and immediate
challenge. In B. Rodger (Ed.), National standards and the
science curriculum. Iowa: Hunt Publishing Co.
Maynard, T., & Furlong, J. (1993). Learning to teach and models
of mentoring. In D. McIntyre, H. Hagger, & M. Wilkin
(Eds.), Mentoring perspectives on school based teacher educa-
tion. London: Kogan Page.
McIntyre, D., Hagger, H., & Wilkin, M. (1994). Mentoring,
perspectives on school based teacher education. London:
Kogan Page.
McNally, J. G. (1994). Students schools and a matter of mentors.
International Journal of Educational Management, 8(5), 18–23.
Pedretti, E. (1996). Facilitating action research in science
technology and society education: An experience in reflective
practice. Educational Action Research, 4(3), 307–327.
Phelps, R., & Hase, S. (2002). Complexity and action research:
exploring the theoretical and methodological connections.
Educational Action Research, 10(3), 507–523.
Semeniuk, A., & Worral, A. (2000). Re-reading the dominant
narrative of mentoring. Curriculum Inquiry, 30(4), 404–405.
Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching.
Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12–16.
Veenman, S., & Denessen, E. (2001). The coaching of teachers:
Results of five training studies. Educational Research and
Evaluation, 7(4), 385–417.
Warwick, D., & Reimers, F. (1995). Hope or despair? Learning in
Pakistan’s primary schools. Greenwood Press.
Watson, A. (1994). A mentor’s eye view. In B. Jaworski, & A.
Watson (Eds.), Mentoring in mathematics teaching (p. 112).
London: The Falmer Press.