1. Defining High-Quality Mentorship through the Eyes of the Teacher Candidate AACTE’s 68 th Annual Meeting Las Vegas, Nevada Dr. Erica Kwiatkowski-Egizio Assistant Professor, College of Education, Lewis University February 24, 2016

2. Theoretical Framework The definition and quality of mentoring of teacher candidates are highly variable, and it is more common than not that very little preparation and continuing support are provided to cooperating/mentor teachers and program (university) supervisors (Grossman, 2010; Hamel & Jaasko-Fisher, 2011; Valencia, Martin, Place, & Grossman, 2009)

3. Theoretical Framework Cooperating/mentor teachers’ perceptions of teaching are closely tied to their professional self-image and perspective of what it means to them to be a teacher. These perceptions have implications for the way cooperating teachers view teacher education (Beijaard et al., 2000).

4. Purpose of the Research The purpose of this research is to examine the duel evaluation and guidance roles of mentors from the perspective of teacher candidates. Mentor roles have been identified mainly by researchers or teacher educators, and few studies have focused on the perspectives of student teachers or mentor teachers themselves (Zanting et al., 2001).

5. Significance Defining mentorship from the perspective of the teacher candidate is the missing puzzle piece in the creation of a comprehensive, high-quality mentorship program that incorporates all stakeholders: the teacher candidate, the cooperating/mentor teacher, and the university supervisor. What a teacher candidate defines as good mentorship and how he/she views the role of the mentor should be at the core of clinical experiences since this relationship is instrumental to the success of the teacher candidate in his/her future classroom. It is this crucial mentor relationship that can prepare a teacher candidate for the challenges of the teaching profession, particularly in a high-needs school setting.

6. Research Questions 1.How can programs better define the roles of mentors from the perspective of teacher candidates? 2.What characteristics do teacher candidates perceive as valuable in a mentor?

7. Participants 4 teacher candidates student teaching fall 2015 –Elementary Education, Special Education, Combined Elementary and Special Education, and Secondary Education –3 undergraduate & 1 graduate –16 weeks of student teaching; 2 8-week sessions of student teaching –English/LA, Science, Theology, Theater, Math

8. Data Collection DataAnalysis  Entrance interviews  Pre- and Post-Surveys  Evaluation and observation instruments from student teaching  Cooperating/Mentor teachers’ and university supervisors’ field notes on teacher candidates during student teaching  Exit interviews  Constant comparative coding method  Descriptive case study approach  Definitions of mentoring  Characteristics of high- quality mentoring

9. Miss Peacock Elementary Education; English/LA & Science Concentrations; edTPA score 45/75 2 mentors –Lucy: Mentor Teacher (+) “She continuously checked in with me. She was there every step of the way. I felt valued, and she was always open to my ideas. She would go out of her way to make sure I was doing okay emotionally and physically. She helped me get my job. She was my advocate.” –Peppermint Patty University Supervisor (-) “The first time I met her was during this student teaching experience. There was no communication, and she did not understanding my background or my students’ backgrounds. She made me feel ashamed. She accused me of not submitting assignments on time. She judged me unfairly.”

10. Miss White Special Education; Math Concentration; edTPA score 50/75 4 mentors –Sally: Mentor Teacher (+) “She would spend half of every planning period helping me to develop my lessons and the other half on the edTPA. She has taught for over 18 years, and she gave me so many resources on teaching and RTI for me to keep. She showed me how to always have a schedule on the board for the students and what learning targets were being addressed on a certain day.” –Linus: Mentor Teacher (+) “He provided me with regular and detailed feedback advice on how to handle students misbehaving and teacher asides that were overpowering. He was always open-minded in allowing me to try out any ideas in the classroom and then providing help when things did not go as planned. He helped me to build relationships with all the other teachers in the building.”

11. Miss White (Continued) –Marcie: University Supervisor (+) “This was my first time being observed by her. She was so encouraging and confident in me. She helped to suggest a website to help me teach math better.” –Violet: University Supervisor (+) “She was my go-to person. She gave me interview advice, provided me with interview contacts, and gave me advice about my edTPA. When I interviewed for the job I was offered, she contacted the Principal to recommend me for the position. She was always there to call and/or text me.”

12. Miss Scarlett Combined Elementary & Special Education; English/LA Concentration; edTPA score 44/75 4 mentors –Peggy Jean: Mentor Teacher (+) “She was my coach. She told me to just jump right in and try things in the classroom. She was my partner. We did all our planning and teaching together.” –Frieda: Mentor Teacher (+) “She was there with me every step of the way. She was always able to identify things I needed help with. She let me try anything I wanted in her classroom.”

13. Miss Scarlett (Continued) –Marcie: University Supervisor (+) “She was so knowledgeable about everything. You could tell that she really knew how to mentor. She could answer any curriculum type questions I had.” –Violet: University Supervisor (+) “I could call her anytime. She was always there for support and encouragement. She helped me understand the edTPA.”

14. Mr. Mustard Secondary Education; English/LA, Theology, Theater; edTPA score 53/75 4 mentors –Eudora: Mentor Teacher (+) “She was spectacular. She has a lot of classroom experience. She let me make mistakes, and she taught me how to be a reflective teacher.” –Charlie Brown: Mentor Teacher (-) “He was not a mentor at all. It was a rough experience. He never shared with me what he was doing in other classes. He threw me ‘under the bus’ with the administration.”

15. Mr. Mustard (Continued) –Shermy: University Supervisor (+) “He always had ideas about teaching the lesson again and what to do differently. He was honest. He came in early to meet with the school administration before coming to see me teach. He was my coach. He made it easy to ask questions.” –Schroeder: University Supervisor (-) “I never had time to build any kind of relationship with him. The first time I met him was when he observed me in November. He did not provide me with any useful feedback. I was almost to the end of my student teaching experience.”

16. Survey Data Refer to handout

17. Conclusions All of the teacher candidates defined mentorship as having the characteristics of guidance and support. Three of the four teacher candidates perceived mentorship as one individual being the mentor while the other individual is the mentee. However, one teacher candidate perceived mentorship as being a two-way street in which the roles of mentor and mentee can be flipped throughout the mentorship experience. Is this the ideal model of mentorship? Doesn’t every person have great things they can share with someone, while also learning some new things from that someone? All of the teacher candidates identified the challenge of their mentors navigating between their advisory roles and guidance roles. There seems to be a fine line between evaluating and guiding in the mentorship relationship.

18. Conclusions (Continued) The issue of compatibility among the mentor and mentee was apparent for two of the teacher candidates. Should universities give compatibility tests to teacher candidates and mentors, similar to those done in marriage preparation in the Catholic Church? This is definitely “food for thought.” Finally, should university mentors already have an existing relationship with the teacher candidate? This study showed that when the teacher candidate met his/her university mentor for the first time during student teaching, the mentorship experience was not a desirable one.

19. Continued Research 1.How does the perspective of the teacher candidate compare to that of the university supervisor and cooperating/mentor teacher? 2.What does a comprehensive, high-quality mentorship program look like?

20. Implications The development of a model of mentorship, through the eyes of the teacher candidate, can be one of the successful hallmarks of the education programs at Lewis University. In addition, teacher preparation programs at other institutions may want to adopt this new mentorship model, since it incorporates the challenges associated with providing high- quality clinical opportunities for all teacher candidates.

21. Thank You! Your feedback is welcomed! Contact Information: Dr. Erica Kwiatkowski-Egizio kwiatker@lewisu.edu