Negative Factors Affecting the Process of Mentoring at Schools

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 ( 2012 ) 5414 – 5419

1877-0428 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Uzunboylu doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.449

WCES 2012

Negative factors affecting the process of mentoring at schools

*Kenan Ozcan, †Aydin Balyer

1Adıyaman University Education Faculty, Altınşehir, 02040, Adıyaman, Turkey. 2YTU School of Foreign Languages Davutpasa Compus, 34100, İstanbul, Turkey

Abstract As an important source of teacher development, mentorship is professional support from the experienced ones to the novice. This study aims to discover factors that affect mentorship process negatively. Results revealed that smokers and non-smokers had low communication and teachers complained about competitiveness, conflicts, lack of sharing professional knowledge among teachers, unwillingness to give exams and their administrators’ administrative skills inadequacy. Teachers also stated time limitation for knowledge sharing, not greeting teachers from different union, and lack of self-confidence. Administrators claimed lack of knowledge sharing culture, low communication, competition, sincerity that influences mentorship process negatively. © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Keywords: Educational mentorship, mentorship, primary education, trust, school culture, school administrators 1. Introduction

Researches reveal that every year many teachers leave their profession all over the world. Smith&Ingersoll (2004); Perez&Ciriza (2005); McNeil et al., (2006). Waterman&He (2011) claim that of the 3,380,300 public school teachers in the 2007–2008 school year, 8% of them left the profession and 7.6% moved to a different school. Those who continue teaching have serious shocks in the beginning of their careers as they are usually left alone to experience and learn the profession by themselves. Marable& Raimondi (2007) assert that first year presents many difficult challenges to new teachers consisting of paper work, dealing with parents, management issues, overwhelming responsibilities. There are some approaches that may help them survive in their careers. In this respect, mentorship can be one of the solutions. However, there are some factors that affect this process negatively. To Little (1990); Weinstein (1988); Hale (2000); Lee&Feng (2007) mentorship has achieved an interest in teacher education in the past decades. Hobson et al., (2006) define it as the one-to-one support of novices or less experienced practitioners by more experienced ones. According to Beverly (2010); Rajuan et al., (2007) there are four types of mentoring: career mentoring, career-related encouragement, educational encouragement mentoring and, educational mentoring. He (2009); Long (1997; 2009); Stephen et al., (2010); Megginson (2000); Ellinger et al., (2008); Martinez (2004) and Ewing & Smith (2003) state that learning of mentors and mentees occurs through meaningful social communication, interactions and practice in reaching co-constructed goals. Martinez (2004); Sundli (2007); Halai (2006); Jewell (2007); Black et al., (2008); Huling &Resta (2007) conclude that providing qualified mentors for these new teachers is a major challenge. Although Parker et al., (2009); Freemyer et al., (2010); Scherff (2008); Kardos et al., (2001); Glazerman et al., (2010); Wechsler et al., (2010); Fry (2007); Kapadia

Dr.Aydın Balyer, +90 212 383 49 01 E-mail address: [email protected]

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

© 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Uzunboylu

5415 Kenan Ozcan and Aydin Balyer / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 ( 2012 ) 5414 – 5419

et al., (2007) found that mentoring programs have a positive effect on new teacher retention. However, Wynn et al.,

input of mentoring based on a comparison of teachers. 2. Method

This study was conducted both quantitively and qualitatively. In the quantitive part, descriptive method was

school experience, professional experience and age. In the qualitative part, semi-structured interview and focus group techniques were employed.

2.1 Population and sample

The sampling was determined by purposive sampling method it is used when the desired population for the study is rare or very difficult to locate (Bailey, 1994). For content validity of the scale that was administered in quantity part, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was employed. For this purpose, it was administered to 352

, Turkey. After validity and reliability process of it, it was applied to 917 teachers. As a result, negative factors have been determined. Besides, a focus study was employed to 60 teachers from 3 different schools and data were gathered from 10 school administrators with semi-structured interview technique.

2.2 Data Collection and Analysis

To collect the data in the quantitive part used. To

analyze the data, SPSS used and for variables percentage, frequency, t-test and variance analysis were administered. In this study, the qualitative data were collected by interview technique. For analyzing the data, content analysis method was employed. This type of analysis usually aims to gather similar data on a topic and comment on it

Mayring, 2000; ). The first step taken was the data organization procedures recommended by Bogdan&Biklen (1998). The constant comparative approach (Glaser, 1992) was used in the process of organizing and analyzing the data (Bogdan &Biklen,1998; Glaser,1992).

2.3 Trustworthiness and rigor

In this part exploratory analysis was used. It is a complex, multi-step process and a widely utilized and broadly

applied statistical technique in the social sciences Costello&Osborne, 2005). Before that, sampling size was tested that plays an important role to estimate of determining correct parameters (Raykov&Marcoulides, 2000). Comrey&Lee (1992) offered a rough rating scale for adequate sample sizes in factor analysis as:500=very good,1,000 or more=excellent (MacCallum&Widaman, 1999). Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was .780. The KMO statistic varies are accepted greater than .50, furthermore, values

is highly significant for EFA ( p<.01). Table I. Vertical Rotation-Varimax for Exploratory Factor Analysis for the Factor Design of Colleague Mentorship at Primary Education

Colleague Mentorship at Primary Education

Positive Factors

Negative Factors

Reliability(

1 I ask the things that I do not know to experienced teachers .73

.72

3 feedback .68

6 I think I have a lot of things to learn from my colleagues .68 8 I ask the things that I do not know about my field to the one I trust .67 10 I share the materials that I develop with my colleagues .65 7 I usually sit at the same place in the staff room .70

.81 9 The teachers in the same branch usually consider each other as rivals .66 12 There are few friends that I am close to at school .61

14 There is always a conflict between the experienced and the novice teachers in academic issues .60


15 Communication is weak between the smokers and non-smokers. .56 Eigenvalue 2.80 1.64 % of Variance Explained 27.98

16.41

According to the factor design at Table I, the lowest level of factor loads of the items was accepted as .55. Barnes et al (2001) stated that the magnitude of the factor loading had to be at least .30. Factor loads of the first item were between .65-and .73 and for the second factor it was between .56 and .70. Cronbach's Alpha of the first factor was

ere

3. Findings

Findings gathered from 917 teachers and 60 teachers in focus group and 10 school principals were presented here. When demographic variables is concerned 917 of them are teachers, 38.8 % female, 61.2 % male and 57.8% teach at primary school first level and 42.2 % second level. Regarding , 87.8 % of them are teachers, 12.2 % expert teachers. Concerning ve 1-5 experience, 24.0 % 6-10 years, 23.6 % 11-15 years, 11.8 % 16-20 years, 6.5 % 21-25 years and 6.3 % 26 years and over. To school experience, 48.9 % of them work between 1-3 years, 21.8 % 4-6 years, 16.1% 7-9 years and 13.2 % 10 years and over. When age is considered, 29.8% of them are below 30 years old, 30.0% between 31-35 years of age, 17.8% between 36-40 years, 11.8% between 41- 45 and 10.7 % 46 years of age and over. Concerning in service training, 14.5 % of them participated in-service training once, 47.1 % of them twice, 23.3 % three times and 15.0 % four times. In the quantitive part, 60 teachers and 10 principals participated.

3.1 Findings of Quantitive Part

Test of Homogeneity of Variances prerequisite was provided (p>.05). In Scheffe comparison test among groups, it was discovered that those who were 30 years old and below have more positive attitudes towards colleague mentorship comparing to the ones between 46-50 years old, and 51 years old and over. Of the teachers, 90.1% state that they ask the things that they do not know about their field to one they trusted the most and 70.0% remark that their administrators do not have good administrative skills. When working periods at the same school variable is concerned, significant difference has been discovered. Teachers who work 10 or more years at the same school show more negative attitudes towards than those between 1-3 years. According to the results, 62% of the teachers report low communication between smokers and non-smokers. In addition, 58.2 % of the teachers consider each other as rivals. 52.8 % of them complain about conflicts between novice and experienced teachers. 84.2 % of the teachers reveal that there is lack of sharing professional knowledge culture and 71, 1% of them report unwillingness to give exams. As far as professional experience is concerned, there is professional experience and positive attitudes towards colleague mentorship. According to that result, those who have 1-5 years professional experience show more positive attitudes comparing to the ones who have between 21-25

and 26 and over. There is attitudes that prevent mentorship.

3.2 Findings of Qualitative Part

In this part, principals were interviewed about the factors that affect colleague mentorship negatively and a number of results were obtained. According to the results, a school administrator with postgraduate degree in

Being a member of a different union caused limited knowledge sharing among teachers. They do not talk as they are members of different union I have a democratic management approach and being a member of different union does not affect mentorship process in my schooladministrator Knowledge sharing is insufficient among teacherpride Some teachers resist change and innovation at schools. Most teachers do not need to share their knowledge as they consider themselves experts in their fields When some teachers want to share their useful knowledge or experience, they are perceived as priggishadministrators agreed that there was a problem of communication between smokers and non-smokers as they sat in different places at break times. Teachers were also interviewed about the factors that affect colleague mentorship


A teacher may not greet the other one who is a als do not greet teachers and this causes burnout.

We do not ask the things that we do not know to our colleagues. There is a communication

4. Discussion

Perceptions of teachers and school administrators were evaluated in this study. A result shows that there is a Those who were 30

years old and below have more positive attitudes towards mentorship comparing to the ones among 46 and over. This may stem from the need in mentorship and knowledge sharing in the beginning of their careers. A further result shows that 90.1% young teachers ask an unknown thing to the most trusted ones, which means that teachers need counseling and sincerity, makes them feel more comfortable. 70.0% of the teachers remark that their administrators do not have good administrative skills which may be because of variety of roles, workload and responsibilities. Another result reveals that there is positive attitudes. Those who have 1-5 show more positive attitudes comparing to the ones between 21-25 years and 26 and over. This may mean that novice teachers are need more counseling and especially experienced ones have their own teaching methods and classroom management styles. A result shows that there is

t mentorship. This may mean that novice teachers need support no matter what their gender is. Principals assert that they are democratic enough to welcome everybody fairly and blame teachers on having unnecessary pride. It shows that teachers who participate in-service training do not share their knowledge with their colleagues. This is probably because of egoism, competition and personal benefits. Furthermore, most teachers do not share their knowledge and experience because they consider themselves as experts in their fields. A further result shows sharing problems causes from teaching at different times. Another result reveals that knowledge sharing among teachers is low because of professional inadequacy, jealousy, and time limitations, smokers-non-smokers. This may show that there is a lack of trust and communication among teachers.

5. Conclusion New teachers need guidance and support from a mentor; therefore, the importance of mentoring cannot be

ignored (Marable & Raimondi, 2007). Administrators play an important role in the design and implementation of the mentoring programs. Their role in supporting first year teachers is also crucial because teachers need administrators guidance and support. Harrison et al (2006) asserted that the ideal mentoring scenario may well lie between the school- - This study showed that some factors affected colleague mentorship process negatively. In this respect, as smokers and non-smokers spend their break times at different places, they have low communication. They also complained about competition, conflicts, lack of sharing professional knowledge among teachers, unwillingness to give exams and their lack of administrative skills of administrators. Teachers also emphasize time limitation for knowledge sharing, not greeting teachers from different union, and lack of self-confidence. On the other hand, administrators lack of knowledge sharing culture, low communication, competition, sincerity that influence mentorship process at school negatively. Consequently, we must reconsider mentoring process in the Turkish Educational System. References Bailey, K.D. (1994). Methods of social research, Fourth Edition, a Division of Macmillan, Inc. New York, N.Y. Barnes, J., Cote, J., Cudeck, R., & Malthouse, E. (2001). Factor analysis checking assumptions of normality before conducting factor

analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 10(1, 2), 79 81. Beverly J. I. (2011): Mentoring and Tutoring in Schools and Universities, Mentoring &Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19(2), 121-124. Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods, 3rd edition, Boston,

Allyn & Bacon. Black, L., Neel, J., & Benson, G. (2008). National Commission on Teac (NCTAF)/Georgia State University

(GSU) Induction Project: Final Report. Retrieved July 1, 2010, from http//eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED504316.pdf. Bilimsel Pegem Akademi

Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum


Costello, A.B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.

Ellinger, A., Hamlin, R., & Beattie, R. (2008). Behavioural indicators of ineffective managerial coaching. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(4), 240 257.

Ewing, R., & Smith, D. (2003). Retaining early career teachers in the profession. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 2(1), 15 32. Freemyer, J., Townsend, R., Freemyer, S., & Baldwin, M. (2010). Report card on the unfunded mentoring program i

voices are finally heard. Retrieved June 20, 2010, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED509793.pdf. Fry, S. (2007). First-year teachers and induction support: Ups, downs, and in-betweens. Qualitative Report, 12,216 237. Glaser, B. (1992). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, Sociology Press. Glazerman, S., Isenberg, E., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Grider, M., & Jacobus, M. (2010). Impacts of

comprehensive teacher induction: Final results from a randomized controlled study. Retrieved July 3, 2010, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104027/pdf/20104027.pdf.

Halai, A.(2006). Mentoring in-service teachers: Issues of role diversity, Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 700 710 Hale, R. (2000). To match or mis-match? The dynamics of mentoring as a route to personal and organizational learning. Career Development

International, 4/5(5), 223 234. Harrison, J., Dymoke, S, & Pell, T. (2006). Mentoring beginning teachers in secondary schools: An analysis of practice, Teaching and

Teacher Education, 22, 1055 1067 He, Y.(2009): Strength based mentoring in pre service teacher education: a literature review, Mentoring &Tutoring: Partnership in

Learning, 17(3), 263-275. Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2006). Mentoring beginning teachers: What we know and what we don

Teaching and Teacher Education, 25 (2009) 207 216 Huling, L., & Resta, V. (2007). CREATE Teacher Induction Study (Phase II Report). San Marcos, TX: Texas State University Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Jewell, M.L. (2007). What does mentoring mean to experienced teachers? Teacher Educator, 42(4), 289 303

) Structural Equation , Scientific Software International, Inc., Lincolnwood, IL 60712-1704, USA.

Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Third Edition, the Guilford Press, New York, NY 10012. Kapadia, K., Coca, V., & Easton, J. (2007). Keeping new teachers: a first look at the influences of induction in

the Chicago public schools. Consortium on Chicago School Research: Chicago, IL. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://ccsr.uchicago. edu/ publications/keeping_new_teachers012407.pdf.

Kardos, S., Johnson, S., Peske, H., Kauffman, D., & Liu, E. (2001). Counting on colleagues: New teachers encounter the professional cultures of their schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 250 290.

Lee, J.C., &Feng,S. (2007): Mentoring support and the professional development of beginning teachers: a Chinese perspective, Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 15(3), 243-262

Little, J. W. (1990). The mentor phenomenon and the social organization of teaching. In Cazden, C. B. (ed.), Review of Research in Education, 16, 297 351.

Long, J. (2009): Assisting beginning teachers and school communities to grow through extended and collaborative mentoring experiences, Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 17(4), 317-327

Long, J. (1997). The dark side of mentoring. Australian Educational Researcher, 24(2), 115 133. MacCallum, R.C.; Widaman, K.F. (1999) Sample Size in Factor Analysis, Psychological Methods, 4 (1),84-99.

retrieved:05.09.2011, http:// people. musc. edu/~ elg26/ teaching/ psstats1. 2006/ maccallumetal.pdf. portive during their first year of teaching,

Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 15(1), 25-37. Martinez, K.(2004). Mentoring New Teachers, Promise and Problems in Times of Teacher Shortage, Australian Journal of Education, 48(1),

95-108. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis, Forum: Online Journal Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), 1-10. McNeil, M., Hood, A., Kurtz, P., Thousand, J., & Nevin, A. (2006). A self-actualization model for teacher

induction into the teaching profession: Accelerating the professionalization of beginning teachers. Retrieved July 1, 2010, from http:// eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED493951.pdf.

Megginson, D. (2000). Current issues in mentoring. Career Development International, 5(4/5), 256 260. Parker, M., Ndoye, A., & Imig, S. (2009). Keeping our teachers! Investigating mentoring practices to support and retain novice educators.

Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 17, 329 341. Perez, R., & Ciriza, F. (2005). Making each new teacher our responsibility (MENTOR): End-of-year report. Retrieved July 1, 2010, from

http://eric.ed.gov/ PDFS/ED490615.pdf. Rajuan, M.; Beijaard, D., &Verloop, N. (2007): The role of the cooperating teacher: bridging the gap between the expectations of

cooperating teachers and student teachers, Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 15(3), 223-242 Rockoff, J. (2008). Does mentoring reduce turnover and improve skills of new employees? Evidence from teachers in New York City.

Retrieved June 29, 2010, from http:// www. nber. org/ papers/ w13868 Raykov, T. & Marcoulides, G A. (2000). A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Scherff, L. (2008). Disavowed: The stories of two novice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1317 1332. Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational

Research Journal, 41(3), 681 715. Stephen P. G. & Brobeck.R. (2010): Coaching the Mentor: Facilitating Reflection and Change, Mentoring &Tutoring: Partnership in


Learning, 18(4), 427-447. Sundli, L. (2007). Mentoring A new mantra for education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 201 214 Waterman, S., &He, Y. (2011).Effects of Mentoring Programs on New Teacher Retention: A Literature Review, Mentoring&Tutoring,

19(2), 139-156. Wechsler, M., Caspary, K., Humphrey, D., & Matsko, K. (2010). Examining the effects of new teacher induction. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford

Research Institute International. Weinstein, C.S. (1988). Pre- Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 31 40. Wynn, S., Carboni, L., &

through a learning communities perspective. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6, 209 229. Downloaded by [University of South Florida] at 09:07 23 November.

Documents

Negative Factors Affecting the Process of Mentoring at Schools