Mentoring Research

ADZU Mentoring Program: Evolution and Evaluation INTRODUCTION If teaching itself is already a daunting task, teaching in the tertiary
level, especially by a new graduate, is even more as there seems to be no particular teacher education institution that prepares an individual to teach in the tertiary level. This seemingly lack of preparation to teach in the tertiary level after obtaining a baccalaureate degree has probably led to the creation of a state policy that requires any individual who desires to teach in the tertiary level to possess at least a masters degree. However, with the paucity of masters degree holders, higher education institutions are forced to hire teachers even without the completion of such requirement. Even though later in their teaching career these teachers pursue their graduate studies, their early years of teaching may prove to be challenging. With this, higher education institutions run the risk of providing their students with inept faculty and or losing potential faculty because of frustrations in teaching. As this is the case in the Philippines, there is a need to enforce a professional induction such as mentoring in the tertiary level to ensure that university students are under the tutelage of quality teachers and that the number of quality teachers are sustained. As Gagen and Bowie (2005) contend Mentoring has been used in many professional-development settings to support individuals new to profession (p. 40). Incidentally, Feiman-Nemser (as cited in Petersen, 2006) contends that Mentoring has been identified as a mechanism for supporting teaching
Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 1
practice in the higher education contexts (p. 1). Evertson and Smithey (2000) corroborate this contention saying, Mentoring support for beginning teachers has become part of a broad movement in improving teacher education (p. 294). It has emerged as the most common response of school authorities to the needs of new teachers in the different areas of the teaching profession, especially in improving the quality of instruction that includes facilitating learning and managing classroom. School administrators design mentoring programs with high hopes that it will serve as a vehicle for reforming teaching and teacher education. However, reforming teaching does not only entail improving the way teachers facilitate learning in the classroom but it also includes other issues in the teaching profession like the environment and the people involved in the school system. In fact, Jenkins (2010) argues that the promise of mentoring goes beyond helping novice teachers survive their first year of teaching. He elucidates that if mentoring is to function as a strategy of reform, it must be linked to a vision of good teaching, guided by an understanding of teacher learning, and supported by a professional culture that favors collaboration and inquiry (p.1). Therefore, the mere existence of a mentoring program is not sufficient to expect reform to ensue; it must be endeavored with proper planning, implementation, and monitoring. To achieve this, an institution must need the collaboration of the key players of the mentoring program. Adam (1998) corroborates this contention by defining mentoring as a process of an integrated approach to advising, coaching, and nurturing,
focused on creating a viable relationship to enhance individual career, personal, professional growth and development. Moreover, Alleman (as cited in Matters, 1998) describes mentoring as a partnership where a more experienced person assists a less experienced other to achieve a level of personal attainment, excellence, and eminence not possessed previously. This view on mentoring as a partnership is reflected in many mentoring programs today in any level of learning institutions. The study of Davis and Higdon (2008) examines the effects of induction partnership on the instructional practices of beginning teachers in early elementary classrooms. Overall, the results suggest that a schools, or of any learning institution for that matter, induction partnerships may contribute to the development of teacher effectiveness during the first year of teaching. This contention can be supported by the extensive review on mentoring from early 1980s to early 2000 made by Ingersoll and Strong (2011). Based on the empirical findings on teachers classroom instructional practices, beginning teachers who were provided with some form of mentoring performed better at various aspects of teaching. The improved performance was especially evident in classroom practices such as keeping students on task, developing workable lesson plans, using effective student questioning practices, adjusting classroom activities to meet students interests, maintaining a positive classroom atmosphere, and demonstrating successful classroom management. It could be inferred that the mentoring
given to them might be intended for their improvement on the preceding practices. The potential of mentoring to develop collaborative culture among professionals makes it a critical topic in education today. In fact, accrediting agencies in the Philippines may look into the mentoring programs of the schools they evaluate because settings like the academe involve working together in order to achieve their target goals, and mentoring is widely recognized as one of the effective means to foster collaboration, enhance learning opportunities, and improve the quality of teaching. In the Ateneo de Zamboanga University (ADZU), the creation of the mentoring program is, in fact, a response to the recommendation of the Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges, and Universities (PAASCU). During its visit in ADZU in 2002, PAASCU noticed that 60% of ADZU faculty had teaching experience under five years, and subsequently recommended that a mentoring program be instituted to help develop the teaching competencies of these faculty (see Appendix A). Since its beginning in 2004, the ADZU Mentoring Program has not been evaluated. The program needs to be evaluated not only to respond to PAASCU recommendation but also to inform ADZU administrators and faculty members of the outcomes of the program. As ADZU Mentoring Program has undergone a number of metamorphoses, from Mentor-Mentee structure to Pedagogy Training, Instruction Supervision Team (IST), and Professional
Growth Circle, the current undertaking also focuses on the evolution of the program. This study, therefore, attempted to describe the evolution of ADZU Mentoring Program and conduct an evaluation of the program vis-a-vis its objectives. Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions: 1. How did ADZU Mentoring Program evolve? 2. In what ways ADZU Mentoring Program (mentor-mentee structure) assisted the ADZU college faculty in terms of the following objectives: A. Use of suitable learning strategies and student-centered teaching methodologies; B. Identification of areas for improvement in classroom management and developing corresponding strategies; C. Construction of assessment tools suited to subject objectives and student ability level; D. Development of skills needed for personal growth and team development; and E. Providing acculturation assistance to new faculty? 3. In what ways the following structures helped achieve the objectives of the mentoring program:
A. Pedagogy Training B. Instruction Supervision Team C. Professional Growth Circle? 4. What do faculty members suggest to improve the different structures of ADZU Mentoring Program?
METHODOLOGY Design This study employed qualitative method as it attempted to describe the evolution and evaluation of ADZU Mentoring Program. For the most part, the discussions of evolution and evaluation of the said program were built on the different focus group discussions with faculty members who experienced at least one of the structures of mentoring. Moreover, the discussions were also based on the interviews with the key informants and the records pertaining to the program. Sampling Design In determining participants for this study, purposive sampling was employed. For the focus group discussions, the following served as the criteria in choosing the participants: (a) new faculty (hired on contractual basis, either full-time or part-time) at the time the mentoring program was implemented; (b) beneficiary of any of the mentoring structures; and (c) faculty of ADZU at the time the study was carried out. For the key informant
interviews, the succeeding criteria were used: (a) senior faculty (served as a mentor); (b) department chairs (at the time the structures were implemented); and (c) key administrator (Senior Dean or Academic VicePresident) at the time the mentoring program was implemented. Participants Based on the preceding criteria, there were a number of faculty members who were involved in the focus group discussions. To ensure the proper conduct of focus group discussions, the participants were grouped according to the mentoring structure they participated in. The following were the groupings and the number of participants for each grouping: (a) one group for Mentor-Mentee with eight participants (all faculty members), (b) another group for Mentor-Mentee with four participants (all faculty members), (c) one group for Pedagogy Training with five participants (all faculty members), (d) one group for Instruction Supervision Team with seven participants (all faculty members), (e) another group for Instruction Supervision Team with six participants (all faculty members), (f) one group for Professional Growth Circle with five participants (all faculty members), (g) another group for Professional Growth Circle with eight participants (all former level chairs of CON), (h) another group for Professional Growth Circle with three participants (one former dean of CSIT and two former chairs of Mathematics Department), (i) another group for Professional Growth Circle with six participants (former chairs of departments under CSIT and SLA), (j) another group for Professional Growth Circle with nine participants (all
faculty members), and (k) another group for Professional Growth Circle with six participants (current level chairs of CON). Hence, a total of eleven groups participated in the focus group discussions. For other details about the respondents, see Appendices. For the key informant interviews, four former mentors and two key administrators (former Senior Dean and current Academic Vice-President) participated. Instruments Given that the study employed focus group discussions and key informant interviews, instruments for this study were interview questionnaires. These questionnaires consisted of questions that served as guides for the researchers. For the sample questionnaires, see Appendices. Data Gathering Procedures This study underwent various steps to obtain the necessary data. Foremost, all available written records pertaining to the structures of ADZU Mentoring Program were collected from the different colleges and offices. Primarily, these records were analyzed to determine the evolution of ADZU Mentoring Program and to obtain answers to research questions. Secondarily, these were also use to identify the mentors, mentees, and other key persons of the program. Then, interviews with mentors were conducted at different times. In the interviews, mentors were asked questions such as How did you, as mentors, help the new teachers during their first year of teaching in the ADZU?, How did you help your mentee
develop skills needed for personal growth and team development?, and How did you help you mentee adjust to the culture of ADZU?. Based on the same records, groupings for the focus group discussions were also made. Focus group discussions were done at different occasions as there were a total of eleven groups. Before the focus group discussions were conducted, formal invitations were sent to the prospective participants, and their respective heads were also provided with permission letters. These letters indicated the necessary information about the study for participants to understand the nature of their participation. During the focus group discussions, participants were encouraged to freely and honestly share their experiences with a particular structure of mentoring, focusing on questions such as In what ways the Mentor-Mentee Structure assisted you in using student-centered teaching strategies?, In what ways the Pedagogy Training Structure assisted you in managing classrooms? and In what ways the Instruction Supervision Team Structure assisted you in developing professional skills?. Their responses were audiorecorded for later analyses. Then, afterwards, the participants were reassured of the confidentiality of the experiences they shared. Consequently, the data obtained from the focus group discussions were transcribed and analyzed. To further substantiate the results, interviews with key informants such as the former Senior Dean and the current Academic Vice-President were
conducted. Data from these interviews were also analyzed and integrated in the results. Data Analysis As the study employed the qualitative method, textual analysis was used to analyze the data, and the analysis was guided by the four structures of ADZU Mentoring Program: Mentor-Mentee, Pedagogy Training, Instruction Supervision Team, and Professional Growth Circle.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This section has been organized following the sequence of the research questions. Evolution of ADZU Mentoring Program Soon after PAASCU recommended on the creation of a mentoring program, ADZU responded by putting together a list of possible mentors from its roster of permanent faculty of the different units grade school, high school, and college. The Senior Dean (now Academic Vice-President) instructed the heads of the different units to submit names of faculty who possessed the special qualities such as commitment, experience and expertise, ability to provide inputs on effective management, and willingness to support his or her mentee professionally, and even personally. By January 2003, the different heads submitted lists of possible mentors, totalling to 32 faculty 9 for the Grade School unit, 7 for the High School unit, and 16 for the College unit (see Appendices). Thereafter, the Senior Dean and these mentors met to identify the needs of the program and the ways to address these needs. From this meeting, they identified the following as the needs of the program: a) mentoring/ coaching seminar, b) follow-up meetings with new faculty to orient on ADZU core values, c) documentation of activities related to mentoring program, d) research on new teachers profile, mentors profile, and students profile, and e) monitoring and evaluation schemes. To help
them understand these areas of concern, ADZU invited Maria Cynthia JavierGavino, who had the related background and experience in mentoring (see Appendices for the minutes of the meeting). To meet the first need, ADZU invited Dr. Mila Lagrosa, a professor from Ateneo de Manila University, to conduct training on mentoring with the identified mentors. The training was designed to help the mentors develop a doable personal plan on enhancing their skills on listening, art of questioning, process observation, and feedback giving for more effective coaching and mentoring (see Appendices). It was attended not only by the mentors but also heads of the different units and department chairs. It should be noted, however, that most of those who attended were from the college unit. The decision to pilot the program with the college unit after the training was likely due to this fact. In the second semester of school year 2003 2004, ADZU decided to do the initial implementation of the mentoring program with the College of Arts and Sciences (now having two entities, School of Liberal Arts and College of Sciences and Information Technology) for reasons that one college did not have new faculty and the other did not have mentors to carry out the job as they were already loaded with 24 units. For this initial implementation, five mentors were selected and each was assigned to one or two mentees, who were new in the college. They were given 1.5 unit service load to fulfil their role Be a coach as well as mentor to the mentee (see Appendices).
From here, it can be said that the ADZU mentoring program was officially forged. Mentor-Mentee Structure. In the initial implementation, ADZU was concerned about the selection of mentors. To resolve this, a committee, which composed of the different department chairs, was formed to develop a set of guidelines. The committee then identified the following as bases for mentor selection: (a) involvement in professional development, (b) teaching experience of mentor, (c) proximity to and compatibility with new teacher, (d) attitude toward teaching, (e) commitment to mentoring, and (f) method of appointment. Hence, the five mentors were chosen based on these. The five mentors had been tapped by ADZU and other schools in the city and even in the region to conduct seminars and trainings on their fields of specialization. In other words, they were actively engaged and involved in the professional development not only of the faculty at ADZU but also of those in other schools. In terms of teaching experience, the five had been in the teaching profession for no less than five years at the time they were chosen. Not only they had the teaching experience, they also had the right attitude toward teaching since they were seen having the compassion for students as evidenced by their high scores in student evaluation. This positive attitude toward students and towards teaching could make them better mentors as the processes of teaching students and mentoring new faculty are almost the same (Missouris Mentoring Framework, 2005).
They were also physically closed to their assigned mentees since they belonged to the same college, that is, College of Arts and Sciences (CAS). This is important to maintain visibility and presence, especially during planning and conferencing. The five mentors were also compatible with their mentees since they belonged to the same college and some even taught similar subjects. For instance, a mentor was a teacher of computer science and her mentee was also a teacher of the same course (see Appendices). Although, the pairing eventually changed where, for instance, a mentor was a teacher of natural sciences and the mentee was a teacher of computer science, the mentors were chosen based on their ability to provide inputs and guidance in pedagogy to new faculty. Before they embarked on their duties as mentors, they were oriented on their responsibilities, such as identifying problems/areas for coaching, formulating together with mentee a plan of action to address identified problems, monitoring implementation of plans, doing evaluation of plans, etc. (see Appendices for the complete list of mentors responsibilities), which they accepted and committed to implement faithfully. Having met the guidelines of mentor selection, the Senior Dean then made their appointments as mentors official by approving their 1.5 service loads. Evidently, ADZU recognized the importance of training the mentors first before asking them to carry out the task. Notice that while the heads of the different units submitted names of possible mentors, the chosen faculty were not asked to perform the task immediately. Foremost, they were all
asked to attend a formal training that was conducted by Lagrosa in October 2004. The training was meant to bolster their skills in listening, art of questioning, process observation, and feedback giving for more effective coaching and mentoring. The support for mentor training was also evident as most of the administrators actively participated in the training. After the training, Lagrosa led those who were present in evaluating the training. However, because many of the prospective mentors from grade school and high school units were not present, the Senior Dean decided to commence the program with the college unit. Notice, however, that of the 16 nominated to be mentors in the college unit, only five were chosen for the initial implementation. This was because there were only few new faculty members in CAS to mentor, and the chosen five were compatible with these mentees. After the training, the mentors were also oriented on their responsibilities before they started mentoring (see Appendices for the responsibilities). To determine whether or not the mentors fulfilled their responsibilities well, a thorough study should be done. But, the reports (see Appendices) show that they satisfied their responsibilities in establishing contact and professional relationship with new faculty, maintaining confidentiality, providing communication, feedback, and observations, and orienting the new faculty on school policies and rules.
To establish contact with the new faculty, the mentors individually planned with their mentees schedules for meetings and observations. For instance, a mentor reported, From November 10 21, 2003 I kept on visiting her in her office to establish rapport with herOn November 27, I went to visit her in her office and I was happy because she gave me her class schedule voluntarily. Similarly, another mentor also reported, This is my first meeting with my mentee . We talked about a few things about ourselves to get to know each other better. During this time, [mentee] shared her difficulties in dealing with the students in her Physics 212 class (see Appendices). After conducting observations, most, but not all, provided feedback on their mentees strengths and weaknesses. They identified areas to focus for succeeding observations and followed through on these during post conferences. In the case of a mentor from SLA, for example, he reported that after observing his mentees class, the latter asked from him for clarifications. He added, He has also sought for suggestions that can improve his performance (see Appendices). They saw to it that they exercised confidentiality at all times and encouraged their mentees to put the latters trust on them. They also informed their mentees of the school policies when needed. Although they were not always available for their mentees because of their other responsibilities, they made sure they were present on the set schedules.
From the focus group discussion conducted with the mentees, it revealed that there was no specific set of responsibilities given to them as mentees. They were simply informed about the program and their assigned mentors. Sharing mutual respect with their mentors came as a normal response for professionals and they need not have to be reminded to do so. They also found their mentors as being professional. They communicated, mostly informally, with their mentors about their needs. The extent to which these needs, including the rest of the objectives of ADZU Mentoring Program, were addressed is discussed in the latter part of this study. Pedagogy Training Structure. From its initial implementation in the second semester of School Year 2004 2005 up to the present, ADZU Mentoring Program has taken different forms. At the beginning, it was a oneon-one mentoring, where one mentor is assigned to one mentee. After two years, it metamorphosed to a group mentoring, where one mentor is assigned to two to three mentees, and together, the latter meet with their mentor for enhancement sessions. This structure became known as Pedagogy Training. The change was brought about by the seemingly poor attendance of mentees in mentoring sessions during the initial implementation. When asked during an interview, the mentors stated that their mentees expressed that they had many other responsibilities to attend to. In the same interview, the mentors also suggested that the mentees did not feel obliged to attend as they were not given deloads. These, in addition
to the few faculty members who were hired during the said school year, were considered when the mentor-mentee structure was modified. With the new structure, Pedagogy Training, the new faculty members were gathered as a group once a week to attend enhancement trainings facilitated by one of the senior faculty. In other words, the new faculty served as the mentees while the facilitator of the trainings functioned as the mentor. To ensure attendance of mentees to these trainings, the mentees were given deloads of three (3) units. In the same way, the mentor (facilitator), was given three units of deloads. These mentees were made to attend the Pedagogy Training for one semester. The only thing lacking from this form, which is important, was the conduct of classroom visits. Instruction Supervision Team (IST) Structure. In the same school year the Pedagogy Training was created, another structure evolved Instruction Supervision Team (IST). The goals of IST were (1) to help teachers use a variety of instructional strategies, integrate critical thinking in their teaching, and foster a positive and active learning environment in the classrooms; and (2) to provide data to be used as a source of faculty development program and in-service training (see Appendices). To achieve these goals, five (5) faculty members from the different departments were chosen to serve as members of the team, and as a form of incentives, the members were given deloads depending on the number of hours and number of faculty they would observe per semester 3 units for 54 hours per semester with at least 15 faculty to be observed and 1.5 units for 27 hours
per semester with at least 8 faculty to be observed. As members of IST, they were tasked to observe classes using PAASCU and ADZU evaluation sheets, to submit reports about best practices and areas for improvement to different departments and colleges, to make recommendations for faculty development program and in-service training, and to compile teaching strategies for demonstration. The team was to perform these tasks not only to the department they belonged but also to other departments. In other words, the IST was intended for the entire college unit of the university. And this structure was expected to be continued in the succeeding years. However, the focus group discussion with the respondents revealed that the IST ceased to exist in some colleges in the years that followed. In School Year 2008 2009, it could be said that only College of Science and Information Technology (CSIT) and School of Liberal Arts (SLA) implemented IST structure. The other colleges, though assigned faculty for IST, did not seem to have followed the guidelines on the conduct of IST. One college even assigned the task of IST to a department chair, which contradicted to the IST members function to assist the deans and chairs to evaluate teachers. In other words, it was difficult to determine whether the assigned faculty performed his or her role as a chair or as an IST member. In the succeeding year, CSIT stopped implementing IST, leaving SLA as the only remaining college that has implemented IST up to the present. Explanation to the cessation in the implementation of IST in the other colleges may not be offered as the focus group discussions concentrated on
the faculty members who were considered as mentees. But, the focus group discussions suggested that the reason is mostly administrative. Professional Growth Circle Structure. To augment support for both new and old faculty members, ADZU created the Professional Growth Circle (PGC), which could also be considered a structure of mentoring. From the interview with the key informant, PGC was described as an opportunity for faculty to engage in professional discussions. However, the focus group discussion with faculty members revealed that the notion of PGC seemed to vary from one department to another. The variations could be narrowed down into the following: (a) structure, whether it was conducted as a part of a regular activity such as departmental meeting or as a separate activity in the form of either a lecture-series, a workshop, or a combination of both; (b) participants, whether it was participated only by faculty members of one department or also by those of other departments; and (c) frequency, whether it was held once a month, twice a semester, or once a semester. These differences could be attributed to the fact that there was no clear definition, including guidelines, given as to the conduct of PGC. However, despite these differences, it could be observed that the conduct of PGC sessions geared towards achieving one objective, that is, to develop the faculty members professional skills. With PGC, the faculty members could develop competence in their respective field and confidence in their presentation of information.
ADZU Mentoring Program Structures vis--vis Program Objectives When ADZU created the Mentoring Program, it clearly specified the objectives it intended to attain. These were the following: (a) use of suitable learning strategies and student-centered teaching methodologies; (b) identification of areas for improvement in classroom management and developing corresponding strategies; (c) construction of assessment tools suited to subject objectives and student ability level; (d) development of skills needed for personal growth and team development; and (e) providing acculturation assistance to new faculty. Hence, this study evaluated the program by juxtaposing its outcomes with the aforementioned objectives. Mentor-Mentee Structure. As this was the first structure to be implemented, this study first focused on the outcomes of this structure. In terms of using student-centered strategies, the focus group discussions revealed that Mentor-Mentee structure assisted the new faculty members by providing them some inputs on the strategies and reinforcing use of these strategies through positive feedback. One faculty from Computer Science Department pointed out that her mentor taught her how to prepare and conduct laboratory activities. She said, as opposed to just teaching, for example, problem-solving , [my mentor] would encourage that you ask solutions from the students and then synthesize the solutions afterwards.
Another faculty from the same department supported the claims of the above former faculty, saying I was using [my mentors] strategy in teaching IT 111 and then when I am assigned to teach multimedia subjects, [my mentor] was the one who was constantly mentoring me, telling me what possible projects to give . . . how to handle a subject and something like that. If ever there are . . . some difficulties, problems, I would usually ask [my mentor]. Similarly, a faculty from the Computer Engineering Department mentioned that his mentor advised him about doing hands-on activity even outside the laboratory. He said, If you feel that you would help the students learn more by giving them hands-on activities, then the absence of laboratory schedule should not stop you from giving them handson activities. Moreover, a faculty from the School of Liberal Arts indicated that during her first year of teaching in ADZU, her mentor observed her and offered her positive feedback on the use of small group work in class. This feedback, according to the faculty, motivated her to continue using studentcentered strategies. Notice, however, a faculty from the Natural Science Department claimed that her mentor did not share any student-centered strategy because her area of specialization was different from her mentors. Moreover, she indicated that her mentor did not observe her, but they met once in a while to talk about other things like books to be used in her classes.
With regard to managing classrooms, Mentor-Mentee structure assisted the new faculty members also by giving them some inputs on how to better manage their classrooms. For instance, one faculty stated that her mentor reminded her to ensure that the chairs in the classroom are arranged and students are seated before she would start the class. Another faculty mentioned that she would normally approach her mentor whenever she would encounter problems in class. She cited that one time she asked for an advice from her mentor on handling inattentive students. She stated, we usually approach [our mentor] and ask for advice if we cannot hold a class because they were just too rowdy she would say You dont just stand in front of the blackboard. You can go around. You walk around. Dont look at the students at the front row only. Look at the students at the back, something like that. I think she was of help. Additionally, a faculty from the Computer Science Department indicated that the most impactful advice in classroom management he acquired from his mentor was to have interaction with students by asking questions and by explaining clearly and giving them more real-life examples. A faculty from the Natural Science Department added that during her first year of teaching, she was advised by her mentor to form small groups when conducting classes in the laboratory so that she could easily manage the class. She explained that the advice was helpful because through it she could determine which of the group members were really on task.
When it comes to constructing appropriate tests, the Mentor-Mentee structure assisted the new faculty members by having more experienced faculty members (mentors) provide feedback on the exams prepared by the new faculty members. A faculty from the Computer Science Department shared, I remember that there were times when [my mentor] collected the exam, at least the midterms and final exams, and usually she would make comments and her comments were on how you phrase the general instructions, how you phrase the questions, why is this [test] worth two points, why is this [test] worth five points. You should give lower points to this [test], higher points or simply scrap the whole thing out. She added that she applied those things taught to her, and now when new teachers would ask her about tests, she would also tell them the same suggestions on constructing tests. Similarly, a faculty from the same department indicated that his mentor helped him in terms of allotting time for exam and using rubric for project-based exams. He stated, During my first year, I remembered [my mentor] told me that, if I will have a written exam, it should last for one hour and thirty [minutes] and then when I shifted from giving written exams to project based exams, she told me that when giving the projects, it should be together with the rubrics so that the students would be guided when they are making their projects and I have been bringing that with me since then. He further explained that project-based was more appropriate for their field
because when students would have their job in the future, they would not be required to write but to make projects, which would enhance their skills. Another faculty from the Computer Engineering Department stated that his mentor assisted him by showing some examples of the exams for the courses he taught. He said, There were instances when you dont know how to start your test or your exam, so some of the teachers handling those courses before showed sample exams as your guide and you start it from there. Notice that the faculty included not only his supposed mentor but also other senior faculty members who also taught the same courses in the past. Moreover, a faculty from the School of Liberal Arts mentioned that her mentor taught her to be mindful of the level of questions asked in the tests. She shared, During my first year, I thought it (constructing test) is just preparing the test exam without knowing that the questions should be high level questioning, not the low level questioning. Just to find out when my test question was submitted to [my mentor], there were so many corrections in red ink. That was the time that I see to it that the questions usually I start with what and when should be changed to a high level questioning that is where the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation should come in. This is where I learned to prepare to come up with a table of specification in order to find out the level [distribution] of questions. In terms of developing professional skills, the Mentor-Mentee Structure helped the new faculty in limited ways. Two of those present in the focus
group discussion stated that their mentors influenced them to develop primarily social skills. A faculty from the School of Liberal Arts indicated that her mentor would recommend her to be the head of a particular committee, thereby developing her leadership skill. Another faculty from the Computer Science Department indicated that all his mentors inspired him to achieve what they had achieved. With the exception of these two faculty members, the other faculty members suggested that the Mentor-Mentee Structure did not seem to assist them in terms of developing professional skills. What helped them though were the senior faculty members, who were not necessarily mentors, of their department. In fact, one faculty of the Computer Engineering Department stated that everyone is considered a mentor in their department. Furthermore, with regard to adapting to ADZUs culture, the structure could not be clearly attributed as an acculturation factor since the faculty members present in the focus group discussion indicated other factors such as the Orientation of New Teachers and Ignatian Conversation Growth Circle (ICGC), where they learned about ADZU core values such as magis. The faculty members from the Computer Science Department and Computer Engineering Department suggested that ADZUs culture of excellence was, and is, something enforced in their departments. In other words, they have imbibed these values not because of the Mentor-Mentee structure but because of other factors.
Notice that the respondents from the Computer Science Department and Computer Engineering Department present for the focus group discussion on Mentor-Mentee structure did not seem to be aware of the existence of a formal mentoring program. Those who they referred to as mentors were senior faculty members in their department. Even with this situation, their sharing in the focus group discussion may still be considered since those they called as mentors were among those who were chosen to be the mentors for the implementation of the mentoring program. It may seem, therefore, that the mentors did not formally introduce to the new faculty members, at least for the aforementioned departments, about the program and their roles as mentors. In addition, it may also be concluded that some of those who were chosen as mentors, such as the case of those in the Computer Science Department and Computer Engineering Department, extended their roles as mentors to new faculty members in their respective departments. This was so especially when these mentors were eventually appointed as department chairs, and as chairs they would serve as mentors to the new faculty members of their departments. This situation is not entirely uncommon. In fact, Gagen and Bowie (2005) suggest that ideal mentors may also be department chairs. As a whole, the Mentor-Mentee Structure was more helpful to new faculty in using student-centered strategies, managing classroom, and constructing appropriate assessments. However, the said structure was not
fully utilized to develop other professional skills and to adapt to ADZUs culture. Pedagogy Training Structure. In terms of using student-centered strategies, this particular structure assisted the new faculty by deliberately exposing and training them to use student-centered strategies, especially those that ADZU has subscribed to such as Experiential Learning, Cooperative Learning, and Inductive Method. This was the case because this structure utilized the lecture-workshop format, where the facilitators (mentors) provided inputs on the strategies and the faculty members (mentees) performed some workshops to deepen understanding of the strategies and enhance skills in employing those in the classrooms. Although those faculty members with bachelors degree in education and who participated in the Pedagogy Training expressed that they encountered those strategies in their undergraduate course, they indicated that the said training strengthened their understanding of student-centered strategies and encouraged the use of those in their classrooms. As one faculty from SLA stated most of the strategies that were introduced to us during the training are strategies that we had already learned back in college but what I would consider as a good thing or an advantage for undergoing that Pedagogy Training is that it gave me more options especially that we were placed in a group where we had different specializations to think what strategy to work for which situation .
Another faculty from the same school mentioned For me, since Im an education undergraduate [sic] basically it served as a refresher to the strategies that I was taught when I was in college. So it was helpful in a way that in college I had to learn so many strategies. During the training, significant strategies were highlighted so that I would know which ... could be applied in various situations . Moreover, the faculty members with bachelors degree other than education indicated more appreciation of the Pedagogy Training as they were not exposed to these strategies when they were pursuing their chosen field. As one faculty of the Mathematics Department stated as for me so the class [Pedagogy Training] introduced a lot of, for example, ideas as to how we can come up with a new approach in delivering our objectives so in our [sic] case I am more familiar with the usual setting in the room, the chalk board, teacher-centered approach, but then during the class [Pedagogy Training] there is another avenue for us to have the objectives fulfilled . When probed about specific strategies they learned and still use in class, most of them indicated Experiential Learning. With this strategy, they noticed that their students became more engaged and more participative in learning. This seemingly positive reaction towards Pedagogy Training was also expressed by a faculty from Management Department and another from Computer Science Department. The former mentioned that as a
management graduate, he did not have any background on teaching strategies because management courses are content-based. According to him, the training provided him some strategies to improve his teaching method. Similarly, the latter stated that she learned about the Whole Brain Approach from the said training. Knowledge of the said approach encouraged her to use student-centered activities such as role plays. With regard to managing classrooms, Pedagogy Training assisted the new faculty members by orienting them on managing group activities properly and by introducing them to classroom routines. For instance, one faculty pointed out that the training taught him how to group students systematically during cooperative learning activity. Another faculty shared that the training showed him how to set students mood for the lesson by conducting simple activities and how to call the attention of inattentive students by asking questions. For him, these techniques have helped him manage his own classes up to the present. Moreover, another faculty mentioned that the training reminded him to employ some routines such as praying and checking of attendance before starting a class. These routines helped create order in his classes. As Gagen and Bowie (2005) contend, Managing class routines efficiently can minimize the need to provide disciplinary interventions (p. 43). He also added that the training taught him how to construct the right objectives for his lessons and these objectives helped him organize the flow of his lessons. Another
faculty indicated that the training taught him how to accommodate students differences and needs by restructuring the classroom setting once in a while. When it comes to constructing assessment tools suited to subject objectives and student ability level, Pedagogy Training assisted the new faculty by providing specific session on test construction. In this session, the new faculty were oriented on the guidelines of test construction. For instance, a faculty from the Computer Department indicated that the training reminded her to take extra caution in copying items from books, especially for identification type of test. She learned that if items from a book, or any source for that matter, be included in a test, they should be properly restated so that students would be discouraged to simply memorize; instead, they would be challenged to think deeply of the answers. She also added that she learned that in constructing multiple choice items, guidelines should be followed. Moreover, she stated that the training reminded her of other guidelines in constructing tests such as to include only items about topics that were discussed in class and to consider subject objectives, time allotment, and level of students. She stated that since then she has tried to follow these guidelines whenever she would construct a test. According to a faculty from the Management Department, the training taught him how to grade essay questions through the use of rubrics. This seemed to be important to him as his tests would normally include a scenario for students to analyze critically and respond to questions in essay form. Furthermore, two faculty members shared that the training helped
them address the issue on appropriateness of tests through considering Blooms Taxonomies in constructing different levels of questions. This seemed to be of great help, especially for faculty whose bachelors degree was other than education. As one of them stated what I can remember is when you make questions, you have to, somewhat like prepare questions that would test the knowledge of the students and then you have questions that would also check the critical thinking, questions that would be on the application . In terms of developing skills needed for personal growth and team development, Pedagogy Training seemed to have assisted the faculty in limited ways by giving them the opportunities to become more confident in interacting with other faculty members. When asked about how the said training assisted them in developing personal and social skills, only two of the faculty members responded. They both shared that the training allowed them to work with those from other departments during workshops and these developed their confidence. Seemingly, this particular structure did not focus on developing skills that could lead to self-growth and team development. With regard to adapting to the culture of ADZU, Pedagogy Training seemed to have assisted the new faculty in rather indirect way. In fact, when asked about how it helped them acculturate with ADZU, the faculty members grappled for a response. Upon probing, one mentioned that the conduct of the said training itself made him realize how ADZU has focused on
excellence, and in such case, excellence in educating students. Another faculty responded that the training made her imbibe ADZUs call for cura personalis (personal care). She said that the training made her realize that teachers should be concerned about students learning in the classroom and that they should not only be concerned about being able to deliver a lesson but also making sure that learning takes place. From the preceding discussion, it could be observed that Pedagogy Training was more helpful in assisting new faculty in terms of using studentcentered strategies, managing classrooms, and constructing appropriate assessments. However, when it comes to developing other skills, especially for self-growth and collaboration, and adapting to ADZUs culture the said structure fell short. But, these could be expected as the Pedagogy Training was created simply to complement with the Mentor-Mentee structure. Instruction Supervision Team. As mentioned earlier, IST was created to support the ADZU Mentoring Program. Thus, the study also investigated how this particular structure helped achieve the objectives of the mentoring program. With regard to using student-centered strategies, data from the focus group discussions revealed that the IST assisted the new faculty members indirectly by encouraging them to use strategies such as group works, role plays and other activities during post conferences. Kram (as cited in Gong, Chen, & Lee, 2011) called this indirect learning as personal learning, which he defined as the acquisition of knowledge, skills, or competence contributing to individual development, including self-reflection,
self-disclosure, active listening, empathy, and feedback [emphasis mine] (p. 810). The feedback occurred during post-conferences, or after an IST member observed a faculty conducting a class. One faculty from SLA mentioned that the IST provided him some guidelines on his areas for improvement. He stated, for example, I was given instructions like you have to group your students, and then put number heads so that the students will have equal chance to participate in the classroom. He further added, I think there were twice I was told [sic] because mostly I would do it in my own way like for example, teacher-centered style, and then later I shifted to student-centered . In addition, the IST also assisted them by providing positive feedback on the activities they did, thereby encouraging them to continue using the student-centered strategies. Three of the faculty members from SLA suggested that the IST members appreciated what they conducted in their classes and this appreciation motivated them to employ more studentcentered strategies. Another faculty from SMA expressed similar opinion, saying, [an IST member] observed me, and then she really encourages [sic] me to use these student-centered teaching strategies, which I learned from the Whole Brain Approach. This, however, was practiced only by some colleges since there were IST members of some colleges that simply observed the classes of new faculty members but failed to conduct post-conferences. One faculty stated based from [sic] my own experience, there was no feedback. She will
emphasize one or two items of those [sic] long list of things that we should do as instructors. This appears to explain the absence of written documents about the conduct of observations and post-conferences in a particular college, because ideally the IST member should submit written reports to the dean of the college he or she belongs to. In terms of managing classrooms, the new faculty members indicated that the IST assisted them by creating an impetus to properly manage the class, knowing that they would be observed by an IST member. This was so since most observations were announced. One faculty mentioned that every time an IST member would observe his class, he became particularly mindful about managing the class, especially in handling group activities. Another faculty stated that the IST made him conscious about time, saying, In my case, there was feedbacking [sic] actually it helped like, for example the time, so I have to divide my time for the activity, the other for my input, and the other for the processing or synthesis. From that time on, Ive become conscious about dividing my time. Moreover, two of the faculty members indicated that the feedback given by the IST member during post-conferences improved the way they managed their classes. One of them cited, the [IST] asked me to distribute the recitation to the rest of the students, especially there were students at the back who were not paying attention. So, I did not notice that. It was only after the feedback when I was informed that there were students at the back who were not paying attention. Another mentioned
that part of my strategy to manage my own classroom, I try to make students participate. When I lecture I also ask questions, critical questions, for them to stop talking because its their habit of talking when one is lecturing. When asked to what extent his practices could be attributed to IST, he responded that it was through the feedback of IST that he became more concerned about managing his classroom. When it comes to constructing appropriate assessments, the IST appeared to have fallen short in assisting the new faculty. In fact, only one of them responded positively, saying that the IST member offered him some feedback on how to improve his activity, especially in evaluating students using rubric. But, overall, the IST did not seem to focus on assessments. In the focus group discussions, the faculty members indicated that these (assessments) could possibly be not part of the responsibilities of the IST. The written documents on IST did not also indicate specific stipulations on assessments. Similarly, in terms of developing skills needed for personal growth and team development, the IST provided limited assistance to the new faculty. As the ISTs primary concern was conducting classroom observations, the feedback from the IST members centered on what were directly observed such as teaching strategies and classroom management. If there was another professional skill developed due to ISTs feedback, it would be communication skill as this was also observable during classroom visits. One faculty stated that the IST member assigned to him articulated the need to
improve his communication skill. And he suggested that that feedback encouraged him to develop further his communication skill. Notice that the faculty did not indicate how the IST helped them in terms of developing skills in working with a team. With regard to providing acculturation assistance to new faculty, the IST assisted the faculty by giving specific feedback related to ADZU core values and by setting good models of these values. One value of ADZU that was enforced by IST is the culture of excellence. Through the classroom observations and feedback, the IST inculcated into the faculty the importance of giving excellent education to students. A faculty commented that the IST served as a model in structuring the class like incorporating the Whole Brain Approach and the IST member served as a symbol of an ideal faculty of the college. As a whole, the IST, through classroom observations and feedback, was more helpful in terms of improving use of student-centered strategies and classroom management. However, when it comes to constructing appropriate assessments, developing professional skills for self-growth and team development, and acculturating to ADZU culture, IST assisted in limited and indirect ways such as modelling the core values of ADZU. Professional Growth Circle (PGC). The creation of this structure might not have considered the existing mentoring program, but because its goal appeared to have complemented the goals of mentoring, this study also
examined the outcomes of this structure and how these assisted in achieving the objectives of mentoring program. Since the conduct of PGC focused more on content than strategies, such structure assisted the faculty indirectly in terms of using studentcentered strategies. For instance, some faculty members of the College of Nursing revealed that through activities they performed during the workshops they learned to employ similar activities in their classes. As one faculty shared, In FDAR workshop, we had group dynamics there and we had to present. Then, we realized that what our students have been writing on their notebooks or on the charts, are the things that some of us have written as well. The speaker refreshed us on what to write down and what not to write down. It was nice cause we learned and translated it in the area. Another faculty from School of Liberal Arts indicated that she learned about strategies from one the PGC sessions. She stated, I just remember, the session of [one of the faculty-presenter]... thats the time I learned something about strategies and information gap activities and other ways to do information gap activities but most sessions are very much focused on content. Moreover, the implicit effect of PGC to faculty in using studentcentered strategies is also corroborated by the findings from the interviews with former deans and department chairs. One of the department chairs from College of Science and Information Technology stressed that the topic
on the Texas Instrument helped the teachers teach students how to graph functions. But he emphasized that as a whole the PGC was more focused on content, not on strategies. One of the department chairs of the School of Liberal Arts stated, Although not explicitly mentioned, the principle of communicative teaching, which is student-centered teaching, is shown in the PGC sessions. The structure of PGC in itself models the use of student-centered strategies, especially when a faculty re-echoes [sic] a seminar-workshop on strategies. Another chair from the same school also mentioned, The program on Peace Integration is participant-centered. Activities were employed, and in employing the activities, the participants were exposed to student-centered activities. For example, the topic [sic] history of Mindanao, the participants were asked to draw a timeline, then they were asked to draw an object which symbolizes the history of Mindanao. Another activity was a group work, grouping the participants according to their culture and then there were questions about their perception about the culture. Similarly, in terms of managing classrooms, PGC also assisted the faculty in incidental ways. One faculty from CON mentioned, During my first few years, classroom management was really a struggle. But as we had the different seminars or sessions, I realized that if my students are loud and noisy . . . we also experience that with some of our speakers. Therefore, if our students react that way, we also react that way. So, perhaps I could adjust how I manage my classroom based on that experience. This
experience was also validated by another faculty from CON, saying We learned how to manage the classroom based on how the speakers managed the session. Furthermore, findings from the interviews with key informants reflected the same experience. One faculty from SLA stated, In a way, the PGC has helped the teachers in managing their classroom. The PGC sessions served as a training ground. The presenter must be opened to criticism, which is the same way in the classroom. There would be hard criticisms from the students and the faculty should be opened to that. Criticisms, as a term, refers to students questions; meaning managing students questions. Another department chair also mentioned, The dynamics in the PGC is translated in [sic] the classroom. When a faculty manages the PGC in the form of seminar-workshop, the same dynamics is translated to [sic] the classroom. It should be noted that, except for those cited above, the other faculty members and department chairs and deans who participated in the study indicated that the PGC did not assist them in terms of managing classrooms. As has been explained earlier, PGC focused more on content. When it comes to constructing appropriate assessments, PGC was also limited in providing assistance to the new faculty. Although most of those who participated in the study indicated that assessment was not focused in the PGC, there were some who stated that PGC assisted them. For instance, the faculty from CON mentioned that they had a PGC session on test
construction with two of the senior faculty in ADZU. A former department chair also shared that they had one PGC session with a senior faculty on test construction. According to her, in that session, the faculty learned to identify questions that fall under HOTS. Somehow the session helped the faculty developed appropriate tests. Another former department chair mentioned that that they had one PGC session in their department on particular software, which helped them prepare a particular type of exam. From the preceding statements, it appears that attention on assessment was less in PGC structure. The case could be said in terms of how the said structure assisted the faculty in developing professional skills and adapting to ADZUs culture. In terms of developing professional skills, PGC assisted the faculty by providing them opportunities to enhance their communication skills and interpersonal skills. Since the faculty served as speakers during PGC sessions, they developed confidence in speaking in front of an audience. As PGC sessions were also structured in such a way that faculty members expressed their opinions freely, the skills of the faculty in communication were also improved. Additionally, since faculty members also worked in groups during PGC sessions, their skills in active listening, problem solving, making decisions, negotiating, and leading a group were also developed. According to the faculty from CON, these skills, including reflective thinking,
were developed during the conduct of Ignatian Conversation Growth Circle (ICGC), which their college conducted almost every month. With regard to adapting to ADZUs culture, PGC assisted the faculty largely in developing academic excellence. One faculty from SLA indicated, When we do PGC, it is reflected in how we adapt the culture of ADZU. For example, you were talking about excellence Im a psychology teacher, it reflects my being able to imbibe that value of excellence in me not just being constrained with the parameters of psychology but being able to gain information and knowledge, understanding about other fields as well, which is what is expected of a teacher in ADZU. Additionally, PGC also assisted in developing sense of spirituality among faculty members. This is particularly true for the CON where ICGC was held regularly. As one faculty of CON stated, the session was held on the culture of peace. The culture of the College of Nursing has changed. It used to hit hard during the Ateneo Fiesta, but now the culture slowly changes. This was also supported by the experience of one of the former department chairs. He stated, Through PGC, we are able to see how we ask questions without putting each other down . . . . Somehow through PGC, we are able to learn the culture of ADZU that you can disagree without being disagreeable. In addition, those new in the department do not have the hesitation to ask the senior faculty. The faculty members also stated that other core values of ADZU such as cura personalis were also developed. One faculty from CON indicated that
from PGC she imbibed the value of cura personalis, and in turn, she would try to instill the same into her students. She stated, we always tell our students to bring the Ateneo way of life . . . they have to be men and women for others. In a similar vein, a faculty from SLA mentioned that he learned to develop cura personalis from the sessions on Gender Sensitivity. The same faculty also stated that PGC sessions exhibited ADZUs culture of dialogue and sense of community as seen in the manner criticism is expressed among the faculty. Overall, the PGC seemed to have assisted the new faculty in indirect ways in terms of using student-centered strategies, managing classrooms, constructing appropriate assessments, developing professional skills, and adapting to ADZUs culture. However, of these five areas, PGC appeared to have contributed more in the last two areas, especially in developing other professional skills such as public speaking, managing workshops, and team building. With ICGC as an activity for PGC, at least from the facultys perspectives, faculty members did not only develop intellectually but also spiritually. Moreover, based on the above findings on PGC, it appeared that the concept of PGC resembled what Darwin and Palmer (2009) called mentoring circles, which they reported to have benefits such as building confidence in the workplace; changing stereotypes in the organization; sharing personal and professional information; and closer and richer relationships (p. 127).
Facultys Perspectives on Improving ADZU Mentoring Program As ADZU Mentoring Program is in its developing stage, it is not without imperfections. Thus, this study also gathered suggestions from faculty during the focus group discussions to improve the different structures of ADZU Mentoring Program. The succeeding discussion delves into these suggestions, which are organized by structure. Mentor-Mentee Structure. The suggestions of respondents for this structure focused on the issues pertaining to the mentor. Problems concerning mentor-mentee relationship, specifically on pairing, are common in mentoring programs. As Ehrich et al. (as cited in Bell & Treleaven, 2011) observed, in their review of mentoring within the fields of education, business, and medicine, that mismatch in professional expertise and personality was among the most frequently cited problems with mentoring relationships. First, the respondents suggested that matching of mentor and mentee should be based on specialization and familiarity. Specifically, they mentioned that, should mentor-mentee structure be continued, both the mentor and the mentee must share the same or related field of specialization. To recall, the initial implementation of Mentor-Mentee Structure focused more on assisting the faculty in developing pedagogical skills since the faculty members were assumed to have possessed the adequate knowledge of content. As a result, identifying the mentors did not
strictly consider the similarity of mentors and mentees in terms of specialization. Not only that the mentor and mentee should possess similar specialization, the respondents also suggested that they should come from the same department, or what they considered familiarity, so that the mentors would be more accessible. Missouris Mentoring Framework (2005) calls this proximity. Although to some extent this was address during the initial implementation, the suggestion was raised due to some of the mentors who were assigned to mentees belonged to different departments. For instance, a mentor was a teacher from Natural Sciences Department and the mentee was from Computer Science Department. Again, this occurred because the mentors were chosen based on their ability to provide inputs and guidance in pedagogy to new faculty. Furthermore, in the preceding suggestions, the respondents did not categorically indicate how the pairing would be done, whether they prefer to choose their own mentors or not; what they stated, however, that they preferred some flexibility in the assignment of mentors. They suggested that a mentee should not be limited to one mentor. There should be a pool of mentors, who possess knowledge of and skills in different areas, from whom the mentees can seek assistance depending on their needs. This suggestion supports de Janasz, Sullivan, and Whitings (2003) intimation that mentoring programs must transcend the traditional structures as they impede individuals to one persons point of view and that new teachers must have
access to multiple mentors in order to meet the demands of todays rapidly changing work environment. Correspondingly, Darwin (as cited in Darwin & Palmer, 2009) contends that People are now more likely to receive mentoring support from a number of different people (p. 126), as some of the respondents experiences would validate. Additionally, they implied that the structure be implemented on a departmental level; in other words, instead of the Academic Vice President to decide whether a new faculty be assigned to a mentor, the respective departments, through the chairs, decide on the matter. This was suggested possibly because some departments such as the Computer Science Department had some form of Mentor-Mentee Structure, but it was not formalized by providing the mentors the specified deloads. In relation to this, since there were departments who lacked adequate senior faculty to serve as mentors, in which case the department chairs become the mentors, the respondents suggested that the former be given additional deloads. Through this, the department chairs could have more time to engage in mentoring their assigned mentees. Pedagogy Training. The suggestions of the respondents for Pedagogy Training could be categorized as follows: (a) schedule, (b) topics, and (c) follow-ups. Firstly, they suggested that the schedule for the Pedagogy Training be improved so that all topics listed in the program could be covered. They implied that not all topics that were identified for the
training were carried out during the training. Availability of the participants was cited as the main reason for this issue. Secondly, some of them recommended that the training would include topics such as the importance of research. As one faculty mentioned perhaps there could be a session on how to get ourselves involved with [sic] research because our idea of research its for more seasoned faculty. This suggestion should be welcomed as research seems to be the trend in the tertiary level. Finally, the respondents suggested that there should be follow ups in to the training. They further suggested that the follow up could be in two ways: one, allowing them to observe the classes of senior faculty, and another, meeting them after their first year of teaching in the university. According to them, observing the senior faculty would allow them to acquire ideas on how these faculty members conduct their classes. This particular suggestion concurs to Missouris Mentoring Framework (2005), which specifies the time for new teacher to observe master (senior) teacher as one of its ten indicators. Moreover, meeting them after a year of teaching for
a discussion on how they performed in their first year would allow them to do introspection on how they conducted their classes. From this meeting, it could be ascertained whether they performed properly, making it also as a form of evaluation. Instruction Supervision Team. The respondents suggestions on IST centered on the improvement of the procedure and the inclusion of other
focal points for observations. As part of its procedure, it was suggested that the IST should stay in the class to be observed the entire period, so he could witness how the class was conducted from beginning to end. Some of the faculty members implied that there were IST members who came in the middle of their classes and stayed for few minutes only. Also, the IST member and his assigned faculty must agree on the areas to be observed, so the faculty could also focus on these areas. Additionally, when conducting observations, the IST should ask for the course syllabus to ascertain whether the learning outcomes for the days lesson are achieved and whether faculty is on schedule. It was also suggested that the IST should conduct post conferences after each observation as accordingly there were IST members who failed to perform this particular responsibility. And during post conferences, the IST members have to be transparent of their observations. In other words, they should reveal to the faculty observed not only the positive observations but also the areas for improvement, or vice versa. Since constructing appropriate assessments was not focused by the IST in the past, the respondents suggested that this particular topic be given attention by the IST members. And when they do, the focus should not only be on pen and paper tests but also end-of-discussion questions or activities that can also serve as assessments. For this to be implemented appropriately, the IST member and his assigned faculty should come from the same or related field of specialization.
Similar to one of the suggestions for Mentor-Mentee structure, the faculty members also indicated their desire to observe the IST members conducting classes. In doing so, the former could learn the good practices of the latter. Moreover, to ensure that the IST would perform their responsibilities dutifully, there should be individuals who would monitor the conduct of IST. If the monitoring is to be performed by the deans of the different colleges and schools, they should be mandated to submit documentations of the IST observations and post conferences with faculty members. Professional Growth Circle. Because the conduct of PGC sessions varied in the different departments and colleges, foremost, the faculty members suggested that it should be standardized through the provision of a clear set of guidelines. Aside from the rationale, the guidelines must delineate clearly the structure and the frequency of the PGC sessions. As In terms of structure, the faculty members suggested that this should be done departmentally since each department has specific needs. However, for cases when some departments perceive similar needs, the PGC session could be conducted interdepartmentally. By doing so, resources could also be maximized. With regard to resources, the respondents suggested that specific budget should be allotted for PGC. The budget would cover mostly materials and food. According to the respondents, the provision of food would also encourage the faculty members to participate in PGC sessions.
To ensure attendance of faculty members, the respondents suggested that attendance should be strictly monitored. One even suggested to enforce similar policy on faculty attendance, where the facultys salary is deducted corresponding to the number of absences incurred. In terms of frequency, the respondents recommended that departmental PGC sessions be conducted once a month and interdepartmental once a semester. Conducting PGC session every month with different faculty serving as resource speaker or facilitator would compel the faculty to develop professionally. In other words, identification of resource speaker would not be dependent on the attendance of seminars or trainings as practiced in the past. With this structure, it is hoped that most, if not all, faculty members would have the opportunity to serve as a resource speaker or facilitator. Furthermore, the respondents suggested that in choosing the topics for PGC sessions, the departments and colleges should consider the schools vision and mission. With this, the faculty members would be equipped with knowledge and skills that would assist the school in meeting its vision and mission. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS From the preceding discussion, the findings could be summarized as follows: 1. ADZU Mentoring Program commenced with Mentor-Mentee structure. While the structure appeared to have assisted some of the mentees
primarily in improving student-centered strategies and classroom management, it seemed to have failed in affecting all mentees as it lacked effective schemes in monitoring and evaluating both the mentors and mentees. There were mentors who were reported not conducting post conferences after classroom observations. The conduct of classroom observations without the post conferences did not seem to have helped the mentees as the latter were left uninformed whether they performed well or not. This, among other issues such as the lack of proper orientation on the mentees responsibilities that consequently affected their participation in the program, contributed to the seemingly ineffectiveness of the program. 2. To increase participation of mentees, the program was modified from one-to-one structure known as Mentor-Mentee to group structure called Pedagogy Training. With this new structure, mentees were given deloads (three units) that compelled them to participate in the program. Also, in this program, more mentees (new faculty members) were trained to handle pedagogical issues (or topics) in lesser time. As mentees pedagogical skills were developed in similar fashion, monitoring and evaluating their skills could be easily performed. These pedagogical issues served as focal points of the observations, making the monitoring and evaluating more consistent. And these observations were executed by the heads of the departments that the mentees belonged to.
3. Although the department heads were primarily tasked to monitor and evaluate the mentees, ADZU introduced Instruction Supervision Team to assist the former in those functions. This was to ensure that all mentees would be observed and given feedback. However, as discussed earlier, there were IST members of some colleges who only observed classes but did not provide feedback to the mentees. 4. Overall, the ADZU Mentoring Structures Mentor-Mentee, Pedagogy Training, and Instruction Supervision Team assisted the new faculty members mostly in terms of developing student-centered strategies and managing classrooms. However, in terms of meeting other objectives of the program such as constructing appropriate assessments, developing other professional skills, and acculturating with the universitys culture, the three structures fell short. 5. With the exception of Pedagogy Training, the mentees developed skills in using student-centered strategies and managing classrooms in indirect ways, mostly through the feedback from the mentors and IST members. Hence, those mentees who did not receive feedback, either from their mentors or the IST members, were likely to have acquired lesser skills. This underpinned the importance of timely and constructive feedback. 6. Although Professional Growth Circle (PGC) was created without consideration of ADZU Mentoring Program objectives, it was,
nonetheless, considered to have complemented the mentoring program. In fact, it served to address the objectives not met by the other three structures developing professional skills and acculturating to ADZU culture. Through the PGC, faculty members, both old and new, were given the opportunity to serve as resource persons of PGC sessions. With this, the faculty members, especially the new ones, enhanced confidence and communication skills at the same time developed mastery of their respective field. 7. While the different structures proved to yield positive outcomes, they were perceived to have areas of improvement. Foremost, it was suggested that there should be clear monitoring and evaluation schemes. The failure of the structures to address sufficiently the objectives of the program was due to the lack of schemes to ensure that mentors (for Mentor-Mentee), facilitators (for Pedagogy Training), and IST members (for Instruction Supervision Team) perform their responsibilities consistently. Similarly, with the schemes in place, the presence and participation of mentees or new faculty members could also be ensured. 8. It was also suggested that the mentees (or new faculty) would be provided with the opportunity to observe their assigned mentors (Mentor-Mentee), IST members (Instruction Supervision Team), and facilitators (Pedagogy Training) conducting classroom activities. From
the observations, they could acquire inputs and insights that could strengthen their pedagogical and other professional skills. 9. It could also be inferred that the three structures would work better if they would be taken as complementary to one another rather than as discrete structure. Pedagogy Training would focus on equipping the new faculty members the pedagogical skills while Instruction Supervision Team would focus on monitoring and evaluating the extent of use of pedagogical skills in the classrooms. The Mentor-Mentee would focus on new faculty members who might need more assistance as indicated by the evaluation of the IST. 10. Moreover, underlying this alternative view of the structures is the
role of the administrators, especially in providing the necessary support. Without their support, mentors and mentees could easily get disheartened, leading to the failure of the program.
CONCLUSION Since it was first instituted, the ADZU Mentoring Program has undergone significant changes, and these changes have yielded some positive outcomes, especially to the receiving end of the program the novice faculty members of the Ateneo de Zamboanga University. The findings revealed that the program, through the different structures, assisted in the development of pedagogical skills (e.g., using student-centered
strategies and managing classrooms) of the new faculty members of ADZU. These findings corroborated Gagen and Bowies (2005) and Feiman-Nemsers (as cited in Petersen, 2006) contention that mentoring supports professional development of individuals new to the teaching profession. With the preceding discussion, there is a considerable reason to continue the implementation of ADZU Mentoring Program in the university. However, for the program to yield better results, its implementation should seriously consider the suggestions discussed above. As Ewing et al. (as cited in Ligadu, 2012) intimate, a truly effective mentoring program, whether formal or informal, should be designed, developed and implemented in an inclusive and well-resourced manner (p. 361). In addition, if the program is to concur with the contention of Jenkins (2010), Adam (1998), and Alleman (as cited in Matters, 1998) that the mentoring should be a collaboration or a partnership, then it has to ensure the active participation of the key players the administrators, the senior faculty (mentors), and the new faculty (mentees). When these suggestions are incorporated into ADZU Mentoring Program, ADZU will not only be assured of having quality teachers but also having them at least until their retirement.
References Adam, A. (1998). Towards a conceptualization of mentoring. In C. Y. Young, Mentoring: The components for success. Journal of Instructional Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/0FCG/3_28/79370576/print.jhtml Bell, A., & Treleaven, L. (2011). Looking for professor right: Mentee selection of mentors in a formal mentoring program. Higher Education, 61, 545
561. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-010-9348-0

de Janasz, S.C., Sullivan, S.E., & Whiting, V. (2003). Mentor networks and career success: Lessons for turbulent times. Academy of Management
Executive, 17(4), 7891. Darwin, A., & Palmer, E. (2009). Mentoring circles in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(2), 125136. DOI: 10.1080/07294360902725017 Davis, B., & Higdon, K. (2008). Support on beginning teachers' practices in early elementary classrooms. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb1439/is_3_22/ai_n29427497/ Evertson, C. M., & Smithey, M. W. (2000). Mentoring effects on protgs' classroom practice: An experimental field study. Journal of Educational Research, 93: 294-301. DOI: 10.1080/00220670009598721 Gagen, L., & Bowie, S. (2005). Effective mentoring: A case for training mentors for novice teachers. JOPERD, 76(7), 40-45.
Gong, R., Chen, S., & Lee, S. (2011). Does mentoring work? The mediating effect 807-824. Ingersoll, R., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. University of Pennsylvania Scholarly Commons. Retrieved from http: of mentoring in China. Social Behavior and Personality, 39(6),
//repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1127&context=gse_ ubs Jenkins, N. (2010). Teacher mentoring: A critical review. Retrieved from http://www.articleonlinedirectory.com/Art/505606/275/teachermentoring-a-critical-review.html Ligadu, C. P. (2012). The impact of the professional learning and psychological mentoring support for teacher trainees. Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3), 350-363. Matters, P. (1998). Mentoring : Cornerstone of teaching and learning excellence. Retrieved from ttp://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/mat02380.htm Missouri State Teachers Association. (2005). Missouri mentoring framework. Columbia, MO: Author. Retrieved from http://www.msta.org/files/new_teachers/mentoring_frameworks.pdf Petersen, L. K. (2006). Mentoring as a support mechanism for teaching practice by teachers in higher education. Retrieved from
www.aare.edu.au/07pap/pet07120.pdf

Mentoring Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mentoring Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADZU Mentoring Program: Evolution and Evaluation INTRODUCTION If teaching itself is already a daunting task, teaching in the tertiary

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 3

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 4

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 9

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 10

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 12

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 13

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 15

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 16

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 17

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 20

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 21

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 23

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 24

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 26

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 28

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 30

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 37

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 41

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 46

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 49

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 53

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 55

561. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-010-9348-0

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 57

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 58

You might also like