USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Perceptions of career and psychosocial functions between mentor and protégé teachers

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Perceptions of career and psychosocial functions between mentor and protégé teachers
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Vanderbilt, Allison
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Perceptions of Career and Psychosocial Functions between Mentor and Protégé Teachers
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Leadership & Policy Studies -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to identify the career and psychosocial functions that mentor teachers and their protégé teachers believed occurred during the 2008-2009 mentoring relationship. This comparative survey study was conducted in a suburban middle-sized Florida school district. The target population for this study involved one group of matched mentor teachers and protégé teachers. Two survey instruments were used during this study, Mentoring Functions Scale for the Mentor and the Mentoring Functions Scale for the Protégé modified by Wilson (2006). This instrument was selected because it measures the career and psychosocial functions of the mentoring process. The survey was available to the mentors and protégés participating in this study via paper and pencil. There were 645 mentor teachers and protégé teachers surveyed. There was a 33.4% response rate of the total population surveyed and a 67.0% usable response rate of the 322 mentor teachers and protégé teachers who responded. The findings were that both mentor and protégé teachers value the mentoring process. All of the participants agreed that the career and psychosocial functions were provided. Mentor and protégé teachers both agreed that the career and psychosocial functions were present during the mentoring relationship. These findings indicated that there were specific career and psychosocial functions provided by the mentor to the protégé that were found to be beneficial to the mentoring process.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ed.D.)--University of South Florida, 2010.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Allison Vanderbilt.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0003365
usfldc handle - e14.3365
System ID:
SFS0027681:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 007 cr-bnu---uuuuu
008 s2010 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0003365
035
(OCoLC)
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
XX9999 (Online)
1 100
Vanderbilt, Allison.
0 245
Perceptions of career and psychosocial functions between mentor and protg teachers
h [electronic resource] /
by Allison Vanderbilt.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
2010.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.
502
Dissertation (Ed.D.)--University of South Florida, 2010.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
3 520
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to identify the career and psychosocial functions that mentor teachers and their protg teachers believed occurred during the 2008-2009 mentoring relationship. This comparative survey study was conducted in a suburban middle-sized Florida school district. The target population for this study involved one group of matched mentor teachers and protg teachers. Two survey instruments were used during this study, Mentoring Functions Scale for the Mentor and the Mentoring Functions Scale for the Protg modified by Wilson (2006). This instrument was selected because it measures the career and psychosocial functions of the mentoring process. The survey was available to the mentors and protgs participating in this study via paper and pencil. There were 645 mentor teachers and protg teachers surveyed. There was a 33.4% response rate of the total population surveyed and a 67.0% usable response rate of the 322 mentor teachers and protg teachers who responded. The findings were that both mentor and protg teachers value the mentoring process. All of the participants agreed that the career and psychosocial functions were provided. Mentor and protg teachers both agreed that the career and psychosocial functions were present during the mentoring relationship. These findings indicated that there were specific career and psychosocial functions provided by the mentor to the protg that were found to be beneficial to the mentoring process.
590
Advisor: William Young, Ed.D.
653
Perceptions of Career and Psychosocial Functions between Mentor and Protg Teachers
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Educational Leadership & Policy Studies
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.3365



PAGE 1

Perceptions Of Career And Psychosocial Functions Between Mentor And ProtŽgŽ Teachers by Allison A. Vanderbilt A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education Department of Adult, Career, and Higher Education College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: William Young Ed.D. Wayn n e James, Ed.D. Bruce A. Jones, Ph.D. Donna Elam, Ed.D. Date of Approval: March 3 0 2010 Keywords: mentoring, career and psychosocial funcations, teachers, school district Copyright 2 010 Allison A.Vaderbilt

PAGE 2

DEDICATION For m y Dad, Mom, and Baby Sister You always believed in me and told me I could accomplish anything. It was your unconditional love, guidance, and support that allowed me to achieve my dream. Thank you.

PAGE 3

AKNOWLDEGEMENTS I never would have been able to complete this process without the unconditional support of my family, friends, and committee. I am sincerely grateful to my committee members who have helped me in achieving my goal and lifelong dream. I would like to exp ress my deepest gratitude to my chair, Dr. William Young for his patience, support, and willingness to help me throughout this process. Dr. Bruce Jones provided me with his guidance and encouragement throughout this process. I am grateful for his mento ring and continued support throughout this process. Dr. Donna Elam, thank you for your encouragement and emotional support throughout this process. Dr. Waynne James, thank you for your support, generosity a nd time. I appreciate your willingness to meet with me and the time you gave me regarding my work. I will be forever grateful for your advice and continued support with my dissertation. This would not have been possible without you. Under the guidance of my committee I have been able to fulfill my dream of developing into a researcher and scholar. It was the wisdom and support of the committee that lead to this lifelong achievement. I will be forever thankful for your help and guidance throughout this process.

PAGE 4

Table of Contents List of Tables iii Abstract iv Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Statement of the Problem 3 Purpose of the Study 4 Research Questions 4 Limitations of the Study 4 Definitions of Terms 5 Organization of the Study 6 Chapter 2: Review of Literature 8 History of Mentoring 8 Functions of Mentors 10 Career F unction 11 Psychosocial F unction 13 Mentor Protg Relationships 14 Informal Relationships 16 Formal Relationships 17 Mentoring for First Year Teachers 19 Criticisms and Challenges of Mentoring 23 Analysis of Literature 26 Survey Instruments that Measure Mentoring 31 Summary of Literature Review 3 3 Chapter 3: Methods 34 Research Design 34 Population and Sample 35 Instrumentation 37 Collection of Data 38 Data Analysis 40 Summary of Methods 42 Chapter 4: Findings 4 3 Response Rate and Characteristics of Participants 4 3 Sample Mentor Teachers 4 4

PAGE 5

ii Sample Protg Teachers 4 4 Findings and Results of the Survey 4 4 Results by Items 4 7 Summary of Result s by Item 52 Career Functions by Item 52 Psychosocial Functions by Item 5 4 Discussion of Results by Item 57 Independent Sample t test 58 Summary of Findings 64 Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, Implications and Future Research 65 Summary of the Study 65 Conclusion s 66 Implications 6 8 Future Research 69 R eferences 7 2 Appendices Appendix A: Mentoring Functions Scale for the Mentor 7 7 Appendix B : Mentoring Functions Scale for the Protg 8 1 Appendix C : Letter to Participate in Study Mentor 8 5 Appendix D : Letter to Participate in Study Protg 8 7 Appendix E : Second Letter to Participate in Study Mentor 8 9 Appendix F : Second Letter to Participate in Study Protg 9 1 Appendix G: Consent Letter to use I nstruments 9 3 About the Author End Page

PAGE 6

iii List of Tables Table 1: Identified Mentoring Functions that Benefit the Protg s by Author/Researcher 15 Table 2: Summary of Literature Related to First Year Teachers and Mentoring 27 Table 3: Demographic Characteristics of Mentor Teachers 46 Table 4: Demographic Characteristics of Protg Teachers 4 6 Table 5: The means and standard deviations for survey items by functions for mentor and protg teachers 49 Table 6: Independent Sample t Test Results for Matched Pairs by Item Grouped by Function 60 Table 7: Statistically significant items for the mentor and protg 63

PAGE 7

iv Perceptions of Career and Psychosocial Functions b etween Mentor and Protg Teachers Allison A. Vanderbilt ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to identify the career and psychosocial functions that mentor teachers and their protg teachers believed occurred during the 2008 2009 mentoring relationship. This comparative survey study was conducted in a suburban middle size d Florida school district. The target population for this study involved on e group of matched mentor teachers and protg teachers Two survey instruments were used during thi s study, Mentoring Functions Scale for the Mentor and the Mentoring Functions Scale for the Protg modified by Wilson (2006). This instrument was sele cted because it measures the career and psychosocial functions of the mentoring process. The survey was available to the mentors and protgs participating in this study via paper and pencil. There were 645 mentor teachers and protg teachers surveyed. Th ere was a 33.4% response rate of the total population surveyed and a 67.0% usable response rate of the 322 mentor teachers and protg teachers who responded. The findings were that both mentor and protg teachers value the mentoring process. All o f the participants agreed that the career and psychosocial functions were

PAGE 8

v provided. Mentor and protg teachers both agreed that the career and psychosocial functions were present during the mentoring relationship. These findings indicated that there wer e specific career and psychosocial functions provided by the mentor to the protg that were found to be beneficial to the mentoring process.

PAGE 9

1 C hapter 1 I ntro duction When compared to other occupations, the teaching profession is plagued by a chronic annual turnover (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003) Over the past decade countless teachers have left the field of education (Boe, Cook, & Sunderland, 2008 ; Shakroni, 2008 ). In fact, 40% 50% of new teachers will leave the profession in the first five years of teaching (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Maciejewski, 2007 ) Ingersoll and Smith argue that the teacher turnover problem is high overall; however, teac her attrition has a stronger impact on new teachers compared to veteran teachers. Teacher attrition is more widely experienced by n ew tea chers. Working with mentors is important for beginning teachers. They can provide new teachers with the support nec essary to be successful and remain in the profession (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). Providing new teachers with mentors allows for a beneficial relationship between the n ovice and veteran teacher (Arnold Rogers, Arnett, & Harris, 2008). Darling Hammond (200 3) argue s that there is a strong need for well designed mentoring programs to raise the retention rate for new teachers and offer solutions to high teacher attrition rate s According to Darling Hammond, t eacher mentoring programs will improve new teacher attitudes through an infrastructure that can foster collegiality and support. Furthermore, new teacher mentoring programs have the ability to provide a sense of self efficacy, creating a culture of support and encouragement. The assignment of experienced teachers to guide and support new teachers provides valuable staff

PAGE 10

2 development for both the experienced and novice teachers (Holloway, 2001). According to Danielson (1999), mentoring fosters the professional development of both the veteran and novice tea chers. N ew t eacher mentoring programs provide additional support to ignite the growth and development of instructional skills (Darling Hammond) These programs assist the novice teachers in facing the challenges of the job through reflective activities a nd professiona l conversations (Danielson ). Long term teacher retention can be improved when the novice teachers enter into a mentor protg relationship (Chapman, 1983). Well designed mentoring programs have been shown to decrease teacher attrition rat es (National Association of State Boards of Education, 1998). An example of this is found in the mentor ing program developed by school districts in New York and Ohio. Several s chool districts in these two states implemented the same mentoring program for new teachers mainly to provide the support infrastructure necessary to ensure teacher retention. By providing expert mentors to new teachers school districts in New York an d Ohio decreased the attrition rates from 30% to 5% ( National Commission on 1996). Mentoring is frequently assessed by asking the mentors and protgs about their perceptions of the mentoring r elationship (Kram, 1985a; Noe, 1988; Wilson, 2006) Kram (1985a) conducted interviews with mentors and pr otgs to understand the career and psychosocial functions of the mentor protg relationship. Noe (1988) developed a survey instrument functions of the mentoring process for both mentors and pro tgs within the business psychosocial functions of the mentor and protg within an educational setting.

PAGE 11

3 Statement of the Problem The teacher shortage is a crisis in the United S tates (Liu, 2007). Fifty percent of new teachers will leave the field within the first f ive years (Boe et al., 2008 ; NCES, 2001 ). High teacher attrition rates among new teachers create challenges for schools and their students (Kardos & Johnson, 2007). Schlichte and colleagues (2005) argued that the high teacher attrition rate is due to the loneliness and alienation experienced by beginning teachers those who desire to socialize and engage with their colleagues. Furthermore, new teachers experience fee lings of ineffectiveness in the classroom and distance from their veteran peers. Mentoring has been identified as a critical factor in eliminating such feelings as isolation among first year teachers (Schlichte, Yssel, & Merbler 2005 ). Kardos and collea gues (2001) found that teachers are more likely to remain in the classroom if they receive support as beginning teachers. Fletcher and Barett (2004) argue novice teachers, though deemed highly qualified, may not be ready for the challenges that face new t eachers; mentoring is a strategy to support novice teachers. According to Ingersoll (2001), 42% of teachers who left the classroom were dissatisfied with their jobs and lack of support. There exists a vast array of research regarding mentoring programs among teachers; however there is limited research examining paired mentor teachers and protg teachers. The pertinent literature in the field addresses the importance mentors v eteran teachers b elieve mentoring provides their protgs. Additionally, protgs report the necessity of mentoring and the support they receive while in their beginning stages of teaching ( Andrews & Quinn, 2005; Marable & Raimondi, 2007 ; Odell & Ferraro, 1992 ; Tell ez, 1992 ).

PAGE 12

4 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study w as to identify the career and psychosocial functions that mentor teachers and their protg teachers believed occurred during the 2008 2009 mentoring relationship. Research Questions The following were the research questions that guided the development and implementation of this study. Each question was addressed throughout the study. 1. What career and psychosocial mentoring processes do mentor teachers perceive they provide to their protgs? 2. What career and psychosocial mentoring processes do protg teachers perceive they receive from their mentors? 3. How do mentor teachers and their protgs compare in their perceptions of the mentor protg re lationship ? Limitations of the Study There were several key limitations to this study. The results from the study may not be generalized to other populations without further research as they are specific to one school district in Florida Additionally, there was a lack of control for several factors that may have influence d the results of the study. These potential factors include d the following: Some mentors in the study may have been hesitant to indicate that they did not provide the protg with the support necessary to be successful Some protg s in the study may have been hesitant to indicate that they did not receive the support necessary to be successful from their mentors.

PAGE 13

5 The Mentoring Functions Scale for the Mentor and the Mentoring Functions Scale for the Protg included self reported items. See Appendix A for the Mentoring Functions Scale for the Mentor and Appendix B for the Mentoring Functions Scale for the Protg Finally, this study required that new teachers and their protgs reflect on the previous year during their mentoring relationship. Due to budget constraints, school districts were not hiring first year teachers (2009 2010 school year) consequently, second year teachers who had mentors were asked to reflect on their previous year as a first year teacher. Definitions of the Terms The following definitions and terms were used in this study: Career Functions: Career function is a process where the mentor teaches the protg how to learn the basics within the organization (Kram, 1985a). Additionally, the mentor provides support to the protg pertaining to advancement within the organization (Kram). Mentor Teacher : A veteran teacher is an individual who has been teaching for three or more years. The veteran teacher acts in mentoring capacity for the protg. Mentoring: A formal pre arranged relationship by the mentoring program coordinator that pairs the protg ( novice teacher) and a ment or (a veteran teacher) together for the purposes of support and relationship building. P erception : The belief of the mentor or protg teacher. What the mentor teachers and protg teachers believe to be true regarding the mentoring process. Protg Teacher : A first year teacher is an individual who is in

PAGE 14

6 the alternative certification program or is in a first year of teaching. Alternative certification is a program designed for individuals enterin g the teaching profession from varied careers. The protg participates in a mentoring program with an assigned mentor. Psychosocial Functions: Psych osocial function is a process that encompasses the interpersonal aspects of mentoring (Kr am, 1985a). The quality of the interpersonal relationship between the mentor an d protg is the emotional bond established at the start of the mentoring program. Organization of the Study Chapter 1 is comprised of the introduction of the research, background of the problem, statement of the problem, purpose, research questions, significance, limitations, definition of terms, and the organization Chapter 2 i ncludes a literature review related to the study. This chapter contain s the research discussion of the mentoring process, the functions of mentoring, mentoring relationships, and mentoring for new teachers. Chapter 3 addresses the research methods and procedures used to conduct the study. This chapter include s the research design, the population and sample, instrumentation, collection of data, and the data analysis that will be used to determine the mentoring process perceptions Chapter 4 addresses the findings of the research This chapter include s characteristics of participants, findings and results from the survey, independent sample t test, and summary.

PAGE 15

7 Chapter 5 addresses the summary conclusion s implications and recommendations for futur e research.

PAGE 16

8 C hapter 2 Review of the Literature The purpose of this study was to identify the career and psychosocial functions that mentor teachers and their protg teachers believed occurred during the 2008 2009 mentoring relationship. The parts of this chapter are: history of mentoring, functions of mentors, career function, psych osocial function, mentor protg re lationship, mentoring for first year teachers, criticis ms and challenges of mentoring, analysis of literature s urvey i nstruments that m easure m entoring and a summary History of Mentoring The term mentor dates back to Greek mythology and the life of Odysseus. The in the Torjan war and requested that Mentor care for his home and son. Mentor was expected to guide and counsel Telemachus, the son of Odysseus (Everson & Smithey 2000 ). This relationship between Telemachus and Mentor is considered the first mentor protg relationship. Mentoring practice s have been a part of t he human experience from the begi nning The formalized process of mentoring was evident in the writings of great thinkers. Researchers refer to mentoring as the oldest form of teaching (Bell, 2002; Cole, 2004; Johnson & Ridley, 2004; Stone, 2004). There are several historical examples of the mentor protg relationship, Merlin to King Arthur, Socrates and Plato, and Sullivan

PAGE 17

9 and Keller (Parkay, 1988). During each relationship the mentor was the teacher and guide for the protg. Additional examples of the mentoring process can be fou nd in the arts. For example, the French Impressionist painter Pissarro was considered one of the greatest devoted his life to mentoring young painters of the 19th century. Among his protgs were Gauguin and Seurat Like most good mentors, Pissarro encouraged his protgs to find their own style of painting In the United States mentoring developed from t he medical field. Barondess (1995) argues that i t is believed that in the 1890s one of the first mentoring rel ationships developed A ccording to Barondess (1995) a mentoring relationship in medicine existed between Osler and Cushing Cushing was an 1895 graduate of the Harvard Medical School. Cushing was mentored by Osler while he worked at the Massachusetts G eneral Hospital before becoming an assistant resident on Halsted's surgical service. It was this mentoring relationship from Osler that fostered the support structure necessary for Cushing to accompli sh his success with neurology thus the advancement of m edicine. Mentoring expanded from the medical field into the business world (Noe, 1988) More recently mentoring was studied in the business field by Noe and Kram in the 1980s. career function of employees other than thos e in leadership positions. Furthermore, Kram (1985 a ) identified the psychosocial benefits of mentoring for the protg within the business community Researchers argue that it was the importance and benefits of mentoring into the minds of leaders of schools and universities, government entities, hospitals, and other

PAGE 18

10 medical organizations to implement this as a strategy for leadership development, knowledge management, and recruiting and retaining talent (Phillips Jones, 1983). Overall, mentoring is eviden t nationwide. Currently, there are numerous U.S. companies, such as Bank of America, Marriott International, and Charles Schwab, have developed formal mentoring programs to help attract, retain, and develop successful employees. Functions of Mentors There are numerous definitions for the word mentoring (Jacob i, 1991). Clawson (1996) provides the broadest definition. Clawson states that mentoring occurs when both parties in a relationship acknowledge the importance of what one can teach and the other can learn. Furthermore, both participants must be willing to engage in a mentoring relationship (1999) According to Merriam (1983), mentoring is a powerful emotional interaction between the mentor and prot g, where the mentor is trusted, loving, and experienced in the guidance and support of the protg. Similarly, Kram (1985a) defines the mentor as someone who supports, guides, and helps the protg as he or she accomplishe s mastery of the adult world. B eyene and colleagues (2002) defined mentoring as a process in which two people engage in a mutually beneficial mentor protg relationship. Often times the role of the mentor is also reflected within the definition. For serve as a model of appropriate attitudes, values, and behaviors for the protg ; to convey unconditional positive regard ; and to provide a forum in which the protg is encouraged to talk openly about anxieties and fears (Noe, 1988). At work, the mentor should interact informally with the protg, thus maintaining

PAGE 19

11 a positive and informal relationship. Beyene and colleagues (2002) state that the role of the mentor is to provide emotional support, information, advisement ; to share values, facilitate access to key networks, motivate, be a role model, and protect the protg Also the mentor should provide activities that allow for shared information. The role of the mentor goes beyond teaching the required job skills and can function within two broad cate gories: career function and psychosocial function (Kram 1985b). Career F unction Career function is a process in which the mentor teaches the protg how to learn the basics within the organization (Kram, 1985a). Additionally, the mentor provides support to the protg pertaining to advancement within the organization (Kram), coaching the protg for the purpose of promotion. Kram argues that the success of the protg can Generally, when the mentor is in a top leadership role, valuable networking opportunities can be provided to the protg. Finally, Kram outlines five different career function roles the m entor can portray throughout the mentoring program. These include sponsorship, coaching, protection, challenging assignments, and exposure to various experience s in the work environment. According to Kram (1985a), s ponsorship occurs when the mentor pr ovides the protg with the nomination for desirable lateral moves within the organization. Furthermore, the mentor assists the protg with opportunities for advancement. These opportunities frequently occur during formal committee meetings or informal discussions with peers.

PAGE 20

12 Mentors provide coaching to their protgs. During this process the mentors are able to provide advice and share ideas with their protgs. Thus, the mentor provides an ongoing support system that allows the protg to speak op enly. In addition, Kram (1985a) noted that p rotection is provided by the mentor on behalf of the protg. This protection by the mentor shields the protg from untimely damaging contact with senior leaders within the organization. In addition to shiel ding the protg, the mentor also takes credit or blame for controversial situations to assist the protg with credibility in the organization. Finally, the mentor intervene s when the protg is ill equipped to achieve satisfactory resolution in a situat ion that could further advance the protg. The mentor provide s challenging assignments to the protg. These challenging assignments associated with projects at work are provided by the mentor; however, the protg receive s technical support throughout the process. While the protg is working on assignments, the mentor provide s him or her with ongoing performance feedback. This continuous feedback allows the protg to further expand skill sets within the organization. Moreover this allow s the prot g to develop specific competencies and experience a sense of accomplishment. Finally, Kram (1985a) argues that the mentor provides exposure and visibility to the protg. Hence, the protg fosters relationships with key leaders within the organization Furthermore, the protg is able to learn about various opportunities within the organization. This visibility allows exposure to key stakeholders who may influence the career of the protg within the organization. This encourages future opportunitie s

PAGE 21

13 for the protg as he or she progresses within the organization, under the guidance and support of the mentor. Psychosocial F unction Psychosocial function is a process that encompasses the interpersonal aspects of mentoring (Kram, 1985a). The quality of the interpersonal relationship between the mentor and protg is the emotional bond established at the beginning of the mentoring program. This bond is formed through positive interactions between the mentor and the protg. In addition to building a positive relationship with the protg, the mentor must be invested in the personal development and growth of the protg. This vested interest allows the mentor s to guide and advise the protg s according to their needs, helping to secure success. Fina lly, the mentor serves to assist the protg in developing a sense of self competence and self efficacy both professionally and personally (Kram). According to Kram (1985a), role modeling allows for the protg to learn about the appropriate attitudes, values, and behaviors that are desired within the organization. Furthermore, acceptance and confirmation allows for the protg experience unconditional positive regard from their mentor. protg with support and enco uragement within the organization. Counseling is provided to the protg via the mentor. The counseling aspect of mentoring allows for the protg having a positive sense of self at work. In addition, the protg has the opportunity to use the mentor as a sounding board for self exploration. Finally, the mentor provides friendship to the protg. The friendship allows for social interaction that fosters mutual liking and understanding between the mentor and protg.

PAGE 22

14 Researchers have also defined mentoring in terms of functions (Jacobi, 1991). Table 1 provides an overview of the 1 4 functions or roles the mentor provides to the protg. Several researchers defined mentoring with more than 50% of the functions being needed (Beyene et al., 2 002; Kram, 1985; Odell & Ferraro, 1992; Raggins & Cotton, 1999). These researchers provided a more comprehensive picture of the functions needed for mentoring. On the contrary, Chao and colleagues (1992) and Tellez (1992) had the least functions present for the mentoring process. Thus, these researchers provided limited information regarding the functions needed for the mentoring process. Mentor Protg Relationship The mentor protg relationship can be either informal or formal. Informal and formal relationships differ substantially (Raggins, 1997). Informal mentoring develops naturally and spontaneously, whereas formal mentoring involves a voluntary assignment over a limited period of time (Chao, Waltz, & Gardner, 1992). Formal relationships are of a short duration (Douglas, 1997) specifically no more than one year. By contrast, informal relationships are sustained for longer periods of time, for example, 3 to 6 years. Chao, Waltz, and Gardner (1992) conducted a field study to compare protgs who were involved with informal and formal (mentoring) relationships to individuals without mentors. The individuals involved with informal and formal mentoring relationships were compared along two mentoring dimensions: career function and psychosocial function All three groups were compared on three outcome measures: organizational socialization, job satisfaction, and salary. The results indicated that protgs in informal mentoring relations hips reported more career related support than protgs in formal mentoring relationships.

PAGE 23

15 Table 1 Identified Mentoring Functions That Benefit The Protgs by Author/Researcher Functions Beyene, et.al., 2002 Chao, et.al., 1992 Everston & Smithey, 2001 Gehrke & Kay, 1984 Kram, 1985a Odell & Ferraro, 1992 Raggins & Cotton, 1999 Smith & Ingersoll, 2004 Stroot et.al., 1999 Tellez, 1992 Wilson, 2006 Acceptance/ Support x x x x x x x x x x Advice/ Guidance x x x x x x x x x Access to Resources x x Challenge x x x Clarify the Values/Goals x x x Coaching x x x x x x x x Information x x x x x Protection x x x Role Model x x x x x x x Socialization x x x x x Sponsorship x x Stimulate Knowledge x x x x Training x x Visibility x x x

PAGE 24

16 Additionally, informal protgs reported more favorable outcomes than their non mentored peers. Overall, the individuals in the informal mentoring relationships revealed the greatest benefit s ; hence mentoring relationships are more beneficial than non me ntoring relationships. Informal Relationships Informal relationships develop on the basis of mutual identification, fulfillment and career needs among colleagues (Raggins & Cotton, 1999). Frequently, mentors pick protgs viewed as younger versions of themselves. Moreover, the relationship begins to develop based on a perceived competence and interpersonal comfort (Kram, 1985a) between the mentor and the protg. To foster growth within the organization mentors select high per forming protgs who are considered rising academics, with whom they enjoy working and with whom they share similar goals (Kram 1985a ). Researchers noted that informal relationships are considered meaningful and effective by both the mentor and protg a nd are founded on the basis of mutual interests (Raggins & Cotton, 1999) Informal mentoring relationships occur in education and are evident among graduate student s. For example, Clark, Harden, and Johnson (2000) studied the informal mentoring process for doctoral students. The researchers found that positive informal mentoring relationships assisted doctoral students with the completion of their academic program s The researchers surveyed 1,000 r ecent doctorates in clinical psychology with a response rate of 800 Two thirds of the respondents reported that having an informal faculty mentor created successful support structure s M en and women equally reported that mentoring was helpful, and were satisfied with their mentoring relationships.

PAGE 25

17 Ninety one percent of the protgs evaluated the informal mentor relationship as positive and worthwhile. An informal mentoring relationship is not limited to only teachers and education. Rather, informal men toring relationships can be evident within other organizations and businesses. Raggins and Cotton (1999) examined the effects of the type of mentoring relationship and the gender composition of the relationship on mentoring functions and career outcomes a mong people in mult iple organizations. Six hundr ed protgs participated in the study. The researchers discovered that protgs with informal mentors received greater benefits than protgs with formal mentors. The gender of the mentor and protg was n ot a factor in the development or success of the mentoring relationship. Furthermore, informal mentoring protgs reported that their mentors provided them with career function and psychosocial functions necessary for success. Overall, protgs in inform al mentoring relationships had greater satisfaction than those who entered into a formal mentoring relationship. Formal Relationships Formal relationships involve both the mentor and the protg. According to Raggins and Cotton (1999), t he mentor and p rotg usually do not meet until the match has been made by the mentor program coordinator. Thus, role modeling and interpersonal comfort do not play a significant role in assign in g the mentor to the protg for the purposes of a mentoring relationship Raggins and Cotton noted that f ormal mentors are selected based on thei r competences Personal characteristics and personality are not considered when pairing the mentor and protg. Raggins (1997) argues that o ften the mentor views the protg as an at risk employee in need of additional career

PAGE 26

18 support. However, Raggins and Cotton (1999) noted that the protg perceives time spent with the mentor as a necessity and commitment to the organization rather than a means of support. The goals of the formal m entor relationship are predetermined by the program coordinator and provided to the mentor and protg at the beginning phase of the mentoring process (Raggins & Cotton, 1999) Mentors in formal relationships are less motivated and often cannot identify w ith their protg. Instead Raggins and Cotton (1999) argued that they enter into the relationship for the purpose of being a good organizat ional citizen Kram (1985 a ) noted that formal mentors have less effective communication and coaching skills than i nformal mentors. However, formal mentoring relationships can have a positive impact on the protgs, as evidenced in the Noe (1988) study. T he protgs were assigned to their mentors as part of the development program which encouraged personal and car eer function among educators. The researcher examined the influence of protg characteristics, gender, the quality of the mentoring relationship, and the amount of time the protg spent with the mentor on career and psychosocial function aspects of education. Through the use of a self report questionnaire developed by the researcher Noe discovered that mentors in formal relationships provided quality career and psychosocial support to their protgs. Formal mentoring is highly succes sful among college students in the United States. Beyene, Anglin, Sanchez, and Ballou (2002) identified the characteristics of mentoring from the perspective of diverse college students in the United States. A questionnaire was administered to 133 colleg e students during a summer training program. More than 73% of the protgs reported satisfaction with their mentoring

PAGE 27

19 relationship s The results suggest that mentoring, both informal and formal, are perceived as crucial for success, despite race or gende r. The researchers noted that the perceived critical components of a successful mentoring relationship in post secondary education are friendship, nurturance, open mindedness, and trustworthiness. Mentoring for First Year Teachers A teacher shortage is evident in the Unit ed States (Liu, 2007). Half of all first year teachers leave the profession within the first five years (NCES, 2001). Schlichte and colleagues (2005) argue that the high teacher attrition rate is due to the loneliness and alienation ex perienced by beginning teachers who desire to socialize and engage with their colleagues. Furthermore, new teachers experience feelings of ineffectiveness in the classroom and distance from their veteran peers. Mentoring has been identified as a critical factor in eliminating such feelings as isolation among first year teachers (Schlichte, Yssel, & Merbler 2005 ). Mentoring programs provide a structure for the mentor protg relationship that will combat the challenges faced by first year teachers (Cond erman & Stephens, 2000). Tellez (1992) conducted a quantitative study of 128 first year teachers to determine if first year teachers seek help from their mentor teachers (formal relationship). However, he stated that 98% of first year teachers sought as sistance through informal mentoring relationships rather than their formal mentors assigned to them. They sought help from experienced teachers perceived as friendly and caring. When the mentor is viewed as approachable, supportive, and invested in their success, protgs are more likely to participate in the mentoring process.

PAGE 28

20 In an earlier mixed methods study, Gehrke and Kay (1984) found that protgs viewed mentoring as a support system. Three hundred teachers in 12 school districts were surveyed abo ut their mentoring relationships. Of the 188 teacher respondents, 41 were selected for in depth interviews. The findings from the interviews indicated that the the pr otg. Displaying interest in the protg included asking questions, informal conversations, encouraging remarks, and classroom visits. Gehrke and Kay revealed that s reported that an informal mentor relationship was quite significant in their career guidance and classroom support A first year teacher mentor program is one vital strategy that school districts can implement during the induction process ; this will lea d to a decrease in teacher attrition (Darling Hammond, 2003) Recently, there has been a notable increase in teacher induction programs that offer mentoring and transition support (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). The researchers conducted a secondary analysis to determine if first year teacher mentor programs were helpful and provided the support necessary for teacher retention. More than two thirds of first year teachers reported participating in a mentoring relationship. Smith and Ingersoll found that first year teachers, who were provided with mentors, were less likely to leave the profession after their first year of teaching. The researchers concluded that the support of the mentor with collaborative activities can reduce the high teacher turnover rate o f first year teachers. In an earlier quantitative study, Stroot, Fowlkes, Langholz, Paxton, Stedman, Steffes, and Valtman (1999) surveyed 85 first year teachers in a large urban school district. The

PAGE 29

21 survey focused on the components of teaching and the r ole of the mentor. The researchers asserted that mentoring programs are necessary to assist first year teachers in transition into the urban school setting. Often first year teachers are not given the transition support necessary for classroom success ; t hus mentoring can provide much needed assistance to ensure success in the classroom both for the protg and for the students. According to Darling Hammond (2003), m entoring is a strategy that will retain first y ear te achers in the field. Everston and S mithey (2001) conducted a study with two school districts to examine the efficacy of using a research based mentoring program to assist mentor teachers in supporting their protgs. The researchers collected data using questionnaires, narrative records, c lassroom observations, weekly summaries of mentoring meetings, and ratings of student behaviors in the classroom. Everston and Smithey noted that protgs of mentors who participated in a research based mentoring program were more organized, managed instr uction at the beginning of the year, and established more workable classroom routines. Additionally, the protgs noted better student behavior in the classroom. Overall, trained mentors were able to provide more effective support to their protgs. I n support of this, Andrews and Quinn (2005) conducted a quantitative study to examine the impact of mentoring on first year teachers. The researchers administered a 20 item survey questionnaire to188 first year teachers in a western U.S. school district. One hundred thirty five teachers responded to the survey. The protgs were assigned a mentor by either the district or the school principal; thus, the protgs participated in a formal mentoring relationship. The researchers noted that mentoring enhanc ed the

PAGE 30

22 teaching process for new teachers. Furthermore, the researchers stated that formal mentoring was viewed as powerful and supportive by the protgs. A quantitative study of 85 first year teachers was conducted by Odell and Ferraro (1992) to determi ne if teachers who participated in a mentor program remained in the field four years later. The mentors were extensively prepared through a university program, and their formal protgs revealed they received the emotional support needed during their firs t year of teaching. Furthermore, the researchers found that only 4% of the teachers who participated in the mentoring program left the profession within the first four years. Wilson (2006) conducted a study in a large urban school district to examine the perceived benefits of mentoring for first year teachers. A quantitative study was conducted to determine whether the mentoring process differed if the mentor teacher had National Board Certification. Wilson concluded that National Board Certified mentor s and non National Board Certified mentors provided similar support to their protgs. Furthermore, the protgs reported receiving both career and psychosocial support from their mentors. Additionally, both the mentor and protg perceived perceptions o f the mentoring process were equally aligned In a similar quantitative study Cornell (2003), wanted to determine if the perceived perceptions of the mentor protg relationship were viewed the same from the perspective of the mentor and protg. Sixty six participants responded, and Cornell discovered little difference between the perceptions of the mentor and protg about the mentoring process. Marable and Raimondi (2007) conducted a study to examine what teachers perceived as the most and least sup portive factors during their first year s of teaching.

PAGE 31

23 The researchers wanted to determine if teachers viewed mentoring as supportive during their initial year s Three hundred twenty six teachers were surveyed. One hundred sixty five surveys were returned a 51% response rate. Marable and Raimondi noted that teachers who were mentored during their first year s found it supportive and helpful. However, the teachers made two vital recommendations to the mentor program : allow teachers time to meet wi th their mentor s and ensure that mentor s did not serve in a supervisory role. Criticisms and Challenges of Mentoring According to Johnson (2002), t here are obstacles to the m entoring process Johnson notes that o bstacles can occur when programs at the collegiate level encourage a cultur e of competition among students which results in failure to develop and foster support structures for the students (protgs). According to Johnson, excellent mentors can hold themselves to high standards, thus suggesti ng that (a) all protgs must be successful all of the time; (b) all mentors are respected and loved; (c) all mentors invest time in their protgs, expecting in turn the protg will work hard; and (d) all protgs should not disappoint the mentor or end the relationship. When a protg does not meet the high expectations of the mentor, the mentor can experience a sense of failure and become discouraged with the process. As a result, mentors may view the process as ineffective and are less likely to part icipate in future relationships. A study conducted by Clark Harden, and Johnson (2000) revealed that mentoring is not always positive. They noted that a percentage of protgs who responded to the survey reported negative qualities of their mentors. I n their survey study, the researchers found that 25% of protgs reported that their mentors were unavailable, 17% reported

PAGE 32

24 expectations, and 7% reported that maintaini ng the mentor protg relationship required them to do things for which they felt uncomfortable. Clark, Harden and Johnson found that 2% of the protgs reported that their mentor sexualized their relationship. Ethical concerns can occur during the me ntoring process. Clark, Harden and Johnson (2000) found that 11% of protgs reported ethical issues related to their mentor. The most frequently reported concern noted by protgs was of a sexual nature. Three other common types of ethical concerns ex pressed by protgs were lack of boundaries, According to Barnett (2008) boundary issues within the mentor protg relationship must be understood and successfully navigated This h elps to ensure objectivity and judgment while protecting the protg from exploitation or harm. When boundaries are crossed between the mentor and protg, the relationship becomes compromised; the mentor is no longer able to support and foster the develo pment of the protg within the organization. Barnett noted that the mentor protg process can take an unconventional path including inappropriate touch, meetings in non traditional settings (e.g., bar or nightclub), and sharing of personal information. Crossing boundaries depends on several factors. The first is intent in crossing the boundary, which is the responsibility and decision of the mentor. The only purpose for crossing a professional boundary must be in previously agreed upon rules roles, and responsibilities in the mentoring relationship (Anderson & Kitchener, 1996; Holub & Lee, 1990). Second, the boundary crossing should be perceived by the protg p ositively and not as unwelcome, harmful, or

PAGE 33

25 exploitative (Gottlieb, 1993; Gutheil & Gabbard, 1993). Third crossing the boundary must not occur to benefit the mentor ; rather, it must be in the best interest professional growth and develop ment (Borys, 1994). Finally, all boundary crossings must be consistent with professional standards and should withstand inquiry (Doverspike, 1999). Ganser (1995) revealed that mentoring was ineffective when mentors are required to provide evaluations of their protgs. According to Anderson (2007), cooperating teachers (mentors) play a supervisory role for the pre service teachers (protgs) and usually develop formal relationships. Anderson found that 50% of protgs reported that having their mentors serve in an evaluative role fostered negative relationships. Protgs reported that they did not feel comfortable openly discussing their individual concerns with their cooperating teachers when they were viewed as evaluators. Thus, communication with a n evaluative mentor was difficult and hindered the process. When protgs were paired with a mentor (formal mentoring) and were required to participate in a mentoring program, mentoring was not viewed as beneficial. Tellez (1992) found that only 2% of p rotgs reported benefit from the mentoring process. Furthermore, 98% of the protgs sought an alternative mentor to fulfill their development needs as teachers. Overall there are challenges to the mentoring process (Anderson, 2000; Clark Harden, & Jo hnson, 2000; Johnson, 2002). Despite the critics of mentoring, there are numerous benefits to the mentor protg relationship. For example, professional development, increase in teacher retention, psychosocial and career function all foster collegialit y and individual needs of protgs for mentoring.

PAGE 34

26 Analysis of the Literature Numerous r esearchers state that mentoring new teachers can provide a strong foundation and build the confidence necessary for success (Cornell, 2003; Everston & Smithy, 2001; G erhke & Kay, 1984, Marable & Raimondi, 2007; Odell & Ferraro, 1992; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Stroot et al., 1999; Tellez, 1992; Wilson, 2006). Furthermore, the researchers noted that mentoring is a key function that can help reduce teacher attrition in th e United States (Everston & Smithey 2001 ; Odell & Ferraro 1992 ; Tellez ,1992 ). Overall, protgs view informal mentoring more favorably than formal mentoring ; the benefits are compelling such as teacher retention. This is evident in he noted that protgs will seek out informal mentors to ensure success. Thus, classroom instruction and management improve based on support of the mentor protg relationship. Table 2 addresses the first year teacher mentoring studies analyzed in this review. The table includes the method s instruments used, limitations, and findings to the studies. Research on m entoring first year teachers revealed several limitations For example, all researchers conducted a survey to see if mentoring helped first year teachers. Only one study (Gerhke & Kay, 1984) conducted an interview with teachers asking their opinions regarding the mentoring process. Although, their opinions are vital it is essential to understand perceptions of the mentors about the mentor protg relationship. The only two studies that addressed the mentor perspectives were Wilson (2006) and Cornell (2003). Wilson and Cornell both noted that the mentors perc eption s of the process aligned with the protgs perception s

PAGE 35

27 Table 2 Summary of Literature Related to First Year Teachers and Mentoring Author Year Design Instrument Limitations Findings Cornell 2003 Quantitative Survey Respondents were volunteers in a mentoring program in one school district located in Texas No statistical data was reported. The researcher does not provide the sample size r ather he states that the participants were volunteers. Mentors perceive themse lves as lacking in the opportunity to communicate their concerns with the program coordinator Field based collaboration between a university and a co operating local school district cannot count on the quality and effectiveness of the relationship 50% of the protgs said they would work out their problems with their assigned mentor s Everston & Smithey 2001 Quantitative Survey & C lassroom O bservations Two school districts were involved The mentors received t hree day training on mentoring The researchers did not control for extraneous variables Protgs who had mentors that participated in a mentoring program were more organized, had workable classroom routines, and managed instruction effectively Gehrke & Kay 1984 Mixed Methods Survey & Interview The researchers do not describe how the 41 teachers were selected. In a mixed methods stud y T he qualit ative data was not triangulated S tatistics used to analyze the quantitative components of the survey were not addressed It is unclear what data analyses were conducted. Mentors were influential in their protgs decision making Protgs reported that an informal mentor was important Table continued on next page

PAGE 36

28 Table 2 (Continued) Summary of Literature Related to First Year Teachers and Mentoring Author Year Design Instrument Limitations Findings Marable & Raimondi 2007 Qualitative Survey The study o nly examined teachers in one school district in New York. It u sed a survey to gather qualitative data r equir ing participants to write narrative responses to questions There could be missing key information that should have been gathered via focus groups or in depth interviews. First year teachers valued the mentoring process and wo uld recommend it as a form of support. Odell & Ferraro 1992 Quantitative Survey 80 partici pants responded to the survey This survey was conducted in one school district located in Michigan. The researchers did not specify if the questions addressed other reasons why the teachers may have stayed in the field They did not control for extraneous variables. Beginning teachers who received mentoring remained in the field 4% of the beginning teachers who had mentors left the field after four years Sm ith & Ingersoll 2004 Quantitative Survey Teacher induction programs vary from district to district The questionnaire used to collect the data did not address the various components of the tea cher induction programs Beginning teachers who were provided with mentors were less likely to leave the profession aft er their first year of teaching Table continued on next page

PAGE 37

29 Table 2 (Continued) Summary of Literature Related to First Year Teachers and Mentoring Author Year Design Instrument Limitations Findings Stroot et. al. 1999 Quantitative Survey This on ly focused on transition to urban school se ttings for first year teachers This study does not address rural schools, nor does it address the needs of first year teac hers in a traditional setting Findings from this study can only be applied to urban school settings for first year teachers during their transition from college to teaching Mentoring for first year teachers in an urban setting assists with the transition from college to teachin g Tellez 1992 Quantitative Survey Only worked with first year teachers at two schools G eneralizations cannot be made The findings are reflective of the school culture of those pa rticular schools in the study This study needs to be replicated First year teachers seek our informal relationships to gain the skills necessary to b e successful in the classroom These same teachers seek out informal relationships to develop the necessary mentoring for successful careers Wilson 2006 Quantitative Survey Only National Board Certified Teachers as mentors were compared to non National Board Certified teachers as mentors in one district in Florida. No difference between National Board Certified mentors and non National Board Certified mentors of support prov ided to their protgs

PAGE 38

30 Furthermore, the designs of the studies were comparative, lacking in a true experimental design. More specifically, the methods used in the studies did not include an intervention with a control group to measure mentoring. Thus the studies lacked the appropriate statistical analyses of a confirmatory factor analysis necessary when conducting survey research. A confirmatory factor analysis provides information to determine if the items are truly addressing the constructs they are intended to measure. Additionally, there are several threats to internal and external validity among the studies. For ex ample, numerous surveys were designed to ask questions about mentoring. Thus, extraneous variables could have been factors as to why the protgs reported that mentoring was significant Such extraneous variables could be age, race/ethnicity, or gender. More specifically, a protg who is a first year teacher (age 45) may be paired with a mentor (age 27); thus age may be a factor in the mentor protg relationship. Furthermore, the threats to external validity relate to the discipline of teachers (e.g. mathematics or special education), the level of the teacher (e.g., elementary), and the location where the teacher works (urban, suburban, or rural districts). These threats to external validity make it difficult to generalize the findings of the re sear ch. For example, Stroot et al. (1999) noted that mentoring relationships helped first year teachers in their transition process to urban school settings. Although Stroot and colleagues findings are contributions to the field, these findings do not extend beyond the transition process of first year teachers in an urban setting. Thus, generalizing the findings is quite limited. The majority of the studies were conducted in isolated school districts to determine if less than 100 protgs believed that ment oring was helpful. A proposed solution to generalizing of the findings would be to conduct

PAGE 39

31 large national level studies of first A researcher could replicate the studies in various alternative settings including rural schools, secondary teachers, or discipline specific (e.g., special education). Overall, results from studies examining first year teacher mentoring programs produced positive experiences that can lead to increased teacher retention (Cornel l, 2003; Everston & Smithy, 2001; Gerhke & Kay, 1984, Marable & Raimondi, 2007; Odell & Ferraro, 1992; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Stroot et al., 1999; Tellez, 1992; Wilson, 2006). Future studies are necessary to more clearly understand first year teacher mentoring programs and i ts relationship to retention. Furthermore, research with a focus on a true experimental design should be conducted to determine if significant differences exist in teacher retention as an o utcome of mentoring programs. Extraneous variables must be controlled to more clearly understand if mentoring is a factor for teacher retention. Additionally, studies should be expanded to the specific discipline of the teachers (e.g., special education, mathematics) and grade level (e.g., elem entary, middle, high). Finally, it would be beneficial to determine if protgs perceptions of the mentoring process are aligned with those of the mentor within informal and formal mentoring relationships. Continued research is essential to decrease the teacher attrition rate in the United States. Survey Instruments that Measure Mentoring Based on the literature there are three survey instruments that are used to survey mentor teachers and protg teachers. The first survey instrument was developed by A ndrews and Quinn (2005). This instrument was 20 questions in length and had a Likert scale that ranged from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 6 (very strongly agree).

PAGE 40

32 However, this instrument was only designed for the protgs; thus, there was not a survey f or the mentors. This instrument did not measure the career and psychosocial functions of the mentoring process. second survey instrument that was common within the literature was implemented by Ro gers, Arnett, and Harris (2008). These researchers used two surveys, one for the mentor and one for the protg. The survey for the mentor had eight statements with a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The survey used for the protgs contained eleven questions ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This survey was designed for both the mentor and protg; however, it did not measure the career and psychosocial functions of the mentoring process. I n addition, the survey questions were poorly constructed. This statement on the survey has the potential to report inaccurate data. The protg can perceive that the mentor was always professional and want to score a five, but the protg can perceive th at the mentor is not always positive and wants to score a one resulting in an overall score of a three. Therefore, this instrument could potentially have validity problems. The third instrument was developed by mentoring functions surveys. Wilson implemented a 12 step process to modify the survey from the business community and implemented in the education field. These steps allowed for Wilson to modify the language, develop sam ple surveys, collaborate with a panel of experts, make changes to the instruments based on feedback, and request additional feedback from the panel of experts. The panel of experts was comprised of key researchers in the field of education who have in dep th knowledge regarding the

PAGE 41

33 mentoring process. After Wilson modified the two instruments, she asked mentor teachers to review and critique the surveys. Based on the feedback from the mentor teachers, additional changes were made to the instruments. After Wilson finalized the instrument, a pilot study was conducted with 10 mentors and 10 protgs to confirm that the instruments were well constructed and ready to be administered to the larger sample. The reliability of the Mentoring Functions Scale an d the Mentoring Functions Scale for the Protg was reported by Wilson (2006). The alpha coefficients were at high levels of reliability for career function (.84 to .91) and for psychosoci al function (.85 to .89). A reliability score close to one indicat es that a score from a subscale is highly related and internally consistent (Wilson, 2006). Summary of the Literature Review Chapter 2 described the current literature within the field regarding mentoring, mentoring protg relationships, and mentoring for first year teachers. Overall, results from studies examining first year teacher mentoring programs produced positive experiences that can lead to increased teacher retention (Cornell, 2003; Everston & Smithy, 2001; Gerhke & Kay, 1984, Marable & Raimondi, 2007; Odell & Ferraro, 1992; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Stroot et al., 1999; Tellez, 1992; Wilson, 2006). This chapter also addressed the limitations to the current studies within the field and findings of the researchers.

PAGE 42

34 C hapter 3 M ethods The purpose of this study was to identify the career and psychosocial functions that mentor teachers and their protg teachers believed occurred during the 2008 2009 mentoring relationship. The parts of this chapter inc lude research design, population and sample instrument, col lection of data, data analysis and summary of methods. Research Design The design for this study was comparative. This type of study describes the conditions that already exist. More specifically, this type of research design attempts to compare one group to another Comparison studies commonly collect data through surveys and tests for the differences between groups (Mertens, 2008). This study employed a comparative quantitative research paper pencil method to collect data. The se instruments used provided information about new teachers and their e mentoring process. The following research questions were addressed in this study: 1 What career and psychosocial mentoring processes do mentor teachers perceive they provide to their protgs? 2 What career and psychosocial mentoring processes do protg teachers perceive they receive from their mentors? 3 How do mentor teachers and their protgs compare in their perceptions of the mentor protg re lationship ?

PAGE 43

3 5 Population and Sample This comparative survey study occurred in a suburban middle size d Florida s chool district. A middle sized school district was selected based on convenience In several studies, the researchers surveyed teachers in large urban districts (Mara ble & Raimondi, 2007; Stoot et al., 1999; Wilson, 2006). Thus, using a middle sized di strict extend ed the literature; this district served over 6 6,000 students. The district encompassed 45 elementary schools, 15 middle schools and 16 high schools. The target population for this study involve d one matched group comprised of two categories mentor teachers and protg teachers The first category include d mentor teachers in the district who have at least three years of experience and who had served in the role of a mentor within the past three years. To become a mentor in the school distr ict, the individual must have attend ed clinical education training. According to Florida Statu t e 1004.04(6)(b), all personnel who want to become mentors are required to participate in clinical education training provided by their local school districts. This training focuses on the following: ( a ) diagnosis on professional development performance, ( b ) diagnosis of student performance, ( c ) feedback regarding performance, ( d ) developing professional development plans, and ( e ) reflective teaching Data from the fall 2009 school year indicate d there were 300 mentor teachers eligible to serve as a mentor during the 2008 2009 school year in the target district (K. Scalise, personal communication, September 2009). The mentors were comprised of a homogenous race/ ethnic group. More than two thirds of the mentors were female (79%), while 21% of the mentors were male.

PAGE 44

36 The second category consist ed of the protg teachers in the district who were new teachers, two or less year s of experience or teachers in the alte rnative certification program. The alter native certification program was designed for professionals entering the field of education without having a degree in education. For example, an individual who ha d a degree in mathematics yet ha d not taken an education course This person would be allowed to enroll in the alternative certification program. Second year teachers were asked to reflect on their first year of teaching during the 2008 2009 school year. Data indicate d 402 new teachers in the district had a mentor d uring the 2008 2009 school year (K. Scalise, personal communication, September 2009). All mentor teachers had three year s of experience and the protg teachers were in their second year of teaching. The mentor teachers an d their protg teacher(s) r esponses were match ed. For example, mentor teacher A receive d a survey coded with a number ( 00 1 ). The protg teacher for mentor teacher A had the same number code (e.g., the protg was cod ed 00 1 ) This coding system allowed for the responses of the mentor teacher and their protg teacher to be matched. response was received, but their protg teacher did not respond, the response was not inc luded in the study. For example, mentor teacher A responded to the survey and their matched protg teacher A did not respond to the survey ; thus, mentor teacher Furthermore, when protg teacher A responded to the survey, but mentor teacher A did not respond, then protg teacher used in the study.

PAGE 45

37 Instrumentation Two survey instruments were used during this study, Mentoring Functions Scale for the Mentor and the Mentoring Functions S cale for the Protg modified by Wilson (2006). Th ese instrument s w ere selected because it they measure the career and psychosocial functions of the mentoring process for the mentor and protg These instruments originated in the business field. Noe ( 1988) originally developed the Mentoring Questionnaire to assess the career and psychosocial functions of young mentor teachers and their protgs perceptions of the mento ring process. Mentoring Functions Scale contains 30 questions that were reported on a Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The Mentoring Functions Scale for the Protg contains 30 questions that were reported on a Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. was obtained prior to using them. was gathered through signed letter consent for using the instruments mentoring functions surveys. Wilson implemented a 12 step process to modify the survey from the business community and implemented in the education field. These steps allowed for Wilson to modify the language, develop sample surveys, collaborate with a p anel of experts, make changes to the instruments based on feedback, and request additional feedback from the panel of experts. The panel of experts was comprised of key researchers in the field of education who have in depth knowledge regarding the mentor ing process. After Wilson modified the two instruments, she asked mentor teachers to review and critique the surveys.

PAGE 46

38 Based on the feedback from the mentor teachers, additional changes were made to the instruments. After Wilson finalized the instrument, a pilot study was conducted with 10 mentors and 10 protgs to confirm that the instruments were well constructed and ready to be administered to the larger sample. The reliability of the Mentoring Functions Scale and the Mentoring Functions Scale f or the Protg was reported by Wilson (2006). The alpha coefficients were at high levels of reliability for career function (.84 to .91) and for psychosocial function (.85 to .89). A reliability score close to one indicates that a score from a subscale i s highly related a nd internally consistent (Wilson, 2006 ). Collection of Data The researcher contacted the school district to receive permission to conduct the study. The school district required completion of an application to conduct research. This a pplication was accessed online and was submitted to the director of Research and Evaluation within the school district. In addition, the researcher received permission After receive d permission from the district, proper documentation to receive permission from IRB was sent to the university. Once permission was received from both th e district IRB panel the study bega n. The two survey instruments used to collect data were the Mentoring Functions Scale for the Mentor and the Mentoring Functions Scale for the Protg modified by Wilson (2006). The survey was available to the mentors and protgs part icipating in this study via paper and pencil. The researcher sent the paper copies of the instruments to the appropriate participants (e.g., mentors received Mentoring Functions Scale for the

PAGE 47

39 Mentor and the protgs received Mentoring Functions Scale for the Protg ) via the United States post office The researcher wrote a letter expl aining the purpose of the study. This letter was and was used a cover letter Appendix C is an example of the lett er sent to mentor teachers during the first data collection cycle. Appendix D is an example of the letter sent to the protg teachers during the first data collection cycle. The data collection process oc curred in three cycles and over the course of three months. This section address es the data collection process according to cycles. Cycle one Cycle one of data collection occurred during November 2009. During this cycle the researcher created mailing packets to be sent to the participants. The researcher made copies of the survey and had each survey coded with a number. The mailing labels for t he participants w ere created and placed on the mailing enve lope. Each mailing envelope contained the following items: (a) letter from the researcher requesting participation in the survey, (b) copy of the survey, and (c) returned addressed stamped envelope This processes allowed for the names and the identities of the participants to remain anonymous. The researcher mailed the 645 (attrition lead to a decrease from the previous year 702) packets at the United States Post Office during the second week of November 2009. Cycle tw o Cycle two of data collection occurred in December 2009. During this cycle the researcher assembled the survey packets for the participants in the study. The mailing packets contained the following items: (a) letter from the researcher requesting part icipation in the survey ( refer to Appendix E for a sample cover letter sent to the mentor teachers and Appendix F for a sample cover letter sent to the protg

PAGE 48

40 teachers ) (b) copy of the survey, and (c) returned addressed stamped envelope. The researcher mailed the survey packets to all 645 participants again the first week of December 2009. All of the participants were mailed a second packet because the researcher did no t know which participants had al ready responded to the survey. During cycles one a nd two of the data collection all of the surveys were mailed to the same address. The surveys were mailed in the addressed stamped envelopes to Adult, Career and Higher Education Department in the College of Education located at the University of South Florida. This process protected the anonymity of the participants. Furthermore, the surveys were coded so that the name and the school location were unidentifiable, thus ensuring the privacy of the participants in this study. Cycle three Cycl e three of the data collection process occurred in January 2010. The researcher collected the surveys during the first week of January 2010. Data Analysis the career and psychosocial mentoring functions and the items measuring the protg teachers teacher s performed the functions were analyzed using statistical software SPSS version 17.0 The descriptive statistics were computed to provide a profile of the mentors and their protgs. The following is the description of the data analysis for this study. There was a one to one match (e.g., one mento r teacher a nd one protg teacher ) This scenario occurred because there was only a one to one pairing (matching) of the mentor teacher s and protg teacher s. A n independent sample t test was used to determine the results of the findings.

PAGE 49

41 The following questions and analysis occurred. Question 1: What career and psychosocial mentoring processes do mentor teachers perceive they provide to their protgs? This was measured by using the means of items and functions that were reported by the mentors. Question 2: What career and psychosocial mentoring processes do protg teachers perceive they receive from their mentors? This was measured by using the means of items and functions that were reported by the protgs. Question 3: How do mentor teacher s and their protgs compare in their perceptions of the mentor protg re lationship ? This was m easured using an independent sample t test. An independent sample t test is appropriate when there is a single interval dependent variable on a dichotomous in dependent variable, and the researcher wants to test the difference of means. An example is the mean difference between samples of mentors and protgs. This study used an independent sample t test to compare the means of two independently sampled groups (e.g., mentors and protgs). When a between subjects design is used, the independent sample t test is the appropriate test. It is appropriate to use a paired sample t test (also known as the correlated or paired samples t test ) when the design is withi n subjects design (sometimes called a repeated measures design ). Thus, a paired sample t test was not the appropriate measure for this study; however, an independent sample t test was the best measure. There are three assumptions that are applied to an independent sample t test: normal distribution, similar variance, and dependent/independent samples. These assumptions were accounted for during the data analysis. SPSS 17.0 provide d output

PAGE 50

42 data regardin Test for Equality of Variances provide d data regarding the variance. The significance level of the test must be greater than .10 to assume equal variances. The independent sample t test was selected due to the nature of the sample. Summary of Methods Chapter 3 described the methods that will be used in this study. This chapter included an overview of the research design, population and sample, instrumentation, data collection, an d data analysis.

PAGE 51

43 C hapter 4 F indings The purpose of this study was to identify the career and psychosocial functions that mentor teachers and their protg teachers believed occurred during the 2008 2009 mentoring relationship. 1. What career and psychosocial mentoring processes do mentor teachers perceive they provide to their protgs? 2. What career and psychosocial mentoring processes do protg teachers perceive they receive from their mentors? 3. How do mentor teachers and their protgs compare in their perceptions of the mentor protg relationship ? Response Rate and Characteristics of Participants There were two categories in this research study: m entor teachers and protg teachers. There were 645 mentor teachers and protg teacher s surveyed. Of the teachers surveyed, 322 mentor teachers and protg tea chers responded to the survey (49.9% response rate). Of the 322 responses, 108 matched mento r teache r protg te acher responded to the survey (n=216) This was a 33.4% response rat e of the total population surveyed and a 67.0% usable response rate of the 322 m entor teacher s and protg teacher s who responded. There were more teachers at the elementary lev el who responded because there were more elementary schools in the district.

PAGE 52

44 Sample of Mentor Teachers The sample consisted of 108 mentor teachers. The survey contained 12 demographic questions for the mentor teacher and a 30 question Likert scale about the mentoring process. The majority of the mentor teachers were female ( n = 103) and Caucasian ( n = 90). Almost 50% of the mentor teachers held either a bachelor ( n = 58) or a master degree ( n = 50). Table 3 provides the demographic characteristics of the mentor teachers w ho participated in this study. Sample of Protg Teach ers The sample consisted of 108 protg teachers. The survey contained 9 demographic questions for the protg teachers and a 30 question Likert scale about the mentoring process. The majority of the protg teachers were female ( n = 91 ) and Caucasian ( n = 95 ). The protg teachers held either a bachelor ( n = 87 ) or a master degree (n = 21 ). Table 4 provides the demographic characteristics of the protg teachers who participated in this study. Findings and Results from Survey The surveys administered during this study ( Mentoring Function Scale for the Mentor and the Mentoring Functions Scale for the Protg ) were comprised of two components of the mentoring process: career and psychosocial functions. These functions (career and psych osocial) derived f rom Kram (1985b ). The career functions category included: coaching, protection, exposure and visibility, sponsorship, and challenging assignments. Psychosocial functions included: acceptance, role modeling, counseling and friendship. This section addres s es the mean scores for each item and the standard deviation for each function of the categories.

PAGE 53

45 Table 3 Demographic Characteristics of Mentor Teachers Characteristics Mentor Teacher n % Gender Female 103 95 Male 5 5 Race/Ethnicity Caucasian/White 98 91 Hispanic/Latino 6 6 African American 3 2 Native American/Indian 1 <1 Highest Degree Completed Bachelor 58 54 Master 50 46 Specialist ----Doctorate ----Number of Years Teaching 1 or less ----2 5 9 8 6 10 39 36 11 15 24 23 1 6 20 15 14 21 + 21 19 Grade Level Taught Elementary 63 58 Middle 18 17 High 27 25 Note. n = 108

PAGE 54

46 Table 4 Demographic Characteristics of Protg Teachers Characteristics Protg Teacher n % Gender Female 91 84 Male 17 16 Race/Ethnicity Caucasian/White 9 5 88 Hispanic/Latino 8 7 African American 3 3 Asian/ Pacific Islander 2 2 Highest Degree Completed Bachelor 87 81 Master 21 19 Specialist ----Doctorate ----Number of Years Teaching 1 or less 36 33 2 72 77 3 10 ----11 15 ----16 20 ----21 + ----Grade Level Taught Elementary 6 9 64 Middle 1 5 14 High 2 4 22 Note. n = 108

PAGE 55

47 Results by Item The participants in this study were asked to complete a survey about their perceptions of their mentoring relationship from the 2008 2009 school year. Both surveys had the same Likert scale. The Likert scale had a range of five options: (1) strongly dis agree, (2) disagree, (3) neither agree or disagree, (4) agree, and (5) strongly agree. The agreement was set at 3.0. Table 5 contains the means and standard deviations for the survey items by functions for both mentor teachers and protg teachers. The mean scores for all 108 matched pairs indicated that the mentor teachers and their protg teacher s agreed that career (coaching, protection, exposure and visibility, sponsorship, and challenging assignments) and psychosocial (acceptance, role modeling counseling, and friendship) functions were provided during the mentoring relationship. The mean scores for the mentor teachers ranged from a high of 3.96 to 3.25 as the low. The high mean 3.96 ( SD = 1.1) was for item 21; thus mentor teachers agreed: I h ave helped my protg with problems that could threaten the possibility of obtaining other positions The low mean 3.25 ( SD = 1.2) was for item 30; thus mentor teachers agreed: I have interacted with my protg socially outside of work. The mean scores fo r the protg teachers ranged from a high of 3.81 to a low of 3.00. The high mean 3.81 ( SD = 1.3) was for item 21; thus, protg teachers agreed that their mentor helped with problems that could threaten the possibility of obtaining other positions. The l ow mean 3.00 ( SD = 1.2) was for item 30; thus protg teachers agreed that my mentor interacted with me socially outside of work.

PAGE 56

48 The greatest difference in mean scores between the mentor and protg teachers was with item 15. The mentor teachers had a mean score of 3.67 ( SD = .47). Mentor teachers agreed that they addressed concerns regarding relationships with peers, supervisors, and work conflicts. The protg teachers agreed with their mentor teachers on item 15. The protg teachers had a mean sco re of 3.11 ( SD = .94). There were several items that had the same mean score difference between the mentor and protg teachers. Questions 7, 8, 11, and 13 all had the same mean score difference of .30. The mentor teachers had a mean score of 3.58 ( SD = .59) and protg teachers had a mean score of 3.28 ( SD =1.0) for question seven. For question 8, the mentor teachers had a mean score of 3.71 ( SD =.54) and for the protg teachers the mean score was 3.41 ( SD =.97). The mentor teachers had a mean score of 3 .61 ( SD =.69) and the protg teachers had a mean score of 3.31 ( SD =1.1) for question 11. For question 13, the mentor teachers had a mean score of 3.73 ( SD =.93) and for the protg teachers the mean score was 3.43( SD =1.1). Questions 14 and 16 all had the same mean score difference of .19. The mentor teachers had a mean score of 3.66 ( SD =.47) and protg teachers had a mean score of 3.47 ( SD =1.0) for question 14. For question 16, the mentor teachers had a mean score of 3.70 ( SD =.51) and for the protg te achers the mean score was 3.51 ( SD =1.1). Questions 21 and 28 all had the same mean score difference of .15. The mentor teachers had a mean score of 3.96 ( SD =1.1) and protg teachers had a mean score of 3.81 ( SD =1.3) for question 21. For question 28, th e mentor teachers had a mean score of 3.46 ( SD =.77) and for the protg teachers the mean score was 3.31 ( SD =1.2).

PAGE 57

49 Table 5 The M eans and S tandard D eviations for S urvey I tems by F unction for M entor and P rotg T eachers Function/ Item Mentor Teacher Mean Mentor Teacher SD Protg Teacher Mean Protg Teacher SD Coaching 3.61 0.60 3.23 1.05 Shared c areer h istory (Q1) 3.53 0 .70 3.20 1.1 0 Encouraged p articipation in p rofessional d evelopment (Q2) 3.59 0 .58 3.19 1.1 0 Suggested s trategies to a chieve c areer g oals (Q3) 3.51 0 .70 3.15 1.1 0 Shared professional ideas (Q4) 3.77 0 .46 3.31 0 .91 Suggested strategies for accomplishing teaching objectives (Q5) 3.69 0 .60 3.30 1.0 0 Given feedback regarding performance in present position (Q6) 3.58 0 .61 3.27 1.1 0 Acceptance 3.54 0.74 3.27 1.00 Encouraged to try new approaches or methods of teaching and interacting with students (Q7) 3.58 0 .59 3.28 1.0 0 Conveyed feelings of respect (Q8) 3.71 0 .54 3.41 0 .97 Asked for suggestions concerning problems that have occurred at school (Q9) 3.35 1.1 0 3.14 1.2 0 Role Modeling 3.62 0.80 3.28 1.10 Modeled teaching style for protg (10) 3.41 0 .84 3.01 1.2 0 Modeled attitudes and values regarding education (Q11) 3.61 0 .69 3.31 1.1 0 Tried to earn the respect and admiration (Q12) 3.76 0 .74 3.38 1.0 0 Table continued on next page

PAGE 58

50 Table 5 (Continued) The M eans and S tandard D eviations for S urvey I tems by F unction for M entor and P rotg T eachers Function/ Item Mentor Teacher Mean Mentor Teacher SD Protg Teacher Mean Protg Teacher SD Encouraged to strive for same level of expertise upon reaching similar career path (Q13) 3.73 0 .93 3.43 1.1 0 Counseling 3.66 0.56 3.36 1.20 Demonstrated good listening skills (Q14) 3.66 0 .47 3.47 1.0 0 Addressed questions or concerns regarding feelings of competence (Q15) 3.67 0 .47 3.11 0 .94 Addressed concerns regarding relationships with peers, supervisors and/or work conflicts (Q 16) 3.70 0 .51 3.51 1.1 0 Shared personal experiences as an alternative perspective to problems or concerns (Q17) 3.69 0 .71 3.52 1.2 0 Encouraged to talk openly about anxiety and fears that cause work distractions (Q18) 3.56 0 .70 3.23 1.1 0 Conveyed empathy for concerns and feelings discussed (Q19) 3.65 0 .53 3.27 1.0 0 Kept feelings and doubts shared in strict confidence (Q20) 3.70 0 .53 3.47 1.1 0 Protection 3.77 0.96 3.55 1.20 Helped with problems that could threaten the possibility of obtaining desired positions (Q21) 3.96 1.1 0 3.81 1.3 0 Table continued on next page

PAGE 59

51 Table 5 (Continued) The M eans and S tandard D eviations for S urvey I tems by F unction for M entor and P rotg T eachers Function/ Item Mentor Teacher Mean Mentor Teacher SD Protg Teacher Mean Protg Teacher SD Helped complete projects/tasks to meet deadlines that otherwise would have been difficult (Q22) 3.58 0 .83 3.30 1.2 0 Exposure and Visibility 3.56 1.0 3.28 1.40 Helped meet new colleagues (Q23) 3.68 0 .78 3.37 1.2 0 Given projects that increased contact with colleagues (Q24) 3.52 1.2 0 3.24 1.5 0 Encouraged to assume responsibilities increase contact with people in district (Q25) 3.48 1.1 0 3.25 1.4 0 Sponsorship 3.42 1.20 3.20 1.40 Given projects that prepare for new teaching assignments and professional growth (Q26) 3.42 1.2 0 3.20 1.4 0 Challenging Assignments 3.47 0.90 3.21 1.20 Given projects that present opportunities to learn new skills (Q27) 3.48 1.1 0 3.11 1.3 0 Provided with critical feedback regarding completion of challenging teaching assignments and work performance (Q28) 3.46 0 .77 3.31 1.2 0 Friendship 3.42 0.93 3.14 1.10 Mentor invited protg out to lunch or to attend another function at work (Q29) 3.60 0 .66 3.29 1.1 0 Mentor interacted with protg outside of work (Q30) 3.25 1.2 0 3.00 1.2 0

PAGE 60

52 Summary of Results by Item Overall, the mean scores for all 108 matched pairs indicated that the mentor teachers and their protg teachers agreed that career (coaching, protection, exposure and visibility, sponsorship, and challenging assignments) and psychosocial (acceptance, role modeling counseling, and friendship) functions were provided during the mentoring relationship. Career Functions by Item Coaching. There were six questions that measured coaching in the survey. On question one mentors and protgs agreed that the mentor shar ed the career history The mentor mean score was 3.53 ( SD = .70) and the protg mean score was 3.20 ( SD = 1.1). The mean score difference for question one was .33. Question two had a mean score difference of .40. Mentors and protg teachers agreed tha t the mentor encouraged participation in professional development activities The mentor mean score was 3.59 ( SD =.58) and the protg mean score was 3.19 ( SD = 1.1). Question three had a mean score difference of .36. Mentors and protg teachers agreed that the mentor provided specific strategies to achieve career goals were shared. The mentor mean score was a 3.51 ( SD = .70) and the protg mean score was 3. 15 ( SD = 1.1). Question four had a mean score difference of .46. Mentors and protg teachers agreed that the mentor shared professional ideas. The mentor mean score was 3.77 ( SD =.46) and the protg mean score was 3.31 ( SD = .91). Question five had a me an score difference of .39. Mentors and protg teachers agreed that the mentor relationship allowed for specific strategies to accomplish teaching objectives. The mentor mean score was a 3.69 ( SD = .60) and the protg mean score was 3.30 ( SD = 1.0). Que stion

PAGE 61

53 six had a mean score difference of .31. Mentors and protg teachers agreed that the mentor provided feedback regarding performance in present position. The mentor mean score was 3.58 ( SD =.61) and the protg mean score was 3.27 ( SD = 1.1). Protec tion. There were two questions that measured protection in the survey On question 21 m entors and protgs agreed that mentoring relationship helped with problems that could threaten the possibility of obtaining desired positions The mentor mean score was 3.96 ( SD = 1.1) and the protg mean score was 3.81 ( SD = 1.3). The mean score difference for question 21 was .15. Question 22 had a mean score difference of .28. Mentors and protg teachers agreed that the relationship helped complete projects/tasks to m eet deadlines that otherwise would have been difficult to complete. The mentor mean score was 3.58 ( SD =.83) and the protg mean score was 3.30 ( SD = 1.2). Exposure and Visibility. There were three questions that measured exposure and visibility in the survey. For question 23 mentors and protgs agreed that mentoring relationship helped meet new colleagues The mentor mean score was 3.68 ( SD = .78) and the protg mean score was 3.37 ( SD = 1.2). The mean score difference for question 23 was .3 1. Question 24 had a mean score difference of .28. Mentors and protg teachers agreed that the relationship allowed for projects that increased written and personal contact with colleagues The mentor mean score was 3. 52 ( SD =1.2 ) and the protg mean s core was 3. 24 ( SD = 1.5 ). Question 25 had a mean score difference of .23. Mentors and protg teachers agreed that the relationship encouraged responsibilities that increase personal contact with people in the district. The mentor mean score was a 3.48 ( SD = 1.1) and the protg mean score was 3.25 ( SD = 1.4).

PAGE 62

54 Sponsorshi p. There was one question that measured sponsorship in the survey. For question 26 mentors and protgs agreed that mentoring relationship allowed for new teaching assignments and growth The mentor mean score was 3.41 ( SD = 1.2) and the protg mean score was 3.20 ( SD = 1.4). The mean score difference for question 26 was .21. Challenging Assignments. There were two questions that measured challenging assignments in the survey. For question 2 7 mentors and protgs agreed that mentoring relationship ha d projects that present opportunities to learn new skills. The mentor mean score was 3. 4 8 ( SD = 1.1 ) and the protg mean score was 3. 11 ( SD = 1.3 ). The mean score d ifference for question 2 7 was .3 7 Question 2 8 had a mean score difference of .15 Mentors and protg teachers agreed that the relationship allowed for feedback regarding completion of challenging teaching assignments and work performance The mentor m ean score was 3. 46 ( SD = .77 ) and the protg mean score was 3. 31 ( SD = 1.2 ). Psychosocial Func tions by Item Acceptance and Confirmation. There were three questions that measured acceptance and confirmation in the survey. On question seven mentors and protgs agreed that mentoring relationship encouraged new approaches of methods of teaching and interaction with students The mentor mean score was 3. 58 ( SD = .59 ) and the protg mean score was 3. 28 ( SD = 1.0 ). The mean score difference for question seven was 30 Question eight ha d a mean score difference of .30 Mentors and protg teachers agreed that the relationship conveyed feelings of respect The mentor mean score was 3. 71 ( SD = .54 ) and the protg mean score was 3. 41 ( SD = .97 ). Question nine

PAGE 63

55 ha d a mean score difference of .21 Mentors and protg teachers agreed that the relationship allowed for suggestions concerning problems encountered at school The mentor mean score was a 3. 35 ( SD = 1.1) and the protg mean sc ore was 3. 14 ( SD = 1. 2 ). Role Modeling. There were four questions that measured role modeling in the survey. For question 10 mentors and protgs agreed that the mentor modeled their teaching style The mentor mean score was 3.41 ( SD = .84) and the protg mean score was 3.01 ( SD = 1.2). The mean score difference for question 10 was .40. Question 11 had a mean score difference of .30. Mentors and protg teachers agreed that the mentor modeled values and attitudes regarding education The mentor m ean score was 3.61 ( SD =.69) and the protg mean score was 3.31 ( SD = 1.1). Question 12 had a mean score difference of 38 Mentors and protg teachers agreed that the mentor tried to earn the respect and admiration of the protg The mentor mean score was a 3. 76 ( SD = .74 ) and the protg mean score was 3. 38 ( SD = 1. 0 ). Question 13 had a mean score difference of .30. Mentors and protg teachers agreed that the mentor encouraged protg to strive for same level of expertise upon reaching similar career position. The mentor mean score was a 3. 73 ( SD = .93 ) and the protg mean score was 3. 43 ( SD = 1. 1 ). Counseling. There were seven questions that measured counseling in the survey. For question 14 mentors and protgs ag reed that they demonstrated good listening skills during their conversations The mentor mean score was 3. 66 ( SD = 47 ) and the protg mean score was 3. 47 ( SD = 1. 0 ). The mean score difference for question 14 was 19 Question 15 had a mean score difference of 19 Mentors and protg teachers

PAGE 64

56 agreed that the mentor addressed questions or concerns regarding feelings of competence The mentor mean score was 3. 70 ( SD =.5 1 ) and the protg mean score was 3. 51 ( SD = 1.1). Question 16 had a mean score difference of 17 Mentors and protg teachers agreed that the mentor addressed concerns regarding relationships with peers and supervisors The mentor mean score was a 3. 69 ( SD = .7 1 ) and the protg mean score was 3. 52 ( SD = 1. 2 ). Question 17 had a mean score differenc e of 33 Mentors and protg teachers agreed that the mentor shared personal experiences as an alternative perspective The mentor mean score was 3. 56 ( SD =. 70 ) and the protg mean score was 3. 23 ( SD = 1. 1). Question 18 had a mean score difference of 20 Mentors and protg teachers agreed that the mentor encouraged protg to talk openly about anxiety and fears that cause work distractions The mentor mean score was a 3.6 0 ( SD = 79 ) and the protg mean score was 3. 4 0 ( SD = 1. 3 ). Question 19 had a mean score difference of 38 Mentors and protg teachers agreed that the mentor conveyed empathy for concerns and feelings discussed The mentor mean score was 3. 65 ( SD =. 53 ) and the protg mean score was 3.27 ( SD = 1. 0 ). Question 20 had a mean score difference of .23. Mentors and protg teachers agreed that the mentor kept feelings of doubts shared in strict confidence. The mentor mean score was 3.70 ( SD =.53) and the protg mean score was 3.47 ( SD = 1.1). Friendship. There were two questions that measured friendship in the survey. For question 2 9 mentors and protgs agreed that mentoring relationship had projects that present opportunities to learn new skills. The mentor mean score was 3.60 ( SD = .66) and the protg mean score was 3.29 ( SD = 1.1). The mean score difference for question 2 9 was 31. Question 30 had a mean score difference of 2 5. Mentors and

PAGE 65

57 protg teach ers agreed that the mentor interacted with the protg outside of work The mentor mean score was 3. 25 ( SD = 1.2 ) and the protg mean score was 3. 00 ( SD = 1.2). Discussion of Results by Item The mentor teachers had a low standard deviation based on their responses. Thus, the mentor teachers did not vary in their responses to the questions asked on the survey. More spec ifically, mentor teachers felt that they were very good mentors and provided all aspects necessary to their matched protgs. Traditionally, when people are asked about how they feel they are doing in regards to mentoring the majority of the respondents a gree that they are successful and agree that they are doing well. When given the opportunity to talk about being a mentor (teachers are provided with additional compensation by the school district) the expected response would be to agree that they are doi ng well and meeting the needs of their protgs. However, the protg teachers had a large standard deviation regarding the support provided to them throughout the mentoring process. For example, 27 of the 30 questions asked of protg teachers had a standard deviation greater than 1.0. This means that for almost every response provided by the protg teachers that states they through the r elationship. The remaining three questions that were asked of the protgs regarding their mentoring relationship had a standard deviation less 1.0 but greater than .91. This means that for every protg that agreed their mentor had provided support in this area

PAGE 66

58 of the mentoring process a protg also disagreed that their mentor had provided support within this area. More specifically, the range for all of the responses from the protgs was so wide that a protg could have responded from strongly dis agree to strongly agree for each component of the mentoring process. Independent Sampl e t T est An independent sample t test was conducted to measure the differences in the career and psychosocial functions provided by matched mentor and prot g teachers. The s kewness and kurtosis were also tested to ensure that the data w ere credible. Skewness is the asymmetry of the distribution of the data around the mean. The skewness for the data was .000; thus the distribution of the data had a norma l distribution. Kurtosis examines the peakness or flatness of the distribution compared to the normal distribution. The kurtosis for this study was 2.01, ( i.e. a negative kurtosis ) A negative kurtosis indicates a relatively flat distribution of the d ata Table 6 provides each item grouped by function for mentor teachers and protg teachers. The p value was set at .05 for the independent sample t test. There were 30 questions asked of the mentor and protg teachers. Seventeen items were statistically significant All items that measured coaching were statistically significant. Two items that measured acceptance and visibility were statistically significant. Two i tems that measured counseling were statistically significant. No items were found to be statistically significant for the following categories: protection, exposure and visibility, and sponsorship. One item was found to be statistically significant for c hallenging assignments and friendship. Fifty percent of the career functions were found to be statistically significant and 36% of the psychosocial functions of mentoring were found

PAGE 67

59 to be statistically significan t. Table 7 provides a list of statistical ly significant items Eight items were found to be statistically significant from the career component. The identified functions that were statistically significant were coaching (Q1 6), exposure and visibility (Q23), and challenging assignments (Q27). Two functions under career function were not identified to be statistically significant, protection and sponsorship The psychosocial components were also found to be statistically significant. Nine items were found to be statistically significant. The identified functions that were statistically significant were acceptance and confirmation (Q7 8), role modeling (Q10 13), counseling (Q17&19), and friendship (Q 29).

PAGE 68

60 Table 6 Independent Sample t Test results for Matched Pairs by Item Grouped by Function Function/ Item Mentor & Protg t Mentor & Protg p Coaching Shared career history (Q1) 2.53 .012 Encouraged participation in professional development (Q2) 3.22 .002 Suggested strategies to achieve career goals (Q3) 2.76 .006 Shared professional ideas (Q4) 4.70 .000 Suggested strategies for accomplishing teaching objectives (Q5) 3.43 .001 Given feedback regarding performance in present position (Q6) 2.51 .013 Acceptance Encouraged to try new approaches or methods of teaching and interacting with students (Q7) 2.58 .01 Conveyed feelings of respect (Q8) 2.83 .005 Asked for suggestions concerning problems that have occurred at school (Q9) 1.29 .197 Role Modeling Modeled teaching style for protg (10) 2.73 .007 Modeled attitudes and values regarding education (Q11) 2.32 .021 Tried to earn the respect and admiration (Q12) 2.93 .004 Table continued on next page

PAGE 69

61 Table 6 (Continued) Independent Sample t Test results for Matched Pairs by Item Grouped by Function Function/ Item Mentor & Protg t Mentor & Protg p Encouraged to strive for same level of expertise upon reaching similar career path (Q13) 2.10 .036 Counseling Demonstrated good listening skills (Q14) 1.65 .101 Addressed questions or concerns regarding feelings of competence (Q15) 1.56 .120 Addressed concerns regarding relationships with peers, supervisors and/or work conflicts (Q 16) 1.27 .204 Shared personal experiences as an alternative perspective to problems or concerns (Q17) 2.52 .013 Encouraged to talk openly about anxiety and fears that cause work distractions (Q18) 1.35 .176 Conveyed empathy for concerns and feelings discussed (Q19) 3.23 .002 Kept feelings and doubts shared in strict confidence (Q20) 1.96 .051 Protection Helped with problems that could threaten the possibility of obtaining desired positions (Q21) .882 .379 Helped complete projects/tasks to meet deadlines that otherwise would have been difficult (Q22) 1.91 .057 Exposure and Vi sibility Helped meet new colleagues (Q23) 2.13 .034 Given projects that increased contact with colleagues (Q24) 1.49 .149 Table continued on next page

PAGE 70

62 Table 6 (Continued) Independent Sample t Test results for Matched Pairs by Item Grouped by Function Function/ Item Mentor & Protg t Mentor & Protg p Encouraged to assume responsibilities increase contact with people in district (Q25) 1.27 .205 Sponsorship Given projects that prepare for new teaching assignments and professional growth (Q26) 1.14 .255 Challenging Assignments Given projects that present opportunities to learn new skills (Q27) 2.16 .031 Provided with critical feedback regardin g completion of challenging teaching assignments and work performance (Q28) 1.04 .298 Friendship Mentor invited protg out to lunch or to attend another function at work (Q29) 2.45 .015 Mentor interacted with protg outside of work (Q30) 1.45 .149 Note. N = 108 matched pairs, p = .05

PAGE 71

63 Table 7 Statistically Significant Items for the Mentor and P rotg by Function Function/ Item Mentor & Protg p Career Functions Coaching Shared career history (Q1) .012 Encouraged participation in professional development (Q2) .002 Suggested strategies to achieve career goals (Q3) .006 Shared professional ideas (Q4) .000 Suggested strategies for accomplishing teaching objectives (Q5) .001 Given feedback regarding performance in present position (Q6) .013 Exposure & Visibility Helped meet new colleagues (Q23) .034 Challenging Assignments Given projects that present opportunities to learn new skills (Q27) .031 Psychosocial Functions Acceptance & Confirmation Encouraged to try new approaches or methods of teaching and interacting with students (Q7) .01 0 Conveyed feelings of respect (Q8) .005 Role Modeling Modeled teaching style for protg (10) .007 Modeled attitudes and values regarding education (Q11) .021 Tried to earn the respect and admiration (Q12) .004 Encouraged to strive for same level of expertise upon reaching similar career path (Q13) .036 Counseling Shared personal experiences as an alternative perspective to problems or concerns (Q17) .013 Conveyed empathy for concerns and feelings discussed (Q19) .002 Friendship Mentor invited protg out to lunch or to attend another function at work (Q29) .015 Note. n = 108 matched pairs, p = .05

PAGE 72

64 Summary of Findings This chapter described the characteristics of the participants, the results by item, the means and standard deviations for survey items by function, the comparison by function for mentor and protg teachers, and statistically significant items for the men tor and protg. The demographic profile for the participants was provided. The means and standard deviations for each item from the surveys (the Mentoring Functions Scale for the Mentor and the Mentoring Functions Scale for the Protg ) were provided. Finally, the statistically significant items for the mentor and protg were provided. There were 17 items found to be statistically significant.

PAGE 73

65 C hapter 5 Summary, Conclusions, Implications and Future Research The purpose of thi s study was to identify the career and psychosocial functions that mentor teachers and their protg teachers believed occurred during the 2008 2009 mentoring relationship. The parts of this chapter are, summary of the study, conclusions, implications, an d future research. Summary of the Study The research questions associated with this study were: 1. What career and psychosocial mentoring processes do mentor teachers perceive they provide to their protgs? 2. What career and psychosocial mentoring processes do protg teachers perceive they receive from their mentors? 3. How do mentor teachers and their protgs compare in their perceptions of the mentor protg relationship? This comparative survey study was conducted in a suburban middle size d Florida school d istrict. In several studies, the researchers surveyed teachers in large urban districts (Marable & Raimondi, 2007; Stoot et al., 1999; Wilson, 2006). Thus, using a middle sized district extended the literature; this district served over 6 6,000 students. The district encompassed 45 elementary schools, 15 middle and 16 high schools. The target population for this study involved two groups. The first include d mentor teachers in the district who ha d at least three years of experience and who

PAGE 74

66 served in the role of a mentor within the past three years. Two survey instruments were used during thi s study, Mentoring Functions Scale for the Mentor and the Mentoring Functions Scale for the Protg modified by Wilson (2006). Th ese instrument s w ere select ed because they measure the career and psychosocial functions of the mentoring process. The survey was available to the mentors and protgs participating in this study via paper and pencil. The researcher mailed the paper copies of the instruments to th e appropriate participants (e.g., mentors receive d Mentoring Functions Scale for the Mentor and the protgs received Mentoring Functions Scale for the Protg ) via United State s post office The surveys were mailed to 645 participants. From these respon dents, t here were 108 usable matched mentor protg pairs included in the analysis of the data. The findings were that both mentor and protg teachers value the mentoring process. All of the participants agreed that the career and psychosocial functions were provided. Conclusion s The conclusions from this study are addressed in this section. Career and Psychosocial Functions of Mentoring Research Question One: What career and psychosocial mentoring processes do mentor teachers perceive they provide to their protgs? Mentor teachers believed that they had provided all of the career and psychosocial functions to their protg s Overall, mentor teachers agreed that the most important items provided to the protgs were : ( a ) shared profess ional ideas, ( b ) demonstrated good listening skills, ( c )

PAGE 75

67 addressed concerns regarding feelings of competence, and ( d ) addressed concerns regarding relationships with peers, supervisors, and/or work conflicts. Research question two: What career and psyc ho social mentoring processes do protg teachers perceive they receive from their mentors? The protg teachers perceived that they were provided all of the career and psychosocial functions from their mentors. Research questions three : How do mentor te achers and their protgs compare in their perceptions of the mentor protg relationship ? M entor and protg teachers both agreed that the career and psychosocial functions were present during the mentoring relationship. Th ese findings indicate d that there were specific career and psychosocial functions provided by the mentor to the protg that were found to be beneficial to the mentoring process. Career functions that were found to be beneficial for the mentoring process were coaching exposure and visibility, and challenging assignments. Psychosocial functions perceived to be necessary for the mentoring process were acceptance and confirmation counseling, role modeling, and friendship. Although, the mentors and protgs all agreed that a specific component from each psychosocial function was evide nt during the mentoring process, there were some aspects of those compon ents that were not perceived to be as important. The psychosocial functions of mentoring were perceived to be benefi cial to both the mentor and protg In general, t he findings are consistent with Kram (1985) research that both career and psychosocial functions are needed in a mentoring program to assist the

PAGE 76

68 protg. However, the findings of this research study support that not all components under the career and psychosocial functions must be present equally in order to provide a supportive and successful mentor protg relationship. Implications This section address es the implications of the study for mentor s, protgs, school districts and policy The discrepancies between the observations of the mentor teachers and their protgs have implications for the mentoring relationship. It was evident that the protgs value d the psychosocial aspects of the mento ring process. Therefore, it would be beneficial to support mentors and train them on the necessary psychosocial aspects of mentoring. In addition, coaching was highly valued by both the mentors and protgs. There are implications for a difference in t raining programs for mentor teachers and protg teachers. Mentor teachers would benefit from train ing regarding career and psychosocial functions based on the needs of the protg teachers in the school district. Protg teachers would benefit from ment ors who provide them with the career and psychosocial functions needed. Therefore training can be developed based on the individualized needs of the protg teachers. School districts should modify the training and suppo rt structure for new teachers. Then, school districts will be able to determine the components of the mentoring process that are needed to support protg teachers. Th us the necessary support structure with a focus on career and psychosocial functions for mentors and protg s can be provided. Ultimately by enhancing the mentoring programs for new

PAGE 77

69 teachers; school systems can provide better supports to their protg s via the mentoring relationship. Finally, these findings can influence policy on a district, state, and nat ional level for the mentoring relationship and support of new teachers. With a large teacher attrition rate prevalent in the United States, increasing mentoring programs that impact the protg can potentially lead to the retention of qualified teachers. Future Research This section address es possible ideas for future research It would be beneficial to collect data on the perceptions of the mentors and their matched protgs during the first semester of the mentoring relationship and again at the end of the mentoring process (for most school districts this would be the second semester of school). This might allow for researcher s to draw conclusions and make comparisons based on the data reported by the same participants twice during the school year. A mixed methods study c ould allow for open ended questions or a comments section on the survey This could provide additional insight and information about th e mentor protg relationship. Focus g roups with the mentor and protg teachers could provide additional insight These focus groups should be held separately (e.g., mentor teachers are interviewed in one group and protg teachers are interviewed in another group). Thus, t hese focus groups will allow for more information to be collected that ma y not have been collected from the questions on the survey More specifically, the mentors and protgs may be more willing to openly express what they think about the mentoring process in person rather than responding to a survey.

PAGE 78

70 In addition to allowing for more qualitative data to be collect ed, a larger sample size should be surveyed. An increase in sample size can represent a larger population of the United States. Not all school districts are suburb an middle sized distric ts; thus increasing the sample size or conducting the study on a national level could bring more perspectives of the mentoring process. Furthermore, with a more diverse group and a larger representation of the mentor protg r elationship at national level stronger conclusion s can be derived based on the data. Additional research c ould be conducted to determine if there is a difference between the mentor protg relationship in regards to the career and psychosocial functions perceived to be necessary compared among rural, suburba n, and urban school districts. This study c ould be expanded to include private and charter schools. Additional research regarding the career and psychosocial functions of the mentor protg relationship in alternative settings (i.e., private and charter schools) might provide additional insight into the needs of protgs within the field of education. The majority of the participants in this study were Caucasian Therefore, these findings ar e applicable to Caucasian teachers in a middle sized school suburban district located in the south. Additional research with other race s/ ethnicities c ould add to the growing literature on mentoring. Additional research should be conducted to determine if race/ethnicity of the mentor and protg impact the relationship. Research c ould be conducted to determine if there is cultural bias among race/ethnic gro ups. Additionally, it might be pertinent to determine if the results vary based on race/ethnicity. Perhaps, when a race/ethnicity is varied between the mentor and protg more career and

PAGE 79

71 psychosocial functions are prevalent in the mentor protg relationship. More re search in this area is needed. Gender is another aspect that needs to be more explored in the mentoring field. The majority of participants in this study were females. There has been no research on weather this is a difference on the mentoring relationship if the me ntor is a male and the protg a female. Similarly additional research should be conducted to see if a female mentor and male protg have the same perceptions of the mentoring relationship. A dditional research into the dynamic between the male/female me ntor protg relationship s is necessary to better understand the development and necessary components for a successful mentor protg relationship. Future research should contain a true experimental design to determine if significant differences exist in teacher retention as an outcome of mentoring programs. Extraneous variables must be controlled to more clearly understand if mentoring is a factor for teacher retent ion. Additionally, studies c ould be expanded to the specific discipline of the teach ers (e.g., special education, mathematics) and grade level (e.g., elementary, middle, high). Finally, it would be beneficial to determine if protgs teachers perceptions of the mentoring process are aligned with those of the mentor teachers across both informal and formal mentoring relationships. Continued research in mentor teacher and protg teacher relationships may be essential to further understand the teacher attrition problem in the United States.

PAGE 80

72 R eferences Anderson, D. (2007). The role Education, 128 (2), 307 323. Anderson, S. K., & Kitchener, K. S. (1996). Nonromantic, nonsexual post therapy relationships b etween psychologists and former clients: An exploratory study of critical incidents. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 59 66. Andrews, B. D., & Quinn, R. (2005). The effects of mentoring on first perceptions of support received. The Clearing House, 78 (3), 110 116. Arnold Rogers, J., Arnett S., & Harris, M. (2008). Mentoring new teachers in Lenoir City, Tennessee. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin (74) 4, 18 23. Barnett, J. E. (2008) Mentoring, boundaries, and multiple re lationships: opportunities and c hallenges. Mentoring and Tutoring: Par tnership in Learning,16 (1) 3 16. Barondess, J. A. ( 1995 ) Presidents address a brief history of mentoring. New York Academy of Medicine, 106 (1 24). Bell, C. R. (2002). Managers as mentors : Building p artnerships for l earning (2 nd ed.) San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler. Beyene T., Align, M., Sanchez, W., & Ballot, M. (2002). Mentoring and relational mutuality: Protgs perspectives. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education & Development, 47 (1) 87 102. Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., & Sunderland, R. J. (2008). Teacher turnover: Examining exit attrition, teaching area transfer, and school migration. Exceptional Children 75 7 31. Borys, D. S. (1994). Maintaining therapeutic boundaries: The motiv e is therapeutic effectiveness, not defensive practice. Ethics & Behavior, 4, 267 273. Bush, T., & Coleman, M. (1996). Professional development for heads: The role of mentoring. Journal of Educational Administration, 33 (5), 60 73. Chapman, D. W. (1983). Teacher retention: The test of a model. American Educational Research Journal, 21 645 648. Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with no mentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619 636.

PAGE 81

73 Clark, R. A., Harden, S. L., & Johnson, W. B. (2000). Mentor relationships in Clinical psychology doctoral training: Results of a national survey. Teaching of Psychology, 27 (4), 262 268. Clawson, J. G. (1996). Mentoring in the information age. Leade rship and Organization Development Journal, 17 (3), 6 15. Cole, A. F. (2004). Exploring the relationship between human resource development functions and the mentoring process: A qualitative study (Doctoral Dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest. AAT 3143321 Conderman, G., & Stephens, J. T. (2000). Voices from the field: Reflection from beginning special educators. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33 (1), 16 21. Cornell, C. (2003). How mentor teachers perceive their roles and relationships in a field b ased teacher training program. Education, 124 (2), 401 411. Danielson, C. (1999). Mentoring beginning teachers: The case for mentoring. Teaching and C hange, 6 (3) 251 257. Darling Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters. What leaders can do. Educational Leadership, 60 (8), 6 13. Douglas, C. A. (1997). Formal mentoring programs in organizations: An a nnotated bibliography Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Doverspike, W. F. (1999). Ethical risk management: Protecting your practice. In L. VandeCreek & T. Jackson (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice (pp. 269 278). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource classroom practice: An experimental field stud y. Journal of Educational Research, 93 (5), 294 304. Fideler, E., & Haselkorn, D. (1999). Learning the ropes: Urban teacher induction programs and practices in the United States. Belmont, M A: Recruiting New Teachers Fletcher, S. H., & Barlett, A. (2004) Developing effective beginning teachers through mentor based induction. Mentoring and T utoring, 12 (3), 321 333. Ganser, T. (1995). Principles for mentor teacher selection. The Clearing House, 68 (5), 307 309.

PAGE 82

74 Gehrke, N. J., & Kay, R. S. (1984). The socialization of beginning teachers through mentor protg relationships. Journal of Teacher Education, 35 (3), 21 24. Gottlieb, M. C. (1993). Avoiding exploitative dual relationships: A decision making mode model. Psychotherapy, 30, 41 48. Gutheil, T. G., & Gabbard, G. O. (1993). The concept of b oundaries in clinical practice: Theoretical and risk management dimensions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 188 196. Heyns, B. (1988). Educational defectors: A first look at teacher attrition in the NLS 72. Educational Researcher, 17 (3), 24 32. Holloway, J. H. (2001 ). The benefits of mentoring. Educational Leadership, 58 (8) 85 86. Holub, E. A., & Lee, S. concerns. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 115 117. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001) Teacher turnover and teacher shortage: A n organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38 (3) 499 534. Ingersoll, R. M. & Smith, T. (2003). The wr ong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60 (8), 30 33. Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 61 (4), 505 532. Johnson, W. B. (2002) The intentional men tor: S t rategies and guidelines for the practice of mentoring. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33 (1), 88 96. Johnson, B. W., & Ridley, C. R. (2004). The elements of mentoring New York NY : Palgrave Macmillan. Kardos, S. M., & Johnson, S. M. (2007). On their own and presumed expert: New Teachers College Record, 109 (9), 2083 2106. Retrieved from www.tcrecord.org/ Kram, K. E. (1985a). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Kram, K. E. (1985b). Improving the mentoring process. Training and Development Journal, 39, 40 43.

PAGE 83

75 Liu, X. S. (2007). The effect of teacher influence at school on first year teacher attrition: A multilevel analysis of the schools and staffing survey for 1999 2000. Educational Research and Evaluation 13 (1) 1 16. Marable, M. A., & Raimondi, S. (20 07). most (and least) supportive during their firs t year of teaching. Mentoring and Tutoring 15 (1) 25 37. Maciejewski, J. (2007) Supporting new teachers: A re induction programs worth the cost? District Administration, 43 (9), 48 52. Merriam, S. (1983). Mentors and protgs: A critical review of the literature. Adult Education Quarterly, 33 161 173. Mertens, D. (2008). Transformative r esearch and e valuation New York, NY: Guilford. Mullen, C. A. (2000). Constructing co mentorin g partnerships: W alkways we must travel. Theory into Practice, 39 (1)4 11. National Commission on (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching New York: Author. National Center for Education Statisti cs (2001) Teacher attrition and mobility: R esults from the teacher follow up survey 2000 2001 Washington DC : Author. Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41 457 479. Odell, S. J., & Ferraro, D. P. (1992). Teacher mentoring and teacher retention. Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (3), 200 204. Parkay F. W. ( 1988 ). Reflections of a protg Theory into Practice 27 195 200. Phillips Jones, L. (1983). Establishing a formalized mentoring program. Training and Development Journal 37 38 40. Raggins, B. R. (1997). Antecedents of diversified mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 90 109. Raggins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (4), 529 550. Schlechty, P., & Vance, V. (1983). Recruitment, selection and retention: The shape of the teaching force. Elementary School Journal, 83 469 487.

PAGE 84

76 Schlichte, J., Yssel, N., & Merbler, J. (2005). Pathways to burnout: Case studies in teacher isolation and alienation. Preventing School Failure, 50 (1) 35 40. Smith, R. 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. Stroot, S. A., Fowlkes, J., Langholz, J., Paxton, S., Stedman, P., Steffes, L., & Valtman, A. ( 1999). Impact of collaborative peer assistance and review model on entry year teachers in a large urban school setting. Journal of Teacher Education, 50 (1) 27 41. Stone, F. M. (2004). The mentoring advantage: Creating the next generation of leaders Chica go, IL: Dearborn Tellez, K. (1992). Mentors by choice, not design: Help seeking by beginning teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (3), 214 221. Wilson, A. J. (2006). A comparison of the perceived performance of mentoring functions of national board certified and non national board certified teacher with their protgs (Doctoral dissertation ) Retrieved from ProQuest AAT 3248319

PAGE 85

77 Appendix A: Mentoring Functions Scale for the Mentor

PAGE 86

78 Mentoring Functions Scale for the Mentor Directions: Please respond to each item by providing the requested information or by checking the appropriate response. Thank you for your time and interest. Demographic Information Mentor Number: ___________________ Please tell me about yourself and your most recent protg 1. How did you choose this protg? (Circle all that apply) a. Protg asked me to be mentor b. Administrator asked me to mentor the protg c. I asked the protg if I could mentor d. Other (please explain) ____________________________________________ 2. What subject areas do you teach? ____________________________ 3. Are you ESE certified? Yes _________ No __________ 4. How many years have you been teaching? ________________ ___ 5. Circle the grade levels that you teach: K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 other 6. What is the highest degree you have completed? (Please circle) a. Bachelor b. Master c. Specialist d. Doctorate 7. Are you a National Board Certified Teacher? Yes _______ No _______ 8. What is your gender? Female __________ Male ______________ 9. How many years have you mentored teachers? _________________ 10. How many protgs have you mentored in the last 2 years? _________________ 11. Have you had a mentor? Yes ________ No ______ ____ 12. What is your racial/ethnic background? (Please circle) a. African American/Black b. Asian/Pacific Islander c. Hispanic/Latino d. Native American/Indian e. Caucasian/White f. Other, Please specify ________________

PAGE 87

79 Appendix A continued Directions: The items on this instrument are indicators of the major functions that mentors provide to their protgs. Mentoring functions are those activities and aspects of a developmental mentoring relationship that contribute to the protgs growth and development. For the pur poses of this instrument, a mentor is another teacher who befriends, guides, supports, counsels, coaches, and serves as a role model. Think about your relationship with your protg (mentee) as you read each statement. Your answers should be based on your experience as a mentor with your protg (mentee) from last school year (2008 2009). For each item, check the choice that most closely represents your perceptions of your behavior as a mentor. Statement Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1. I have shared my career history with my protg 2. I have encouraged my protg to participate in professional developmental/growth activities 3. I have suggested specific strategies to my protg for achieving career goals 4. I have shared professional ideas with my protg 5. I have suggested specific strategies to my protg for accomplishing teaching objectives 6. I have given my protg feedback regarding performance in his/her present position 7. I have encouraged my protg to try new approaches or methods of teaching and interacting with students at school 8. I have conveyed feelings of respect for my protg as an individual and as a professional 9. I have asked my protg for suggestions concerning problems I have encountered at school 10. I have modeled my teaching style for my protg 11. I have modeled my attitudes and values regarding education for my protg 12. I have tried to earn the respect and admiration of my protg 13. I have encouraged my protg to strive fro the same level of expertise upon reaching my similar career position 14. I have demonstrated good listening skills in our conversations

PAGE 88

80 Appendix A Continued Statement Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree questions or concerns regarding feelings of competence concerns regarding relationships with peers, supervisors, and/or work /family conflicts 17. I have shared personal experiences as problems or concerns 18. I have encouraged my protg to talk openly about anxiety and fears that cause work detractions 19. I have conveyed empathy for the concerns and feelings my protg has discussed with me 20. I have kept feelings and doubts my protg shared with me in strict confidence 21. I have helped my protg with problems that could threaten the possibility of him/her obtaining other desired positions/assignments 22. I have helped my protg complete projects/tasks or meet deadlines that otherwise would have been difficult t o complete 23. I have helped my protg meet new colleagues 24. I have given my protg projects that increased written and personal contact with colleagues 25. I have encouraged my protg to assume responsibilities that increase personal contact with people n the district who may influence his/her future career function 26. I have given my protg projects or work tasks that prepare him/her for new t eaching assignments, professional growth, or administrative positions if desired 27. I have given my protg projects that present opportunities to learn new skills 28. I have provided my protg with critical feedback regarding completion of challenging teaching assignments and work performance 29. I have invited my protg to join me for lunch (or another function) at work 30. I have interacted with my protg socially outside of work

PAGE 89

81 Appendix B : Mentoring Functions Scale for the Protg

PAGE 90

82 Mentoring Functions Scale for the Protg Directions: Please respond to each item by providing the requested information or by checking the appropriate response. Thank you for your time and interest. Demographic Information Please tell me about yourself and your mentor 1. How did you choose this mentor? (Circle all that apply) a. I asked the person to be my mentor b. Administrator asked mentor to mentor me c. Mentor asked if he/she could mentor me d. Other (please explain) ____________________________________________ 2. What subject areas do you teach? ____________________________ 3. Are you ESE certified? Yes _________ No __________ 4. How many years have you been teaching? ___________________ 5. Circle the grade levels that you teach: K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 other 6. What is the highest degree you have completed? (Please circle) a. Bachelor b. Master c. Specialist d. Doctorate 7. Are you a candidate for National Board Certification? Yes _______ NO _________ 8. What is your gender? Female __________ Male ______________ 9. What is your racial/ethnic background? (Please circle) a. African American/Black b. Asian/Pacific Islander c. Hispanic/Latino d. Native American/Indian e. Caucasian/White f. Other, Please specify _____________ ___

PAGE 91

83 Appendix B Continued Directions: The items on this instrument are indicators of the major functions that mentors provide to their protgs. Mentoring functions are those activities and aspects of a developmental mentoring relationship that c ontribute to the protgs growth and development. Think about the relationship with your mentor as you read each statement. For the purpose of this instrument a mentor is another teacher who befriends, guides, supports, counsels, coaches, and serves as a r ole model for you. Your answers should be based on your relationship with your mentor during the past school year (2008 2009). For each item, check the choice that most closely represents your perceptions of your behavior as a mentor. Statement Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1. My mentor has shared his/her career history with me 2. My mentor has encouraged me to participate in professional developmental/growth activities 3. My mentor has suggested specific strategies to me for achieving career goals 4. My mentor has shared professional ideas with me 5. My mentor has suggested specific strategies to me for accomplishing teaching objectives 6. My mentor has given me feedback regarding performance in his/her present position 7. My mentor has encouraged me to try new approaches or methods of teaching and interacting with students at school 8. My mentor has conveyed feelings of respect for me as an individual and as a professional 9. My mentor has asked me for suggestions concerning problems he/she has encountered at school 10. My mentor has modeled his/her teaching style for me 11. My mentor has modeled his/her attitudes and values regarding education for me 12. My mentor has earned respect and admiration of me 13. My mentor has encouraged me to strive for high levels of expertise in my current and future positions 14. My mentor has demonstrated good listening skills in our conversations

PAGE 92

84 Appendix B Continued Statement Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree 15. My mentor has addressed my questions or concerns regarding feelings of competence 16. My mentor has addressed my concerns regarding relationships with peers, supervisors, and/or work/family conflicts 17. My mentor has shared personal experiences as an alternative perspective to my problems or concerns 18. My mentor has encouraged me to talk openly about anxiety and fears that cause work detractions 19. My mentor has conveyed empathy for my concerns and feelings during our discussions 20. My mentor has kept my feelings and doubts in strict confidence 21. My mentor has helped me with problems that could threaten the possibility of me obtaining other desired positions/assignments 22. My mentor has helped me complete projects/tasks or meet deadlines that otherwise would have been difficult to compl ete 23. My mentor has helped me meet new colleagues 24. My mentor has given me projects that increased written and personal contact with colleagues 25. My mentor encouraged me to assume responsibilities that increase personal contact with people n the district who may influence my future career function 26. My mentor given me projects or work tasks that prepare me for new teaching assignments professional growth, or administrative positions if desired 27. My mentor has given me projects that present opportunities to learn new skills 28. My mentor has provided me with critical feedback regarding completion of challenging teaching assignments and work performance 29. My mentor has invited me to join him/her for lunch (or another function) at work 30. My mentor has interacted with me socially outside of work

PAGE 93

85 Appendix C: Sample Mentor Teacher Cover Letter

PAGE 94

86 Dear Mentor Teacher, My name is Allison Vanderbilt, and I am a graduate student at the University of South Florida. I am working on my dissertation. My research area of interest is teacher mentoring. The purpose of this letter is to request your participation in my study. Your participation will contribute to the knowledge base on mentoring in public schools. The data will remain confidential, and the total time needed to complete the survey is no more than 10 minutes. When completing this survey please reflect on the previous school year (2008 2009) and the mentoring relationship you had with your protg. The term protg is used within the survey. The term protg refers to your mentee (e.g., the teacher mentored during the 2008 2009 school year). The survey is enclosed along with a self addressed stamped return envelope. I would like to request that you please mail the survey no later than November 30, 2009. Please note that your response to the racial/ethnic background is optional. I sincerely appreciate y our time and consideration with this process. If you have any questions regarding this study you can contact me at ali1900@aol.com Sincerely, Allison A. Vanderbilt Doctoral Candidate

PAGE 95

87 Appendix D : Sample Protg Teacher Cover Letter

PAGE 96

88 Dear Mentee Teacher, My name is Allison Vanderbilt, and I am a graduate student at the University of South Florida. I am working on my dissertation. My research area of interest is teacher mentoring. The purpose of this letter is to request your participation in my study. Your participation will contribute to the knowledge base on mentoring in public schools. The data will remain confidential, and the total time needed to complete the survey is no mo re than 10 minutes. When completing this survey please reflect on the previous school year (2008 2009) and the mentoring relationship you had with your mentor. The survey is enclosed along with a self addressed stamped envelope. I would like to reques t that you please mail the survey no later than November 30, 2009. Please note that your response to your racial/ethnic background is optional. I sincerely appreciate your time and consideration with this process. If you have any questions regarding th is study you can contact me at ali1900@aol.com Sincerely, Allison A. Vanderbilt Doctoral Candidate

PAGE 97

89 Appendix E : Sample Mentor Cover Letter (Second Letter Sent)

PAGE 98

90 Dear Mentor Teacher, My name is Allison Vanderbilt, and I am a graduate student at the University of South Florida. I am working on my dissertation. My research area of interest is teacher mentoring. If you have already completed this survey please d isregard this letter. The purpose of this letter is to request your participation in my study. Your participation will contribute to the knowledge base on mentoring in public schools. The data will remain confidential, and the total time needed to com plete the survey is no more than 10 minutes. When completing this survey please reflect on the previous school year (2008 2009) and the mentoring relationship you had with your protg. The term protg is used within the survey. The term protg refers to your mentee (e.g., the teacher mentored during the 2008 2009 school year). The survey is enclosed along with a self addressed stamped return envelope. I would like to request that you please mail the survey no later than December 15, 2009. Please note that your response to the racial/ethnic background is optional. I sincerely appreciate your time and consideration with this process. If you have any questions regarding this study you can contact me at ali1900@aol.com Sincerely, Allison A. Vanderbilt Doctoral Candidate

PAGE 99

91 Appendix F : Sample Protg Cover Letter (Second Letter Sent)

PAGE 100

92 Dear Mentee Teacher, My name is Allison Vanderbilt, and I am a graduate student at the University of South Florida. I am working on my dissertation. My research area of interest is teacher mentoring. If you have already completed this survey please disregard this letter. The purpose of this letter is to request your participation in my study. Your participation will contribute to the knowledge base on mentoring in public schools. The data will remain confidential, and the total time needed to complete the survey is no more than 10 minutes. When completing this survey please reflect on the previous school year (2008 2009) and the mentoring relationship you had with your mentor. The survey is enclosed along with a self addressed stamped envelope. I would like to req uest that you please mail the survey no later than December 15, 2009. Please note that your response to your racial/ethnic background is optional. I sincerely appreciate your time and consideration with this process. If you have any questions regardin g this study you can contact me at ali1900@aol.com Sincerely, Allison A. Vanderbilt Doctoral Candidate

PAGE 101

93 Appendix G : Letter of Consent to U se Instruments

PAGE 102

94

PAGE 103

About the Author Allison Aileen Vanderbilt was born and raised in California. She earned her B.A. in Spanish at San Diego State University in 2001. She continued her education and earned her M.Ed. in Education at North Carolina State University in 2004. Al lison is a caring sister, daughter and proud Aunt to Jackson Knight Troxler. In her free time she enjoys learning how to cook, playing tennis, dancing salsa, and running. Currently she is training for a half marathon. She is an avid reader and community server as a mentor to underprivileged children.