GSS cIRcle Open Scholar Award (UBCV Non-Thesis Graduate Work)

It doesn’t have to be “sink or swim” : building positive professional relationships through mentoring Alderman, Chris; Blake, Karen; Cornell, Bruce; Higgs, Zoe; Klein, Rachel 2012-04-30

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
42591-Alderman_C_et_al_EDST_553_2012.pdf [ 521.94kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 42591-1.0055411.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0055411-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0055411-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0055411-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0055411-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0055411-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0055411-source.json
Full Text
42591-1.0055411-fulltext.txt
Citation
42591-1.0055411.ris

Full Text

Running Head: POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING 1  IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE “SINK OR SWIM”:  BUILDING POSITIVE PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS  THROUGH MENTORING  by Chris Alderman Karen Blake Bruce Cornell Zoe Higgs Rachel Klein  A Capstone project Report submitted in partial fulfillment of  The requirements for the degree of MASTER of EDUCATION In The Faculty of Educational Studies (Educational Leadership and Administration)   UNIVERSITY of BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) APRIL 2012 POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  2 ABSTRACT  This paper is a review and analysis of current mentoring practices in public school systems. More specifically, our research centres around comparing and contrasting existing mentorship models and then analyzing how these may or may not relate to the current practices of a school district in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. The research involves a systematic literature review and interviews with educational experts who hold district leadership positions.  These two components identified a number of overarching themes of mentoring programs: structure and format of programs, collaboration and reciprocity of relationships, support for teachers, mandated and voluntary enrolment, and resource allocation.   POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  3  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  We wish to acknowledge the following people who gave us support through the program: Dr. Michelle Stack for her humour, patience, and guidance throughout our capstone project; and to our fellow VEL2 cohort members who never ceased to entertain and challenge us over the last two years.   POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 3 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 4 It doesn’t have to be “Sink or Swim”: Building positive professional relationships through mentoring ........................................................................................................................................ 6 History......................................................................................................................................... 7 Mentorship in the North American Context ............................................................................... 8 Canadian Research .................................................................................................................... 11 Defining Terms ......................................................................................................................... 12 Mentorship ............................................................................................................................ 12 Mentor ................................................................................................................................... 13 Novice ................................................................................................................................... 13 K-12 ...................................................................................................................................... 13 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 14 Research Question and Framing ............................................................................................... 14 Initial Search Criteria ................................................................................................................ 15 Secondary Search Criteria and Categorization ......................................................................... 15 Preliminary Research ................................................................................................................ 16 Systematic Literature Review ................................................................................................... 16 Semi-Structured Interviews ...................................................................................................... 19 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................... 21 Systematic Literature Review ................................................................................................... 21 Themes in Literature ................................................................................................................. 23 Formal/Informal .................................................................................................................... 26 Mandated/Voluntary ............................................................................................................. 27 One to One/Group ................................................................................................................. 29 Collaborative/Apprentice ...................................................................................................... 30 Duration ................................................................................................................................ 31 Annotations ........................................................................................................................... 33 Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 43 Structures ............................................................................................................................. 43 Past and Present Practice .................................................................................................. 44 New Structures and Partnerships ...................................................................................... 46 Components ...................................................................................................................... 47 Relationships ......................................................................................................................... 50 Collaboration and Reciprocity .......................................................................................... 50 Professional Development and Education to Enhance Mentorship Relationships ........... 51 Building and Sustaining a Culture of Reciprocity ............................................................ 52 Support .................................................................................................................................. 53 Collaboration and Cooperation ......................................................................................... 53 Allocation of Resources .................................................................................................... 55 Recognition of Mentor and Novice Teacher Vulnerability .............................................. 57 Integration of SLR and Interviews ............................................................................................ 59 Implications of Our Research ....................................................................................................... 60 Canadian and Local Contexts ................................................................................................... 60 POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  5 Attrition ..................................................................................................................................... 61 Stigma ....................................................................................................................................... 61 Mentor Selection and Matching Criteria ................................................................................... 62 Funding/Resources .................................................................................................................... 62 Pre-Service/Novice ................................................................................................................... 63 Recomendations ............................................................................................................................ 64 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 66 References ..................................................................................................................................... 68 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 71 APPENDIX A- BREB Approval .............................................................................................. 71 APPENDIX B- Letter of Initial Contact ................................................................................... 71 APPENDIX C- Letter of CONSENT ....................................................................................... 73 APPENDIX D- Interview Questions ........................................................................................ 75    POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  6 IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE “SINK OR SWIM”: BUILDING POSITIVE PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  Mentorship has gained popularity in a number of arenas and disciplines in the last 30 years, but as a concept it is not exactly new. From the education of Odysseus’ son by a friend and advisor called Mentor over 3000 years ago (Onchwari & Keengwe, 2008), to modern-day mentoring relationships between the likes of Martin Heidegger and Hannah Arendt, Martin Scorsese and Oliver Stone, and even Obi-wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker, mentorship has long been seen as a valuable method for masters to pass on their experiences, wisdom, and knowledge to others.  The purpose of this study is to examine mentorship through a systematic literature review and purposeful interviews, with the intent to make recommendations for the lower mainland district that we researched.  In the realm of education more specifically, the perceptions concerning the purpose of mentorship and its overall popularity has undergone significant changes in the last 40 years. Beginning in the 1960s, the Baby Boom generation increased school enrollment by 25% (Grissmer & Kirby, 1997) and, as a result, demand for entry-level teachers increased dramatically. As the profession was then characterized by individualism and autonomy, such an increase in new teachers did not lead to the proliferation of formal mentorship programs over night. Indeed, Hargreaves and Fullan (2000) argue that teacher mentorship through the 1960s and 70s was stigmatized- limited to ‘novices and incompetents’-and that being mentored was viewed as an indication of weakness (p. 51). As such, teachers distanced themselves from such programs.  POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  7 HISTORY Ganser (2002) states the first formally organized mentorship programs that “linked new teachers with experienced veterans” (p. 27) first took shape in the United States during the 1970s and gained popularity through the 1980s and 90s as the attitudes towards both teaching and mentorship shifted. Rather than valuing autonomy and self-sufficiency in their work, a “culture of collaboration” (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2000, p. 51) between educators began to emerge.  This shift has been attributed to the widening of curriculum demands, increasing range of special education students in ordinary classes, accelerating pace of change, large-scale retirements (Ganser, 2002), lack of public support, and the promulgation of high-stakes educational policies (Onchwari & Keengwe, 2008). As many of these concerns have persisted- and even intensified- in recent years, the need for teacher mentorship endures today. Its popularity as a means of support- and even as a way to stem the tide of staggeringly high teacher attrition rates- continues to grow. In response, some state and provincial governments, recognizing the need for mentorship, have committed to supporting, funding, and even mandating its implementation in schools across North America.  In fact, Feeney Jonson (2001) suggests that by 2008 in the United States at least 28 states had implemented formalized mentorship programs and mandated new teachers to participate in them. In Canada, as education is governed at the provincial level, mentorship programs vary in delivery. The Ontario Ministry of Education has mandated a formalized induction program for new teachers and the same is true for the Northwest Territories (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010; Northwest Territories Education, Culture, and Employment, 2012).  The Alberta and Saskatchewan governments, in conjunction with the Alberta Teachers’ Association and Saskatchewan Teachers´ Federation respectively, offer voluntary mentorship support for new teachers (Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2010; Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation, 2012).  The BC Ministry of Education currently does not POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  8 provide a formalized induction or mentorship program but on a district-to-district basis we have found evidence of mentorship opportunities for teachers (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2012).  Mentorship has, and continues to be, firmly tied to education for a number of reasons. Lauded as a “highly useful strategy to ease the transition from teacher preparation programs to in-service teaching” (Evertson & Smithey, 2001, p. 294) and as a means for “professional renewal, enhanced self-esteem, more reflective practices, and leadership skills” (Hanson, 2010, p. 76) on the part of the experienced teacher, it is clear that mentorship has the potential to benefit a teacher at nearly every stage of his or her career.  Indeed, participation in this type of relationship has had a significant impact on all of our careers as both experienced and novice teachers and for this reason our research focus is to uncover the models of teacher mentorship dominant in literature.  MENTORSHIP IN THE NORTH AMERICAN CONTEXT  Teaching as a profession is “characterized by low pay, low status, relentless demands, exhausting work, and poor working conditions” (St. George & Robinson, 2011, p. 24) and this is especially true during the first five years. These factors, along with others, create a perfect environment for high attrition rates of our newly inducted teachers.  This deficit in the public education system has led to research examining what factors can help retain teachers in the system past the initial years in the profession.  Odell and Ferraro (1992) state that one possible factor that has been shown to help new teachers is the introduction of a mentoring program.   POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  9 There are a plethora of articles about this crisis in teaching and how mentorship can affect the new teacher retention rates; however the vast majority of the works published are from the United States. It must be noted that although some of the American research on mentorship is relevant in a Canadian, and more specifically, a Lower Mainland of British Columbia context, some of the main causes of teacher attrition in Canada vary greatly from the United States. The American perspective outlines one major difference between Canada and the United States: job availability. According to our research, the US has been facing a teacher shortage (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Conversely, within our own districts of employment, teacher layoffs have been a yearly occurrence for the past three years.  As such, the factors that have caused high teacher attrition rates in the United States may not necessarily translate to the Canadian context.  According to Smith and Ingersoll, the American attrition rates show that a staggering 50% of teachers leave the profession within the first five years (as cited in Wasburn, Wasburn- Moses, & Blackman, 2008).  In Vancouver, Canada, the average attrition rate is hovering around 20% (Maker, 2010).  Within the past decade or so, teacher shortages and attrition rates have garnered the attention of policy makers. Many American states now have mandated mentorship programs in an effort to effectively help newer teachers transition into the profession (Ganser, 2002). In Canada, however, the majority of provinces do not have mandated mentorship programs.  In Saskatchewan, for example, mentorship models “are usually implemented at the school level at the discretion of the principal” (Hellsten, Prytula, Ebanks, & Lai, 2009).  In British Columbia, some districts, such as Chilliwack, have a district-wide mentorship program, whereas others, such as Vancouver, have some school-based programs. Currently, Ontario is the POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  10 only province to have a mandated teacher induction program for beginning teachers which began in all publicly funded school boards in 2006 (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010).  Research from the United States outlines increasing enrolment rates and the large number of teacher retirements as factors that compound the teacher shortage in the United States (Grissmer & Kirby, 1997). Grissmer and Kirby (1997) call this recent demand for qualified teachers easily predictable and they worry that quality teachers are more in demand than ever, given the small pool from which to draw. We, the authors, see declining enrolment and over- staffing as a constant concern in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, underscoring the difference between our situation and that of our colleagues south of the border.  According to the Alliance for Excellent Education (2005), teacher attrition costs taxpayers $2.2 billion dollars a year. This conservative estimate is due to hiring, training, and recruiting, but this does not take into account the non-financial toll that high teacher attrition has on students.  A surprising and encouraging outcome of mentorship programs in Canada shows a benefit to both mentors and novice teachers as they build “collaborative learning relationships” (Gabriel & Kaufield, 2008, p. 311), with benefits flowing to both partners.  This reciprocity was of particular interest to us as we saw an amazing professional development opportunity serving new teachers and helping the teacher attrition rates, but also aiding more experienced teachers.  POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  11 CANADIAN RESEARCH  Hellsten et al.’s (2009) article entitled “Teacher Induction: Exploring Beginning Teacher Mentorship” provided a foundation for our research. Not only is it Canadian, which few of our articles are, but it proposes several key aspects of mentorship models which we feel are imperative to a new program. Rippon & Martin outline critiques of the popular model of mentorship based on the apprenticeship approach state that it “fails to recognize the existing expertise of the protégé, encourages deference to a mentor regardless of a mentor’s expertise, encourages conformation to existing practices, and prohibits the development of new approaches to teaching and learning” (as cited in Hellsten et al., 2009, p. 707). Instead, the authors offer a different approach based on a collaborative model that touches on mentor matching, multiple mentors, and professional learning community models.  There are many factors that have influenced Canada’s lag behind the United States in terms of policy regarding mentorship programs. Canadian induction and mentorship programs, according to Feiman-Nemser, Schwille, Carver and Yusko, are crippled by a lack of funding and “an under-conceptualized, narrow view of how to support and develop” new teachers (as cited in Hellsten et al., 2009, p. 709).  It is encouraging to note, however, that the BC Education Plan, proposed in October of 2011, cites teacher mentorship as an area for growth in this province (British Columbia Education Plan). This leaves us encouraged that mentorship models may be more readily adopted and funding may be available to implement mentorship programs in the Lower Mainland District and in the province of British Columbia.    POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  12 DEFINING TERMS  To ground our research we will begin by defining the terms used in our analysis. Mentorship.  Through our initial research we have discovered that there is no one clear definition of mentorship.  This view is supported by Healy and Welchert (1990) who argue that there exists no universal or dominant definition of mentorship as yet.  Quoting Tillman (2005), mentorship is defined as “learning partnerships between two or more individuals who wish to share or develop a mutual interest” (p. 227). Although the premise of this definition is sound, it does not go far enough.  Tillman (as cited in Parker, Ndoye, & Imig, 2009) provides more specificity with the assertion that mentorship in education involves “novice teachers paired with season veterans [to] facilitate their transition to the profession” (p. 330).  In the same vein, mentorship is also defined as “a developmental partnership through which one person shares knowledge, skills, information, and perspectives to foster the personal and professional growth of someone else” (CMCIS, 2008) and in Smith and Ingersoll (2004) as “the personal guidance provided, usually by seasoned veterans, to beginning teachers in schools” (p. 683).  Although these definitions provide a more directed focus of the common theme that mentorship is a professional learning relationship between an experienced teacher and a beginner teacher, for this review we have chosen to align our definition most closely with that proposed by Healy and Welchert (1990) who consider mentoring to be a “dynamic, reciprocal relationship in a work environment between an advanced career incumbent (mentor) and a beginner (novice) aimed at promoting the career development of both” (p.17).  In the realm of education, mentoring relationships have traditionally been established between novice teachers and seasoned veterans, and although mentorship is not necessarily exclusive to this particular pairing, it is on this relationship that we have chosen to focus our study. POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  13  The terminology used to describe mentoring relationships in education differs greatly.  Mentor, seasoned veteran, and experienced teacher have all been used to describe one half of the mentoring relationship (Wasburn, M. H., Wasburn-Moses, L., & Blackman, J., 2008; Hellsten, L. A., Prytula, M. P., Ebanks, A., & Lai, H., 2009; Gabriel & Kaufield, 2008).  Mentee, novice, protégé, and beginning teacher describe the other half (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2000; Ingersoll & Smith, 2004; Bey, 1995; David, 2000). Studies and articles that focused on these terms are included in the analysis.  However, for the purpose of clarity the terms mentor and novice will be used throughout this review to define the roles within the mentoring relationship.  Mentor.  The term “mentor” is used in the context of this study to define any teacher with more than five years of teaching experience who has been placed in or volunteered for the role of providing guidance to novice teachers.  Novice.  For the purpose of this study, “novice teacher” (NT) is defined as any teacher who has recently completed their teacher training and practicum experiences and has been hired by a school district.  Although new teachers may be defined as new to the profession, new to a district, or new to a school, regardless of years of experience, within the scope of this study, novice teachers are defined solely as new to the profession with five or fewer years of experience.  K-12.  Only studies and articles that focus on teaching relationships from Kindergarten to Grade 12 education are included in this review.  Although examples of mentoring relationships POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  14 exist in multiple disciplines and within teacher training and pre-service practicae, our research is focused solely on teachers who have completed their teacher training and are responsible for their own classes or programs.  METHODOLOGY  This study consists of two major components; a systematic review of literature as well as two semi-structured expert interviews to address our research question “What models of mentoring are dominant in academic literature and how does this compare and contrast with the Lower Mainland District (LMD)?” Using these two components the researchers looked to find common themes in the literature and the interviews to see if there is a model or models of mentorship programs that may be already used in the LMD or may be beneficial to the LMD. RESEARCH QUESTION AND FRAMING To initiate our study we searched the key terms “teaching” and “mentorship” as we believed they would provide an adequate starting point for our research.  The overarching question that has grounded our research is: What models of mentoring are dominant in academic literature and how does this compare and contrast with the LMD?  Our study has two sections.  In the first we will examine literature concerning mentoring in the K-12 education system. We will focus our systematic literature review on the following: 1. What are the similarities and differences in the conceptual frameworks used by researchers to analyze mentoring? 2. What are the similarities and differences in the methods used to analyze mentoring? 3. What are the similarities and differences in models recommended for mentoring? POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  15  In looking at each of these questions we will analyze what is presented and where there are deficiencies.  We will look at the political context of mentoring programs- for example, mandated versus voluntary participation, individual pairings versus collaborative models, and formal versus informal structure.  In the second section of this study we will conduct and analyze expert interviews with senior educational leaders of the LMD. Our expert interviews will connect what we learn from our systematic literature review with our context as practitioners in the Lower Mainland.  The interviews will focus on the following: 1. What are the conceptual underpinnings of the models used in the LMD? 2. What are the potential benefits to those participating in a mentorship program? 3. What shortcomings are identified and what are possible means of addressing these issues? INITIAL SEARCH CRITERIA Our initial search criteria was based on the key words “mentorship” and “teaching”.  This proved to be very broad as many of the articles focused on the medical community, graduate student-professor mentorship, and pre-service teacher training.  Articles such as these, outside of the focus on K-12 teacher mentorship, were discarded.  SECONDARY SEARCH CRITERIA AND CATEGORIZATION From our initial search one of the emerging themes in the literature was reciprocity, to further filter, reciprocity was added as a key word in the search parameters.  Sixty sources were POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  16 identified to be included in the systematic literature review.  The following system was then developed to categorize these articles:  1. Very relevant:  Canadian content, K-12 system, within the last 15 years, and classic mentorship pairings 2. Relevant:  Outside of Canada, K-12 system, within the last 15 years and classic pairings or mentorship groupings 3. Possibly relevant:  Canada or outside of Canada, outside the K-12 system, within the last 15 years and unrestricted mentorship pairings or groupings. 4. Not relevant: Not within the last 15 years, outside of teacher education.  PRELIMINARY RESEARCH The search strategy for this review was developed by the research team.  The initial search was structured broadly to maximize the capture of articles.  The search terms used initially were “mentoring” and “teaching”.  SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW As a group, we examined existing literature using a systematic process, pulling major themes out of the literature review. Our systematic literature involved predominantly North American publications and from the last twenty years. We placed such a limitation on the existing research to ensure that we maintain a scope that is reasonable and so that our findings are applicable to the Canadian, and particularly the British Columbian educational context. Finally, in our analysis of existing mentorship programs we will only look at those created for educators, as opposed to mentorship programs in business or other sectors.   The researchers narrowed their focus for the final keyword search to include POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  17 “mentorship”, “reciprocity” and “teaching”.  Upon searching these terms and in three of the databases, the final search criteria were changed to “mentorship” and “education”.  Reciprocity was dropped from the search criteria due to the limited results its search yielded.  In the Education Index Full Text database the inclusion of “reciprocity” reduced the results from over 1700 articles to six, of which only one met the criteria for inclusion.  The researches agreed to reduce the search but look for reciprocity as a theme in the articles as they read them.  Using these terms, the final search strategies were developed for the following 5 databases: Educational Research Complete, ERIC, Education Index Full Text, JSTOR and Google Scholar. The agreed upon criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of studies for this review were as follows: • Profession- Education related articles were included. Other fields such as medicine or pharmacy were excluded.  • Context- Articles that spoke to mentoring in the kindergarten to Grade 12, Canadian system were desired.  • Time- A date limiter of 1996 to 2012 was imposed on all searches.   POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  18  Initial Database Search   Number of Articles retrieved by initial query (mentorship, education, reciprocity) Educational Research Complete 16 ERIC 6 Education Index Full Text 6 JSTOR 353 Google Scholar 17900 Table 1 - Initial Database Search   Revised Database Search   Number of Articles retrieved by secondary query (mentorship, education) Educational Research Complete 5920 ERIC 4043 Education Index Full Text 1744 JSTOR 8833 Google Scholar 21200 Table 2 - Revised Database Search  Each database was searched by three researchers who chose the first ten articles that met the above criteria and then the remaining articles were ranked according to our established categories after reading the abstract, introduction and conclusion of each article: Article Ranking by Database   1 2 3 Educational Research Complete 1 1 1 ERIC (EBSCO) 1 2 2 Education Index Full Text 0 16 2 JSTOR 0 3 2 Google Scholar 0 0 1 Table 3 - Article Rankings by Database  During the course of the search, some of the articles were found in multiple databases by different researchers.  Those articles were counted only once in the total of articles listed above.  Credit in the database totals was given to the database in which it was first found.  To further classify articles to meet the scope of the research, a system to summarize POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  19 themes and components of models was developed.  This consisted of categorizing articles based on the following criteria:  1.  Formal/Informal Structure 2.  Mandated/Voluntary Participation 3.  One to One/Group Pairings 4.  Collaborative/Apprentice Model 5.  Pairings by Gender, Race, Location, Subject Area 6.  Length of Involvement in Program 7. Delivery Model – Online/Face to Face  Two researchers read each remaining article and results were compared, collated and summarized.  These results are summarized in Table 4.  Themes from these articles were used and cross-referenced against the themes that came out of the semi-structured interviews.  Findings from the literature are reported on and included in the Findings section of this paper.  SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS  In order to address the latter part of our research question- which is to compare and contrast the models of mentoring dominant in literature with current practices of the Lower Mainland District- we were primarily interested in seeking information through semi-structured interviews.  We were intentionally purposeful in seeking participants who have: • an overarching view at a district level • experience with mentoring, and  • are currently in a role that could initiate a large scale implementation of a mentoring program. POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  20 As we were seeking to interview a small sample of senior leaders at the LMD and were not are not engaging in research with fellow teachers, we felt that the ethical implications to our project and the participants are minimal. We understood that excluding other participants, such as teachers and school-based administrators, was a limitation in our research but we believe that the interviews we planned with district leaders gave us the necessary information and insight we required to address our research question.  The procedure for the interview component is described as follows: Individuals were invited to participate in our study and informed of our research topic and research question, as well as the precautions we would took as a group to preserve their anonymity by the use of pseudonyms and secure storage of data.  Once senior administrators at the LMD agreed to participate they were asked to return their consent forms to researchers within a one-week time period. During the first meeting, consent forms were completed and collected, participants were asked if they preferred the transcripts in electronic or paper form, and consent was sought to record the interview electronically. Participants were asked questions related to their experiences with mentorship, mentorship programs and their plans for the future of mentorship in their district. The starting question stems are listed in Appendix B. Face to face, semi-structured interviews with two participants were conducted by three of the researchers in February 2012.  Each interview was recorded lasting from 45 to 60 minutes.  After each interview the interviewing researchers separately reflected upon general themes and insights for half an hour and then re-grouped to share thoughts, observations, and emerging themes.  The interviews were then transcribed and the entire research team of five read the transcripts while listening to interviews to find any errors in transcription. After the final transcripts were agreed upon these were presented to the participants, giving them the POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  21 opportunity to clarify or correct their interview. Had a second meeting been required for further clarification, the participant would have been asked to meet again for no more than 30 minutes and a transcribed copy would have again be supplied. After the interview(s) the researchers analyzed the data and identified emergent themes from the participants’ responses.  Three researchers independently analyzed the data and came together to collaborate on themes, surprises, and coding.  Triangulation of themes across interviews, questions, and literature was obtained. FINDINGS SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW After searching for articles with specific keywords and identifying whether our articles were a level 1, 2 3, or 4, we were ready to analyze further. Initially, we selected our level 1 and 2 articles and placed them in a table. There were 25 articles in total. We read and discussed the articles, and then filled out the table with the following categories: database, formal/informal, mandated/voluntary, one to one/group, pairings, collaborative/apprentice, delivery model, duration and then additional comments.    After compiling our data, we chose articles that were the most relevant for our systematic literature review. Eight articles were deemed most relevant. Our two articles that were labeled ‘Level 1’ were automatically selected. We then chose articles that fit our criteria and were relevant to our specific research question.   It was easier to eliminate some articles, and more challenging for others. In the “Additional Comments” section of our table, we had sometimes questioned the relevance of POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  22 certain articles, for example an article by Kartje (1996). There were some articles that were literature reviews, for example Strong and Ingersoll’s “Impact of Induction and Mentoring Programs for Beginning Teachers: A Critical Review of the Research” (2004) was useful to read, for use in the systematic literature review. Others were deemed inconsequential because their content was too specific, for example the Saylor, Wolf and Soderdahl’s “Mentoring, it’s a good Thing; What we learned partying with student librarians” (2011) article which focused primarily on librarians. Still others were discounted because they did not provide key information for our search; such as if the mentorship model proposed was mandated or voluntary, or formal or informal.   The following is our systematic literature review of eight highly relevant articles to our research question. Each article has been annotated, placed in a table, and the primary themes have been discussed. POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  23 THEMES IN LITERATURE   Formal/ Informal Mandated/Volu ntary 1 to 1 or Group Duration of Program  Collaborative / Apprentice Delivery Model (Online or Face to Face) Pairings Author Article Title F I M V 1-1 G <1 yr >1 yr C A O F  Crutchfield Mentoring Strategies to Assist Early Career Teachers boxcheckbld boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld Location, Subject Cuenca The Role of Legitimacy in Student Teaching: Learning to “Feel” Like a Teacher boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld     boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld Gender, Race, Subject Gabriel and Kaufield Reciprocal mentorship: an effective support for online instructors boxcheckbld boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld boxcheckbld   boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld boxcheckbld  Discipline Gilles and Wilson Receiving as well as giving: mentors’ perceptions of their professional development in one teacher induction program boxcheckbld   boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld    No mention Gilles et al. Sustaining Teacher Grow and Renewal through Action Research, Induction Programs, and Collaboration boxcheckbld   boxcheckbld 1 to 2 boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld    No mention Gong and Siers Linking Transformational Leadership to Student Teachers’ Efficacy: Contributions of Mentor Teachers’ Leadership Behaviors boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld     boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld Subject area Graves Mentoring Pre-Service Teachers: A Case Study boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld     boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld Assigned pairing Hanson What Mentors Learn boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld   boxcheckbld    boxcheckbld   N/A District Program Hellsten et al. Teacher Induction: Exploring Beginning Teacher Mentorship boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld   boxcheckbld boxcheckbld    Location  POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  24  Formal/ Informal Mandated/Volu ntary 1 to 1 or Group Duration of Program  Collaborative / Apprentice Delivery Model (Online or Face to Face) Pairings Author Article Title F I M V 1-1 G <1 yr >1 yr C A O F  Hoover Comprehensive Teacher Induction: A Vision Toward Transformative Teacher Learning  boxcheckbld   boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld boxcheckbld      Ingersoll and Strong Impact of Induction and Mentoring Programs for Beginning Teachers: A Critical Review of the Research             Location, Subject Janas Mentoring the Mentor: A Challenge for Staff Development boxcheckbld   boxcheckbld boxcheckbld   boxcheckbld boxcheckbld    Location, Gender when possible Kartje O Mentor! My Mentor! boxcheckbld boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld  Kochan and Trimble From Mentoring to Co- Mentoring: Establishing Collaborative Relationships boxcheckbld boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld boxcheckbld   boxcheckbld boxcheckbld   boxcheckbld Proximity, Subject, Discipline, Personality Lawson In Mentoring Relationships Rule boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld    boxcheckbld      Mullen New Teacher Mentoring.  A Mandated Direction of States boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld   boxcheckbld boxcheckbld      Mullen and Noe The Mentoring Information Exchange: When Do Mentors Seek Information from Their Protégés?  boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld    boxcheckbld boxcheckbld     Onchwari and Keengwe The Impact of a Mentor- coaching Model on Teacher Professional Development  boxcheckbld   boxcheckbld boxcheckbld     boxcheckbld   Proximity POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  25    Formal/ Informal Mandated/Volu ntary 1 to 1 or Group Duration of Program  Collaborative / Apprentice Delivery Model (Online or Face to Face) Pairings Author Article Title F I M V 1-1 G <1 yr >1 yr C A O F  Pirkle Stemming the Tide: Retaining and Supporting Science Teachers boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld     boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld School based, discipline specific Saylor, Wolf, Soderdahl Mentoring, it’s a good Thing What we learned partying with student librarians               Shidler and Fedor Teacher to Teacher the Heart of the Coaching Model boxcheckbld   boxcheckbld boxcheckbld     boxcheckbld   Shore, Toyokawa, Anderson Context-specific effects on reciprocity in mentoring relationships: ethical implications  boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld     boxcheckbld   Variations depending on pairing St. George and Robinson Making Mentoring Matter: Perspectives from Veteran Mentor Teachers boxcheckbld   boxcheckbld boxcheckbld     boxcheckbld boxcheckbld  Subject, Discipline, Same Prep Time, Proximity Wasburn, Wasburn-Moses and Blackman The P-16 Strategic Collaboration Model: A Team Mentoring Approach boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld  boxcheckbld boxcheckbld boxcheckbld  From Apprentice to collaborative boxcheckbld  Depending on needs Table 4 - Themes in Literature POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  26 There were numerous themes that emerged from the eight articles that we chose to examine more closely for the purpose of our research question. Our initial question of ‘what models of mentoring are dominant in the literature’ is unpacked within this next section.  After organizing the articles in a variety of categories, there were five themes that we chose to use to analyze the overarching ideas of mentorship models: formal/informal, mandated/voluntary, one- to-one/group, collaborative/apprentice, and duration.   Figure 1 - Formal/Informal Models of Mentoring by Author   Formal/Informal.  The common trend in the literature was toward either a formal mentoring model, or a combination of both formal and informal. None of our authors advocated for a solely informal model. Mullen (2011), Hellsten et al. (2009), Kochan and Trimble (2000), and Gabriel and Kaufman (2008) all supported both a formal and informal mentorship model, drawing on both aspects to complement novice teachers’ learning. When the mentorship is Formal Wasburn, Wasbur-Moses, Blackman Hanson St. George and Robinson Janas Blended Mullen Kochan and Trimble Hellstan et al InformalPOSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  27 formalized, it is more likely to be recognized as an essential part of a teacher’s career, and that being a mentor is not a job to be taken lightly.   It is interesting to note that none of our articles suggested a purely informal approach. As Mullen (2011) noted, it is sometimes less likely that mentorship will develop if it is not formalized and mandated. This may also be the way to increase funding and provide release time to mentors and novice teachers, which means that it is more likely to actually be used for mentoring instead of other things.  Figure 2 - Mandated/Voluntary Program Type by Author   Mandated/Voluntary.  The majority of the articles that we examined favoured voluntary mentorship programs over mandated ones. Wasburn et al. (2008) wrote the only article Mandated Wasburn, Wasburn-Moses, Blackman Hybrid Mullen Voluntary Hanson Hellstan et al Janas Kochan and Trimble St. George and RobinsonPOSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  28 that recommended a mandated program, and Mullen (2011) thought that both mandated and voluntary forms had potential benefits.   The reason for this is outlined in the articles stating that a willingness on the part of both mentor and novice teacher must be present for a success relationship. In order to create a truly functional reciprocal relationship, there must be will and engagement by both members in the relationship. As Hellsten et al. (2009) note, mentors provide both emotional and developmental support to novice teachers and the mentor must be ready and willing to do so.   Of all of the authors, Mullen (2011) raises the most arguments in support of voluntary mentorship over mandated mentorship. She states that when mentorship is mandated it taints the relationship. That is to say, mandates that encourage mentorship have, within the last decade, become increasingly focused on teacher evaluations and student achievement on standardized tests (Mullen, 2011).   One negative aspect of voluntary mentorship is the lack of funding available for it.  Wasburn et al. (2008) argue that voluntary programs can lead to inequities between mentor and novice.  Voluntary programs can create resentment; not all new professionals will look for mentors or be selected by mentors and mentors tend to select like-minded novices. POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  29  Figure 3 - One to One or Group Model by Author  One to One/Group.  The majority of the articles we examined recommended mentorship programs that were one-to-one rather than group. Hanson (2010) is the only author that recommended mentorship in the group form only. She states that having teachers released to provide mentorship roles not only benefits the novice teacher having someone available to them, but to the mentor as well. The mentors who took on groups of novice teachers “gained a “global” view that affected their vision of good schools and teaching” (Hanson, 2010, p. 71).     Wasburn et al. (2008) and Hellsten et al. (2009) believe that a combination of both one- to-one and group mentoring create the most effective mentoring practice. This combination also aids with mentorship-matching, allowing the novice teacher to work with a variety of mentors and to see with whom, over time, they develop the closest relationship. This may be due to a variety of factors such as location, subject, race, gender, or even personality and working style.   One-to-One Janas Kochan and Trimble Mullen St. George and Robinson Hybrid Hellstan et al Wasburn, Wasbur-Moses, Blackman Group Hanson HooverPOSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  30  One-to-one is seen as the most effective form of mentorship by the majority of the authors. Given the time constraints on educators, one-to-one may be the best use of time and energy. Kochan and Trimble (2000) used their own mentorship relationship as a case study for the benefits of one to one mentorship. Trimble, the novice teacher, clearly identified her goals and Kochan, the mentor, was able to help her achieve these goals. In addition, Kochan and Trimble identified that their relationship evolved from a more formal, to an increasingly personal one, as they got to know each other. These aspects may not have been possible in a group mentorship setting.    Figure 4 - Collaborative or Apprentice Model by Author   Collaborative/Apprentice.  From our analysis of modes of delivery of mentorship models, two main approaches emerged: the collaborative model and the apprenticeship model. The apprentice model is more traditional (Hellsten et al., 2009) and views one person- the mentor- as the person with the knowledge, and the other- the novice teacher- as the person receiving the knowledge. This is different than the collaborative model, which values a more Collaborative Hellstan et al Janas Kochan and Trimble Mullen Both Wasburn, Wasbur-Moses, Blackman Apprentice Hanson St. George and RobinsonPOSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  31 reciprocal relationship. The collaborative model sees the mentor as having a certain skill set and that the novice teacher also has his own skill set to pass onto the mentor. There is seen to be more equality and information flowing from one professional to another within the relationship.    Hanson (2010) and St. George and Robinson (2011) feel that the apprenticeship model is more effective in mentoring relationships. Wasburn et al. (2008) favour a combination of both models, and the other five articles advocate for a collaborative approach. In a professional learning community of teachers, it is critical to consider ethical and union issues to ensure that there is equity in the professional relationship. The collaborative approach allows for team teaching, and for the mentor and novice teacher to learn from each other.    Figure 5 - Duration of Program by Author   Duration.  The final point of comparison in our articles was the duration of time recommended for the mentorship programs. Not all models specifically stated a timeframe for their programs.  In terms of recommended duration, there was a range of program lengths from One Year or Less Hellsten Janas One Year or Greater Kochan and Trimble Mullen Wasburn, Wasburn-Moses, BlackmanPOSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  32 approximately an 8 month induction to those that spanned a career.  The majority of the articles advocated for programs that ran for approximately one year.  Two articles, Hanson (2010) and St. George and Robinson (2011), did not mention a time frame for their mentorship models. We classified the remaining articles into two categories: mentorship models that lasted one year or less, and those that were over one year. Gabriel and Kaufman (2008), Hellsten et al. (2009), and Janas (1996) identified models that ran for a year or less. Kochan and Trimble (2000), Mullen (2011), and Wasburn et al. (2008) believe that a mentorship model that lasts over a year is ideal.  There are several factors that affect the duration. One of the most influential aspects of the duration of a program is funding, however there is a lack of discussion surrounding this issue.  Voluntary programs sometimes provide a good alternative as there is no cost to the school district.  Programs that are longer in duration are not necessarily focused solely only the mentor, but the reciprocity between mentor and novice.  Wasburn et al. (2008) discuss how limited professional development and follow up on it have an impact on new teachers and how mentorship fills the gaps in the later years of a novice teacher’s career.  Ideally, mentorship relationships last a career.  Throughout the professional life of a teacher, there are challenges to overcome and opportunities to share and these remain long after the initial five years from entry into the profession.  POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  33 No one specific type of program dominates the literature on mentorship programs.  Some of the themes we have flushed out are more prevalent and applied to educational models in North America.  That said, those that may be less prevalent may still fit as workable models of mentorship for the LMD.   Annotations The following section provides an annotated summary of each of the eight articles selected as most relevant to this research study. Hanson (2010) interviews 21 teachers who were full-release mentors in urban school districts in Boston or Durham, North Carolina.  The mentors were part of a training and support program through the New Teacher Center.  She views mentoring as “continual professional growth good teachers seek throughout their career” (p. 76).    Through her research, Hanson found that there were very few empirical studies done on the effects that new teacher programs had on mentor.  She focused her study on the relationship and gains that the mentor received from being a part of the program and not on what the novice gained while participating in the program.  Hanson spent four years following and interviewing mentor teachers who were released from teaching duties to mentor full time.  The interviews were conducted multiple times over the duration of the program.  Unlike much of the existing research, Hanson focused on “how new teacher programs influence mentors themselves” (p. 76).  Her study involved a range of mentor experience from 5 to 30 years and each of the 21 mentors had approximately 15 new teachers to POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  34 work with throughout the year.  The mentors had to go through a professional development program and had a set structure for regular mentor meetings.    From her interviews, she found that the mentors gained great insight into not only good teaching practices but a more “‘global’ view that affected their visions of good schools” (p. 78).  This enhanced vision helped the mentors develop as leaders in spite of “not seeing themselves as teacher leaders” (p. 80).  The program itself has created reciprocity of mentorship, but does have some stumbling blocks.  It is an expensive program to run; releasing 21 veteran teachers to focus on mentoring is costly and some of the discussions they have in their mentor meetings could be viewed as violating the code of ethics to which teachers are bound in British Columbia.   Hanson’s research demonstrated various themes pertaining to the reciprocal nature of mentoring.  She found the collaborative nature of the program led to “meaningful professional development in an authentic learning community” (p. 80).  The development of leadership, whether intended or not, was formed through the program and the mentor teachers “perceived the need for somebody to take on stronger leadership in support of teachers at their school” (p. 80).  Hanson concludes her article discussing how full-time mentors were positively influenced by their work with new teachers and by having the time to work in professional learning communities benefited them.  The program not only helps the mentor become a better teacher but can “encourage great teachers to use their potential to improve teaching and learning” (p. 80). POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  35 Hellsten, Prytula, Ebanks and Lai (2009) examined 12 new Saskatchewan teachers in their first class placement after graduation from a teacher education program. After an analysis, the main themes that the authors found and explored were the differences between assigned and unassigned mentors, engaged and disengaged mentors, and single and multiple mentors. An overarching theme was the compatibility between mentor and novice teacher. Hellsten et al. then proceed to explore the themes that they found and propose elements of mentorship that they believe are beneficial to any mentorship model.   Through their research, Hellsten et al. found that although there has been an extensive amount of research done about mentorship, few models exist. Of the models that do exist, many draw on the apprenticeship model “where an expert teacher passes on knowledge and skills to a protégé” (p. 707). A clear critique of this model is the lack of reciprocity and exchange between both the mentor and new teacher, instead favouring a one-sided approach where the new teacher has little to add to the relationship.   Hellsten et al.’s research found some overriding themes which lead them to some conclusions about what effective mentorship models may look like. They found that an imperative part of the mentorship process was to have engaged mentors and that “even mentors who are unintentionally disengaged, are unlikely to be effective” (p. 718). The authors believe that what is needed is “a group of mentors surround[ing] an inductee, rather than just a single mentor” (p. 719). This also allows for a greater likelihood that the novice teacher will find at least one compatible mentor within the group. Although the interviews showed that some mentorship experiences were more productive than others, the authors found that novice teachers POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  36 “appeared to learn regardless of the type of mentorship relationship”, which was positive for models with both assigned and unassigned mentors. Even when mentorship did not work for novice teachers, it inspired them to seek other ways to access the support they needed.   Hellsten et al. conclude their article by stating that a successful mentorship program is “a learning environment with multiple mentors that focuses on student teacher learning, and that lasts longer than one year” (p. 720).   In her 2010 study, Hoover examined induction programs that help novice teachers develop their skills.  She shares an overview and history of induction and discusses the attrition rates amongst novice teachers in the United States.  The focus of her article is to “highlight research-based elements of a comprehensive induction [program] to help novice teachers develop the skills for a more meaningful learning experience” (p. 15).  The focus for her research is on the New Teacher Project (NTP) in California.  Hoover describes a model for effective mentorship and focuses in on “transformational approach to teacher learning” (p. 18).  She discusses the need have a program that is not just “emotional support or socialization into the existing school culture” (p. 18) but rather “the collaboration is ongoing and designed to help the novices” (p. 18).  She continues to build on the theme of collaboration and how effective it is in developing the novice teacher.  Novice teachers learn from working together with their mentor in a collaborative model and don’t feel the process is evaluative.  Hoover’s model from the NTP in California is a program that is run by application and engages in a formative assessment model where “the mentors at the NTP engage in POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  37 formative assessment through a continuous process of supporting, scaffolding and encouraging self-assessment in a non-threatening environment” (p. 17).  In the British Columbian context, the formative assessment of another teacher is seen as grading or evaluating another colleague.  The author looks at policy and discusses the need to have clear guidelines for picking mentors.  She argues that having strong mentors is key to a successful mentorship program.  In her summary of the NTP in California, she clearly discusses the disconnect between the pre- service teacher and novice teacher entering the workforce.  There is a need to help the new teachers grow through the mentorship process by “fostering reflection and challenge each to grow as a professional” (p. 24).    Hoover discusses the benefits of mentorship programs and feels strongly that they will support novice teachers into their transition into the profession.  Collaboration and professional development are key components of a successful mentorship program and there is a need to re- examine programs and advocate for mentorship programs.  In Janas’ (1996) article about mentorship, the author begins by providing a history and definition of mentorship. Qualities of a good mentor include being “people oriented, open- minded, flexible, and empathetic” as well as “collaborative and cooperative” (p. 1).  Janas outlines four important elements in her article: selecting and training mentors, matching mentors with protégés, setting goals and expectations, and establishing mentor programs.   POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  38 From the four sections that Janas outlines, there are several aspects that are important to consider with any mentorship program. Janas believes that mentors require ongoing professional development on how to be an effective mentor. She briefly mentions mentorship pairing based race, ethnicity and class, but does not elaborate on these concepts.   Janas presents an interesting and unique view of mentoring. Novice teachers indicate what they would like to learn, and they are then paired with experienced mentors who have the necessary expertise in the area of interest. This requires willingness on the part of both the mentor and the novice teacher. An important feature of this model is the goal-setting aspect, which is required before the pairing of mentor and novice teacher, to ensure that the most can be achieved from the mentoring partnership. Janas reiterates this throughout her paper, stating that “the importance of setting goals cannot be overemphasized” (p. 2).   Kochan and Trimble (2000) examine the transition toward collaborative mentoring relationships that move toward co-mentoring ones. They believe that this kind of relationship should include “elements of collaboration [and] shared decision making” which requires “practice, feedback, and reflection” (p. 20).  The authors outline their own experiences with mentorship in higher education. They examine mentorship at both the macro and micro levels. As with all of the articles we chose, Kochan and Trimble define mentorship specifically for the purposes of their articles.  Through their research, Kochan and Trimble saw the value of co-mentoring as adding to the reciprocity between both parties in the relationship. Trimble did a self-evaluation of her strengths and weaknesses and formulated some goals. Armed with this information, she was able POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  39 to search for a mentor that could help her fulfill her goals. After some time, she gained Kochan as a mentor, and their relationship became one where they discussed not only educational leadership and Trimble’s goals, but also more personal issues in the workplace.   Kochan and Trimble feel strongly that a co-mentor relationship is imperative throughout the careers of educators. Prominent themes include increased professionalism, the importance of trust and collaboration, and the need to continuous re-evaluate the mentorship relationship.   Mullen (2011) explores the implementation of mandated mentorship in the United States in her article. She begins by examining the definitions of mandated mentoring and provides a caution that “mentoring can complement voluntary mentoring within learning organizations, but it should not be confused with it” (p. 64). Mullen defines mandated mentoring as “top down, state-driven reform” (p. 64).   Mullen examines both the benefits and drawbacks of mandated mentorship programs. It can be seen “as a resource to help meet state accountability goals” (p. 64). She continues by stating that mandated mentoring has envisioned the mentor role as “an instructional technician with specific credentials for fulfilling coaching and evaluative functions” (p. 64). This may be seen as painting a picture of the mandated mentorship trend in the United States as pushing the national agendas of increased evaluation of teachers in order to produce and improve student test scores.  POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  40 Although Mullen is cautious about the mandated mentorship model, she understands that with mandates comes critical support in the way of funding. She goes on to say that “mentoring sometimes has to be formalized, or it simply will not occur” (p. 67).   The professional learning community that Mullen advocates for is a concept that views teachers as professionals and views mentoring in a non-evaluative context. This also fits with the group mentorship approach, rather than a one-to-one mentorship model.   A hesitation on the part of the author in encouraging people to willingly become involved in mentorship programs may be that novice teachers are afraid of being seen as unqualified or unprepared. The mandated system that Mullen presents would include an evaluation process for novice teachers, which could be intimidating.   Mullen states that “the accountability context [of mandated mentoring] reduces opportunities for teacher growth and meaningful learning” (p. 65). It is clear that Mullen sees that although a mandated program has some benefits, the benefits of a more grassroots approach outweigh the mandated program.    St. George and Robinson (2011) begin their article with the following powerful thought: “imagine beginning a career characterized by low pay, low status, relentless demands, exhausting work, and poor working conditions” (p. 24). The article outlines the perspective of two mentor teachers who value the importance of mentorship, but, as St. George and Robinson point out, “the reality is that budget constraints hinder efforts in many districts” (p. 24).  POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  41  The article outlines a brief history of the American public education system over the past century.  St. George and Robinson point out that this system is now characterized by “high stakes testing and assessments, new standards for instruction and graduation requirements” and teachers have been “historically overworked and underpaid” (p. 24).   St. George and Robinson then define mentorship for the purposes of their article. They then outline how the mentors in their article were released and allowed to work full time with novice teachers. An important theme that St. George and Robinson address is the attrition rates of new teachers, and as a consequence of this, the constant disruption of staffing in schools.   Another main theme in St. George and Robinson’s article is the idea that mentorship is grounded in social constructivism, meaning that “individuals make meaning of knowledge within a social context and as a result of interactions with others” (p. 28). This demonstrates the importance of relationships that extend beyond the classroom.   The authors mention funding as a prohibitive factor in creating and implementing mentorship programs. The new BC Education Plan states that “mentoring is key to supporting teachers’ professional learning, both in their formative years and throughout their careers” (2011, p. 6). As such, perhaps this means that there may soon be funding available to allow growth as a profession with mentoring as an important part of this growth.  POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  42 Wasburn, Wasburn-Moses and Blackburn (2008) look at taking a business-based mentorship program and applying it to teaching.  Like many articles on mentorship, they point to the need for mentorship programs to help reduce the high teacher attrition rates.  The authors use the “Strategic Collaboration Model” (p. 32) to frame their argument for mentorship to be used to improve teacher attrition rates.  The authors define mentorship as “anyone who provides guidance, support, knowledge and opportunities to another person for whatever period the mentor and [novice] deem this help [to] be necessary” (p. 33).  Using this definition, they are open to longer term mentorship projects unlike a lot of the literature where set time parameters are part of the programs.  They do point out that informal mentoring has its benefits and drawbacks but state “informal mentoring can be inadequate and many employees often go without such assistance” (p. 33).  This echoes the research of Mullen (2011), Hellsten et al. (2009), Kochan and Trimble (2000), and Gabriel and Kaufman (2008) who all view formal mentoring as the more successful model.  Wasburn et al. describe the mentoring process in three stages where the relationship moves along a continuum from the mentor teaching the novice teacher, to the mentor and mentee collaborate to a final stage where the mentor is learning from the novice.  As Wasburn et al. state: “The last stage embodies the fulfillment of the reciprocity and mutuality functions” (p. 33).   It is the reciprocal nature of the model that keeps the relationships and growth in the individuals going.  Limitations to the model are as described by Wasburn et al. is the lack of control of professional development, and how teachers’ time and choice of professional development activities is limited. POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  43  Unlike most models, the authors’ proposal includes administrators in the groups of mentors.  Their model includes: “a peer group of three to five teachers is matched with one senior-level teacher and one school administrator” (p. 40).  Their idea of including administrators opens the door for someone with the ability to facilitate change or provide time is part of the team. This model, borrowed from the business world, can “be customized to meet the needs of  a particular school district and can position the mentored teachers to provide leadership in initiating and implementing school reform” (p. 42).  By providing the framework of a flexible model, Wasburn et al. provide a model that would be able to be modified to meet the needs of numerous districts across North America including the LMD. INTERVIEWS   Though the interviewees had differing perspectives on mentorship, three common themes emerged as to its purpose and value, and the model(s) that could potentially work within the LMD.  The themes are: structure, relationships, and support. Each of these themes is described below using quotes from participants. Each theme is subdivided into the aspects that helped to create it.  Structures We identified three areas where structure emerged in the interviews: (1) an identification of past and current work done in the area of mentoring as well as the perceived strengths and challenges of such works, (2) a need to create new structures and partnerships in order to foster POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  44 the growth of mentorship in the district, and (3) a recognition of the valuable components of a successful mentorship program.  Though there were overlapping ideas amongst these and other themes and sub themes, each one will be discussed separately.  Past and Present Practice.  In an organization there is often the desire or pressure to create “new” programs.  We were fortunate to hear the perspective of SEA1- an administrator near the end of her career whose observations have spanned nearly two decades of work in the district.  She reflected that “there is a much greater understanding in the profession about the role of mentorship” (personal communication, February 8, 2012).  In speaking to this evolution in relation to the role of professional development and mentoring she says: We used to have the workshops at the teacher centre. They used to have at least two everyday and people would come in and do their workshops. There was never any follow up; there was never any “did this make a difference in your practice?”  It was just what we did and we spent millions of dollars on it. And now we say “that is really not effective professional development”. You really need to be job- embedded, and as soon as you say that, mentoring becomes the model. (personal communication, February 8, 2012)  Historically, several models and programs have been implemented, both at the elementary and secondary level as well as at the district level.  There was an effort in the late 1990’s to begin a mentoring program matching up experienced teachers with novice teachers.  There was a large turnout of possible mentors “about 11 teachers who volunteered to be mentors, this was at a district level, and we invited new teachers to come and not a single one came.” (personal communication, February 8, 2012) This lack of response from novice teachers was a dilemma for the leaders at the district level and SEA1 describes the steps they took next: So we took this dilemma to the Ed[ucational] Change Committee and kind of explored it, and one of the things we thought was that at the district level, you make yourself much more vulnerable to say “I’m a new teacher who would like to be mentored” because maybe it is saying you have some weaknesses and no one POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  45 wants to admit that, so that formality can be problematic. Maybe we just weren’t clear about what a mentoring relationship was. I learned so much from that [process], talking to teachers. One of the things we said was it was great to have some district opportunity, but we need to build the mentoring in the schools. (personal communication, February 8, 2012)  When describing other mentoring programs within the district, SEA1 identified the Early Literacy team as one of the more effective models in the district; citing three factors for the success of this program: (1) extra time given to build collaboration between teachers, (2) working alongside teachers “side-by-side” in their classrooms rather than consultants who parachute in and are the expert, and (3) the mentors themselves formed a team that taught each other how to be better mentors.  FTE Teachers Mentors Elementary 1600 2300 1 Secondary 1300 1600 1 TOCs   1100 0   There are currently several secondary schools running their own mentoring programs and at present there are two Peer-To-Peer Mentors working at the district level.  This is a relatively new initiative in its third year of operation.  There were two main challenges associated with this model according to SEA2, “First of all the client load is huge for two people.  Secondly, I'm not sure that the orientation through HR was the right way to go.  I know that they served a really good purpose, but I think it was starting from a negative point of view.”(personal communication, February 8, 2012)  Since there was only one mentor at each of the elementary and secondary levels (see Table 5) the support offered tended to be more “more about teachers in some challenging situations, in difficulty.” (personal communication, February 8, 2012). As people moved in and out of these roles SEA2 has observed a change as well, Table 5 - Summary of District Staffing and Peer to Peer Mentors POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  46 their roles have shifted.  When a person takes on a role, they bring their own perspectives to the role.  I think their role is a bit more as I had hoped it would be which is much more of a supportive role for all teachers, new teachers.  But again, that client load is impossible. (personal communication, February 8, 2012)   New Structures and Partnerships.  As it is beneficial to know what has occurred historically and learn from those experiences, it is also valuable to have a vision and direction for the future.  In the interview SEA2 eluded to dramatic changes in the future that would impact the direction of mentoring of pre-service and novice teachers in the district: The idea I floated with them [UBC Department of Education] was could we hire two or three teachers who would be part time here and part time at UBC… this will create some challenges, internally.  That's having people part time on part time secondments to another location.  So, it creates HR issues and payroll work.  But I think that the benefits outweigh the bureaucratic challenges. (personal communication, February 8, 2012)  This administrator understands that there are challenges to navigate with this particular model. It would be an entirely new initiative setting up a formal agreement between the district and the university and would have implications at several levels both inside and outside of the organization.  Both interviewees also identified the union as a stakeholder.  The Peer-to-Peer model described in the last section was originally proposed by the union and as SEA1 views it “I think if you don’t have the union supporting that, then it will always be suspect.”(personal communication, February 8, 2012)  She is hopeful that this relationship can be further developed: I think if [mentoring] has that real support [and] collaboration between the employer and the union… but in [LMD] we don’t necessarily have the most collaborative relationship with our union. It could be. When we invited the union to become a partner with what were hoping to do around mentorship, they were happy to be at the table. (personal communication, February 8, 2012)  The local union, according to the participants, should be invited to a discussion of possibilities.  There is also a place for the union at the Provincial level as the BCTF hosts a New Teacher POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  47 Conference and this has been seen by SEA2 as a good opportunity, yet not the only event to bring large groups of new teachers together to offer workshops and resources.   Perhaps the farthest reaching and greatest potential impact offered in the interviews was around shifting the whole paradigm of teacher training, by combining pre-service teaching, beginning years of teaching, and mentorship into a multi-year coherent process, as SEA2 explains: I want to raise one other thing that I believe that we should be doing and it's kind of connected with what we started out looking at.  I believe in apprenticeship models.  Apprenticeship would be you actually hire teachers and pay them even before they're teachers.  So, in a way, we've got kind of a reverse apprenticeship.  Yes, you pay big dollars and you're in debt for you know, years and years.  Then, you start your teaching career and you're on this 10 year grid.  That's silly.  So, why not work that grid as part of an apprenticeship program and with pre-service teachers.  I know people are anxious to get out of school and get working, so there is that.  A beginning teacher isn't paid enough as it is.  How do you work that in?  Somehow to enable people to actually begin as a pre-service teacher on a payroll as part of their experience, and in an apprenticeship mode working with master teachers. (personal communication, February 8, 2012)  Components.  The greatest reference to structure within the interviews centered on the necessary components of mentoring, which could be grouped into the following categories: (1) Targeted use of Resources, (2) Mentor Selection, (3) Mentor Training and Education, (4) Matching of Mentor and Novice, (4) Alignment of Goals(or Common Purpose), and (5) Regular Time to Connect and Collaborate.  Each component will be described briefly with excerpts from the interviews. Targeted Use of Resources.  As the district is very large with almost 5000 teachers, SEA2 doesn’t even attempt to offer that all teachers could be adequately serviced through the Peer-to- Peer model, “there's just no way they can meet with all the teachers so why not select help with POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  48 certain groups of teachers that would be better to spend their time with.  New teachers would be very high on my list.”(personal communication, February 8, 2012) Mentor Selection.  Both participants saw this as a pivotal factor; SEA1 describing it as “an unfair assumption that just because someone is an experienced teacher that they are going to be a good mentor.” (personal communication, February 8, 2012)  SEA2 is straightforward with this, “not everyone can be a mentor, [and] it takes a real personality to be a mentor and skill as well.” (personal communication, February 8, 2012) Mentor Training and Education.  This is encompassed by two aspects; attitudes and skills.  SEA1 remarks: To me the interesting thing about mentorship is preparing mentors because while I say informal [mentoring] has always worked, sometimes mentors feel that their role is to teach, “I have all the knowledge and I’m here to give it to you” as opposed to that exchange that should be part of the relationship.  And sometimes the wrong people want to be mentors and that’s a really touchy piece. (personal communication, February 8, 2012)  This highlights a shift in attitude of the mentor from that of an experienced teacher to someone who can come alongside a novice teacher and discern what the novice requires and what role they need to take to foster the required growth.  This requires a skill set that can be practiced and learned and SEA1 identifies this as “key, preparing the mentors, because we don’t have [the] resources and infrastructure, so often it is just a matter of buddying, you buddy someone up. We don’t prepare those mentors to actually do the role in the way that is most effective.” (personal communication, February 8, 2012) She would rather “release people to give [them] the kind of training they need… the support they need to become good mentors,” (personal communication, February 8, 2012) referencing as an example a week long training session that the original Peer-to-Peer Mentors experienced: POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  49 They went down to California, and they brought back this fabulous model, because the mentoring was all about helping someone be a better instructor, it wasn’t just helping them get into the profession. It was more about instructional practice which I thought was a really good focus. (personal communication, February 8, 2012)  Matching of Mentor and Novice.  There is recognition by both participants that a relationship exists between the mentor and novice and some effort should invested to matching up mentors to novices.  SEA2 compares this matching to some of the student/sponsor teacher he has observed: if the chemistry isn't there, it's awful.  You also see it sometimes with student teachers and the sponsoring teacher, they don't connect.  They don't get along.  Or they're just incompatible in other ways.  And it's unfortunate when that happens.  So, trying to match in some ways is a huge challenge. (personal communication, February 8, 2012)  Alignment of Goals, Common Purpose.  Not only would there be a targeting of specific groups of teachers, there would be a desire “to coordinate the work of various people and at least have them all understanding mentorship… from the same perspective” (personal communication, February 8, 2012), “making sure that everybody understands that the model is about relationship and exchange” (personal communication, February 8, 2012) and when parties meet they would “have a purpose for meeting and reflect on the previous time and then talk about what might be coming up in the future” (personal communication, February 8, 2012). Regular Time to Connect and Collaborate.  Key to all these components is the time involved.  Both participants identified this as instrumental and that regular meetings that are not added to the work load of the mentor or novice need to occur on a regular basis, as SEA1 points out: I think time is really critical. I think if you, it’s not like it’s not going to happen without someone giving you time, but it’s just going to be systemically implemented if you actually can provide time. And I don’t think it needs to be a lot of time. (personal communication, February 8, 2012) POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  50  Relationships From our interviews, the theme of building and sustaining relationships is a key element.  Both interviewees are firm believers that mentoring relationships benefit both the mentors and novice teachers and of the positive impact these relationships can have on the development of teachers’ practice.  Through the review and analysis of the interview transcripts, the following sub-themes emerged: (1) collaboration and reciprocity; (2) professional development and education to enhance mentoring relationships; and (3) building and sustaining a culture of reciprocity. Collaboration and Reciprocity.  Our interviewees clearly identify that exchange between mentor and novice is a necessary and beneficial practice.  Such a collaborative environment would enhance the development of respect and collegiality, as well as open the door to both formal and informal exchange among the mentoring pair.  SEA1 characterizes a mentoring relationship in three parts: “the first thing that mentorship has to have is a relationship… and the second thing is that it is non-judgmental and the third would be that it matches people who have expertise with people who want to gain this expertise” (personal communication, February 8, 2012).  SEA2 supports this notion and adds “it’s building a relationship between the mentor and the [novice] so that connection, there’s trust established, that there’s a rapport and a respect for the experience that a person might bring as a mentor” (personal communication, February 8, 2012). Both experts highlight the exchange between mentor and novice as a desirable outcome to the experience -“a sponsoring teacher, gaining that spark, that energy, that new knowledge” (personal communication, February 8, 2012).  The novice learns and grows from the experience of the mentor, and the mentor, in turn, benefits from the more current, up-to-date knowledge POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  51 base of the novice.  This ‘give and take’ reciprocal relationship allows for both partners to profit in their work. Professional Development and Education to Enhance Mentorship Relationships.  An assumption often made regarding mentoring relationships is that the novice teacher is the one in need of education and professional development.  However, this education is not a one-way street; educating the mentor is equally important.   This idea is certainly supported by our interviewees, as they both express their concern over a lack education being provided to would- be mentors. SEA1 states “that’s really key, the preparing the mentors …we don’t prepare those mentors to actually do the role in the way that is most effective” (personal communication, February 8, 2012). “We don’t capture that wisdom.  We don’t capture the practical long term experience of a teacher and utilize that in a really productive, positive way” (personal communication, February 8, 2012).   Although both speak of their interest and experience in enhancing mentoring opportunities, SEA1 steers more towards the idea of networking school-based mentoring programs with district support to offer more educational avenues.  From her perspective, the mentoring relationship is created in a school for new teachers, but supported by district personnel, to link with mentoring groups operating within other schools.  SEA2’s focus is more specifically on new teacher induction to provide more support as teachers enter the profession, with a direct link to the teacher education programs and pre-service teachers: “I think actually, [teacher induction] should be a continuum, And so, I think master teachers should be seconded to provide their experience and expertise as part of a teacher training program that stay with their teachers as they move into the system,,, the faculty associates are actually our teachers and are working in the faculty and in the school system and are able to do the cross coordination.”(personal communication, February 8, 2012) POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  52  He goes further by suggesting an apprenticeship model where the pre-service teachers gain experience under the watchful eye of a master mentor.   There has been increasing awareness and acceptance of mentorship programs in recent years as pointed out by both interviewees.  It is suggested that perhaps through a greater understanding and awareness of the need for non-evaluative mentoring support that the ‘stigma’ of asking for assistance has been reduced.  Building and Sustaining a Culture of Reciprocity.  Another interesting point identified during the interviews was the idea of the culture established through mentorship.  It is suggested that this culture not only extends to the mentoring pair in creating a positive working partnership but beyond the bounds of their relationship to enhance the professional culture of the school and district.  Collaborative relationships are built to support and encourage better practice as SEA1 states: “I just think you build a better profession when you have… a mentorship model in place. It builds a different culture… it isn’t just that one person gets better at their practice it’s that it’s the whole culture of the profession changes in the district if you have some good mentoring going on” (personal communication, February 8, 2012).    Another aspect of culture, which was identified by SEA2, was that of providing psychological support and nurturing a friendship.  In order for this to be accomplished it is necessary to find the right chemistry in the pairing of mentor and novice.  As stated by SEA2, it is a “huge challenge”, but yet a critical component (personal communication, February 8, 2012).  Although both identify finding the right match as a key element, neither expert elaborates on possible courses of action to best match participants.  Our two experts come at the mentoring relationship from different perspectives:  SEA1 focuses on teachers already in the profession who seek out a POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  53 mentor for problem-solving expertise while SEA2 believes the emphasis should be placed on supporting teachers new to the profession and bridging the gap between university teacher training and teaching. Regardless of their primary focus, the culture of mentorship remains the same; the need for non-threatening, trusted relationships between mentors and novices.  Our interviewees both highlight the vulnerability of each participant in the partnership – the novice “putting themselves out there” (personal communication, February 8, 2012), willingly admitting a need for a mentor and the mentor being confident in their practice to commit to the relationship.   However, clearly stated by both experts is the notion that not every teacher is suited to being a mentor, “sometimes the wrong people want to be mentors…” (personal communication, February 8, 2012).  From our experts’ perspectives the notion of culture is created and sustained through finding the right people for the job; individuals who are committed to building a partnership to enhance their professional relationship and instructional practice. Support  Upon reviewing the transcripts of SEA1 and SEA2, the researchers identified three fundamental ways that support can be offered to build strong mentoring relationships: (1) collaboration and cooperation at all levels of the educational organization (2) allocation of resources, and (3) recognition of mentor and novice teacher vulnerability. Though each of these factors work together under the umbrella of “support”, we will discuss each of these separately.  Collaboration and Cooperation.  In order for a mentorship program to be truly successful within the LMD, both interviewees highlighted the need for collaboration and cooperation from all parties and at all levels of the educational organization. More specifically, our interviewees spoke to the importance of the BC Ministry of Education (MOE), elementary and secondary POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  54 teachers’ associations, LMD, and the city’s many individual schools working “in tandem” (personal communication, February 8, 2012) on a program of this nature. According to our interviewees, the MOE’s expression of support for a large-scale mentorship program could be demonstrated in different ways. That is, SEA1 suggests that the province’s role is to provide funding (personal communication, February 8, 2012), while SEA2 indicates that the Ministry is currently “interested in new models of teacher training and teaching” (personal communication, February 8, 2012). At the district level, SEA1 also recognizes that a “good partnership” (personal communication, February 8, 2012) between the school board and union is critical, for without “the union supporting [a mentoring program], then it will always be suspect” (personal communication, February 8, 2012). It is important to note that the interviewee does not consider this “real support [or] collaboration between the employer and union” (personal communication, February 8, 2012) to necessarily be an obstacle to implementing a successful mentoring program, but simply that such a partnership has not yet happened. While both interviewees highlight the work already being done at the district level, such as a “network of various district people who are interested in mentoring” (personal communication, February 8, 2012) and the district consultant team (personal communication, February 8, 2012) responsible for supporting the teaching staff in a number of specific ways1, they also emphasize that mentorship must be supported and implemented at the most basic level.  That is to say, while it is important for the provincial government, teachers’ unions, and school board to back a mentorship program, the support coming from those actually teaching and working in the schools is equally critical. Having both experienced an informal sort of mentorship throughout their careers- seeking out help from those “on the spot, in [their] own context” (personal communication, February 8,                                                  1  District consultants exist for Anti-Homophobia, Early Literacy and Numeracy, and Peer-to- Peer support, to name a few. POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  55 2012) in a moment of urgency and looking for immediate advice- a discussion concerning the importance of support at the school level may, therefore, not be surprising. SEA1 suggests building and embedding the mentorship model in the school and building teacher relationships and trust within it. She argues that “if [we] just ran a district model, it wouldn’t be as effective” (personal communication, February 8, 2012). SEA2 also speaks to the part that school-based staff, such as “school counselors, teacher librarians, department heads, and others” (personal communication, February 8, 2012) play, and even calls attention to the ‘key role’ that administrators have:  It’s everything from clearing the pathway to enable things to happen and be able to intervene and also to be supportive and be able to stop in and say “Hey, how’s it going and is there anything I can provide and support? (personal communication, February 8, 2012)  It is clear from the interviewees’ responses that support- whether it be financial, moral, or otherwise- coming from all echelons of the educational organization is necessary for a mentoring program to be successful. Indeed, the interviewees pay much attention to the ways in which resources must be allocated at each of these levels, which is the subject of the next sub-theme.  Allocation of Resources.  Our interviewees provided a great many suggestions for a school board (their professional context) to show support for, and help make successful, a large-scale mentoring program. A common theme stressed in both interviews is time. To begin with, both SEA1 and SEA2 recognize the importance of “release time” in order to establish the mentoring program, train the mentors, match these mentors with novice teachers, and allow the mentoring partnerships the opportunity to professionally develop. POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  56 SEA1 states that “… you actually have to release people to give them the kind of training they need… training not being the best word, but… the support they need to become good mentors” (personal communication, February 8, 2012) and that time is the difference between the program being happening and being systematically implemented. SEA2 also articulates the need for release time: …. to release master teachers, experienced master teachers for some of the time to work with beginning teachers and pre-service, making that connection, then I think we would be way better off. (personal communication, February 8, 2012)  It is apparent throughout both of the interviews that SEA1 and SEA2 deem the mentor- novice teacher relationship to be a valuable one, and that in order to build up this partnership, release time outside of the daily grind is required. In addition to release time for mentors and novice teachers, other allowances of time are also needed. The interviewees suggest involving the program participants in mentorship-themed opportunities- such as professional development activities, conferences, and orientations- each of which requires additional time. More specifically, SEA2 refers to the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation New Teachers Conference, the LMD New Teacher Orientation, and the six non-instructional days provided to teachers each year as occasions for mentors and novices to partner and further build their relationship.   As much as the interviewees recognize the importance of time to build a mentoring program, they both recognize that money is an equally crucial resource. While SEA2 does not openly say that money is a requisite for a mentoring program to be successful, he does imply this in his reflection on past experience: POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  57 [The mentoring program established in a former district is] still in place to a certain extent. I think it’s been cut back and cut back. I maybe there’s a 0.50 or something, which is totally inadequate. It was inadequate at two [mentors].” (personal communication, February 8, 2012)  SEA1, albeit unknowingly, corroborates SEA2’s belief that money is a “stumbling block” (personal communication, February 8, 2012) to implementing and sustaining a successful mentoring program. She acknowledges that fiscal support for teacher support programs has been “lost in the budget” (personal communication, February 8, 2012) and that the LMD currently does not have the “resources or infrastructure [to implement a program], a comment which refers to the deficit- and consequent cuts to funding- the district has suffered in recent years. She does not place blame for a lack of funding solely on the district, however. Rather, SEA1 recognizes the efforts made by the province of Ontario, as it has “invested a lot in mentorship” (personal communication, February 8, 2012), and that, conversely, “what we never seem to do in BC… is put the money where the [ideas are].” (personal communication, February 8, 2012) Putting the money where the ideas are is also an important step in the mind of SEA2. He recognizes that a mentoring program is expensive but that the benefits are huge. It is clear our interviewees acknowledge that time and money must be provided in order to establish a successful mentoring program.   Recognition of Mentor and Novice Teacher Vulnerability.  Shifting gears, the interviewees each address potential risks and vulnerability mentor teachers and novice teachers may face if they choose to participate in a mentoring program. Therefore, they suggest that these teachers must be supported in every way, shape, and form. Indeed, SEA1 argues that simply forming a mentoring partnership can make one feel vulnerable or stigmatized; “to say ‘I’m a new POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  58 teacher who would like to be mentored’… maybe is saying you have some weaknesses and no one wants to admit that” (personal communication, February 8, 2012). In order to overcome this sense of vulnerability and build a quality mentoring partnership, the mentor and novice teacher must first build trust and a relationship with one another. The mentoring that takes place should be non-judgmental and not a simple delivery of information from the experienced teacher to the novice one. SEA1 also recognizes a different sort of vulnerability when it comes to participating in a mentoring program. As previously stated, this interviewee recommends a strong partnership with the teachers’ unions on a program of this nature, for without such a partnership, mentoring participants may fear discipline or consequence from their union on a matter related to mentoring, or consider themselves to vulnerable to evaluation or supervision by colleagues. Having clearly defined roles and expectations for mentors could serve to allay these fears, for they are real, and may discourage teachers from coming forward to partake in the program as either mentor or novice teacher. SEA2 also advocates for mentor and novice support to reduce the sense of risk and vulnerability these teachers may feel after having “put themselves out there” (personal communication, February 8, 2012) to participate in a mentoring program. Both he and SEA1 show concern for the novice teacher and acknowledge the risk they take by pairing with a mentor, but SEA2 also considers the risk that mentors take in terms of commitment and time dedicated to the partnership. “Not everyone can be a mentor” (personal communication, February 8, 2012), he states, and understanding that those who can- and do- become mentors may need as much support as their novice partners is an important notion to bear in mind.  POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  59 INTEGRATION OF SLR AND INTERVIEWS When we turn our attention to the LMD there is a distinct difference between the district vision for mentoring in the future and what is currently in place.  Looking at current practices of the LMD, there is a large variety of programs and models that are observed.  They range from very formal structures to the more dominant unstructured, site based and informal programs.  Participation is voluntary; any interested parties can participate. There is a difference in the training of mentors from well-trained specialized district staff to informal mentors who volunteer their time and resources with little or no specific training in effective mentoring techniques.  The time associated with mentoring also varies across the district.  There are some highly specialized trained teachers in district roles that have partial to complete release time to mentor and work with teachers to the more dominant model where participants work together on their own time outside of their workdays or “off the side of their desk”.  This divergence between practice and vision is important to be aware of and viewed in light of the number of stakeholders in the organization vying for the same pot of limited resources.  The divergence cannot be attributed to any single individual or action but should be viewed as a systemic challenge faced by any public organization.  Proposed future directions in mentoring are more aligned with the models we observed in literature, namely; having formally structured and funded programs that embed mentoring into the daily practice of both the mentor and novice as well as paying heed to mentoring selection, training and matching of participants for the greatest amount of potential positive impact for all parties involved.    POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  60 IMPLICATIONS OF OUR RESEARCH  Our research has led us to unexpected findings.  Initially, we believed our direction was one where we would find a singular mentorship template, adaptable for any school district.  We had also anticipated the idea of reciprocity between novice and mentor being strong theme that would emerge from our research. This has certainly not been the case.  Both our literature review and interview analysis have outlined a variety of mentorship models – all which have merit but each tailored to address specific needs of school policies, district objectives, and of teachers.  Ultimately there is no one recipe guaranteed for success.  Reciprocity was identified by some authors and both of our interviewees, but the focus on potential benefits favoured the novice teacher. The following ideas stem from the questions which have arisen through our research.  These key elements are related to our mentorship review but go beyond the scope of our research question.  CANADIAN AND LOCAL CONTEXTS The literature used in our research is predominantly American in context.  The Canadian articles that were examined came from other provinces as we found none which related to British Columbia specifically.  As mentorship is not mandated in British Columbia, or in most other provinces, there seems to be far less literature coming out of Canada than from the United States, where mentorship is widely mandated.  Despite this apparent lack of British Columbian mentorship literature, there do exist some mentoring programs in British Columbia, and it would be interesting to explore how these programs change or grow throughout the Lower Mainland in light of the new BC Education Plan. POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  61   In striking contrast to the predominantly American-based literature reviewed, our expert interviews focused on the Lower Mainland perspective.  The information gleaned from our experts identified what is important for the LMD.   Further research could involve comparing and contrasting mentorship models between Lower Mainland districts to determine what mentorship practices exist, what has been successful thus far, and how they could be ameliorated.  ATTRITION Mentoring is ascribed as part of the solution to address the high novice teacher turnover rate observed in some educational contexts.  This is observed more in the American context about which we have read, yet we would ask if this in fact the case and a true and valid assumption for our context in the Lower Mainland.  To further understand this it would be necessary to pose and address the following questions: 1. Does the problem of attrition exist in our local context?  If yes then,  2. What is/are the root factor(s) of attrition?  3. Would mentoring affect the rate of attrition? If so , 4. What model (s) of mentoring would have the greatest impact on this attrition rate?  STIGMA Though we cannot know for sure because of the scale of our research project, stigma around mentorship remains a potential barrier to a successful and effective program. During our SEA1 POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  62 interview, a suggestion was made that in order for a mentorship program to be effective it must be framed and presented in a positive and non-judgmental manner. From the literature that advocated for mandated mentorship, the issue of stigma did not arise as all teachers were required to participate in the program. Although there are negative aspects of mandated mentorship, adopting this model may increase and encourage novice teacher participation.   MENTOR SELECTION AND MATCHING CRITERIA  Although much of our research recommends that careful attention be paid to the selection and matching of mentorship pairs, there are few suggestions made as how this can be accomplished. How might mentors be selected in keeping with the BC Teachers’ Federation Code of Ethics?  What are the desirable characteristics of successful mentors and how are they identified in potential mentors?  Once mentors have been selected, matching them with novice teachers is equally important; consideration needs to be paid to each participant’s social location and way of understanding.  FUNDING/RESOURCES Mentoring as a resource is an area that needs further exploration.  The British Columbia Ministry of Education (2012) clearly identifies mentorship in its 2011 Education Plan as a key part of future professional learning.  In the literature reviewed, the majority of the financially- supported programs were American- where there is both state and federal funding.  With that in mind, how will mentorship programs be funded under the new BC Education Plan?    POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  63 As with most programs, a question that arises is: how could the money best be spent? Should we invest in an apprenticeship style program for pre-service teachers as suggested by one of our interviewees or address the needs of novice teachers once they have entered the profession and are experiencing daily challenges?  A further consideration could be the level at which the money, should the money be invested: province, district, or school.  PRE-SERVICE/NOVICE  As noted in the interview with SEA2, an examination of the connection between mentoring programs and teacher education programs is needed.  The following questions arise when looking at the transition from pre-service teachers to novices: 1. As some proposed models of mentoring favour ongoing mentorship, what link(s) can be created between the programs available to pre-service teachers that would continue through to their entry into the teaching profession? 2. Would a longer apprenticeship-style program be more advantageous? 3. Given the diversity within districts and the province, is a province-wide mentorship model even viable?   POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  64 RECOMENDATIONS  Our research is limited by the literature available and the views of our experts.  There were a number of further limitations which arose over the course of our research, and from these we have developed recommendations for further research: • Our LMD is a multicultural and diverse environment, a composition not specifically addressed in the literature.  Much of the literature we examined speaks to generic, broad- based programs with little information presented which relates to the diversity present in LMD.  To propose a mentorship program tailored to the needs of the LMD, careful attention would need to be paid to the cultural and socio-economic diversity of the LMD. • Literature available was predominantly American-based with few Canadian sources.  Further research in this area, specific to the British Columbia and the local context relating to the reasons for attrition rates is recommended for future direction. • In order to explore mentoring in British Columbia, a province wide survey to determine current practices across school districts is recommended.  This would serve as a starting point to compare and contrast effective programs and open lines of communication between school districts.   address issues of diversity. • Issues around systemic racism or sexism were not addressed in the literature and could be a direction for future work. • Indigenous and minority mentorship programs are not well represented in our literature and as such we did not find specific teacher mentorship examples relating to indigenous culture in the public school setting.  POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  65  After completing this research on mentorship and the limited mentoring opportunities currently characteristic of LMD, the authors recommend that the district develop an inclusive mentorship model with the goal of meeting the diverse needs of its teaching staff.   POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  66 CONCLUSION  This research project involved a systematic literature review and purposeful expert interviews to address the question “What models of mentoring are dominant in academic literature and how does this compare and contrast with the LMD?”  Major findings included:  (1) there is no one model which prevails as the formula for success, (2) there is an opportunity for growth and a desire to more formalize mentorship practices in our LMD, and (3) mentorship has the potential to build positive professional relationships.    From our analysis of the academic literature reviewed, we have found that major elements of successful mentoring programs include: formal structures, voluntary enrolment, one- to-one ratio of mentor to novice, and a collaborative, reciprocal relationship.  The responses from our interviewees supported these findings and in addition highlighted the need for release time for mentoring pairs, strategic mentor selection, allocated funds, and a link with teacher preparation programs.  Though there are inherent limitations to our research, mentorship is widely acknowledged as important and, therefore, deserves further investigation. The implications we identified address the concerns for further research in regards to the implementation and delivery of mentorship programs.   A common, though unsurprising, theme arising from both our literature review and expert interviews is that mentorship programs are beneficial, thereby making support for their implementation nearly universal. That being said, there is still much debate over the ideal POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  67 structure, support, and delivery model.  The authors recognize that there is no one model guaranteed to work for all.  Individual schools and districts must take into consideration the aforementioned elements of successful mentoring and adapt them to suit the needs of their staff.   POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  68 REFERENCES  Alberta Teachers Association. (2010). Mentorship programs. Retrieved January 20, 2012, from http://www.teachers.ab.ca/For%20Members/Programs%20and%20Services/Resources%2 0For/Beginning%20Teachers/Pages/Mentorship%20Program.aspx Alliance for Excellent Education. (2005).Teacher attrition: A costly loss to the nation and to the states. Retrieved, November 12, 2011, from http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/TeacherAttrition.pdf Bey, T. M. (1995). Mentorships: Transferable transactions among teachers. Education and Urban Society, 28(1), 11-19. British Columbia education plan. (2011). Retrieved February 8, 2012, from http://www.bcedplan.ca/assets/pdf/bc_edu_plan.pdf   British Columbia ministry of education. (2012). Retrieved February 20, 2012, from http://www.gov.bc.ca.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/bced/  CMCIS alumni society mentor program. (2008). Retrieved October 12, 2011 from http://cmcismentorprogram.wordpress.com/ Crutchfield, N. (2010). Mentoring strategies to assist early career teachers. Agricultural Education Magazine, 82(6), 23-25. Cuenca, A. (2011). The role of legitimacy in student teaching: Learning to "feel" like a teacher. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(2), 117-130. David, T. (2000). Programs in practice. teacher mentoring--benefits all around. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 36(3), 134-136. Evertson, C. M., & Smithey, M. W. (2001). Mentoring effects on protégés' classroom practice: An experimental field study. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(5), 294-304. Feeney Jonson, K. (2001). The new elementary teacher's handbook: Flourishing in your first year. CA: Corwin Press Inc. Gabriel, M. A., & Kaufield, K. J. (2008). Reciprocal mentorship: An effective support for online instructors. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16(3), 311-327. Ganser, T. (2002). Getting the most out of new-teacher mentoring programs. Principal Leadership, 3(1), 27-30. Gilles, C., & Wilson, J. (2004). Receiving as well as giving: Mentors' perceptions of their professional development in one teacher induction program. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 12(1), 87-106. Gilles, C., Wilson, J., & Elias, M. (2010). Sustaining teachers' growth and renewal through POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  69 action research, induction programs, and collaboration. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(1), 91-108. Gong, T. and Siers, R. (2011) Linking transformational leadership to student teachers’ efficacy: contributions of mentor teachers’ leadership behaviors. Academic Leadership The Online Journal 9(1). Retrieved December 27, 2011 from http://www.academicleadership.org/1363/linking-transformational-leadership-to-student- teachers-efficacy-contributions-of-mentor-teachers-leadership-behaviors/ Graves, S. (2010). Mentoring pre-service teachers: A case study Early Childhood Australia. Grissmer, D. W., & Kirby, S. N. (1997). Teacher turnover and teacher quality. Teachers College Record, 99, 45-56. Hanson, S. (2010). What mentors learn. Educational Leadership, 67(8). Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2000). Mentoring in the new millennium. Theory into Practice, 39(1), 50-56. Healy, C. C., & Welchert, A. J. (1990). Mentoring relations: A definition to advance research and practice. Educational Researcher, 19(17). Hellsten, L. A., Prytula, M. P., Ebanks, A., & Lai, H. (2009). Teacher induction: Exploring beginning teacher mentorship. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(4), 703-733. Hoover, L. A. (2010). Comprehensive teacher induction: A vision toward transformative teacher learning. Action in Teacher Education, 32(4), 15-25. Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 201-233. doi:10.3102/0034654311403323 Janas, M. (1996). Mentoring the mentor: A challenge in staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 17(4), 1-7. Kartje, J. V. (1996). O mentor! my mentor! Peabody Journal of Education (0161956X), 71(1), 114-125. Kochan, F. K. & Trimble, S. B. (2000). Mentoring to co-mentoring: Establishing collaborative relationships. Theory into Practice, 39(1), 20-28. Lawson, F. T. (2011). In mentoring, relationships rule. Principal, 91(1), 42-42. Maker, D. (2010). Teacher retention. Retrieved November 13, 2011 from http://donmaker.yolasite.com/teacher-retention.php Mullen, C. A. (2011). New teacher induction: A mandated direction of states. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(2), 63-67. POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  70 Mullen, E. J., & Noe, R. A. (1999). The mentoring information exchange: When do mentors seek information from their protégés? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(2), 233-242. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199903)20:2<233::AID-JOB925>3.0.CO;2-F Northwest Territories Department of Education, Culture and Employment. (2012). NWT teacher induction. Retrieved January 20, 2012, from http://www.newteachersnwt.ca/what_is_teacher_induction.html Odell, S. J., & Ferraro, D. P. (1992). Teacher mentoring and teacher retention. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 200. Onchwari, G., & Keengwe, J. (2008). The impact of a mentor-coaching model on teacher professional development. Early Chilhood Education Journal, 36(1), 19-24. doi:10.1007/s10643-007-0233-0 Ontario Ministry of Education. (2012). The new teacher induction program. Retrieved January 20, 2012, from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/teacher/induction.html Parker, M. A., Ndoye, A., & Imig, S. R. (2009). Keeping our teachers! investigating mentoring practices to support and retain novice educators. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 17(4), 329-341. doi:10.1080/13611260903391500 Pirkle, S. F. (2011). Stemming the tide: Retaining and supporting science teachers. Science Educator, 20(2), 42-46. Saylor, N., Wolfe, J., & Soderdahl, P. (2011). Mentoring, it's a good thing: What we learned partying with student librarians. College and Research Libraries News, 72(10), 566-570. Shidler, L., & Fedor, K. (2010). Teacher- to-teacher: The heart of the coaching model. YC: Young Children, 65(4), 70-75. Shore, W. J., Toyokawa, T., & Anderson, D. D. (2008). Context-specific effects on reciprocity in mentoring relationships: Ethical implications. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16(1), 17-29. doi:10.1080/13611260701800926 Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681-714. St. George, C. A., & Robinson, S. B. (2011). Making mentoring matter: Perspectives from veteran mentor teachers. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 78(1), 24-28. Tillman, L. C. (2003). Mentoring, reflection, and reciprocal journaling. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 226-233. Wasburn, M. H., Wasburn-Moses, L., & Blackman, J. (2008). The P-16 strategic collaboration model: A team mentoring approach. The Educational Forum, 72(1), 32-44.    POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  71 APPENDICES APPENDIX A- BREB APPROVAL    The University of British Columbia Office of Research Services Behavioural Research Ethics Board Suite 102, 6190 Agronomy Road, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z3    CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL - MINIMAL RISK   PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: INSTITUTION / DEPARTMENT: UBC BREB NUMBER: Michelle Stack  UBC/Education/Educational Studies  H11-03043 INSTITUTION(S) WHERE RESEARCH WILL BE CARRIED OUT: Institution Site UBC Vancouver (excludes UBC Hospital)   CO-INVESTIGATOR(S):  Bruce Cornell Karen Elizabeth Blake Zoe E. Higgs Rachel Sarah Klein Christopher Henry Alderman   SPONSORING AGENCIES: N/A  PROJECT TITLE: Building Positive Professional Relationships: How teacher mentorship programs benefit public education. CERTIFICATE EXPIRY DATE:  December 2, 2012 DOCUMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS APPROVAL: DATE APPROVED:   December 2, 2011 Document Name Version Date Consent Forms: Letter of Consent V2 November 21, 2011 Questionnaire, Questionnaire Cover Letter, Tests: Participant Interview Questions V2 November 21, 2011 Letter of Initial Contact: Letter of Initial Contact V2 November 21, 2011   The application for ethical review and the document(s) listed above have been reviewed and the procedures were found to be acceptable on ethical grounds for research involving human subjects. This study has been approved either by the full Behavioural REB or by an authorized delegated reviewer APPENDIX B- LETTER OF INITIAL CONTACT   POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  72 Department of Educational Studies Faculty of Education 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C.  Canada  V6T 1Z4  Tel:  604-822-5374 Fax:  604-822-4244 Web: http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca         <DATE>   <NAME> <ADDRESS>  Dear <NAME>,  We are a group of five University of British Columbia Master of Education students from the VEL2 - Educational Administration and Leadership Cohort, which is a joint venture with the Vancouver Board of Education (VBE).  Our group is comprised of three teachers from the VBE (Karen Blake, Zoe Higgs, and Rachel Klein), one teacher from the Burnaby School Board (Bruce Cornell) and one member of the Human Resources Department at the VBE, (Chris Alderman). We are currently preparing for our Capstone project on Teacher Mentorship Models. We are requesting the opportunity to meet with you to discuss our topic. This would be in the form of an interview with three of our group members. We expect the interview take a maximum of one hour to complete.  After our interview, we will provide you with a transcript of the interview either in print form or sent in a document through secured email.  If at any point during the transcription process we feel the need to clarify, we would like the option to follow up with questions or points of clarification and perhaps if needed, we could meet again for a maximum of thirty minutes, again at your convenience. At the conclusion of our research, we will be presenting a summary of our findings in an open forum, at which time we would welcome your participation. Thank you for your time and we look forward to meeting with you.   Chris Alderman Karen Blake Bruce Cornell Zoe Higgs Rachel Klein    POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  73 Department of Educational Studies Faculty of Education 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C.  Canada  V6T 1Z4  Tel:  604-822-5374 Fax:  604-822-4244 Web: http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca  APPENDIX C- LETTER OF CONSENT          <DATE>  Letter of Consent  Building Positive Professional Relationships:  How Teacher Mentorship Benefits Public Education  Principal Investigator: Dr. Michelle Stack, UBC Graduate Student Co-Investigators: Chris Alderman, Karen Blake, Bruce Cornell, Zoe Higgs, & Rachel Klein  Research Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate and analyze mentorship models provided to elementary and secondary teachers within several school districts.  In order to so, we will conduct a meta-analysis of existing mentorship models and literature and interview senior administrators and invite them to share with us their views and vision regarding teaching mentorship programs.  Research Procedure: The co-investigators will present a letter of initial contact and invitation to senior administrators.  Administrators who decide to participate will return their consent forms to Chris Alderman, VBE Human Resources Supervisor- Secondary, by email to Zoe Higgs at zoe.higgs@alumni.ubc.ca, or by blue bag to Zoe Higgs at David Thompson Secondary within a one week time period.  During the first meeting, participants will be asked questions related to their experiences with mentorship programs and their plans for the future of mentorship in their district.  At the interview the participant will be asked if they want the transcripts to be provided by electronic or paper copy. After the initial meeting participants will be presented with a transcribed copy of their interview and given the opportunity to clarify or correct their interview.   If a second meeting is required for further clarification, the participant will be asked to meet again for no more than 30 minutes and a transcribed copy will again be supplied.  After the interview(s) the POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  74 researchers will analyze the revised data and identify emergent themes from the participants’ responses.  All meeting will be recorded electronically if the participant agrees.  Participation: Participants will be given a period of one week to decide whether they are interested in participating in any or all parts of this study.  Participation will be entirely voluntary and they may choose to withdraw from the study at any time without repercussions.  Confidentiality: All participant responses in this study will be kept confidential.  All identifying information will be deleted from the study and a pseudonym (where applicable) will be used when reporting the findings.  In accordance with UBC policy all data will be kept for five years.  Paper copies will be locked in a filing cabinet in the principal investigators office.  Audio recordings and transcripts will be kept in a secured location in the principal investigator’s office.  All computerized files will be password protected and will be transferred to a flash drive to be locked along with the audio recordings and transcribed interviews.  All electronic files will be kept on a password protected computer and deleted after five years.  Contact: If any aspect of the outlined procedure remains unclear or if you have further questions or concerns, you are encouraged to contact the Principal Investigator, Dr. Michelle Stack, or the Co-Investigators, Chris Alderman, Karen Blake, Bruce Cornell, Zoe Higgs, and Rachel Klein.  If at any time you have concerns about your rights or your treatment as a participant in this research study, you may contact the research Subject Information Line in the UBC Office of Research Services at (604)822-8598 or if email to RSIL@ors.ubc.ca   Consent: I understand that my participation in this study (in full or in part) is entirely voluntary and that I may refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time without repercussions. I have received a copy of this consent for my own records. I consent/ give my assent to participate in the study:  Building Positive Professional Relationships:  How Teacher Mentorship Benefits Public Education.   Meeting One:    RECORDED  NOT RECORDED (please circle one)  _____________________________________ _________________________ Participant Signature     Date  Meeting Two:    RECORDED  NOT RECORDED (please circle one)  _____________________________________ _________________________ Participant Signature     Date  POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH MENTORING  75 APPENDIX D- INTERVIEW QUESTIONS  Semi- Structured Interviews - Question Stems 1. Have you ever been mentored?  Could you tell us about the experience? 2. Have you ever mentored someone else?  Could you tell us about the experience? 3. How have these experiences affected your views on mentorship? 4. From the literature we have read there is no clear definition of mentorship.  How would you define mentorship and what do you see as its value or purpose? 5. Are there challenges or stumbling blocks to implementing a mentorship program in the LMD? If so, what are they? 6. What do you see as the critical components of mentoring? 7. What do you consider the potential risks and benefits of mentorship? 8. There are a variety of programs/activities that currently exist in the LMD, how do you see these fitting into your vision of mentoring for this district? 9. Where do you see opportunities for growth in the district? 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.42591.1-0055411/manifest

Comment

Related Items