1. GETTING RESULTS:
The English, Reading, and Communication Department Mentoring Program for Professional Development by Annet O’Mara

2. OVERVIEW OF MENTORING PROGRAM:
1. Began in late 2011/early 2012.
2. Mentoring Committee.
(13 mentors met at least 3X prior to kick-off)
3. Scholarly Articles on Mentoring.
4. Orientation in Fall/Spring Faculty On-Hand Day.
5. Mentoring Pairing 6. Professional Development 7. Classroom Observation Pool (COP) 8. Certification of Completion

3. Develop more effective teachers
THE FRAMEWORK: GOAL
Develop more effective teachers

4. THE FRAMEWORK: OUTCOMES
1. Regular/Informal Classroom Visits.
2. Regular/Informal
Discourse/Discussion.
3. Self-Reflexivity about Teaching.

5. THE FRAMEWORK: STRUCTURE
1. Point of Contact.
2. Voluntary Participation.
3. Benefits.

6. THE FRAMEWORK: 1ST SEMESTER
1. Orientation/Break-Out Groups.
2. Mentor/Mentee Meetings
and Classroom Observations.
3. Assessment to Follow.

7. THE FRAMEWORK: 2nd SEMESTER
1. Mentor/mentee will determine
commitment for the 2nd semester.
2. Classroom Observation Pool
remains in tact/observation encouraged.
3. Mentees will participate in assessment
activities.

8. METHODOLOGY OF ASSESSMENT
1. OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT
15 QUESTIONS
1) In-service/Mentor/Mentee Pairing.
2) Materials, Text, and Delivery of Content.
3) Classroom Management.
4) Teaching and Learning.
5) Professional Development.

9. METHODOLOGY OF ASSESSMENT
1. SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT 5 Questions 1) Teaching Experience. 2) Strengths of the Mentoring Program. 3) Weaknesses of the Mentoring Program. 4) Suggestions to the Mentoring Program. 5) Suggestions to New Faculty.

10. THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE RESULTS
100% respondents say that the mentoring program was effective in:
1. Creating a culture that encourages an exchange of
teaching and learning ideas.
2. Conveying to mentees that their service is valued.

11. THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE RESULTS
92% -- respondents say that the mentoring program was effective in:
1. Pairing mentors with mentees who guided the latter’s teaching and learning at OCC.
2. Encouraging mentees to participate in internal and external professional development.

12. THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE RESULTS
85% -- respondents say that the mentoring program was effective in:
1. Engaging mentees in the orientation/break-out sessions.
2. Making mentees aware of various resources in the department.
3. Challenging mentees to consider new pedagogical
approaches.

13. THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE RESULTS
85% -- respondents say that the mentoring program was effective in:
4. Encouraging greater student achievement of LOs.
5. Showing mentees different pathways to the mentoring experience.
6. Sharing information for important campus services.

14. THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE RESULTS
77% -- respondents say that the mentoring program was effective in:
1. Imparting to mentees some knowledge/tips on
classroom management.
2. Addressing student issues or behavioral ones with
mentees.
3. Showing mentees how to put together their syllabi and course structure.
4. Giving mentees a textbook to teach from.

15. THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE RESULTS
69% -- The mentoring program was effective in:
1. Preparing mentees for delivery of course content.

16. ASSESSOR’S RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is suggested that the mentoring program includes the following content areas/areas of competencies into its framework:
1. Mentoring Relationship
2. Delivery of Content
3. Classroom Management
4. Teaching and Learning
5. Professional Development
6. Communication

17. MENTORING COMMITTEE’S INPUT:
1. Include more generic workshops that encompass all
the disciplines.
2. Include RDG/COM. discipline specific workshops.
3. Ask mentees a pointed question about the value
of the textbook assigned.
4. Consider having a different program for new full-
time faculty.

18. CONCLUSIONS
1. Rephrase the question of the textbook to communicate its value.
2. New full-time faculty should not necessarily be observed by their mentors.
3. All disciplines might consider offering professional development workshops and at different times.
4. Refine the framework to include some core competencies.

19. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1. Jamie Sindell, Chair of the ENG/RDG/COM dept.
2. Mentoring Committee Members.
3. Mentors and mentees who participated in the survey.
4. Wendy Tarby, Nancy Gabriel, Karen Bull, Jennifer Naples, and Nicole Schlater.