mentoring for effective primary science teaching -...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Mentoring for Effective
Primary Science Teaching
PETER HUDSON
Dip Teach, B Ed, M Ed, TESOL, AMACEA
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy at the Centre for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,
Queensland University of Technology
2004
Queensland University of Technology
Doctor of Philosophy Thesis Examination
Candidate: Peter Hudson
Centre/Research Concentration: Mathematics, Science & Technology Education
Principal Supervisor: Professor Campbell McRobbie
Associate Supervisor: Dr Carmel Diezmann
Thesis Title: Mentoring for Effective Primary Science Teaching
Under the requirements of PhD regulation 9.2, the above candidate was examined orally by the Faculty. The members of the panel set up for this examination recommend that the thesis be accepted by the University and forwarded to the appointed Committee for examination.
Name: Signature:
Panel Chairperson (Principal Supervisor)
Name: Signature:
Panel Member
Name: Signature:
Panel Member
Name: Signature:
Panel Member
Under the requirements of PhD regulation 9.15, it is hereby certified that the thesis of the above-named candidate has been examined. I recommend on behalf of the Thesis Examination Committee that the thesis be accepted in fulfilment of the conditions of the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Name: Signature:
Chair of Examiners (External Thesis Examination Committee) Date:
i
ii
Abstract
Primary science education is a key area in the curriculum, yet primary science education is still less
than adequate, both in the number of teachers implementing a primary science syllabus and the
quality of primary science teaching. Mentoring may support both teachers in their roles as mentors
and preservice teachers as mentees to develop their primary science teaching practices.
This research investigated mentoring for developing preservice teachers of primary science, which
was divided into two stages. Stage 1 was concerned with the development of an instrument aimed at
measuring preservice teachers’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary science teaching. Stage 2
involved developing a mentoring intervention based on the literature and the instrument developed
from Stage 1 of this research, and further investigated the influence of the intervention on mentoring
practices. Stage 1 involved a survey instrument developed from the literature and a small qualitative
study. This instrument was refined after pilot testing and then administered to 331 final year
preservice teachers. Stage 2 involved pilot testing a mentoring intervention, which was then
implemented with 12 final year preservice teachers and their mentors over a four-week professional
experience (practicum). Using a two-group posttest only design, these 12 final year preservice
teachers (intervention group) and 60 final year preservice teachers (control group) from the same
university were compared after their four-week professional experience program. The survey
instrument developed from Stage 1 was used to measure both the control group’s and intervention
group’s perceptions of their mentoring in primary science teaching.
Stage 1 results indicated that five factors characterised effective mentoring practices in primary
science teaching and were supported by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The final CFA model
was theoretically and statistically significant, that is, χ2(513) = 1335, p < .001, CMIDF = 2.60, IFI =
.922, CFI = .921, RMR = .066, RMSEA = .070. These factors were Personal Attributes, System
iii
Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge, Modelling, and Feedback, and had Cronbach alpha
reliability coefficients of .93, .76, .94, .95, and .92, respectively.
Stage 2 findings indicated that mentees involved in the intervention received statistically significant
more mentoring experiences in primary science teaching on each of the 5 factors and on 31 of the 34
survey items. It was concluded that the mentoring intervention provided mentors and mentees with
opportunities for developing their primary science teaching practices. Additionally, this approach
simultaneously targets mentors and mentees’ teaching practices and was considered economically
viable.
iv
Preface
After 26 years of primary teaching experiences, the strongest influence for developing my primary
science teaching occurred in my first year of teaching in 1978. The principal of the large Sydney
primary school where I was based approached me during the second week of term one and told me
how he loved to teach science. He asked if I would be interested in observing a demonstration
lesson. With my consent, he immediately sprang into action, proposing the demonstration straight
after lunch.
When he entered my classroom, there was an air of confidence and experience. I positioned myself
at the back of the room to observe while he sparked the children’s interest with many leading and
open-ended questions. The students were infected with his enthusiasm. Within half an hour, he had
every child wanting to be involved in a class experiment on plants and had organised for all the
appropriate materials to be brought in by the students.
The following afternoon, when he came to my classroom, the students’ eyes lit up and between them
they had produced many seeds, jars, cotton wool, celery sticks, carrot tops, and potatoes. During that
three quarters of an hour, he had the students set up four different experiments while continuously
guiding them with questions. He then asked them to draw a picture of their experiment and label all
the important parts, and I was asked to have the children record their results every two days. Over
three weeks, the students’ data collection grew with considerable enthusiasm and discussion, and the
principal would enter briefly with his love of science. I noticed how the students’ eagerness for
science was heightened on each of these occasions.
This dynamic teaching and learning of science also sparked my interest in teaching the subject. The
principal’s enthusiastic nature was infectious, his experience was commanding, and his love for
v
teaching children was obvious. He was my first mentor and my inspiration for being a better science
teacher at the beginning of my teaching career. Even though theories for teaching science have
developed considerably since this time, without doubt, this mentoring experience had a profound
effect for developing my own primary science teaching practices.
In order to engage in professional dialogue and receive feedback on components of my research on
mentoring for effective primary science teaching, the following refereed journal articles and
conference papers have been published to date or are in press.
Hudson, P. (2002). Constructive mentoring for primary science teaching: Exploring and designing
constructs for sequencing science lessons. Investigating: Australian Primary and Junior
Science Journal, 18(2), 17-22.
Hudson, P. (2002). Mentors and modelling primary science teaching practices. Electronic Journal of
Science Education, 7(1). Retrieved 2 February, 2004, from
http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/ejsev7n1.html
Hudson, P. (2003). “Seeing the Light”: Mentoring and primary science teaching. Investigating:
Australian Primary and Junior Science Journal, 19(2), 15-19.
Hudson, P. (2003). Reflective practices: Modelling and observing science teaching for preservice
teachers. Investigating: Australian Primary and Junior Science Journal, 19(3), 10-14.
Hudson, P. (2004). Specific mentoring: A theory and model for developing primary science teaching
practices. Educational Journal of Teacher Education, 27(2).
Hudson, P. (2004, in press). Mentoring first-year preservice teachers in primary science education.
Action in Teacher Education.
Hudson, P. (2004). Towards identifying pedagogical knowledge for mentoring in primary science
teaching. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 215-225.
vi
Hudson, P., & McRobbie, C. (2003, November). Evaluating a specific mentoring intervention for
preservice teachers of primary science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Australian Association of Research in Education (AARE) Conference, Auckland, NZ.
Hudson, P., & McRobbie, C. (2004, July). Designing, implementing, and evaluating a mentoring
intervention for preservice teachers: A primary science example. Paper accepted for the
presentation at the annual meeting of the Australian Teacher Education Association (ATEA)
Conference, Bathurst, NSW.
Hudson, P., & McRobbie, C., & Diezmann, C. (2004, April). Mentoring of preservice teachers in
primary science education. Paper accepted for the presentation at the annual meeting of the
American Education Research Association (AERA), San Diego, CA.
Hudson, P., & Skamp, K. (2001, July). Mentoring preservice teachers of primary science. Paper
presented at the Australasian Science Education Research Association Conference, Sydney,
New South Wales.
Hudson, P., & Skamp, K. (2001, November). Mentoring preservice teachers of primary science.
Paper presented at the Science Teachers’ Association of Ontario Conference, Toronto,
Canada.
Hudson, P., & Skamp, K. (2002). Mentoring preservice teachers of primary science. The Electronic
Journal of Science Education, 7(1). Retrieved 2 February, 2004, from
http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/ejsev7n1.html
Hudson, P., & Skamp, K. (2003, July). An evaluation of a mentoring intervention for developing
mentees’ primary science teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Australasian Science Education Research Association Conference, Sydney, New South
Wales.
Hudson, P., Skamp, K., & Brooks, L. (2004, in press). Development of an instrument: Mentoring for
effective primary science teaching (MEPST). Science Education.
vii
Table of Contents
Thesis examination certification ……………………….…………………. i
Abstract ………………………………………………………………….. ii
Preface ……………………………………………………………..……. iv
Table of contents …………………………………………………….….. vii
List of figures …………………………………………………………… xiii
List of tables …………………………………………………………….. xiii
List of appendices ……………………………………………………….. xvi
Statement of authorship …………………………………………………. xvii
Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………… xviii
Dedication ………………………………………………………………. xix
Chapter 1: Overview
1.1 Chapter preview ……………………………..….……………………. 1
1.1.1 Introduction ……………………………..….…………..….. 1
1.2 The context for mentoring in primary science teaching ………………. 4
1.3 Purpose of this study …………..…………………………….…….. 5
1.4 Rationale for mentoring in primary education ……………………………. 6
1.4.1 Professional benefits for mentors ………………………………. 6
1.4.2 Personal benefits for mentors ……………………………... 7
1.4.3 Benefits for mentees ………………………………………. 8
1.4.4 Rationale for mentoring in primary science education ……. 8
1.5 The problem and direction for this study ……………….…………… 9
1.6 The research aims …..………………………………………………. 10
1.7 Overview of the research methods used for this study …………..…… 10
1.8 Limitations of this study ………………….………………..………... 12
viii
1.9 Definitions of terms ………………………………………………… 13
1.9.1 Mentoring ……….……….……….……….……….……… 13
1.9.2 The mentor ……….……….……….……….……….…….. 13
1.9.3 The mentee ……….……….……….……….……….…….. 14
1.9.4 Professional experiences ……….……….……….………… 14
1.9.5 Self-efficacy ……….……….……….……….……….……. 15
1.10 Chapter summary …………………………………………………… 15
1.11 Overview of this thesis ……………………………………………… 16
Chapter 2: Literature review
2.1 Chapter preview ………………………………….……………………. 18
2.1.1 Introduction ………………………………………………… 18
2.2 Need for science education reform ……………………………………..19
2.2.1 Science for all ………………………………………………. 20
2.2.2 Linking self-efficacy and beliefs ……………………..…….. 21
2.2.2.1 The relationship between beliefs and
self-efficacy and teaching practices ………………………. 22
2.3 Mentoring as a change agent …………………………………………. 24
2.4 Methods of developing teaching practices ……………………………. 25
2.4.1 Collaboration and mentoring relationships ……………….…. 25
2.4.2 Using constructivism as a theory for learning how to teach …26
2.4.2.1 Constructivist mentoring for preservice
teachers of primary science ……………………………….. 28
2.4.2.2 Summary of constructivism for this research …….. 29
2.5 Towards understanding effective teaching …………………………….29
2.5.1 Student and teacher perceptions of a good teacher …………..30
2.5.2 Towards an understanding of effective science teaching …….31
ix
2.5.2.1 Towards an understanding of effective
primary science teaching …………………………………. 31
2.6 Connecting secondary and primary science mentoring ………..……… 33
2.7 Towards understanding good primary science mentoring ……………..33
2.7.1 Mentors as guides to mentee’s self-reflection …………..…. 35
2.7.2 A need for subject-specific mentoring ……………………... 36
2.7.3 Conclusion of understanding good primary science mentoring 37
2.8 Negative aspects of mentoring ……………………………………….. 37
2.8.1 General problems and issues affecting the mentoring process 37
2.8.2 Managing the mentor’s time ……………………………….. 39
2.9 Issues on selecting suitable mentors ……………………………...…... 40
2.9.1 Debating the mentor selection criteria ……………………… 40
2.9.2 Difficulties in selecting suitable mentors …………………… 41
2.9.3 Addressing the problem of “unskilled” mentors
in primary science teaching ………………………………. 42
2.10 Towards understanding the role of the mentor ………..…………... 44
2.10.1 Attributes and practices of effective mentors of
primary science ……….……….……….……….………... 44
2.10.1.1 Mentors’ personal attributes …………………… 44
2.10.1.2 Addressing system requirements ……….……… 45
2.10.1.3 Mentors’ pedagogical knowledge ……….…….. 45
2.10.1.4 Mentors’ modelling of practice ……….……….. 47
2.10.1.5 Providing feedback to mentees ……….………… 47
2.11 Educating mentors towards effective mentoring practices ………….. 49
2.11.1 Developing mentor’s beliefs for effective mentoring
in primary science ……….……….……….……….……….……. 51
2.12 Summary and conclusions ………………………………………….. 52
x
Chapter 3: Research design and data collection methods
3.1 Chapter preview ….………………..………………………..………… 57
3.2 Overview of research aims and research design ………………………. 57
3.3 Data collection methods and analysis ………………………………... 59
3.3.1 Stage 1: Development of an instrument ……………………. 59
3.3.1.1 Phase 1: Preliminary exploration towards
developing an instrument …………………………………. 60
3.3.1.2 Phase 2: Developing, pilot testing and refining
an instrument …………………………………………….. 61
3.3.1.3 Phase 3: Administering and assessing this refined
instrument ………………………………………………… 62
3.3.2 Stage 2: Development of a mentoring intervention ………….65
3.4 Ethical issues …………………………………………………………. 71
3.5 Summary …………………………………………………….……….. 71
Chapter 4: Results of Stage 1 - Development of an instrument
4.1 Chapter preview ……………………………………..……………….. 73
4.2 Phase 1: Preliminary exploration towards developing an instrument .…73
4.2.1 Mentor’s personal attributes for mentoring preservice teachers
in primary science ……………………………………………….... 74
4.2.2 Addressing system requirements for teaching primary science 76
4.2.3 Mentor’s knowledge of teaching primary science ………….. 78
4.2.4 Modelling primary science teaching practices …………….…80
4.2.5 Providing feedback on primary science teaching practices ….82
4.2.6 Summary and conclusions ……….…………………………. 84
4.3 Phase 2: Developing, pilot testing and refining an instrument ………….85
xi
4.3.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) ……………………..….. 87
4.3.2 Summary and conclusions …………………………………. 88
4.4 Phase 3: Administering and assessing this refined instrument ……....…89
4.4.1 Assessing the MEPST instrument ………....………...…..…. 89
4.4.2 Descriptive statistics of mentoring attributes and practices
associated with each factor ……………………………………..… 97
4.4.3 Summary and conclusions ………………………………..... 102
4.5 Conclusion of Stage 1 ……………………………………………….. 103
Chapter 5: Results and discussion of Stage 2 – Development of a mentoring intervention for
primary science teaching
5.1 Chapter preview ………………………………..……………………... 106
5.1.1 Pilot testing the mentoring intervention ………………………106
5.2 Control group and intervention group MEPST scores ………………. 107
5.3 MEPST-Mentor scores ………………………………….…..….…… 115
5.4 Booklet and interviews: Mentors’ perceptions of the specific
mentoring intervention ………………………………….…..….………… 117
5.5 Mentees’ science teaching efficacy belief (STEBI B) …..……………. 120
5.6 Personal belief and outcome expectancy for mentoring of
primary science teaching ……………………………………………..….. 122
5.7 Conclusion of Stage 2 ………………….…………………………….. 124
Chapter 6: Discussion
6.1 Chapter preview ……………………………….…..…………………. 125
6.2 The first and second research aims …………………...……………… 125
6.2.1 Factor 1: Personal attributes ………………………………... 126
6.2.2 Factor 2: System requirements ……………………………... 129
xii
6.2.3 Factor 3: Pedagogical knowledge …………………..………. 131
6.2.4 Factor 4: Modelling ………………………………………... 133
6.2.5 Factor 5: Feedback …………………………………………. 135
6.2.6 Conclusion ………………………...……………………….. 138
6.3 The third research aim ……………….……………………….………. 139
6.4 The fourth research aim ………………………………………………. 141
6.5 Conclusion …………………………………………………………… 144
Chapter 7: Summary, limitations, and further research
7.1 Chapter preview ……………………………….…..…………………. 146
7.2 Thesis summary ……….……….……….…………………….…….. 146
7.3 Limitations ……….……….……….…………………………….…… 149
7.4 Directions for further research ………….………………………….. 151
7.5 Thesis conclusion …………………………………………………….. 151
References ……………………………………………………………….. 153
Appendices ………………………………………………………………. 206
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 3.1. Research design for the development of an instrument and
associated mentoring intervention in primary science teaching 58
Figure 3.2. Example of background information and associated
mentoring strategies …………………….……………………. 66
Figure 3.3. Five-factor model for mentoring …………………….……….. 69
Figure 4.1. Final model for mentoring in primary science teaching,
after respecifications …………………….……………………. 92
Figure 6.1. Personal attributes and the mentoring process ………….……. 128
Figure 6.2. Mentors’ articulation of expectations ………………………… 136
List of Tables
Table 3.1. Summary of research design used for each phase of this study 72
Table 4.1. Final results of exploratory factor analysis for each of the five
theoretical factors (N=59) …………………….…………….… 87
Table 4.2. Three tested models for a five-factor analysis …………….……90
Table 4.3. Fit indices for independence, initial, and respecified
models (N=331) ………………………………………….…… 93
Table 4.4. Factor correlations and covariances for final model (N=331) ….95
Table 4.5. Factors and associated item measurements for the final
model (N=331) ……………………………………….….…… 96
xiv
Table 4.6. Mean scale scores, standard deviations, and cronbach alphas
for each of the five factors (N=331) ……………………...…… 97
xv
Table 4.7. Descriptive statistics of Personal Attributes for mentoring
primary science teaching (N=331) ………….………..…..…… 98
Table 4.8. Descriptive statistics of System Requirements for primary
science teaching (N=331) ………………………..………….…… 99
Table 4.9. Descriptive statistics of Pedagogical Knowledge for
mentoring primary science teaching (N=331) …………….……100
Table 4.10. Descriptive statistics of Modelling primary science
teaching (N=331) ……………………………………….…… 101
Table 4.11. Descriptive statistics of Feedback on primary science
teaching (N=331) ……………………………………….…… 102
Table 5.1. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA comparisons, and effect sizes
of the five factors for control and intervention group …………108
Table 5.2. Descriptive statistics of Personal Attributes for mentoring
primary science teaching (control-intervention) ………………110
Table 5.3. Descriptive statistics of System Requirements for primary
science teaching (control-intervention) ……….………….……111
Table 5.4. Descriptive statistics of Pedagogical Knowledge for mentoring
primary science teaching (control-intervention) ………….……112
Table 5.5. Descriptive statistics of Modelling primary science teaching
(control-intervention) …………………………………....…… 113
Table 5.6. Descriptive statistics of Feedback on primary science teaching
(control-intervention) …………………….………………..… 115
Table 5.7. Comparing mentees and mentors’ perceptions on the five
mentoring factors linked to the intervention …………….…… 116
Table 5.8. Paired t-test for mentees’ personal beliefs and outcome
expectancies (n=12) ……………………………………..…… 120
xvi
Table 5.9. Individual mentee’s pretest and posttest intervention personal
belief and outcome expectancy scores (n=12) ……...…….……121
Table 5.10. Paired t-test for mentors’ personal beliefs and outcome
expectancies for mentoring preservice teachers in primary
science (n=12) ……………………………………………… 122
Table 5.11. Individual mentor’s pretest and posttest intervention personal
belief and outcome expectancy scores for mentoring
primary science teaching (n=12) …………………….….…… 123
xvii
List of Appendices
Appendix 1. Mentoring for effective primary science teaching: Refined
Survey for Phase 3 …………………………………….…… 206
Appendix 2. Mentoring for effective primary science teaching (MEPST) …209
Appendix 3. Mentoring strategies linked to each variable …………….……212
Appendix 4. Mentee’s observation guide …………………….………..… 222
Appendix 5. Feedback on science teaching …………………….………… 224
Appendix 6. Reflection on science teaching …………………….……….. 225
Appendix 7. Mentoring for effective primary science teaching-Mentor
(MEPST-Mentor) ……………………………...……….…… 226
Appendix 8. Sample of semi-structured interview questions and a
mentor’s response ………………………………….….…… 230
Appendix 9. Mentoring primary science teaching efficacy belief …….……236
xviii
Statement of Authorship
Centre for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
Queensland University of Technology
I hereby declare that this thesis entitled
Mentoring for Effective Primary Science Teaching:
(1) Has not been previously submitted for a degree or diploma at any other higher education
institution.
(2) Complies with the ethics standards at Queensland University of Technology.
(3) To the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written
by another person except where due reference is recorded in the text.
Signature of Candidate
Date:
xix
Acknowledgements
Entering research on this scale required direction, knowledge, and perseverance, which could not
have happened without considerable assistance. I would firstly like to acknowledge Associate
Professor Keith Skamp at Southern Cross University (SCU) as my first supervisor for developing
and culminating this study into a reality. Keith provided continous feedback on my work and
responded to my ideas. This thesis had developed because of his inquisitiveness and attention to
detail.
I would not have completed this project without the expert assistance of Professor Campbell
McRobbie and Dr Carmel Diezmann from Queensland University of Technology, both of whom
provided quality feedback on my work with explicit directions for the overall structure and
thoughtful considerations on the analysis and writing of this thesis.
I would like to thank Mr William Young for his intuitiveness in professional experiences, and his
assistance for shaping this research at the formative stages. I would also like to thank Professor
Martin Hayden for his feedback on Chapter 1, and both Dr Lyndon Brooks and Mrs Margaret Rolfe,
who were invaluable with their knowledge of statistical analysis. Their expertise in the use of
AMOS and SPSS computer packages and their understanding of how to analyse results allowed me
to take a firmer stand in this study.
Finally, I acknowledge various science lecturers from many Australian universities, science
education consultants with the NSW Department of Education and Training, and the numerous
practitioners (mentors) and preservice teachers (mentees) who participated in this study towards
developing mentoring practices for more effective primary science teaching.
xx
Dedication
I am, as always, truly indebted to my wife, Sue Hudson. For me, her support makes any task
worthwhile.
And a special dedication to my children:
James
Jenna
Elyssa
1
Chapter 1
Overview
1.1 Chapter preview
This research is concerned with developing effective primary science teaching practices through
mentoring preservice teachers. This introductory chapter provides a brief overview of the state of
science education and establishes the necessity for reform measures (Section 1.1.1). The context for
this research is outlined (Section 1.2). This purpose of this research is presented (Section 1.3) with a
rationale (Section 1.4), which articulates mentoring as a means for developing effective primary
science teaching. The problem is identified with directions for investigating this problem (Section
1.5). Four research aims guide this investigation into mentoring for effective primary science
teaching (Section 1.6). In order to investigate these aims, research methods are outlined to guide the
data collection and analysis process (Section 1.7). The context for the research is established with
limitations of this study (Section 1.8). Definitions of the key terms used in this research:
“mentoring,” “mentor” (supervising or cooperating teacher), “mentee” (student-teacher or preservice
teacher), “professional experiences” (practicum), and “self-efficacy” are explained (Section 1.9).
The chapter concludes with a summary (Section 1.10) and an explanation on the format of this
research (Section 1.11).
1.1.1 Introduction
The preparation of primary science teachers has been of great concern in many countries (e.g.,
Crowther & Cannon, 1998; Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001; Lunn & Solomon, 2000).
Beginning teachers who arrive in schools with or without adequate science teaching skills can
directly affect, during the course of their career, hundreds of primary students’ science education.
Thus, Abell and Bryan (1999) conclude, “a preeminent goal of science teacher education should be
to help prospective teachers challenge and refine their ideas about teaching and learning science and
2
learn how to learn from experience” (p. 137). However, if primary teachers do not see the value of
teaching a specific subject, like science, they may well consider putting it to one side (Tilgner,
1990). Yet, effective primary science education can lay the foundations for understanding science
for secondary school education and may enable students’ lifelong interest in science. To achieve
such goals necessitates a rethinking of the strategies used for implementing science education
reform.
Teaching practices in primary and secondary science education remain generally unchanged over
recent decades (Goodrum et al., 2001). In secondary education, science is described as a “core
subject because the processes of science, like the mathematical and linguistic processes, underpin
learning across the whole curriculum” (Gilbert & Qualter, 1996, p. 8). However, “despite legislation
and incentives to improve the quality of (secondary) science learning the evidence suggests that, on a
systemic level, changes are not discernible,” and that “traditional practices in science classrooms
have not changed appreciably” over decades (Tobin, Tippins, & Hook, 1994, p. 245). In primary
education, a significant number of teachers consider primary science to be a “frill” subject (Fensham
& Harlen, 1999; Schoeneberger & Russell, 1986), even though teachers agree primary science
should have more emphasis within the curriculum (Dickinson, Burns, Hagen, & Locker, 1997;
Goodrum et al., 2001). Research can assist in understanding primary science teaching, which may
lead to further reform efforts for more successful teaching practices.
Considerable efforts have been made to assist teachers in promoting science in primary schools
(Hagger, 1992; Harlen, 1999; Hord & Huling-Austin, 1986; House, 1974). Despite these efforts,
findings indicate that teachers’ abilities, their prior views of the nature of students’ learning, science
teaching and the science discipline impede teachers from adopting new approaches (Chang, 1998).
Indeed, primary science education is still less than adequate, both in the number of teachers
implementing a primary science syllabus, and the quality of primary science teaching itself (Burry-
Stock & Oxford, 1994; Bybee, 1997; Gallagher, 2000; Goodrum et al., 2001; Mulholland, 1999;
3
Sharpley, Tytler, & Conley, 2000). Most primary teachers appeared inadequately prepared for
science teaching in Australia (Goodrum et al., 2001), which also appears to be the case in England
and Wales (Lunn & Solomon, 2000). In addition, teachers may not change practice after inservice
initiatives (Briscoe, 1991), hence new approaches to inservicing are required. On the other hand,
preservice teachers are very interested in current practical primary science education opportunities
and theories of learning (Meadows, 1994; Rice & Roychoudhury, 2003). Preservice education
appears to hold the key for changing practice towards inclusions of education reform (Briscoe &
Peters, 1997), and may be the most influential stage to target towards achieving effective teaching
practices and primary science education reform (Appleton & Kindt, 1999; Watters & Ginns, 2000).
This research on mentoring in primary science teaching argues that the reform process needs to occur
on two fronts: the preservice level and the inservice level. Firstly, if preservice teachers enter the
profession sufficiently and confidently educated in primary science teaching then there may be a
greater likelihood of primary science being taught effectively in schools (Goodrum et al., 2001).
Secondly, existing practitioners can also benefit from further education; however cost-effective,
accessible professional development is required within a context that focuses on key areas for
developing primary science teaching practices, which can occur within mentoring programs (Curran
& Goldrick, 2002). Existing practitioners need to be engaged with professional development over a
period of time, rather than one-off activities, which have limited impact (van den Berg, 2001).
Clearly, educational reform needs to target “the improvement of teacher practices in all teachers
regardless of years of experience” (Riggs & Sandlin, 2002, p. 15) for which mentoring may be an
avenue for achieving such improvement.
Mentoring appears to provide effective professional development for both preservice teachers and
existing practitioners (Hernandez, Arrington, & Whitworth, 1998; Loucks-Horsley, 1996; McIntyre,
Hagger, & Wilkin, 1993). Among other benefits, discussed in the rationale (Section 1.4), mentoring
aids in developing professional behaviour (Danielson, 1999, 2002) and enhances teacher efficacy
4
(Yost, 2002), which are required for successful transition to the classroom (Curran & Goldrick,
2002). Yet, there remain “unanswered or poorly answered questions” on the issue of mentoring, and
further research is needed on the effectiveness of mentoring (Wilder, 1992). In particular, research is
needed to determine if the mentoring influences preservice teachers’ practices (Burry-Stock &
Oxford, 1994), how mentors learn to work with beginning teachers in productive ways, and what
structures and resources enable that work (Feiman-Nemser, 1996).
Inextricably linked to mentoring is the professional experience (practicum or internship), to which
Crowther and Cannon (1998) state, “no direct literature has been found to date recording how much
practicum or how little practicum is enough to produce a competent elementary science teacher” (p.
3). More specifically, research is needed to compare the types of mentoring strategies that provide
preservice teachers with quality science teaching experiences (Plummer & Barrow, 1998). There
appears to be little literature to show what and how much mentoring is sufficient for developing
effective primary science teaching; yet mentoring appears to offer potential for developing primary
science teaching practices, which includes preservice teachers (Hernandez et al., 1998). Hence,
further research is required to identify mentoring practices for effective primary science teaching.
1.2 The context for mentoring in primary science teaching
The Australian National Science Standard Committee (2002) is calling for professional knowledge,
professional practice, and professional attributes as standards for recognising accomplished teachers
of science. Addressing these “standards” will require considerable educational reform, particularly
with primary science education. However, “education reform can succeed only if it is broad and
comprehensive, attacking many problems simultaneously. But it cannot succeed at all unless the
conditions of teaching and teacher development change” (National Commission, 1996, p. 16). Such
a call necessitates a new set of reform measures; one that targets preservice teachers and existing
practitioners. However, the focus needs to be on the formative stages of learning to teach (McIntyre
& Byrd, 1996; Roth, McGinn, & Bowen, 1998), as preservice teachers entering the profession may
5
not receive opportunities for developing practices once employed as teachers in schools (Hiatt-
Michael, 2001).
This doctoral research presents a possible reform measure that focuses on the development of
primary science teaching practices through competent mentoring of preservice teachers. The
mentoring component of this study builds upon two decades of research (e.g., Edwards & Collison,
1996; Little, l990; Loucks-Horsely, Hewson, Love, & Stiles,1998; McIntyre et al., 1993; Schön,
1983), and takes into account the research conducted in self-efficacy (Bandura, 1981, 1997; Enochs
& Riggs, 1990; Pajares, 1992), and the theory of constructivism for developing knowledge (e.g.,
Skamp, 1998). In particular, this study builds upon the limited research on mentoring and primary
science teaching (Ganser, 1991, 1996a, 2000; Jarvis, McKeon, Coates, & Vause, 2001; Kesselheim,
1998). It is Jarvis et als’ (2001) study that emphasises the specific value of mentoring in primary
science education. However, factors and associated variables for mentoring primary science
teaching have not as yet been identified, and hence, are a focus of this study. In this research,
variables are the mentoring attributes and practices used as a “measure of a concept” while factors
are “represented by one or more variables” (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995, p. 619).
1.3 Purpose of this study
Mentoring in professional experience programs connects preservice programs with the teaching
profession, and appears to be a way for implementing primary science teaching reform (Hernandez et
al., 1998; Loucks-Horsley, 1996). Generally, preservice teachers require explicit mentoring in
primary science to address primary science teaching practices. Thus, a set of mentoring practices
applicable to primary science teaching needs to be identified. This research seeks to identify and
explore key factors and associated variables for mentoring preservice teachers of primary science
education. This research also explores a specific mentoring intervention for the enhancement of
primary science teaching practices.
6
1.4 Rationale for mentoring in primary education
The rationale for mentoring rests within the benefits that both mentors and mentees receive during or
as a consequence of the mentoring process (Section 2.7). These benefits motivate and encourage the
recipients to partake in a mentoring program (Long, 1997; Miller, Thomson, & Roush, 1989). In
general, both mentors and mentees find professional and personal benefits associated with
mentoring. Many researchers have investigated the impressions of mentor-teachers concerning their
roles, and the professional and personal benefits gained from assuming these roles, for both mentors
and mentees (e.g., Edwards, 1998; Ganser, 1996a, 1996b; Godley, 1987; Long, 1997), which are
further discussed in the following.
1.4.1 Professional benefits for mentors
A teacher can grow professionally as they engage in dialogue with mentees and assume the role of a
preservice teacher educator (Huling & Resta, 2001; McIntyre et al., 1993). Bellm, Whitebook, and
Hnatiuk (1997) state, “mentor programs strengthen the voice of practitioners in efforts to improve
services for children and to enhance the professional growth of adults” (p. 13). A mentoring
program can promote growth, recognition, experience-enhancing roles, and collegiality for mid- to
late-career teachers who serve as mentors (Killion, 1990). Additionally, the mentor’s professional
reputation can be enhanced (Newby & Heide, 1992). Mentors can develop a sharper focus on
teaching by increasing the amount of time spent on reflecting on practice for both themselves and
their mentees (Hagger, 1992; Huling & Resta, 2001). Mentors’ professional lifelong learning can be
enhanced, as they constantly reflect and assess the knowledge, values and beliefs that guide teaching
practice (Stanulis, 1994). “This re-examination and reassessment, combined with the exposure to
new ideas in subject matter pedagogy and effective teaching research often brought by the beginning
teacher, stimulates professional growth on the part of the mentor as well” (Loucks-Horsley, Harding,
Arbuckle, Murray, Dubea, & Williams, 1987, p. 90).
7
1.4.2 Personal benefits for mentors
Mentors can gain personal benefits through a mentoring program (Huling & Resta, 2001). Mentors
can develop strong connections with mentees and a sense of esteem from the mutual efforts and
satisfaction in what they create together (Bainer, 1997). A mentoring partnership can increase the
mentor’s confidence in their own teaching abilities, which in turn can motivate the mentor towards
risk taking for new teaching strategies (McCann & Radford, 1993). Mentoring not only results in
improved teaching skills and further risk taking, but also has the personal benefits of increased self-
respect, and a renewed enthusiasm for teaching (Huling & Resta, 2001; Miller et al., 1989). Some
educators (Thies-Sprinthall & Sprinthall, 1987) claim that many teachers are often discontent
because of the somewhat repetitive nature of teaching and that these teachers need new experiences
to continue educational growth. Teachers who become mentors can benefit with a rejuvenated
interest in work, contributions to professional development, assistance on projects, and friendship.
There may also be a sense of having input into developing and extending the teaching profession
through the mentoring process with the excitement of discovering new teaching talent (Willis &
Dodgson, 1986) and nurturing this talent as a “coach.” In a case study between a mentor and
preservice teacher, a mentor reported to Gomez (1990) about the “pleasures of helping another
teacher” (p. 54). Generally, mentors gain personal benefits from mentoring and, as a result, mentors
are usually willing to continue their involvement in mentoring (Scott & Compton, 1996).
8
1.4.3 Benefits for mentees
Although mentors receive benefits from mentoring programs, the mentoring process is primarily for
the mentee’s benefit. Mentees need to make sense of teaching (Brown & McIntyre, 1993), and it
appears undisputed that careful and systematic assistance for learning how to teach can aid a
mentee’s development as a teacher (Berliner, 1986; Thies-Sprinthall & Gerler, 1990; Veenman,
1995). Essentially, professional experiences are opportunities for mentees to emulate many of the
mentor’s positive attributes (Matters, 1994), and aim to make mentees feel significantly better
prepared in tasks most critical to their careers. Mentoring is seen as an important career start by
providing professional contacts (Seibert & Sypher, 1989). For example, the mentor can provide
increased collegial networks for the mentee (Matters, 1994), which makes mentoring a “powerful
training tool and the one that [may provide] mobility within the organization” (Fleming, 1991, p. 32).
Apart from learning how to teach, mentees are known to receive personal benefits from mentoring as
well. Mentees emphasise the importance of mentors for emotional support and insights (Scott &
Compton, 1996). Indeed, a study by Ganser (1991) reports that encouragement and support,
particularly emotional support affirms the mentee’s value and worth as a human being. Mentoring
was found to be most helpful to mentees in the areas of self-image and self-confidence (Lankard,
1996), and learning some leadership behaviours and skills (Crow & Matthews, 1998; Jean & Evans,
1995). Such mentoring benefits may also apply for developing behaviours and skills in primary
science teaching.
1.4.4 Rationale for mentoring in primary science education
Mentoring programs for preservice teachers can provide guided practical experiences to bridge the
gap between inexperience and experience. In the United States, Crowther and Cannon (1998) found
significant differences in teaching practices for novices with mentored professional school
experiences in science education compared to novices with no mentored professional school
experiences. It appears that a comprehensively mentored preservice teacher of primary science may
have a greater likelihood of exhibiting standards and norms required to achieve a quality primary
9
science education system. Teachers in their roles as mentors are well positioned to make significant
contributions towards enhancing preservice teachers’ practices in primary science education. Hence,
the identification of key mentoring factors and associated attributes and practices (variables) for
primary science teaching may help provide more effective mentoring for the development of
preservice primary science teachers. Such information may determine the type of mentoring
required for producing competent primary science teachers.
1.5 The problem and direction for this study
As previously discussed, teaching of science in the primary school has traditionally been an area of
difficulty for teachers and, in particular, has placed “considerable strain upon teachers who lacked
sufficient background and experience of science” (Hodgson & Scanlon, 1985, p. 59). The main
problem is concerned with enhancing primary science teaching practices. The Australian
Government report entitled The Status and Quality of Teaching and Learning of Science in
Australian Schools (Goodrum et al., 2001) notes that the teaching of primary science is neglected in
many schools. Hence, addressing this problem will require efforts that focus on the implementation
of primary science teaching. Such efforts also need to target both preservice teachers and teachers.
Mentoring appears to enhance the knowledge and skills of preservice teachers and teachers (Edwards
& Collison, 1996; Little, l990; Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1998; Thies-Sprinthall, 1986; Tomlinson,
1995), and if specific mentoring practices can be identified for primary science teaching then there is
the possibility of providing effective mentoring programs for enhancing current primary science
teaching. However, there is very little literature on mentoring in primary science teaching (Jarvis et
al., 2001). Riggs and Sandlin (2002) state that further research is needed to “examine mentors’
actual performance as mentors in relationship to the mentor preparation they receive” (p. 14). This
doctoral research proposes developing an instrument that measures mentoring practices for
enhancing primary science teaching.
10
1.6 The research aims
Primarily, this research investigates mentoring practices for preservice primary science teachers by
developing an instrument to measure the extent of those practices, and using it to develop a small-
scale mentoring intervention and then gauge the effects of this intervention on mentoring practices.
Hence, this research investigated four research aims:
1. To describe preservice teachers’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary science
teaching.
2. To identify factors and associated variables for mentoring preservice teachers of primary
science.
3. To develop an instrument to measure mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary
science teaching.
4. To develop a mentoring intervention with mentoring strategies related to these factors and
associated variables for mentoring preservice teachers of primary science and assess the
effects of such an intervention.
1.7 Overview of the research methods used for this study
A mixed-method approach using both qualitative and quantitative methods was deemed appropriate
for investigating the research aims (see Chapter 3). According to Hittleman and Simon (2002), these
research methods “can be considered as complementary, and they may be combined in a single
research project” (p. 26). Employing qualitative and quantitative methods in this study can
strengthen the research design (e.g., Creswell, 2002; Greene & Caracelli, 1997; Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 1998).
This study investigated mentoring in primary science teaching in two stages. The main focus of this
research was Stage 1, which was concerned with the development of an instrument aimed at
measuring mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary science teaching. However, the
development of this instrument led to Stage 2, which involved developing a mentoring intervention
11
linked to the literature and the instrument, and then investigating the mentoring received by
participants in that intervention.
Stage 1 was divided into three phases and involved:
1. Preliminary exploration towards developing an instrument by interviewing mentors and
mentees at one school site.
2. Developing, pilot testing, and refining this instrument with 21 first-year preservice teachers,
and then with 59 final year preservice teachers, to gather their perceptions of mentors'
practices related to primary science teaching.
3. Employing statistical measures to assess the refined instrument after administering it to 331
final year preservice teachers.
The survey instrument produced from Stage 1 led to the development of a mentoring intervention for
enhancing primary science teaching practices in Stage 2.
Stage 2 involved developing, pilot testing, implementing, and assessing this mentoring intervention
with 12 final year preservice teachers and their mentors over a four-week professional experience
(practicum). In addition, using a two-group posttest only design, these 12 final year preservice
teachers (intervention group) and 60 final year preservice teachers (control group) from the same
university were compared after their four-week professional experience program. The quantitative
investigations in Stage 2 used surveys, which included a standardised instrument, namely, the
“Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument” (STEBI B; Enochs & Riggs, 1990), and researcher
designed instruments developed from the literature. The qualitative data collection involved tape-
recorded interviews and mentors’ transcripts displaying their involvement in the mentoring
intervention. The research methods are explained in detail in Chapter 3.
12
1.8 Limitations of this study
The following limitations apply in respect of this research.
The New South Wales (NSW) Science and Technology Syllabus (Board of Studies, 1993) uses the
term “technology” as part of the description of this syllabus; however science and technology are
two separate syllabuses in the Australian National Curriculum and in other Australian states and
territories. As this research involves participants from various Australian states and territories only
“science” was used as the subject of this investigation (e.g., in some states the key learning area is
science and technology).
It is acknowledged that the mentoring intervention, proposed in Stage 2 of this research, would
require further testing with a larger number of participants. If results are consistent with the findings
in this research then this specific mentoring intervention may be used as part of systemic reform in
primary science education.
The mentoring attributes and practices associated with the final model presented towards to the end
of Stage 1 do not constitute a definitive list. These mentoring attributes and practices appear as
representative of mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring for teaching primary science and support
the categorising of factors with associated attributes and practices. This research takes into account
favourable attributes and practices for: mentoring, science teaching, and more specifically primary
science teaching, and so the final model is proposed as a way for mentors to conceptualise mentoring
for effective primary science teaching. Indeed, it is anticipated that mentoring attributes and
practices identified in this study will continue to evolve with further research.
The following defines key terms crucial to the discourse used in this research.
13
1.9 Definitions of terms
1.9.1 Mentoring
Even though definitions of “mentoring” continue to develop, “mentoring” is without a precise
operational definition (Peper, 1994), as it involves complex personal interactions “conducted under
different circumstances in different schools” and therefore “cannot be rigidly defined” (Wildman,
Magliaro, Niles, & Niles, 1992, p. 212). Nevertheless, without a widely accepted definition, the
development of a mentorship knowledge base in education will be haphazard (Healy & Leak, 1990).
An expanded view of mentoring can facilitate the development of the mentor’s role and can make
explicit the issues of mentoring (Mullen, Whatley, & Kealy, 1999).
In this research, “mentoring” is defined as a holistic process with a knowledgeable mentor providing
thoughtful direction for the mentee’s development of teaching practices. The following key terms
are inextricably linked to mentoring in this study.
1.9.2 The mentor
There have been many attempts at defining the word “mentor” from a wide range of fields (e.g.,
Berliner, 1986; Braden, 1998) and is mainly defined through single words. For example, Berliner
(1986) states that experienced teachers in the mentoring process are “models, experts, masters,
mentors, coaches and so forth, who lead the novice to some sort of competency in teaching” (p. 7).
The mentor has also been defined as a “role model, protector, sponsor, leader and promoter”
(Galvez-Hjoernevik, 1986, p. 6). Wilder (1992, p. 13) noted that mentors were referred to as
“clinical support teachers,” “buddies,” “master teachers” and “resource teachers” in various
mentoring programs, and Kesselheim (1998, p. 2) refers to mentors as “facilitators.” In this study, a
“mentor” is one who is more experienced in teaching practices, and through explicit mentoring
processes develops pedagogical self-efficacy in the mentee, and consequently, autonomy in teaching
practice. The teacher in the role as mentor needs to sequentially scaffold the mentee’s primary
14
science teaching experiences. Such a mentor must use knowledge and skills essential for the
development of a mentee’s primary science teaching practices.
1.9.3 The mentee
Numerous terms are used for a preservice teacher who learns from a mentor, e.g., student-teacher
(Page, 1994), mentee (Arredondo & Rucinski, 1997; Van Ast, 2002), intern (Smithey & Evertson,
1995), beginning teacher (Barry & King, 1998), new teacher (Tobin, Roth, & Zimmermann, 2001)
and protégé (Anderson, 1995; Daresh & Playko, 1995; Clifford & Green, 1996; Hunt & Michael,
1983). The selection of the term “mentee” provides a lexical cohesion with mentor in the mentoring
process. In this study, the “mentee” is a preservice teacher who is learning how to teach within a
classroom-based professional experience program. The mentee, who is learning how to teach
primary science, may require guidance and education on the specifics of primary science teaching
including preparation, implementation, and evaluation of science programs. A knowledgeable
mentor can facilitate the development of the mentee’s skills and knowledge of primary science
teaching through reflective practices (e.g., Loughran, 1995).
1.9.4 Professional experiences
Universities and schools collaboratively aim to develop preservice teachers’ professional experiences
for the understanding and improvement of teaching practices. Professional experiences based on a
“reflective, questioning model in which ideas gained from school practical experience should be
complemented by more generalised and abstract ideas presented in the university” (Pendry, 1990, p.
43). Within professional experience programs (also known as practicums and internships, see Schön,
1987), mentoring aims to provide formative guidance and assistance to mentees (Ware, 1992), and
allows them to interact with someone more skilful and knowledgeable (Lave, 1988). Professional
experiences have a set duration for engagement and so require careful monitoring by mentors in
order to achieve the program’s goals (Ramsey, 2000).
15
In this study, “professional experiences” are defined as a structured and accountable preservice
teacher education program implemented within school settings for the purpose of developing
effective teaching practices. Specifically, the professional experiences in this study are focused on
mentoring preservice teachers’ primary science teaching practices.
1.9.5 Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy appears to be linked to effective teaching practices. Not surprisingly, Bandura (1981)
found that people’s beliefs in their own ability had an effect on their performance. In a later study he
states, “perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the
courses of action required to produce given attainments” (1997, p. 3). People with low self-efficacy
“shy away from tasks” (Bandura, 1995, p. 11) whereas those with strong beliefs “remain task-
focused and think strategically in the face of difficulties” (p. 39). “Self-efficacy” is defined as
“judgments of one’s capabilities to accomplish a certain level of performance” (Huinker & Madison,
1997, p. 108). Pontius (1998) defines self-efficacy as “one’s belief in one’s abilities to perform a
particular behavior” (p. 3). Generally, “science teaching self-efficacy is related to successful
experiences in learning science and in completion of a well-structured methods course connected
with an extended field experience” (Ellis, 2001, p. 257). In this research, “self-efficacy” is the
development of the mentee’s confidence, skills and knowledge towards becoming an effective
teacher of primary science.
1.10 Chapter summary
Implementing primary science education reform is problematic, as many past attempts for
developing primary teachers in current science teaching practices have proved to be unsuccessful
(Bybee, 1993, 1997). Yet, researchers must continually explore avenues for successful
implementation of primary science education reform. This study investigates a possible solution to
the problem of inadequate science primary teaching by implementing a specific mentoring program
for implementing primary science education with a focus on the two key participants: the mentor
16
(existing practitioner), and the mentee. Successful implementation of a mentoring program for
effective primary science teaching may also provide new understandings of effective science
teaching. Such promise may also encourage departments of education, universities, and schools to
actively engage in primary science education reform through the process of effective mentoring
within the school context.
This research advocates subject-specific mentoring for developing effective preservice teachers of
primary science within a professional experience program. These programs provide the scope for
learning how to teach primary science effectively; however these programs need to be assessed to
determine the quality and degree of mentoring occurring in primary science. Purposeful and focused
mentoring may be a vehicle for mentors to develop preservice teachers’ skills and knowledge in the
area of primary science, and an opportunity for implementing primary science education reform.
This chapter has presented the foundations for the thesis by: providing a rationale for the research
and locating this study along side previous research, introducing the research problem and research
aims, and providing a snapshot of the research methods to be used. In addition, the limitations and
key definitions used in this research were outlined. The thesis now presented can proceed with a
detailed account of this research.
1.11 Overview of this thesis
This thesis contains a further six chapters. Chapter 2 describes an historical and current state of
primary science teaching and elements that may affect the development of effective primary science
teaching. It discusses mentoring as a method for developing effective primary science teaching
practices and delineates the mentor’s role in relation to identified attributes and practices. Chapter 3
details the research methods that will guide the investigation on mentoring for effective primary
science teaching, and describes specific research methods used in this study. Chapter 4 provides the
results on Stage 1 of this research, which involves the development of an instrument to measure
17
preservice teachers’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary science teaching. Chapter 5 presents
the results and discussions on Stage 2, which focuses on developing a mentoring intervention and
then gauging the effects of this intervention on mentoring practices. Chapter 6 provides further
discussion and conclusions related to the research results on mentoring and primary science teaching.
Finally, Chapter 7 presents a summary and thesis conclusion.
18
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1 Chapter preview
There are twelve sections to Chapter 2. After the introduction (Section 2.1.1), this literature review
explores science education reform: the necessity for reform, the possible reasons why reform has not
occurred to date, and a direction for implementing primary science education reform (Section 2.2).
The argument for directing primary science education reform at preservice teachers is also
articulated. Mentoring as a reform vehicle (Section 2.3) and constructivism as a theory for learning
how to teach are discussed (Section 2.4). There is also discussion on effective teaching and effective
primary science teaching (Section 2.5), which then leads to considering secondary science mentoring
and its relationship with primary science mentoring (Section 2.6). Additionally, an understanding of
what may constitute effective primary science mentoring is presented (Section 2.7), which is
followed by a discussion of potential negative aspects of mentoring (Section 2.8). Linked to this are
problems in selecting and matching suitable mentors for preservice primary science teachers (Section
2.9). The role of the mentor is explored and identified by pinpointing particular attributes and
practices (Section 2.10). This literature review presents the necessity for educating mentors towards
effective mentoring in primary science teaching (Section 2.11). Finally, this review is summarised
and concluded (Section 2.12).
2.1.1 Introduction
Primary teachers do not generally hold science teaching as a priority (Jarvis et al., 2001; Ramsey,
2000; Sharpley, Tytler, & Conley, 2000; Shayer, 1991; Tilgner, 1990), even though science can be
used to develop a country’s science-based capacity towards a better quality of life (Jenkins, 1990).
This doctoral research argues for a framework and a basic skills requirement in the mentoring
processes to enhance mentees teaching of primary science education. It will be shown in later
19
chapters that mentors can facilitate preservice teachers’ learning of primary science teaching with
well-defined mentoring strategies. The literature continually advocates developing primary science
teaching methods (Roth, 1990; Rubba, 1992; Settlage, 2000; Skamp, 1998; Solomon, 1997);
however such development needs to be mindful of primary science education reform trends and the
reasons for change. This research is not promoting change for change sake but rather focuses on
enhancing preservice teachers’ primary science teaching.
For primary science teaching practices to change, preservice teachers and existing practitioners must
receive quality education programs. These two key roles come together within preservice teachers’
professional experiences in the field. Within a professional experience, there are ample opportunities
for preservice teachers to be strategically mentored towards effective primary science teaching
practices, and for mentors (supervising teachers) to become self-learners of current primary science
practices by implementing strategically devised mentoring programs.
If preservice primary teaching is to take into account primary science education reform (Bybee,
1997), then primary science teaching practices may be enhanced when guided by a well-informed
mentor (Jarvis et al., 2001). Such a mentor needs to be knowledgeable about current primary science
practices. Planned mentoring may then benefit both the mentor and mentee, and ultimately the
science education of primary students.
2.2 Need for science education reform
Scientific literacy has implications for economic gain and for empowering citizens (Jenkins, 1990).
The American Association for the Advancement of Science claims that a scientifically literate public
can enhance a country’s technological market place position (Bischoff, Hatch, & Watford, 1999). It
is reasonable to suggest then, that significant deficits in producing quality science teachers may lead
to a less scientifically literate public which may in turn reduce a country’s status, and potential for
20
progress and economic gain. Thus, attaining scientific literacy is central to a student’s science
education (Bybee, 1997).
Despite the benefits associated with a scientifically literate society, research has shown that teachers
are not prepared to abandon out-dated practices and are unwilling to even “reorient” their practices
with the introduction of new curricula (Carson, 1965; Mellado, 1998; Shipman, 1974; Tobin,
Tippins, & Hook, 1994). According to Willis (1995), although primary science teachers can cover
many topics, the quality of student learning has proved disappointing and requires major reform
efforts. Indeed, “a major problem for primary science in Australia, lies in the fact that little science
is taught in primary schools and little pressure to teach it is applied by education departments, school
administrations or parents” (Mulholland, 1999, p. 10); yet all students are entitled to a quality
science education. Hence, preservice teachers and teachers need to be further educated on effective
primary science teaching.
2.2.1 Science for all
“Science for all is a key goal of contemporary reform in science education” (Gallagher, 2000, p. 509,
italics in original). The framework for science education reform and the methods of implementing
reform in science education require extensive research. Bybee and Champagne (1995) use the
following questions as catalysts for thinking about science education reform:
1. What should the scientifically literate person know?
2. What exemplary teaching practices will achieve this vision?
3. How will we know the degree to which we achieve this vision?
4. How can we guide the science education system toward the goal of scientific literacy?
To date, these questions remain largely unanswered, as the quality of primary science education is
still a major issue. Clearly, “educational reform is targeting the improvement of teacher practices in
all teachers regardless of years of experience” (Riggs & Sandlin, 2002, p. 15). An essential factor
21
for implementing reform in science education lies within teaching teachers how to teach (Feiman-
Nemser & Remillard, 1996). This is why professional development is viewed as pivotal to
educational reform within the profession (Elmore, 1996). At the same time, importance is placed on
forging links between preservice education institutions and schools (Gold, 1996; Luft & Patterson,
2002; Marchant & Newman, 1996). Bybee (1993) is convinced that “the decisive component in
reforming science education is the classroom teacher... unless classroom teachers move beyond the
status quo in science teaching, the reform will falter and eventually fail” (p. 144). Primary science
education reform has not succeeded, as too many teachers still do not teach the mandatory science
syllabus, yet “if we [teachers] are to be successful in preparing students… we must change our
science teaching practices” (Burry-Stock & Oxford, 1994, p. 294).
There are concerns about the science taught to primary school students and, hence, there is a “need
for a major set of initiatives that focus on teacher beliefs and practices in the teaching and learning of
science” (Sharpley et al., 2000, p. 1). The science education community is calling for a “new
approach” to science education in American schools (Barab & Hay, 2001, p. 74), with an approach
where a “mentor models, then coaches, then scaffolds, and then gradually fades scaffolding” (p. 90).
This approach also needs to be considered for Australian schools and includes the mentor, the
mentee, and the mentoring process within preservice professional experiences in primary science
teaching.
2.2.2 Linking self-efficacy and beliefs
Further research is needed to understand how beliefs feature in developing the self-efficacy of
teachers and preservice teachers, and how beliefs alter primary science teaching practices.
Developing self-efficacy appears to be linked to beliefs, as these beliefs influence the teacher’s
confidence to teach any particular subject matter (Section 1.9.5). Bandura (1986) states that in
observing the “different aspects of self-knowledge, perhaps none is more influential in people’s
everyday lives than conceptions of their personal efficacy” (p. 390). Indeed, one of the strongest
22
factors influencing the implementation of successful teaching practices appears to be self-efficacy,
which can be observed in teaching approaches (Beck, Czerniak, & Lumpe, 2000; Schoon & Boone,
1998). In referring to self-efficacy, Ashton (1984) states, “no other teacher characteristic has
demonstrated such a consistent relationship to student achievement” (p. 28). Yet Harlen (1997)
found that primary teachers have low confidence in teaching science. This means that teachers
entering the profession may also have low confidence in teaching science. Nevertheless, the strength
of a preservice teacher’s beliefs and self-efficacy can lead towards confident primary science
teaching (Appleton & Kindt, 1999; Veal & MaKinster, 1999) but will require purposeful mentoring
to ensure that such confidence is based on documented evidence of successful primary science
teaching.
2.2.2.1 The relationship between beliefs and self-efficacy and teaching practices
Despite the need for change, imposing change on primary science teachers will not occur without
restructuring fundamental beliefs about science teaching methods (Fullan, 1991; Richardson, 1990).
However, achieving educational improvements requires continuous and incremental change, which
are attitude-driven (The Many Paths to Success, 1997, p. 252). A report by Walberg and Lai (1999)
indicates that the most effective learning programs are those that involve changing teachers’ attitudes
and beliefs. In a study on implementing new primary science strategies in the classroom, Beck et al.
(2000) claim that “attitude was the strongest influence on teachers’ intent to implement… which
directly influences their perceived implementation of personal relevance in the classroom” (p. 335).
Indeed, preservice teachers are in their formative stages of developing their teaching skills, attitudes
and beliefs about primary education and are generally receptive to learning (Rice & Roychoudhury,
2003). This further affirms the importance of preservice education for primary science education
reform as the foundation for developing values and attitudes in beginning teachers.
Individuals form knowledge and beliefs from regular and sustained interactions within a culture
(Davydov & Zinchenko, 1986). Likewise, preservice teachers form knowledge and beliefs on how
23
to teach within a school culture. Developing teacher beliefs is important for becoming an effective
teacher (Cheung & Ng, 2000). For example, Pajares (1992) found that there was a “strong
relationship between teachers’ educational beliefs and their planning, instructional decisions, and
classroom practices” (p. 326) and that “educational beliefs of preservice teachers play a pivotal role
in their acquisition and interpretation of knowledge and subsequent teaching behavior” (p. 328).
Beliefs on how to teach and what to teach will affect the teaching processes, and therefore the quality
of learning. Kagan (1992) suspects that teacher beliefs and personal knowledge are at the centre of
effective teaching. Mellado (1997) concurs that “there are certain traditions and beliefs concerning
the best way to teach and learn any given subject matter” (p. 332). It seems that preservice teachers
who confront their beliefs develop a deeper understanding of teaching (Abell & Bryan, 1999; Schoon
& Boone, 1998), which is of particular importance if such beliefs shape the teacher’s role for more
effective teaching and learning. More specifically, preservice teachers’ beliefs can “have a profound
effect on the way they view science” (Jarvis et al., 2001, p. 9).
It appears that to have this change, individuals need to examine “their philosophical beliefs about the
teaching and learning process and the impact of these beliefs on current practices” (Westbrook &
Rogers, 1996, p. 35). It is within the beliefs on how to teach that mentors can facilitate improvement
in preservice primary teaching practices, as teaching experiences alone may not significantly alter
beliefs about teaching (Lortie, 1975; McDiarmid & Willamson, 1990; Tabachnick & Zeichner,
1984). However, “clusters of beliefs form attitudes or action agendas” and these beliefs appear to be
“at the core of educational change” (Haney, Lumpe, Czerniak, & Egan, 2002, p. 171). Mentoring
can provide a structure for both mentors and mentees to examine their own philosophical beliefs
about primary science teaching and for articulating primary science teaching standards. Examining
primary science teaching beliefs may lead to a change in primary science teaching practices (Enochs
& Riggs, 1990). The next section discusses mentors as change agents and as catalysts for science
education reform.
24
2.3 Mentoring as a change agent
During the 1990s, mentoring became a feature of many organisations (Edwards & Collison, 1996).
Mentoring is now established as a collaborative program for developing teaching practice, which
occurs within professional experiences in schools. As mentoring programs are designed to “induct
novice teachers, reward and revitalize experienced teachers, and to increase professional efficacy”
(Huling-Austin, 1989, p. 5), educators (Mullen, Cox, Boettcher, & Adoue, 1997) have pushed for
new patterns of mentoring within preservice teacher education. Mentoring can be a means of
guiding change by constructing knowledge about the curriculum, teaching, and learning (Little,
1990; Looney, 1997). Mentoring can also act as an agent of change where mentors and their
mentees can learn together (Rodrigue & Tingle, 1994) by using collaborative teaching to parallel
professional development within school settings. “The result is improvement in what happens in the
classroom and school, and better articulation and justification of the quality of educational practices”
(Van Thielen, 1992, p. 16).
Mentees generally rely on their mentors for learning experiences in teaching subjects, such as
primary science. Therefore, learning current teaching practices from mentors will require strategic
planning for enhancing the preservice teachers’ primary science practices (Jarvis et al., 2001).
However, for mentors to be effective, mentoring programs need to focus on specific objectives for
developing teaching practices. Mentoring can be a change agent but will require a readiness from
mentors to guide preservice teachers towards effective primary science teaching.
2.4 Methods of developing teaching practices
The methods of developing teaching practices include mentoring, which requires collaboration
within mentoring relationships (Looney, 1997). Mentoring also needs to focus on individual needs
to which the theory of constructivism may be employed. These issues are discussed in the following
sections.
25
2.4.1 Collaboration and mentoring relationships
One method of enhancing teaching practices is the use of purposeful collaboration as noted in
professional school experiences. Collaboration pervades much of teaching practice, with numerous
educators (e.g., see Thies-Sprinthall, 1986) supporting the collaborative approach for educating
preservice teachers. Goerner (1998) claims that collaboration is a vehicle for achieving
“evolutionary leaps” with “commitment to the greater good” (p. 4), even though such achievements
are difficult to measure. Briscoe and Peters (1997) reference several researchers who claim that
collaboration is instrumental for the process of facilitating change because “change occurs in a social
context” and is “influenced by interactive processes” (p. 52). They conclude that “collaboration was
not only essential, but very desirable to support the change process, to lessen the fear of risk taking,
and to provide a forum for analysis of what works and what does not” (p. 63).
Collaboration occurs within mentoring relationships when a mentor supports the mentee who is
learning how to teach (Briscoe & Peters, 1997; Fairbanks, Freedman, & Kahn, 2000). In this work-
focused relationship, a mentee learns many fundamental teaching skills that may mirror the mentor’s
behaviour and expertise. In this type of collaboration there is “a great deal of team-building, and
intense communication and information sharing” (Fullan, 1999, p. 37), which aids the mentee to
learn about students, school operations, school structures, grade levels, subject matter, the education
system, and the profession. Through a collaborative relationship, a knowledgeable mentor who
articulates teaching practices can elicit effective teaching skills from a capable mentee at a renewed
level of awareness (Corcoran & Andrew, 1988). If this collaboration can be used to facilitate the
development of teaching practices in general, then it can also be used to facilitate the development of
primary science teaching practices. Thus, the mentor-mentee relationship needs to focus on guiding
reflection-on-practice within a collaborative partnership for developing pedagogical knowledge in
the field of primary science. Indeed, collaboration in the mentoring partnership may create needed
change in teaching practices:
26
… because it provides opportunities for teachers to learn both content and pedagogical
knowledge from one another, encourages teachers to be risk takers in implementing new
ideas, and supports and sustains the processes of individual change in science teaching.
(Briscoe & Peters, 1997, p. 51)
2.4.2 Using constructivism as a theory for learning how to teach
The theory influencing the learning of science in this study is constructivism, which also has
substantial grounding as an approach for teaching science to primary students (Skamp, 1998). If a
connection can be made between constructivism and mentoring then mentees may be developed
more sequentially in primary science teaching. Such a connection may also guide a mentoring
intervention and the primary science teaching practices associated with it.
Constructivism is a theory recognised by many educationists as part of the science education reform
agenda. Tobin, Tippins, and Hook (1994) argue that constructivism can be used as a referent, which
is “a guide for action, is context specific, and is an organizer of [pedagogical] beliefs” (p. 246) and,
like reflection on practice, can be “an engine for sustaining reform” (p. 263). It appears that many
educators favour constructivism as a referent for regenerating science education (Hardy & Taylor,
1997). Indeed, “constructivism has become an important referent for research and practice in
science education” (Geelan, 1997, p. 15).
Even though constructivism has its critics (e.g., Matthews, 1997; Nola, 1998; O’Loughlin, 1992),
von Glasersfeld (1989) claims that objections against constructivism are due to misinterpretations
and only require clarification, and that effective teachers have used constructivism as an instructional
approach that is “intuitive and successful” (p. 138). Indeed, Beck et al. (2000) show that major
national reports on reforming science education in America recommend the use of constructivism.
Matthews (1994) states that “constructivism inspires reform programs” (p. 138), and current science
education reform highlights constructivism for primary classroom practices (Beck et al., 2000, p.
27
334). Prather (1993) and Hardy and Taylor (1997) propose constructivism as a unifying theme and a
means for science education reform. Incorporating constructivism as a reform element will require
teacher education, and most importantly an acceptance from the teaching profession. This may not
occur as a natural process and so teachers (and preservice teachers) need to be inducted into
constructivism (Watts, Jofili, & Bezerra, 1997).
Constructivist theory posits that individuals construct meaning for themselves (Skamp, 1998). It
appears that students can attain higher levels of understanding through constructivism (Burry-Stock
& Oxford, 1994). This also appears to be what is needed for developing preservice teachers in
primary science teaching. Like students in primary classrooms who “generate meaning from
experience” (Bell, 1993, p. 23), preservice primary science teachers can also use constructivism as a
“way of knowing” which requires “the learner to take an active mental role” (Skamp, 1998, p. 6).
Teachers can “give a great deal of valuable support by being a co-investigator, provoking further
inquiry,” and by assisting learners to “construct meaning for themselves” (Ovens, 2000, pp. 145-
147), which has applications to the mentor-mentee partnership. These are discussed later (Section
2.7).
2.4.2.1 Constructivist mentoring for preservice teachers of primary science
If constructivist theory for learning science “has the potential to guide teachers in how best to assist
students construct science knowledge” (Fetherston, 1999, p. 516), then constructivism should have
the potential to guide mentors in how to assist preservice teachers construct pedagogical knowledge
for teaching primary science. The mentor can have considerable influence on the development of
preservice teachers as arguably the single, most important factor for implementing science education
reform (Motz, 1997), particularly as the teacher is the key for successful implementation of curricula
innovation (Mitchener & Anderson, 1989; Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1995).
28
The mentor who uses constructivism may have an impact on the preservice primary science teacher’s
development by using “learner-sensitive approaches to science teacher preparation” (Mulholland &
Wallace, 2000, p. 168), and create changes in teaching practices. Constructivism emphasises “the
importance of prior knowledge or conceptualizations for new learning” (Matthews, 1994, p. 144),
and these principles may be employed by mentors for conceptualising primary science teaching
practices for preservice teachers.
After diagnosis of the mentee’s needs, the constructivist mentor can scaffold the mentee’s primary
science teaching experiences. Bickhard’s (1997) suggestion that constructivism can include a
functional scaffolding by limiting the learner’s exposure to problems at first and then building
learning experiences can be applied to the preservice teacher of primary science. Providing
“scaffolding” within planned mentoring programs aims at enhancing the preservice teacher’s primary
science teaching practices (Jarvis et al., 2001, p. 7). Although learning is in the hands of the
preservice teacher, a mentor employing constructivist principles may provide the necessary
scaffolding to aid the mentee’s development as a teacher of primary science.
2.4.2.2 Summary of constructivism for this research
It is expected that new theories, or for that matter any theory of learning, will have its critics,
nevertheless, “constructivism remains one of the most fruitful philosophies” (Ernest, 1993, p. 93).
Constructivism has potential towards developing teaching and mentoring practices for implementing
primary science education reform. This will require teachers in their roles as mentors to be actively
involved, as “primary teachers, whether or not they have a specialized background in science, hold
the key to understanding how science is presently working in primary schools” (Lunn & Solomon,
2000, p. 1043). Mentors can also improve their practices and, as von Glasersfeld (1998) purports,
“constructivism may provide the thousands of less intuitive educators an accessible way to improve
their methods of instruction” (p. 28).
29
Primary science education reform necessitates a paradigm shift that requires the mentor to move into
the role as a “constructivist mentor.” Such a role will aid the mentor to move from general,
unsequenced mentoring to specific mentoring that scaffolds and sequences learning based on the
mentee’s prior science teaching knowledge. Not only may this shift enhance the mentee’s skills in
teaching primary science but may also develop the mentor’s skills as both a mentor and as a primary
science teacher.
2.5 Towards understanding effective teaching
Before discussing what may constitute being an effective primary science teaching mentor, it is
important to consider what constitutes an effective teacher and an effective primary science teacher.
From this point, it is possible to articulate mentoring skills that aim towards developing preservice
teachers in primary science education. Successful mentoring should be linked to successful
teaching; therefore understanding effective teaching can inform the mentoring process.
Effective teaching evolves from experiences and beliefs about teaching (Wideen, Mayersmith, &
Moon, 1998, p. 130), particularly as beliefs “are part of the foundation upon which behaviors are
based” (Enochs & Riggs, 1990, p. 694; see also Section 2.2.2). Defining the effective teacher is
difficult, but Borko and Livingston (1989) claim that effective teachers can improvise actions as they
have content and processes stored in memory, which Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) propose is
characterised knowledgeable procedures. Undoubtedly, there are generic qualities for effective
teaching that will also be noted in effective primary science teaching, including understanding
personal beliefs on teaching, assessing students’ needs, and having adequate teaching experience so
as to draw upon a proven teaching repertoire. Student and teacher perceptions of what may
constitute being a “good” teacher may also provide knowledge on what may constitute “good”
mentoring.
2.5.1 Student and teacher perceptions of a good teacher
30
Students, colleagues and researchers have offered perspectives on describing good teaching, which
focuses on teachers’ interpersonal qualities and subject expertise. When asked what makes an
effective teacher, one study (Project 21, 1987) involving 6,645 Year 10, 11 and 12 students who had
a range of teacher experiences (primary and secondary), listed the following characteristics and
qualities: caring, understanding, encouraging, helpful, patient; communicates and makes learning
enjoyable; fair discipline, and unbiased; effective classroom management; and, knows the subject.
Other research on students’ perspectives has proffered positive stereotypical terms such as nice,
warm, friendly, and interesting to highlight personal qualities and attributes for good teachers
(Wright, 1984). It is reasonable to suggest that these general characteristics and qualities would also
be well received by students in a primary science teacher.
2.5.2 Towards an understanding of effective science teaching
The difficulties in defining effective science teaching are embedded in the numerous characteristics
and roles of the classroom teacher. In secondary science, effective teaching can be learned through
hard work and demands close attention to detail (Monk & Dillon, 1995). In trying to determine
effective science teaching, exemplary science teachers utilise effective management strategies,
encourage student participation within a favourable learning environment, and monitor student
understanding of the content taught (Tobin & Fraser, 1988). Woolnough (1994) states, “good
science teachers are knowledgeable, competent and enthusiastic in their subject and in class
management, and understanding and sympathetic to students and their needs” (p. 43). Burry and
Bolland (1992) also note that, apart from careful planning and good management, outstanding
science teachers are “facilitators of the learning process” (p. 317).
2.5.2.1 Towards an understanding of effective primary science teaching
There appears to be a range of beliefs as to what constitutes being an effective primary science
teacher. These beliefs range from personal approaches that are general in nature to very specific
modus operandi. For example, incorporating some of the characteristics from the previous section,
31
Tobin (1993) claims that teaching colleagues see effective primary science teachers as efficient and
effective managers of teaching practice. While effective primary science teaching would include
interpersonal qualities, subject expertise, and classroom management strategies (see Sections 2.5.1
and 2.5.2), from a primary science perspective, some characteristics will be different. For example,
Bybee (1978) categorises primary science teacher characteristics as: knowledge and organisation of
subject matter; adequacy of relations with students in the classroom; adequacy of plans and
procedures in the classroom; enthusiasm in working with students; and methods of teaching primary
science. It is emphasised that these characteristics and attributes are focused on teaching primary
science students with the knowledge of primary science subject matter, which requires primary
science teaching methods in primary classrooms.
Educators and curriculum designers continue to grapple with the broader definitions of effective
primary science teaching. “Science is concerned with finding out about the world in a systematic
way” and as such effective teaching fosters students to learn about the world in a systematic way
(Board of Studies, 1993, p. 1). Loucks-Horsley (1990) provides a broad analysis of effective
primary science teaching claiming that effective primary science engages children in wonder and the
study of the natural world and gives children the opportunity to explore how things work first-hand
using a wide variety of materials. Likewise, exemplary primary science teaching “fosters wonder,
excitement, and risk-taking” (Haley-Oliphant, 1994, p. 1). However, “teaching science so that
students learn with understanding requires that teachers understand child development, pedagogical
and assessment alternatives, and scientific conceptual and procedural knowledge” (Dana, Campbell,
& Lunetta, 1997, p. 427). The National Research Council (1996) through the National Science
Education Standards states, “effective science teaching is more than knowing science content and
some teaching strategies. Skilled teachers integrate their knowledge of science content, curriculum,
learning, teaching, and students” (p. 62). Effective primary science teaching also requires an
understanding of the subject matter, which needs to be taught in engaging ways (Feiman-Nemser &
Parker, 1990). Effective primary science teachers have relevant knowledge, skills, behaviours, and
32
dispositions while continuing with professional development to become and remain skilled primary
science teachers (Goodrum et al., 2001; Loucks-Horsely et al., 1998).
There are more specific teaching qualities that are considered important for successful primary
science teaching. According to Ramirez-Smith (1997), such qualities include “organization, quality
delivery of lessons, rapport, credibility, control, content, discussion and well-designed activities to
engage children” (p. 4). In order to develop sound primary science teaching, the teacher needs to be
a problem solver, investigating ways of learning and developing a teaching repertoire (Wildman &
Borko, 1985, p. 21). Effective primary science teachers develop their own lessons and “make their
own curricular decisions” (Ball & Feiman-Nemser, 1988, p. 421). For example, planning lessons
that are child-centred combined with the ability to motivate students can increase teaching success
(Breeding & Whitworth, 1999). Achieving successful and exemplary primary science classes
requires materials-centred lessons to encourage the formulation and testing of predictions through
astute teacher questioning (Fraser, 1988). Overall, teaching primary science requires specific
knowledge and understandings and, in the context of developing preservice teachers in primary
science teaching, effective mentoring is paramount.
2.6 Connecting secondary and primary science mentoring
As there is limited literature on mentoring in primary science teaching, it is necessary to consider
concepts used for secondary science mentoring that may establish generic mentoring characteristics
for primary science teaching. Although Allsop and Benson (1996) and Dujari (2001) are concerned
with mentoring for secondary science teachers, there appears to be considerable information that
would apply to mentoring for teachers of primary science. For example, the effective mentor is
observant and can discuss a whole range of issues dealing with teaching, that is, anything from the
physical layout of the class to current pedagogical beliefs. For the beginning science teacher in the
secondary school, the effective mentor will have a comprehensive understanding of science teaching
practices, the practicalities of teaching science, and the innovations and procedures for implementing
33
practice. It would be reasonable to suggest that this should also occur for the mentor of the
preservice primary science teacher. That is, effective mentors develop in their mentees a range of
strategies and techniques for implementing science whether at the secondary level or primary level;
although mentoring at either level requires different understandings.
2.7 Towards an understanding of effective primary science mentoring
Although Little (1990) claims that there are few comprehensive studies well informed by theory that
examined in-depth the context and consequences of mentoring, this knowledge base is beginning to
grow (e.g., Edwards & Collison, 1996; Furlong & Maynard, 1995; Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1998;
Tomlinson, 1995). Studies on mentoring in science education have been predominantly in secondary
science education and not primary science education (Gustafson, Guilbert, & MacDonald, 2002).
One study (Jarvis et al., 2001) that focused on primary science reported that teachers were not
confident mentoring in primary science teaching. Yet, mentors are recognised as being significant in
shaping a beginning teacher’s practice (Cochran-Smith, 1991; Hatton & Harman, 1997; Staton &
Hunt, 1992), and so there needs to be more evidence through comprehensive research in the area of
mentoring, such as mentoring primary science teaching in order to enhance the quality of preservice
teacher education.
Generic characteristics for teaching how to teach can provide mentors and mentees with a means for
developing effective teaching practices, which also applies to primary science teaching. Studies
have shown generic characteristics apparent in a successful mentoring relationship (Williams &
McBride, 1989) that need to be applied to preservice primary science teachers (Jarvis et al., 2001).
Specifically, “open communication skills,” “conflict management techniques,” “increased critical
self-reflection,” “a common shared language,” and “support group mechanisms” are prominent
features in successful professional experience programs (Williams & McBride, 1989, p. 15).
Communication skills with a common shared language allows for an understanding of primary
science teaching situations, while support groups can be a means for broadening the knowledge of
34
primary science teaching technicalities. Conflict management allows the primary science teacher to
address immediate personal conflicts so that learning can be more fluent and less hindered. A key
aspect in a mentoring relationship is developing the mentee’s ability to self reflect on primary
teaching practices (Greene & Campbell, 1993; Schön, 1983), which must also include primary
science teaching practices.
2.7.1 Mentors as guides to mentee’s self-reflection
Part of the process of changing beliefs “requires considerable reflection on practice” (Abell & Bryan,
1999, p. 123), as reflection is considered “the main catalyst for the development of autonomy and
expertise” (Veenman et al., 1998, p. 6). Practical knowledge that is acquired from personal teaching
experiences (Tamir, 1991) evolves from reflection and action between theory and practice (Mellado,
1997). To reflect is to learn from present experiences, and such reflection can “make sense of the
situations” (Schön, 1983, pp. 61-62). Greene and Campbell (1993) claim that “reflection” impacts
on thinking but mentees must be taught the skills of reflection and be provided with a “multitude of
opportunities to practise those skills” (p. 37). Effective education in self-reflection allows for
preservice teachers to analyse what is required for improvement in practice, in what Schön (1987)
calls the “reflective practicum” (p. 157). Wildman and Niles (1987) report that the reflective
practitioner of teacher education reform considers the “realities of promoting teacher reflection” (p.
25). Indeed, teachers and preservice teachers of primary science need to be “reflectively
professional” through professional inquiry and create “change in constructively critical ways”
(Ovens, 2000, p. 219).
Fundamental to the mentoring process is that preservice teachers need to experiment with teaching in
order to have content for reflection (Portner, 2002). Huberman (1995) indicates that the way
teachers typically change is through what he calls “bricolage” (p. 193), or experimenting. As
preservice teachers of primary science have limited time to experiment with learning the art of
teaching, guided and reflective practice may hasten the process of developing practice. After
35
experimenting with teaching practice, mentoring can stimulate “self-reflection and self-analysis in
order to improve instructional effectiveness” (Veenman, 1995, p. 2). After each observation of
primary science teaching, effective mentoring will elicit self-reflection for enhancing specific
primary science teaching practices.
It is an essential aspect of primary science teaching that preservice teachers learn how to set goals
and then reflect on the success of achieving these goals. Mentors can guide the professional growth
of mentees by promoting reflection and fostering the norms of collaboration and shared inquiry
(Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1992). Thus, mentors need to collaborate with the mentee the setting of
primary science teaching goals and, through careful questioning and guidance, encourage the mentee
to use self-reflection to achieve a higher level of expertise.
2.7.2 A need for subject-specific mentoring
There are many divergent points of view about the nature of teaching and learning of primary
science, hence the teacher’s task becomes increasingly difficult and indisputably confusing at times,
which has implications for developing effective mentoring. In the UK, Jarvis et al. (1997) found that
nearly all mentoring occurring in professional development programs was generic. Although there
are generic mentoring approaches, specific mentoring can differ from subject to subject. That is,
mentoring for primary science teaching will differ from mentoring the teaching of physical
education. To illustrate, an upper primary gymnastics class will require specific teaching techniques
to ensure the students successfully learn those skills. The mentoring strategies for a gymnastics
lesson will require the mentor to have an understanding of how to teach gymnastics effectively and
how to manage these types of activities within particular settings. In addition, the organisation and
knowledge of a primary science lesson will be different from a gymnastics lesson.
Teaching a primary science lesson will require the mentor to have specific knowledge appropriate to
the activity in order to guide the preservice teacher on effective practices. Feiman-Nemser and
36
Parker (1990) have shown that content knowledge is different from one subject to the next and,
therefore, mentoring must “address content-related issues in content-specific terms” (p. 42).
Peterson and Williams (1998) also claim that unique mentoring processes are required for specific
subject teachers. For example, mentoring preservice physical education teachers requires specific
mentoring skills (Hodge, 1997). Subject-specific mentoring is beginning to be recognised as a more
effective way to educate preservice teachers into the profession (Curran & Goldrick, 2002). Despite
the differences required for mentoring specific primary education subjects, there are of course
generic mentoring strategies that can be used from one primary education subject to the next,
particularly in the method and manner of mentoring.
2.7.3 Conclusion of understanding good primary science mentoring
To develop an effective program for mentoring preservice teachers of primary science, a clear set of
mentoring goals need to be defined. Mentors’ knowledge should reflect the goals of mentoring and
the “more comprehensive the goals, the more extensive the preparation for mentoring” (Ganser,
1996a, p. 9). It is the mentor who can more readily shape a mentee’s knowledge and skills for
teaching primary science education through holistic immersion.
2.8 Negative aspects of mentoring
To come to an understanding of effective mentoring, it is necessary to be aware of negative aspects
of mentoring and concerns in the mentoring process. Indeed, mentors and mentees have identified
and expressed concerns about personal and professional problems affecting the mentoring process,
and the management of the mentor’s time for delivering effective mentoring.
2.8.1 General problems and issues affecting the mentoring process
There are negative aspects of mentoring preservice teachers in professional experience programs,
and negative experiences can affect the mentoring process (Sudzina & Coolican, 1994). For
example, McLaughlin (1993), Fullan and Hargreaves (1996), and Long (1997) have found
37
collaborative environments that stifle innovation and reinforce traditional practice, even though this
appears not to be the norm (Little, 1993). In general terms, three problem areas have been identified
in the highly complex field of mentoring, namely, “the definition of mentoring, the role of mentors,
and the selection of mentors” (Giebelhaus & Bendixon-Noe, 1997, p. 22) Although problems vary
from preservice teacher to preservice teacher (Bullnough, 1989; Jonson, 2002), there appears a lack
of solidarity and agreement on all the issues. For example, Breeding and Whitworth (1999), and
Veenam (1984) report on four prominent issues that emerged as needs for beginning teachers were
strategy sharing, access to facilities and supplies, effective classroom discipline, and appearing
competent. Yet, according to Campbell and Kovar (1994), typical mentoring problems occur in
these four main areas: mentee’s academic preparation, mentee’s accountability, mentor’s skills, and
appropriateness of the professional experience site. Regardless of the different perspectives,
negative experiences in any of these areas have implications for learning how to teach successfully,
and can have a negative affect on the mentee’s development as a teacher.
Other pitfalls to mentoring include an over-dependence on the part of the mentee that may hinder the
mentor (Heller & Sindelar, 1991). Conversely, a mentee who excels may receive positive
affirmations from others and even comparisons with the mentor’s teaching ability which may “show
up” the mentor and, hence, create ego problems on the part of the mentor (Long, 1997). The
mentor’s dual role as confidant and assessor may also create dilemmas. Benton (1990) claims that
assessment procedures for determining the mentee’s ability and application to teaching, and the
whole process of assessment can be very stressful, which may lead to negative experiences if not
managed successfully.
Broader concerns of mentees range from poor planning of the mentoring process to a lack of
understanding of the mentoring process (Long, 1997). More specific concerns of mentees include:
classroom management/discipline, student motivation, teaching techniques and catering for
individual differences (Carpenter, Foster, & Byde, 1981; Ellis, 2001; McCahon, 1985). These
38
concerns are the reasons why there must be sound, sequential planning and an understanding of the
mentoring process, which requires mentors to have knowledge of effective mentoring practices.
2.8.2 Managing the mentor’s time
Managing time is constantly a consideration for the mentor, including time to: interact with the
mentee; discuss curriculum issues and lesson preparation/planning; debrief lesson observations; and,
discuss future planning, which makes time efficiency an essential aspect for mentoring (Adams &
Krockover, 1997; Ganser, 2002b). Scott and Compton (1996) also claim that difficulties can exist
regarding the time needed to develop a collegial mentor-mentee relationship. The time commitment
required of mentors is high, especially for those mentees who require more assistance than others,
which can be an additional burden to the mentor (Long, 1997). This is precisely a reason for
planning mentor-mentee primary science interactions, so that the mentor’s time is focused, specific,
and productive.
DeBolt’s study (1992) delineates the amount of mentoring time given to mentees on specific areas in
primary science teaching. The descending rank order of time spent on mentoring primary science
activities comprises: management suggestions, private coaching, curriculum suggestions, and
assessment of needs. However, DeBolt claims that mentees require more time on planning and how
to instruct, yet in this mentoring allocation more time was spent on management suggestions; hence
the mentee’s needs may not be addressed. Although DeBolt’s study shows that the mentor’s
mentoring may not fully coincide with the mentee’s needs, mentoring in management strategies and
curriculum instruction are high priority issues (Gonzales & Sosa, 1993).
The research in this study explores whether a mentor equipped with mentoring strategies for primary
science teaching can mentor more efficiently and effectively in this area, which may reduce the
number of potential concerns or problems experienced by mentees. However, selecting and
39
matching mentors with mentees can also be an issue for science education, particularly if mentors are
not versed in primary science teaching.
2.9 Issues on selecting and matching suitable mentors
Beginning as a teacher is possibly the most difficult phase of a teaching career but can be developed
significantly from the support and expertise of skilled and knowledgeable practitioners (Loucks-
Horsley et al., 1987). Generally, collaborative relationships are characterised by “respect,
collegiality, and willingness to do whatever necessary to recruit and retain qualified teachers”
(DeBolt, 1992, p. 125). Effective collaborations are characterised by relationships that are “mutually
rewarding, equally valued, and based on similar and/or complementary professional and social
strengths and interests” (Riordan, 1995, p. 2). Nevertheless, friction and criticism can occur in
collaborative relationships (Lawson, 1992) that can sour the mentoring process. Unquestionably,
some mentors and mentees may experience difficulty in working collaboratively, as the complexities
of organising fully compatible partnerships have considerable chance built in as mentors and
mentees are generally unknown to each other (Sherman, Voight, Tibbetts, Dobbins, Evans, &
Weidler, 2000). There is debate on the mentor selection criteria, particularly as mentoring
relationships are formed in one of three ways: initiation by the mentee, initiation by the mentor, and
serendipity (Gaston & Jackson, 1998), which may effect the quality of the mentoring.
2.9.1 Debating the mentor selection criteria
Often at the heart of the mentees’ professional experiences is the relationship with their mentors
(Mager, 1990). Indeed, mentoring “should be an intentional process” (Christensen, 1991, p. 12),
with mentor and mentee wanting the mentoring process (Gehrke, 1988). Poor partnering may cost
preservice teachers valuable career time (Coombe, 1989), which could also result in loss of self-
esteem (Hunt & Michael, 1983). Despite potential advantages for both mentor and mentee and the
effective widespread use of mentoring as a means for developing teaching practices, mentoring can
40
be restricted by the lack of mentor education and the limited selection of effective mentors
(Giebelhaus & Bendixon-Noe, 1997; Sherman et al., 2000).
Potential mentees who organise their own mentors could become problematic, for example,
individuals may be approaching the same mentor or there could be inappropriate situations with
unsuitable mentors of which potential mentees (i.e., preservice teachers) are not aware. Other factors
may include stress on behalf of the preservice teacher to initiate such an alliance. Establishing
collaborative relationships in preservice teacher education between mentors and potential mentees
are usually more predetermined, with universities generally initiating mentoring relationships on
behalf of preservice teachers. Criteria for selecting mentors vary considerably from one program to
the next, with most teacher education programs requiring a “minimum level of teaching experience”
to become a mentor, while other programs require a Master’s degree (Wilder, 1992, p. 5). Gonzales
and Sosa (1993) advocate at least three years teaching experience teaching. In addition, a suitable
mentor teacher needs to be considered a competent teacher as determined by an education system
(Sosa, 1988). It is also claimed that facilitators or mentors should be selected according to their
duration on site, and the intensity of the assistance that they have shown to provide in the past
(Kesselheim, 1998). Although mentors should be selected on their knowledge and ability to teach
or interact with adults (Kennedy, 1992), there is considerable debate on the difficulties in selecting
suitable mentors (Barton, 2002).
2.9.2 Difficulties in selecting suitable mentors
Selecting suitable mentors poses several difficulties, as not all practitioners are suited to mentoring
(Brown & Borko, 1992; Ganser, 1995; Newby & Heide, 1992; Sherman et al., 2000), but at the same
time there is a lack of suitably qualified mentors (Long, 1997). This is because “being a good
classroom teacher and being a good school-based teacher educator are not the same thing (as both
require) distinctive knowledge, skills and attitudes” (Allsop & Benson, 1996, p. 17). Becoming a
“mentor involves making a transition from classroom teacher to teacher educator” (Feiman-Nemser
41
& Buchmann, 1987, p. 272); hence mentors who are less experienced in mentoring may require clear
guidelines to ensure mentoring is purposeful. Berliner (1986) also states, “experienced and expert
practitioners very often lack the ability to articulate the basis for their expertise and skill” (p. 7).
Indeed, mentors need to be prepared in their role as teacher educators by having the knowledge to
take deliberate action in their mentoring, and by developing the skills to articulate both their own
teaching practices and their mentees’ practices.
Matching mentors and mentees can empower the preservice teacher in specific subject areas (Parsons
& Reynolds, 1995; Sherman et al., 2000). However, for a mentee to receive adequate mentoring in
specific subject areas such as primary science teaching, allocating a “science teaching” mentor in the
primary school may be extremely difficult, particularly with the inadequate teaching of primary
science (Goodrum et al., 2001). Ideally, expert primary science teachers who are skilled in
mentoring would be best suited as mentors for preservice teachers of science, yet this is the crux of
the mentoring problem for this research, that is, educating mentors to be sufficiently skilled in
mentoring for effective primary science teaching. Realistically, matching mentees with expert
primary science teaching mentors cannot be a serious consideration as the number of preservice
teachers may significantly out-number available expert primary science teaching mentors.
2.9.3 Addressing the problem of “unskilled” mentors in primary science teaching
There is a growing concern over the number of “under-qualified science teachers” in secondary
schools (Luft & Patterson, 2002, p. 267), and this is a specialist area of teaching; the number of
expert primary science teachers must raise even more concerns (Jarvis et al., 2001). While not ideal,
realistically, matching mentees with mentors who are not skilled in primary science teaching but are
interested in improving their own science teaching practices may bolster the confidence and
expertise of both mentees and mentors in this area. To illustrate, in the primary school teachers teach
art without being artists, music without being musicians, and various sports without being experts in
those particular sports. These teachers can address the outcomes advocated in curricula documents
42
even though they are “non-specialists” in the field. General primary teachers will not be experts in
all subjects in the primary school, and so they must learn to teach in subject areas where they are not
experts. Likewise, mentors need to learn to mentor in subject areas where they are not experts.
All preservice teachers deserve an equitable opportunity to learn how to teach primary science, even
though the majority of mentors may not be confident in teaching primary science. However, it may
be possible to provide less confident teachers of primary science with mentoring strategies to
competently assist their mentees’ development in this area. The teacher’s task is to “build
progressively on the teaching experience and pedagogical knowledge” (Booth, Shawyer, & Brown,
1988, p.18), and similarly, the mentor’s task should be to do the same. Beginning teachers lack the
tricks of the trade gained from experience (Moran, 1990), and so mentees need coaching to transform
idealistic concepts about teaching into more operational practices. Indeed, those who receive
coaching perform decidedly better than the “uncoached,” particularly in teaching instruction and
classroom management skills (Veenman, 1995, p. 12). A tennis coach, for example, has an
understanding of the degrees of difficulty for various tennis shots, and so, can assist a novice gain
confidence by coaching sequentially and at the area of need. Providing mentors with the principles
and structures in primary science teaching may enable mentors to “coach” with confidence and guide
the mentees’ learning of science teaching in a more sequential way. By drawing on generic sources
for mentoring and teaching, and combining this with specific primary science pedagogy, “non-
specialist” primary science teaching mentors may mentor effectively in the field of primary science,
with such skills being subsumed in the mentor’s role, if they are provided with a specific framework
to assist this mentoring.
2.10 Towards understanding the role of the mentor
2.10.1 Attributes and practices of effective mentors of primary science
Feiman-Nemser and Parker (1992) identify three key areas that pertain to the mentor’s role as a
“local guide” (p. 16). Firstly, the mentor helps the beginning teacher understand practices and
43
culture of the school. Secondly, the mentor serves as an educational companion for developing the
beginning teacher professionally. Thirdly, the mentor acts as an agent of change by fostering an
environment of collaboration and shared inquiry. The literature suggests that the mentor’s role may
be connected by five key factors underpinning effective mentoring. The five factors are personal
attributes (Galbraith & Cohen 1995), system requirements (Lenton & Turner, 1999), pedagogical
knowledge (Jarvis et al., 2001), modelling (Barab & Hay, 2001), and feedback (Schön, 1987). These
factors may have associated mentoring attributes and practices linked to the development of
preservice teachers’ primary science practices. By articulating these factors and associated attributes
and practices, it may be possible to more clearly define the mentor’s role for developing effective
primary science teaching. Each of these theoretical factors and associated attributes and practices
are discussed in the following five sections.
2.10.1.1 Mentors’ personal attributes
Researchers claim that mentors should be selected on their interpersonal ability to interact with
adults (Clemson, 1987; Fairbanks, Freedman, & Kahn, 2000; Jonson, 2002; Kennedy, 1992; Klemm,
1988). Learning takes place within the social context (Kerka, 1997), and in a profession that has a
focus on social interaction, interpersonal skills are seen as a basic requirement for effective
performance as a teacher (Bybee, 1978; Loucks-Horsely et al., 1998; Ratsoy, 1979) and, therefore,
an essential element for mentoring preservice teachers (Ackley & Gall, 1992; Galbraith & Cohen
1995; Ganser, 1996a). Mentoring involves complex personal interactions “conducted under different
circumstances in different schools” (Wildman, Magliaro, Niles, & Niles, 1992, p. 212), and so a
mentor must employ personal skills in a two-way dialogue (Dynak, 1997). Wang and Odell (2002)
claim that mentees and mentors’ personal dispositions towards teaching have a strong impact on
their learning. More specifically, the mentor needs to be supportive and attentive to the mentee’s
communication (Ackley & Gall, 1992; Ganser, 1991; Gold, 1996; Halai, 1998; Kennedy & Dorman,
2002; Riordan, 1995), which allows for a more effective learning environment in which the mentees’
skills can be developed (Peterson & Williams, 1998). The mentor must also assist the mentee to
44
reflect on specific teaching practices (Abell & Bryan, 1999; Upson, Koballa, & Gerber, 2002).
Finally, instilling positive attitudes (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1992; Matters, 1994) and confidence
(Beck et al., 2000; Enochs, Scharmann, & Riggs, 1995) for teaching science appears reliant upon the
mentor’s personal approach.
2.10.1.2 Addressing system requirements
Teaching frameworks must emanate from a common source if primary science teaching is to aim
towards the “science for all” theme (Gallagher, 2000). Bybee (1997) discusses the need to have
systemic reform, which must stem from a central system. Indeed, without including system
requirements as a key factor, the argument for systemic reform and the development of primary
science syllabuses would be pointless. System requirements for primary science education provide a
direction for teaching (Lenton & Turner, 1999; Peterson & Williams, 1998), and present a framework
for regulating the quality of primary science teaching practices. This requires mentors to provide for
their mentees clear and obtainable goals (Abu Bakar & Tarmizi, 1995; Harlen, 1999), relevant school
policies (Luna & Cullen, 1995; Riggs & Sandlin, 2002), and most importantly knowledge of the
science curriculum (Bybee, 1997; Jarvis et al., 2001; Woolnough, 1994) in order to present the
fundamental requirements of an education system.
2.10.1.3 Mentors’ pedagogical knowledge
Educators (Fairbanks et al., 2000; Galbraith, 2003; Jonson, 2002; Odell, 1989) agree that mentoring
programs are intended to provide preservice teachers with mentors who are more knowledgeable
about teaching. Research (e.g., Abell & Lynn, 1999; Bishop & Denley, 1997; Bybee, 1978; Dennick
& Joyes, 1994) has shown that developing effective primary science teaching requires the acquisition
of particular knowledge. Bishop (2001), for example, argues the necessity for “professional practical
knowledge,” which subsumes practical knowledge, teacher practical knowledge, personal practical
knowledge, and knowing-in-action. Shulman presented a limited view of the term “pedagogical
knowledge” as a “concern for reinstating content as a critical facet of teacher knowledge” (Morine-
45
Dershimer & Kent, 1999, p. 21). Instead, he coined the term “pedagogical content knowledge” as a
way of “representing and formulating the subject that makes it comprehensible for others” (Shulman,
1986a, p. 9). However, the general term pedagogical knowledge is frequently used when referring to
the knowledge for teaching primary science (e.g., Briscoe & Peters, 1997; Coates, Jarvis, McKeon, &
Vause, 1998). Pedagogical knowledge makes “understanding of science usable in the classroom”
(Mulholland, 1999, p. 26). Such pedagogical knowledge, which is developed within the school
setting (Allsop & Benson, 1996; Hulshof & Verloop, 1994), is essential for supporting effective
primary science teaching (Roth, 1998).
Preservice teachers who are engaged in reforming primary science education need mentors to have
pedagogical knowledge to guide their practices (Kesselheim, 1998). Specifically, mentors need to
provide the pedagogical knowledge for: planning for teaching (Gonzales & Sosa, 1993; Jarvis et al.,
2001); timetabling lessons (Burton, 1990; Williams, 1993); teaching strategies (Lappan & Briars,
1995; Tobin & Fraser, 1990); preparation for teaching (Rosaen & Lindquist, 1992; Williams, 1993);
problem solving (Ackley & Gall, 1992; Breeding & Whitworth, 1999); classroom management
(Corcoran & Andrew, 1988; Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1992); questioning skills (Fleer & Hardy,
1996; Henriques, 1997); implementing effective teaching practice (Beck et al., 2000; Briscoe &
Peters, 1997); and assessment (Corcoran & Andrew, 1988; Jarvis et al., 2001). For developing the
mentee’s primary science teaching, mentors also need to provide pedagogical viewpoints such as
constructivism (Fleer & Hardy, 1996) and appropriate content knowledge (Jarvis et al., 2001; Lenton
& Turner, 1999).
2.10.1.4 Mentors’ modelling of practice
Mentors need to model teaching practice (Barab & Hay, 2001; Galvez-Hjoernevik, 1986) and the
skills for teaching are learned more effectively through modelling (Bellm et al., 1997; Carlson &
Gooden, 1999). Preservice teachers view the mentor as a model to develop a greater understanding
of their own strengths and weaknesses (Moran, 1990); additionally self-efficacy for teaching can be
46
enhanced by observing the modelling of practice (Bandura, 1981). Enochs et al. (1995) also
emphasise the importance of developing self-confidence “among preservice elementary teachers for
teaching science,” but to do so requires well-planned and modelled science lessons. Apart from
displaying enthusiasm for teaching (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1992; Long, 2002; Van Ast, 2002),
mentors need to model: a rapport with their students (Krasnow, 1993; Ramirez-Smith, 1997); lesson
planning (Ball & Feiman-Nemser, 1988; Fraser, 1988); syllabus language (Jarvis et al., 2001;
Williams & McBride, 1989); hands-on lessons (Asunta, 1997; Raizen & Michelson, 1994); and
classroom management (Gonzales & Sosa, 1993; Smith & Huling-Austin, 1986). In particular is the
distinction drawn between modelling teaching practices (Enochs et al., 1995; Little, l990) so that
mentees may observe what works and what does not (Briscoe & Peters, 1997), and modelling
effective teaching practices (Monk & Dillon, 1995), which demonstrate high levels of teaching
competency.
2.10.1.5 Providing feedback to mentees
Numerous researchers (Beattie, 2000; Bellm et al., 1997; Bishop, 2001; Bishop & Denley, 1997;
Foster, 1982; Galbraith & Cohen, 1995; Gonzales & Sosa, 1993; Griffin, 1985; Haney, 1997; Jonson,
2002; Little, 1990; Luft & Patterson, 2002; McLaughlin, 1993; Riordan, 1995; Schön, 1987;
Showers & Joyce, 1996; Veenman et al., 1998; Wyatt, Meditz, Reeves, & Carr, 1999) have reported
that constructive feedback in preservice teacher education is a vital factor in the mentoring process.
Feedback allows for the preservice teacher of primary science to reflect and improve teaching
practice, in what Schön (1987, p. 157) calls the “reflective practicum.” Having the experience to
formulate a personal teaching philosophy, potential mentors should possess the appropriate
vocabulary to articulate teaching practices, as the mentee’s development can be enhanced by the
mentor’s focused discussion about teaching practices (Ganser 1996; Jarvis et al., 2001; Rosaen &
Lindquist, 1992). Indeed, basic mentoring requires mentors to “discuss suggestions for practice in
the context of their school” (Allsop & Benson, 1996, p. 20). Specifically, mentors need to observe
practice in order to provide oral and written feedback on aspects associated with the mentor’s
47
pedagogical knowledge (Ganser, 1995; Rosaen & Lindquist, 1992), which also includes reviewing
plans (Monk & Dillon, 1995), and assisting in developing the mentee’s evaluation of teaching (Long,
1995). Linked to the provision of feedback is the mentor’s articulation of expectations and goals
(Ganser 2002a; Klug & Salzman, 1990a; Koki, 1997).
There is little evidence that mentors encourage mentees to think critically about their pedagogical
practices and this is why mentoring needs to be planned in a similar way as teachers plan for
students’ learning (Edwards & Collison, 1996). Goal setting, which specifically includes objectives,
can enable the mentor to plan for specific guided feedback on the mentee’s primary science teaching
practices. Preservice teachers are learners and, as Edwards and Collison emphasise, these “learners
need goals” (p. 11). Mentoring preservice teachers should be an intentional process, as a formal
mentoring program “increases the likelihood that the protégé’s needs will be met” (Ackley & Gall,
1992, p. 23). Ackley and Gall also claim that the conversations occurring between mentor and
mentee are at the heart of the mentoring relationship, and the provision of feedback is a considerable
aspect for improving practices. In order to provide feedback the mentor must at least observe the
mentee’s practices (Jonson, 2002; Portner, 2002). Even though from this point, feedback contributes
to the mentee’s teaching practices, mentors need to focus on clear objectives in order to be most
effective (Curran & Goldrick, 2002).
Mentors need relevant objectives as a focus for providing feedback (Christensen, 1991; Foster, 1982;
Griffin, 1985; McLaughlin, 1993; Monk & Dillon, 1995; Showers & Joyce, 1996). Hence, the
primary science teaching mentor needs to make clear the process of providing feedback by referring
to primary science mentoring objectives. Clear obtainable objectives negotiated between the mentor
and mentee set the framework for learning how to teach primary science. In addition, learning how
to teach primary science must be discussed with the mentee, but to do so both the mentor and mentee
require reference points, which are the objectives or outcomes for exemplar practices.
48
Feedback will be more useful if it addresses the mentee’s needs in relation to the objectives that aim
at producing effective primary science teaching. Specifically, coding survey instruments can be used
to provide feedback to mentees on a range of primary science teaching practices, including system
requirements, pedagogical knowledge, and modelling of teaching practices (Christensen, 1991).
Objectives provide directions for both mentors and mentees; without direction mentoring cannot
establish purposeful and advantageous feedback for developing a mentee’s primary science teaching.
2.11 Educating mentors towards effective mentoring practices
Mentoring is too important to be haphazard. Although some mentoring relationships can emerge
naturally, educators must ensure that mentoring is not left to chance (Ganser, 1996a, 1996b), hence,
it is necessary to plan the learning experiences in mentoring (Weaver & Stanulis, 1996). Just as
teachers can always improve their methods of teaching, so too can mentors improve their methods of
mentoring (Boss, 2001), and indeed, those who are professionally developed on mentoring have a
greater impact on the mentee’s development than those who are not (Giebelhaus & Bowman, 2000).
In order to implement effective mentoring programs, “skilled practitioners of science” need an
“understanding of scientific knowledge and scientific methods” (Hodson & Hodson, 1998, p. 23); yet
less skilled practitioners of science need to be provided with professional development so that all
preservice teachers may receive opportunities to be mentored in teaching science education. There
have been various opportunities to develop science knowledge and methods of mentoring skills.
New York State Department of Education, for example, offered educational opportunities to mentors
through workshops, seminars, and courses with specific mentoring skills being taught (Ware, 1992).
These courses aimed to provide sequential mentoring strategies for learning how to mentor, however,
not all mentors were prepared to participate in a mentoring training course. Hulshof and Verloop’s
study (1994) reports that 74% of respondents felt that inservicing in mentoring was necessary but
considered such inservicing more important for new mentors. Inservicing may also have
significance for experienced mentors who are delving into new spheres of mentoring.
49
Teachers who are formally prepared for their role as mentor with on-going support can extend their
knowledge base on mentoring; although in most cases, “mentors are thrust into the new role of
mentoring with only the most meagre guidance” (Edwards & Collison, 1996, p. 11). Gaston and
Jackson (1998) claim that mentors must be properly educated and monitored and mentor programs
must be well organised. Indeed, Ganser (2002a) claims that without clear expectations and high-
quality education for mentors, the mentor’s ability to effectively enhance preservice teachers'
practices may be limited. Part of this education requires mentors to be reflective on their practices
by questioning their mentoring, which may assist in preparing mentors for developing their
mentoring practices (Zachary, 2002). Mentors “need explicit training in the stimulation of novice
teachers to reflect on their actions in order to move them to higher levels of professional thinking”
(Veenman et al., 1998, p. 6). Similarly, preservice teachers require a structured system to support
their entry into the profession, which includes quality mentoring programs (Villani, 2002). Research
(Giebelhaus & Bowman, 2002) on the value of educating mentors has demonstrated that there is
signficant difference for preservice teachers’ development compared to those who have exercised
traditional mentoring. Predetermined mentoring strategies can aid sequential learning for the mentee
about teaching and may also benefit learning for mentors.
2.11.1 Developing mentor’s beliefs for effective mentoring in primary science
The mentor can have considerable input into the information deemed to be crucial for primary
science teaching, as the mentoring process aims at advancing the mentee to a higher level of teaching
pedagogy. This can vary considerably among mentors, as teachers have individual ideas about how
and what to teach with regard to primary science (Mulholland, 1999). A major part of the mentor’s
role in primary education is to develop the mentee’s overall teaching ability, yet each mentor has
individual beliefs on what is and what is not important. These individual mentor views will vary on
all aspects of teaching and mentoring, from the planning through to the choice of classroom
procedures for implementing a primary science teaching strategy. Coates et al. (1998) state that
teachers’ experience of “mentoring and their experience of teaching science vary widely” (p. 9), and
50
that mentors have not received specific mentoring training in primary science. This lack of mentor
education is inadequate for providing such specialist skills required for mentoring in primary science
teaching. Mentors require new skills because this work differs from classroom teaching (Orland,
2001; Watters, 1994), as is the case with specific subject mentoring such as primary science (e.g.,
Jarvis et al., 2001). The current state of mentoring in primary science teaching without mentor
expertise in science means that many preservice teachers will not receive equitable mentoring in this
field. Indeed, there is no research on mentoring in primary science education in Australia.
This doctoral research argues that for mentees to receive equitable mentoring in primary science
teaching requires a set of fundamental mentoring skills for developing effective primary science
teaching. To illustrate the need for a set of fundamental primary science mentoring skills, one
mentor may teach only a little primary science in a traditional teacher-centred approach while
another may have primary science as a major component of teaching using child-centred approaches,
and yet another may avoid teaching primary science altogether. Although mentee experiences will
vary between one mentor and another, and this is to be expected, there must be some consistency
between mentors’ strategies to ensure that mentees receive support to develop essential primary
science teaching knowledge and skills. It is also “important to find effective and economic strategies
for training teacher-mentors to improve their current support in science for pre-service primary
teachers” (Jarvis et al., 2001, p. 3).
2.12 Summary and conclusions
Primary science education reform has had little success to date, as primary teachers tend not to
change their teaching practices, and yet primary science education reform is necessary if society is to
progress towards being a more scientifically-oriented community. As preservice primary teachers
are novices, and generally recognise that they have considerable to learn about teaching, they are
often more willing to implement current primary science education reform. Therefore, one approach
51
for primary science education reform requires measures that aim at where teachers begin their
training as educators, that is, at the preservice level.
Educating preservice teachers is only part of the solution for implementing primary science
education reform. For reform to occur there must be more knowledgeable and expert overseers, who
have clear objectives for enhancing preservice teachers’ practices. It is the mentor who allows the
mentee access to professional primary science teaching experiences and hence, the mentor can
become more than just an overseer of reform. By accepting a mentee, the primary teaching mentor
assumes responsibility for the mentee’s development towards becoming an effective teacher of
primary science, and so the mentor is well placed to be an instigator and implementer of reform.
Hence, the mentor must be prepared and informed on successful mentoring practices for developing
the mentee’s primary science teaching. Indeed, the practicalities of a mentee’s primary science
teaching rest substantially with the mentor in professional experience programs. Thus, primary
science education reform strategies must reach experienced primary teachers who disseminate these
strategies in their roles as mentors.
Professional experiences allow mentees to apply primary science teaching theories in classroom
practices. The professional experiences can have a significant impact on mentees’ professional
growth by broadening their outlook on teaching and learning primary science. These experiences
require a mentor to be actively engaged in guiding the mentee’s development in specific subject
areas. A mentee’s guided reflection on practice is a way of developing primary science teaching
practices, which requires clear expectations. Complementing this is the need for mentee’s to develop
pedagogical discourse, as articulating specific needs requires a usable knowledge of primary science
vocabulary. Therefore, professional primary science teaching experiences combined with the
discourse of primary science education can allow for productive communication towards addressing
the mentees’ primary science needs. To be further effective, the mentoring process must be guided
by a theory for teaching adults how to learn to teach.
52
Constructivist theory complements the professional experience model, as it builds upon prior
understandings towards developing the mentee’s knowledge, skills and the construction of meaning.
At the primary level, constructivism can be employed to teach students about science concepts, and
yet within mentoring programs constructivism may assist the mentee to learn how to teach primary
science. In both situations, constructivism builds upon prior knowledge towards a higher level of
understanding.
Effective mentoring has the potential to produce more capable primary science teachers, however,
mentoring in primary science must be clearly defined. Five key factors for mentoring in primary
science were identified in the literature, namely: personal attributes that the mentor needs to exhibit
for purposeful dialogue; system requirements that focus on curriculum directives; competent
pedagogical knowledge for articulating best practices; modelling of efficient and effective practice;
and, feedback for the purposes of reflection to improve practices. It could be argued that these five
factors are generic, however, the attributes and practices associated with each factor need to be
specifically designed for primary science teaching, which are summarised in the following five
paragraphs.
Attributes to instil positive attitudes and confidence for teaching primary science and to assist
mentees to reflect on their primary science teaching practices require mentors to be attentive,
supportive, and comfortable with talking about science. Therefore, a significant part of the mentor’s
role is exhibiting such personal attributes to facilitate the mentee’s development of primary science
teaching practices.
Most education systems have curriculum requirements for each school subject, including primary
science. The primary science curriculum, its aims, and the related school policies for implementing
system requirements are fundamental to any educational system, as they provide direction for
53
implementing primary science education. Mentors need to be familiar with the system’s
requirements and how it can be implemented in the school. The mentor’s role must include
addressing system requirements so that mentees can be more focused on planning and implementing
focused educational practices in primary science.
Mentors require pedagogical knowledge of primary science for guiding the mentee with planning,
timetabling, preparation, implementation, classroom management strategies, teaching strategies,
science teaching knowledge, questioning skills, problem solving strategies, and assessment
techniques. It is implied that the mentor would be able to assist the mentee to improve science
teaching practices because of a focus on these aspects. Expressing various viewpoints on teaching
primary science may also assist the mentee to formulate a pedagogical philosophy of science
teaching.
Effective mentors model planning and teaching of primary science consistent with current system
requirements. This requires mentors to have enthusiasm for science, and involves mentees observing
mentors not only teaching science, but teaching it effectively with well-designed hands-on lessons
that display classroom management strategies and exemplify a rapport with students. The discourse
used by the mentor when modelling science teaching needs to be consistent with the current syllabus,
which can aid the mentee’s understanding for teaching primary science.
Mentors need to review the mentee’s primary science lesson plans and programs for providing initial
feedback. Observing the mentee’s primary science teaching provides content for the mentor to
express oral and written feedback on the mentee’s science teaching. The mentor also needs to show
the mentee how to evaluate primary science teaching, so that the mentee can more readily reflect
upon practice.
54
The mentor’s involvement in guiding the mentee’s learning for more effective primary science
teaching cannot be haphazard if it is to be effective; instead it must be predetermined and
sequentially organised so that the mentor’s objectives are focused, specific, clear and obtainable.
The literature suggested five factors and associated attributes and practices for mentoring in primary
science teaching, which may assist in developing mentees’ primary science teaching practices.
Hence, this research investigated four research aims. The first research aim was:
1. To describe preservice teachers’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary science
teaching.
The second and third research aims emerged from the review of the literature and from investigating
the first research aim. These aims were:
2. To identify factors and associated variables for mentoring preservice teachers of primary
science.
3. To develop an instrument to measure mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary
science teaching.
The results derived from research aims 2 and 3 led to identifying mentoring strategies that relate to
the development of the factors and associated variables for implementing a mentoring intervention
for preservice primary science teachers. The fourth research aim investigated and assessed a
mentoring intervention in primary science teaching, which was:
4. To develop a mentoring intervention with mentoring strategies related to these factors and
associated variables for mentoring preservice teachers of primary science and assess the
effects of such an intervention.
55
The meanings of terms that pertain to the above research aims have been previously established in
Chapters 1 and 2: mentoring (Section 1.9.1); mentor (Section 1.9.2); mentee (Section 1.9.3); primary
science teaching (Section 2.5); and variables and factors (Section 1.2).
The next chapter outlines the research design, research aims, and data collection methods used in this
study.
56
Chapter 3
Research Design and Methods
3.1 Chapter preview
This chapter discusses the research design and methods that are used to investigate mentoring for
effective primary science teaching. Firstly, an overview of the research design is presented (Section
3.2). Secondly, the qualitative and quantitative research methods used in this research are described
(Section 3.3). Thirdly, ethical issues related to this research are outlined (Section 3.4). Finally, a
chapter summary is provided (Section 3.5).
3.2 Overview of the research aims and research design
The four research aims were investigated using a mixed-method design by combining quantitative
and qualitiative methods (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). This research was predominately a
quantitative study and used surveys as the main data sources (Hittleman & Simon, 2002; Kline,
1998). The qualitative component mainly involved semi-structured interviews (Hittleman & Simon,
2002; Neuman, 2000). The combination of qualitative and quantitative methods was employed to
strengthen the theoretical base for developing an instrument and an intervention on mentoring for
effective primary science teaching, and was also used to assess the perceptions of the received
mentoring intervention.
This research design was divided into two stages that focused on mentoring and primary science
teaching (Figure 3.1). The design was implemented over a three-year period. Stage 1 was concerned
with developing an instrument that measured preservice teachers’ perceptions of their mentoring in
primary science teaching. This stage was divided into three phases and involved: preliminary
exploration of mentees and mentors’ perceptions of mentoring and primary science teaching towards
the development of an instrument (Phase 1); developing, pilot testing, and refining this instrument
(Phase 2); and administering and assessing this refined instrument using statistical analysis (Phase 3)
(Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1. Research design for the development of an instrument and associated mentoring
intervention in primary science teaching.
Stage 1
Development of an instrument for determining mentors and mentees’
perceptions of their mentoring experiences
Phase 1
Preliminary exploration towards developing an instrument
Phase 2
Developing, pilot testing, and refining this instrument
Phase 3
Administering and assessing this refined instrument
Stage 2
Development of a mentoring intervention, and implementing and assessing this intervention
57
58
Stage 2 involved the development of a mentoring intervention for enhancing primary science
teaching. This intervention was linked to items on the survey instrument developed from Stage 1
(Figure 3.1). Figure 3.1 shows the relationship between Stage 1 and Stage 2 of this research, with
the mentoring intervention being produced after the assessment of the survey instrument in Phase 3
of Stage 1. Then the mentoring intervention was implemented and assessed through interviews and
administering the survey instrument developed in Stage 1.
Participants in Stage 1 and Stage 2 included mentors in their roles as classroom teachers and
mentees, who were preservice teachers involved in professional experience programs. The number
and type of participants varied according to the stage and phase of this research and the value of
participants’ contributions to each stage and phase, which may be viewed in the summary table at the
end of this chapter. Further details of the characteristics of the participants involvement are provided
in the relevant data collection sections.
3.3 Data collection methods and analysis
3.3.1 Stage 1: Development of an instrument
Stage 1 was concerned with the development of an instrument that aimed to measure preservice
teachers’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary science teaching, and provided insight into the
first three research aims (Section 1.6). This instrument was refined during Stage 1. The content of
each item on this survey instrument included a statement that: (a) contained a theoretically-based
mentoring practice or attribute; (b) contained a key word or phrase consistent with the development
of mentoring practice; and (c) allowed a response to how frequently a particular mentoring action
was experienced in primary science teaching within a 5-point Likert scale. To further substantiate
the survey’s content validity, five specialists (one in the field of science education, one in the field of
professional experiences, one in the field of survey construction, and two statistical analysts)
provided feedback on the survey items before the survey administration and again after data analysis.
59
As a result of this consultation, various items were adjusted for syntax, discourse, lexical cohesion,
and literature linkages to improve unclear survey items (Neuman, 2000).
Stage 1 of the study was conducted over three phases, which are explained in the following sections.
3.3.1.1 Phase 1: Preliminary exploration towards developing an instrument
Phase 1 aimed to answer part of the first research aim (Section 1.6) by seeking mentors’ and
mentees’ views on mentoring preservice teachers in primary science teaching, and using this
information to inform the development of a survey instrument.
Four mentors and six mentees were involved in a three-week professional experience program at the
one school site (September to October, 2000). The data collection methods used for Phase 1
involved individual semi-structured, tape-recorded interviews with these mentors (n=4) and their
respective mentees (n=6; two of the mentors each supervised two mentees). Interview questions
were derived from the literature on mentoring and primary science teaching (Sections 2.5, 2.6, 2.7,
and 2.10) in order to understand the mentoring currently occurring in schools. The questions were
constructed in consultation with a science education expert and with consideration of the issues in
the literature. Two examples of these questions are:
1. “What do you think are the qualities a mentor would need in order to be a good science
teaching mentor for preservice teachers?”
2. “How do you think a mentor can develop a preservice teacher’s knowledge and skills for
primary science teaching?”
These 20 to 40 minute interviews were audio-taped to allow a more natural listening style for the
interviewer (Hittleman & Simon, 2002). The data were analysed by coding transcripts for
commonalities with a checklist of occurrences (Hittleman & Simon, 2002). The results from Phase 1
60
and key literature (Section 2.10) provided the basis for developing an instrument that was pilot tested
and refined in Phase 2.
3.3.1.2 Phase 2: Developing, pilot testing, and refining an instrument
Phase 2 aimed at developing, pilot testing, and refining a 35-item survey instrument that measured
mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary science teaching in relation to the theoretical
factors suggested by the literature (Section 2.10) and the preliminary Phase 1 results.
Data collection involved administering this survey to 21 first-year preservice teachers after their
three-week professional experience program (early November, 2000). Data analysis was conducted
through SPSS 10, which provided descriptive statistics of frequencies and percentage of item
responses, mean scores and standard deviations of these preservice teachers’ perceptions of their
mentoring in primary science teaching. The data analysis informed the refinement of this instrument,
which was then pilot tested with all fourth-year preservice teachers (N=59) at the same regional
university at the end of their professional teaching experiences (late November, 2000).
Data from this survey were subjected to an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA; Hair et al., 1995;
Kline, 1998) to assess the unidimensionality of factors underlying the responses to the survey. EFA
statistics were interpreted as follows: items with squared multiple correlations greater than .50
indicated an acceptable statistical relationship to the theoretical factor; factors with eigenvalues
greater than 1.00 were retained; and a scale Cronbach alpha greater than .70 was considered
acceptable for the internal reliability of the scale associated with each theoretical factor (Hair et al.,
1995). Analysing the EFA statistics allowed for further refinement of this survey instrument (e.g.,
rewording of items or allocating items to factors), as a basis for a Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(CFA) with a larger sample of participants that followed.
3.3.1.3 Phase 3: Administering and assessing this refined instrument
61
Phase 3 investigated the first three research aims (Section 1.6). This phase involved administering
and assessing this refined instrument and subjecting the data to CFA for developing Structural
Equation Modelling (SEM). CFA is a theory-testing model as opposed to a theory-generating
method like EFA (Stapleton, 1997). According to Gillaspy (1996), CFA is a technique in which “the
number and the composition of factors are specified prior to the analysis or extraction of factors” (p.
4), and offers the researcher a “viable method for evaluating construct validity” (p. 6). Most
important in this phase was the analysis of this refined instrument to measure preservice teachers’
perceptions of their mentoring of primary science teaching in relation to factors and associated
variables. Therefore, this analysis also examines relationships “including similarities or differences
among variables” (Neuman, 2000, p. 66). This refined instrument collected completed data from 331
final year preservice teachers from nine Australian universities (November, 2001).
The first step in CFA is the partitioning of the items into distinct scales or clusters, on the basis of
each item’s content. The parameters of the model include the correlations between items and factors,
the correlations between the factors, and the communality of each item. “A correlation coefficient is
a measure of the relationship between two variables” (Wiersma, 2000, p. 331), which can provide
evidence on the extent of a relationship between these variables through a test of significance (Kline,
1998). CFA can test the hypothesised underlying factor structure, which includes an evaluation of
the construct validity, that is, whether the data confirms the theoretical factors (Kline, 1998; Stevens,
1996). It can also be used to compare proposed models by determining which model has the highest
data correlation (Gillaspy, 1996). Preference was given to the model that made “more sense
empirically” (Roberts, 1999, p. 10). Fit measures and indices provided an indication of the model’s
goodness of fit (Hair et al., 1995; Kline, 1998).
AMOS was the statistical software package used to conduct CFA. Hair et al. (1995) recommend that
SEM research employs at least one fit measure from each of the three types of goodness of fit
measures (i.e., absolute, incremental, and parsimonious). The likelihood-ratio Chi-square index is a
62
basic absolute fit measure (Hair et al., 1995), and the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (CMIDF
or χ2/df) can also function as an absolute fit measure with measures less than three as acceptable
(Kline, 1998). AMOS provides an Incremental Fit Index (IFI) with values closer to one indicating a
better fitting model. It also provides a Comparative Fit Index (CFI), which “may be less affected by
sample size” compared to some other incremental fit indexes (Kline, 1998, p. 129), indicating the
percentage of fit better than the null hypothesis. Favourable values of the Root Mean Square
Residual (RMR), which is based on the standardised covariance residuals, need to be less than .10
(Kline, 1998). Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is another fit measure with an
acceptable range of .08 or less (Hair et al., 1995). Specifics and further details associated with CFA
in this phase will also be discussed in the context of the results (Section 4.4).
Additionally, SPSS10 provided descriptive statistics (frequencies and percent responses for response
categories, mean scores, and standard deviations) of these preservice teachers’ responses of their
mentoring in primary science teaching on each of the items linked to the final model. Surveys were
distributed to 14 Australian universities and 9 replied. The 331 complete mentee responses (284
female; 47 male) received from these universities represented a response rate of 58% over the 9
universities. The demographics for this study were provided from the mentees’ responses on the first
two sections of this survey (Appendix 1). The following are key descriptors of the sample (N=331),
which included mentee and mentor characteristics. Fifty-six percent of the preservice teachers
entered teacher education straight from high school, with 52% completing biology units at school.
Thirty-six percent of preservice teachers had completed only one science methodology unit at
university, while 64% had completed more than one such unit at a tertiary level. All mentees had
completed at least three block practicums with 28% completing five practicums. There were no
practicums under a three-week duration, and 66% were of a five-week duration or more. Only 12%
of these practicums were in “small” schools (< 160 students). Although 49% of respondents were
required to teach science during practicum as part of their university obligations, 85% of students
taught science during their practicum. However, the number of science lessons taught by mentees
63
during their practicum varied considerably (11% taught one lesson; 6% two lessons; 22% three or
four lessons; and 46% five lessons or more).
Mentors also varied in their background and behaviours. According to the mentees, 51% mentors
were over 40 years old, although 17% were under 30 years of age. Mentees also indicated that 27%
of mentors did not have an “interest” or a “strong interest” in science. Forty percent of mentors did
not model a science lesson during their mentees’ professional experiences, which may equate to the
40% of mentees who considered science not “a strength” of the mentors. Eleven percent of mentors
did not talk about science or science teaching during the total professional experiences, and 45% of
mentors spoke to their mentees about primary science teaching a maximum of three times during
their last practicum.
Stage 1 concluded with the development of an instrument that measures mentees’ perceptions of
their mentoring in primary science teaching. The items on the “Mentoring for Effective Primary
Science Teaching” (MEPST, Appendix 2) instrument from Stage 1 provided the basis for the fourth
research aim, that is: to develop a mentoring intervention with mentoring strategies related to these
factors and associated variables for mentoring preservice teachers of primary science and assess the
effects of such an intervention.
64
3.3.2 Stage 2: Development of a mentoring intervention
Stage 2 continued to investigate the first research aim (Section 1.6) and also focused on the fourth
research aim, which involved developing a mentoring intervention aimed at enhancing primary
science teaching practices. The mentoring intervention was guided by Rothman and Thomas’s
(1994) first five steps for intervention in social research, namely: (a) problem analysis and project
planning; (b) information gathering and synthesis; (c) designing the intervention; (d) early
development and pilot testing; and (e) evaluation and advanced development. These five steps were
sequential and provided a holistic framework for developing and implementing this intervention on
mentoring preservice primary science teachers.
The intervention in Stage 2 was a mentoring program for developing preservice teachers’ primary
science teaching practices. The content of this intervention was constructed from the items
contained in the MEPST instrument (Appendix 2). For each item, the mentoring strategy (Appendix
3) used in the intervention was informed by the literature, which underpinned the MEPST
instrument. The suggested strategies aimed to target particular survey items. For example, Item 32
(see Appendix 2) states, “During my final professional school experience (i.e., internship/practicum)
in primary science teaching my mentor showed me how to assess the students’ learning of science.”
Mentoring strategies associated with Item 32 included: linking assessments to outcomes, making
references to the syllabus, and demonstrating an assessment procedure (Figure 3.2).
In Stage 2, the mentoring program was provided to the mentors in booklet form, with mentors and
mentees agreeing to adhering to the following procedures:
1. The mentor demonstrates a science lesson and the mentee completes a “Mentee’s
Observation Guide” (Appendix 4) while observing the mentor’s science lesson
demonstration.
2. The mentor and mentee then discuss the mentor’s modelled lesson.
65
3. A cycle of teaching, observation, and reflection is to be used for a series of three or four
science lessons during the professional experience. This cycle involves the mentee teaching a
science lesson, the mentor completing a “Feedback on Science Teaching” proforma
(Appendix 5), and the mentee completing a “Reflection on Science Teaching” proforma
(Appendix 6).
4. After each lesson, the mentor discusses the lesson with the mentee using the mentoring
booklet, which focused on attributes and practices associated with the key mentoring factors.
Assessing the students’ learning of science
Item 32: During my final professional school experience (i.e., internship/practicum) in primary science teaching my mentor showed me how to assess the students’ learning of science. Background information: • A mentor with knowledge of assessment methods of science teaching can assist the mentee in sequential and purposeful planning for the teaching of science (Corcoran & Andrew, 1988). • Gilbert and Qualter (1996) emphasise the importance of assessment for teaching and learning activities within the science curriculum. • Conducting an assessment of students is addressing a system requirement (Kahle, 1999). • Mentors need to help mentees “use and respond to a variety of appropriately designed assessments at the beginning of new science topics as well as throughout the teaching process” (Jarvis et al., 2001, p. 10). Strategies: * Tell the mentee that assessments of students are related to the learning outcomes of a science lesson(s). Refer the mentee to the syllabus. * Demonstrate how you would assess students’ learning on a science lesson you had just taught, and show how you would record the students’ progress, e.g., checklist.
Figure 3.2. Example of background information and associated mentoring strategies.
This mentoring intervention was pilot tested with two final year preservice teachers over two
separate four-week professional experiences (April to June 2002). Both participants were
purposefully selected to be especially informative (Neuman, 2000), as they were final year, mature-
aged preservice teachers with high academic results. Following pilot tests and after consultation
66
with two science education experts, the mentoring intervention was refined for implementation in
Stage 2 of this research.
Stage 2 also involved a randomised two-group posttest only design (control group and intervention
group; Neuman, 2000) and investigated mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary science
teaching using the MEPST instrument (Appendix 2). The control group and intervention group
involved a convenient sample (Hittleman & Simon, 2002) of 72 mentors who were partnered with
final year preservice teachers from the same regional university for their four-week professional
experience (August to October, 2002) by university administrative staff. Within this cohort, 12
mentors and their respective mentees were randomly and conveniently selected as the intervention
group and the remainder constituted the control group (n=60).
Data collection and analysis occurred through six main sources, which included four survey
instruments, a mentoring booklet, and interviews.
1. The “Mentoring for Effective Primary Science Teaching” survey instrument (MEPST, Appendix
2). This instrument was administered to control group mentees (n=60) and intervention group
mentees (n=12) at the conclusion of their final year professional experiences. Data were analysed
using analysis of variance (ANOVA; Kline, 1998) by comparing the control group and intervention
group scale responses and the effect size of the difference in mean scores between the two groups.
In educational contexts, “effect sizes of .20 are considered small; .50, medium; and, .80, large”
(Hittleman & Simon, 2002, p. 178).
2. The “Mentoring for Effective Primary Science Teaching-Mentor” survey instrument (MEPST-
Mentor; Appendix 7). The MEPST-Mentor instrument aimed to measure the mentors’ perceptions of
their mentoring in primary science teaching. This instrument was developed by altering each item
on the MEPST instrument to reflect a mentor’s perspective on the intervention. For example, Item
67
32 was changed from: “During my final professional school experience (i.e., internship/practicum) in
primary science teaching my mentor showed me how to assess the students’ learning of science” to
“During this last internship/practicum in mentoring primary science teaching, I felt I showed the
mentee how to assess the students’ learning of science.” These items were further reviewed by an
expert in primary science education and a statistician for consistency and clarity. The MEPST-
Mentor instrument was administered to mentors (n=12) at the conclusion of the mentoring
intervention. These data were compared with the MEPST data from the 12 mentees involved in the
mentoring intervention using descriptive statistics (i.e., frequencies and percent, mean scores, and
standard deviations) of their survey responses.
3. Mentoring booklet. Mentors (n=12) and mentees (n=12) involved in the intervention recorded
relevant mentoring details in the mentoring booklet. This booklet provided guidelines for the
mentoring program in primary science teaching with a set of procedures and proformas (e.g.,
Appendices 5, 6, and 7). The written record of the mentoring was an indicator of the level of
involvement of the participants. The mentors’ recordings of each intervention experience in the
booklet were analysed to determine the degree to which the mentoring intervention was
implemented, as such analysis “can facilitate reliability in interventional delivery” (Rothman &
Thomas, 1994, p. 281).
4. Interviews. Twenty to forty-minute interviews were held on site with each mentor (n=12) at the
conclusion of their involvement in the mentoring intervention. The aim of the interviews was to
understand the mentors’ perceptions of the mentoring intervention. Semi-structured interview
questions were based on the contents of the mentoring intervention booklet to determine the degree
of implementing each intervention strategy. Examples of the interview questions included:
1. “Refer to the diagram on page 4 of the mentoring booklet (Figure 3.3). Do you think these
five factors represent this mentoring process in primary science teaching?” If so, how?
2. “Refer to the ‘Feedback on Science Teaching’ on page 33 of the booklet (Appendix 5). Do
you think this feedback is representative of mentoring in primary science teaching? What
would you change?”
Figure 3.3. Five-factor model for mentoring.
Responses were then coded and analysed under headings associated with the key literature on
mentoring such as: the mentor’s modelled lesson, reflecting on mentoring, mentoring sessions and
mentoring strategies, and providing suggestions for improving this mentoring program (see
Appendix 8 for one mentor’s responses to the interview questions).
(5) STEBI B (see Enochs & Riggs, 1990). This pretest/posttest instrument was used to individually
measure the mentees’ (n=12) science teaching efficacy belief levels before and after their mentoring
intervention. This instrument is considered a reliable and valid tool for evaluating personal science
teaching efficacy and science teaching outcome expectancy (Crowther & Cannon, 1988). STEBI B
Mentoring
SystemRequirements
Modelling
Personal Attributes
Feedback
Pedagogical Knowledge
68
69
uses a 5-point Likert scale to measure two sub-scales linked to Bandura's (1977) theory of self-
efficacy. Of the 23 items in the survey, 13 are designed to determine preservice teachers’ level of
beliefs for teaching science (Personal Science Teaching Efficacy [PSTE]). The other 10 items assess
the preservice teachers’ beliefs on the effects their science teaching will have on their students
(Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy [STOE]). It should be noted that STEBI B scores are not
“predictive of subsequent classroom performance” even though other researchers have indicated
otherwise (Haney et al., 2002, p. 181). Results are analysed in relation to mean scores and
frequencies on the two scales (PSTE & STOE), that is, high frequencies on the PSTE indicate a
strong belief in one’s ability to teach science (range from 13 to 65); high frequencies on the STOE
indicate high expectations with regard to the outcomes of science teaching (range from 10 to 50)
(Enochs & Riggs, 1990).
6. “Mentoring Primary Science Teaching Efficacy Belief” instrument (Appendix 9). The
construction of this instrument was based on Enochs and Riggs’ STEBI B instrument (Section 3.3.2)
and maintained the 5-point Likert scale (i.e., “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”). Items on the
STEBI B were adjusted to reflect mentors’ beliefs of their mentoring in primary science teaching.
For example, the first statement on STEBI B reads: “When a student does better than usual in
science, it is often because the teacher exerted a little extra effort.” The first statement on the
“Mentoring Primary Science Teaching Efficacy Belief” instrument reads: “When a preservice
teacher does better than usual in science teaching, it is often because the mentor exerted a little extra
effort.” Apart from three items on STEBI B (Item 6 [PSTE], Items 4 and 6 [STOE]), which appeared
not to apply to mentors in this context, analysis of data followed Enochs and Riggs’ (1990)
instructions. This instrument was administered to mentors (n=12) involved in the mentoring
intervention, and was used to provide an indication of the mentors’ self-efficacy belief of their
mentoring in primary science teaching as a result of this intervention.
3.4 Ethical issues
70
Participants were assured privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality as ethical actions for conducting
this research. With respect to the surveys, anonymity ensures that universities, schools and
individuals are not disadvantaged by publication of this research material. However, universities and
schools were coded for analysis, and individual participants recorded their mothers’ maiden name so
that posttest-pretest examination of results could be connected. Confidentiality agreements were
provided to participants, and “gatekeepers” were provided with an assurance that the research results
would be confidential (Neuman, 2000, pp. 99-100). Ethics approvals were received from the
university’s Ethics Committee, and the Research Directorate of the NSW Department of Education
and Training for each data collection stage involved in this research.
3.5 Summary
Chapter 3 outlined the appropriate research design and methods for investigating each phase of this
research. This research was divided into two stages. Stage 1 (Phases 1 to 3) was concerned with the
development of an instrument that measures mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary
science teaching, and Stage 2 involved developing a mentoring intervention based on the literature
and the instrument developed from Stage 1. Table 3.1 provides a summary of the research design
used for each phase of this study with data collection methods, timeline, and number of mentor and
mentee participants.
The data collection methods for both Stages 1 and 2 were reviewed by the Ethics Committees of a
university and the Research Directorate for the NSW Department of Education and Training.
Furthermore, an expert in research design, two statistical analysists, an associate professor in primary
science education, an expert in mentoring practices, and various colleagues in the field of
educational research provided advice or suggestions for conducting this research.
71
Table 3.1
Summary of Research Design Used for Each Phase of this Study
Number of participants Stage Data collection
method(s)
Timeline
Mentors Mentees
Stage 1:
Phase 1
Interviews
October, 2000
4
6
Phase 2 Survey (MEPST)
November, 2000
November, 2000
N/A
N/A
21
59
Phase 3 Survey (MEPST)
November, 2001 N/A 331
Stage 2: Survey (MEPST)
Surveys:
(MEPST-Mentor;
STEBI B;
Mentoring Primary
Science Teaching
Efficacy Belief).
Interviews
Intervention
booklet
October, 2002
12
12
Survey (MEPST) October, 2002 N/A 60 (control)
12 (intervention)
Chapter 4 will report on the findings associated with Stage 1 (development of an instrument), and
Chapter 5 will provide the findings and discussion for Stage 2 (development of a mentoring
intervention) of this research.
72
Chapter 4
Results of Stage 1: Development of an Instrument
4.1 Chapter preview
This chapter reports the results of the three phases associated with Stage 1 of this research. Phase 1
explored first-year preservice teachers’ and mentors’ perceptions of mentoring and primary science
teaching towards developing a survey instrument to assess these perceptions (Section 4.2). Phase 2
developed, pilot tested, and refined a survey derived from Phase 1 of this research and the literature
(Section 4.3), and Phase 3 administered and assessed the instrument on a larger scale (Section 4.4).
4.2 Phase 1: Preliminary exploration towards developing an instrument
This section presents the results from Phase 1 of this research. The methods for data collection and
analysis for Phase 1 were previously provided (Section 3.3.1.1). This phase investigated mentors
(n=4) and mentees’ (n=6) perceptions on mentoring of primary science teaching as a preliminary
basis towards developing an instrument. It was found that comments from these mentors and
mentees were consistent with findings in the literature that were also related to the five factors (see
Section 2.10). Results from interviews that follow are therefore organised around these five factors:
personal attributes for mentoring preservice teachers in primary science (Section 4.2.1); addressing
system requirements for teaching primary science (Section 4.2.2); mentor’s knowledge for teaching
primary science (Section 4.2.3); modelling primary science teaching practices (Section 4.2.4); and
providing feedback on primary science teaching practices (Section 4.2.5). A summary and
conclusions of this preliminary study are presented (Section 4.2.6).
73
4.2.1 Personal attributes for mentoring preservice teachers in primary science
In relation to the mentor’s personal attributes for mentoring in primary science teaching, four salient
issues arose from the interviews:
1. Mentees need mentors for support and guidance in teaching primary science.
2. Mentor’s enthusiasm may have an effect on the mentee’s development as a primary science
teacher.
3. Mentors need to feel comfortable in talking about primary science teaching.
4. Mentors need to instil confidence in mentees for teaching primary science.
The findings indicated that mentees relied heavily upon mentors for support and guidance through
clear discussion on primary science teaching issues. When mentees in this study were individually
interviewed about their perceptions on the role of mentors, they indicated that support and guidance
for teaching were their specific needs. For instance Mentee 2 stated, “The support. If you aren’t
sure about how to teach a certain thing then just that bit of guidance, and backing you.”
The findings further indicated that the mentor’s enthusiasm can have an affect on the mentee’s
development as a primary science teacher. Two mentees indicated that enthusiasm was an essential
component for mentoring in primary science teaching. Additionally, mentees indicated that the
mentors need to show confidence in their mentees by allowing them to teach primary science, and
require “someone who’s enthusiastic about science themselves and who shows confidence in their
student-teachers to have a go” (Mentee 1). Enthusiasm for teaching primary science can also
demonstrate to the mentee the importance of teaching in such a field, and “unless you are really
enthusiastic and dedicated, you can put everybody off, including student-teachers [mentees]”
(Mentor 1). Indeed, mentors can view their role to “encourage them, enthuse them, and give them a
chance to teach” (Mentor 2).
74
Mentors reported that personal attributes of both mentors and mentees can have an affect on the
mentoring relationship. If mentees are not enthused about teaching science then it was noted as an
obstacle for mentors, particularly if the mentor expected the mentee to be enthusiastic about teaching
primary science in the first instance. For example, Mentor 1 stated his philosophy for mentoring, “If
you’re enthusiastic, I will be enthusiastic, if you just want to sit there, well you’ll sit there. And so I
need them to show that they are keen to learn.” For Mentor 1, if the mentee was not enthusiastic
about teaching primary science then the mentor would not display such enthusiasm. This personal
attribute was noted as an important part of the mentoring partnership, for example, Mentor 1 stated:
“The most difficult component is if you don’t hit it off with the student [mentee].”
Talking about science was clearly articulated by mentors and mentees as essential to the mentoring
processes and feeling comfortable in talking about teaching primary science aided the mentees to ask
questions for developing their teaching practices. Being comfortable with talking about science and
fostering the mentee’s confidence for teaching primary science also paved the way for providing
further feedback on practices, as according to Mentee 4, “A good teacher (mentor) is someone who I
feel comfortable with so that I can ask questions. That’s my need really.” It appears that this
comfort level for promoting discussion on science teaching can facilitate explanations and
information on “what works and what doesn’t work” (Mentee 4). Mentee 4 expanded this view by
stating, “it helps so much when they [the mentors] say, ‘I’ve tried that, that didn’t work. Or this
really, really works and the students love it.’ You can ask questions and feel comfortable.”
Mentors who exhibited positive personal attributes claimed they aided in developing the mentee’s
confidence as a primary science teacher, as indicated by Mentor 4:
To be there for them as an adviser, and make them feel comfortable that they can
come to you. I think you have to build up a rapport with them otherwise they will not
want to try things. So you must give them the confidence that they are capable people
75
and to give them the opportunity in the classroom to try what they want to try. I’m
here for feedback as well.
The findings from these interviews suggested that the mentor’s personal attributes can influence the
mentee’s development as a teacher and may influence the effectiveness of the mentoring. Personal
attributes for mentors included being supportive and providing guidance, having enthusiasm, being
comfortable in talking about primary science teaching, and instilling confidence in the mentee to
teach science (Section 2.10.1.1). These personal attributes may contribute to the development of the
preservice teacher of primary science, and require consideration for developing an instrument that
measures mentees’ perceptions of these attributes and practices.
4.2.2 Addressing system requirements for teaching primary science
This preliminary study found that mentors addressing of system requirements for teaching primary
science may be divided into two main parts:
1. Mentors need to provide information about the primary science syllabus.
2. Participants need a common shared language in order to effectively discuss primary science
teaching.
Mentors and mentees recognised the primary science syllabus as a system requirement for teaching
primary science. They also made clear links to programming and planning, which was considered
important for mentees’ development as primary science teachers. Mentor 3 claimed, “It’s important
to make the student-teachers [mentees] aware of the syllabus, and the guidelines that we as teachers
follow to try and implement the scope and sequence that is appropriate for the school.” However,
showing the mentees how to implement the syllabus is important in order to build up enthusiasm for
teaching, to illustrate, “Use the science syllabus and relate it the student-teacher’s level to build up
enthusiasm” (Mentor 1). Mentees also recognised the need to understand the syllabus and required
76
mentors to “tell [me] more about the syllabus requirements and then focus on what I am supposed to
teach the children” (Mentee 1). These mentees made the connection between the syllabus and
teaching a science lesson, for example Mentee 3 claimed that they (the mentees) want to be able “to
teach a science lesson [by] having a look through the syllabus and learning to know what to teach
[because they] don’t know the curriculum at all.”
These mentees recognised that they must be prepared sufficiently to teach or else risk having
students who are not focused on learning about science, as illustrated by Mentee 6:
I think it would be really difficult if a student came in and they [preservice teacher]
didn’t have a lesson plan, they weren’t prepared and not prepared for what they need
to do for the day. I think that would make it really hard on the teacher because they
wouldn’t know what to do and the kids would be chaotic.
Three mentees indicated that a common shared language can assist them with an understanding of
teaching, the syllabus, programming, and access to resources. Although easy access to resources
were mentioned by five of the mentees as needs, two mentees highlighted knowledge of the syllabus,
and a further two mentees claimed that programming for science needed to be part of the discourse.
The need for discussing specific focuses within the mentoring program that relate to syllabus
outcomes was clearly stated by Mentee 3, “Look at the teacher’s program and some of the activities
with the outcomes in the program and discuss it.”
It appeared that providing syllabus and curriculum information and having a common shared
language to discuss them were viewed as ways for mentors to address system requirements.
However, addressing system requirements also needs to take into account school science policies,
which incorporates scope and sequence charts for teaching science at appropriate levels, and most
importantly the aims or outcomes associated with the primary science syllabus.
77
4.2.3 Mentor’s knowledge of teaching primary science
A mentor’s effectiveness may be enhanced through specific mentoring to develop the mentee’s
primary science pedagogical knowledge (Section 2.10.1.3). To do so, identifying and addressing the
mentee’s needs must also aim at subject-specificity, as according to Mentee 2, “Teaching science can
be totally different from teaching anything else.” Addressing such needs will require mentors to
have pedagogical knowledge in primary science teaching. The interviews with mentors and mentees
on the mentor’s knowledge of teaching primary science highlighted five key issues. That is, mentors
and mentees expressed the need to develop in mentees:
1. Hands-on science teaching experiences.
2. Effective classroom management.
3. Planning and preparation.
4. Content knowledge.
5. Knowledge on how to teach science.
This study noted that these preservice teachers wanted hands-on experiences for learning how to
teach primary science but needed to be guided by mentor’s knowledge of science teaching practices,
for example, “To really see what it is like to be a teacher and how much more it is than just your
classroom” (Mentee 3). They needed to know what is involved in teaching science, which ultimately
reflects on their effectiveness to teach science and may be demonstrated through effective classroom
management and student participation. As indicated by Mentee 2, “The children responded really
well to it [the science lesson]. They got to participate and not just listen to me go on. They were
really good and that reflects on me.”
The findings further indicated that mentees needed to know how to plan and prepare for teaching
science, because “there’s so much more involved than just being in your classroom teaching your
78
kids, and then there’s lots more involved with the whole school and everything that goes on”
(Mentee 3). The mentor’s knowledge was paramount for developing the mentee’s planning and
preparation of primary science teaching in a school. All mentees in Phase 1 of this research (n=6)
emphasised the importance of the mentor’s pedagogical knowledge on issues such as planning and
preparation. Indeed, “being organised and [presenting] very clear explanations and step-by-step
instructions” (Mentee 2) are necessities for effective teaching.
Mentors and mentees claimed that the mentees needed to have subject knowledge and knowledge of
how to teach this subject knowledge. One mentor in this study stated, “Most preservice teachers that
I’ve had on my class do not understand any of the basic science” (Mentor 1). Two mentees also said
that they, as preservice teachers, did not have sufficient knowledge on science to teach it effectively.
However, mentors were prepared to give direction towards understanding the content knowledge as
part of science lesson preparation by “suggesting ideas for them, to do a little research ... so that they
feel comfortable” (Mentor 4). Mentee 4 also claimed that experience and books were part of
developing content knowledge in this way, that is, “You know your subject, you know your topics
and you are armed with ammunition.” Teaching primary science requires content knowledge, which
was emphasised by the six mentees in this study as being one of the first steps towards their own
teaching of primary science. For example, “If I had to do a science lesson, I would research it a lot
because at my school, science was not my strong point [and I need to] give knowledge to the
children about things that they have to learn about” (Mentee 6).
Content knowledge on a topic is important but knowing how to teach science is another dimension
again. Mentee 6 stated that mentors can assist by providing “Tips that can help us become aware of
what we need to do to make us aware of what is involved in teaching science.” However, these first-
year preservice teachers had not articulated the specific pedagogical knowledge that the literature
advocates (Section 2.10.1.3). For example, there was no mention of problem solving strategies,
teaching strategies, questioning techniques, and assessment and evaluation as part of essential
79
pedagogical knowledge. Instead, mentees spoke in general terms, for example, Mentee 4 states, “I
want to know how to help children learn science concepts.”
The mentor’s pedagogical knowledge was claimed to have an influence on the mentee’s teaching of
primary science. It appeared that apart from planning and preparation, hands-on science teaching
experiences, effective classroom management, and content knowledge are required for developing
the mentee’s science teaching. Even though mentees mentioned pedagogical knowledge in general
terms, specific teaching strategies outlined in the literature (Section 2.10.1.3) were not articulated.
4.2.4 Modelling primary science teaching practices
Mentees need mentors to model primary science teaching practices as a valuable way for mentees to
learn how to teach primary science (Section 2.10.1.4). The interviews highlighted the need for
mentors to model:
1. Teaching of primary science effectively.
2. Language appropriate to science teaching.
3. Programming for primary science teaching.
4. Classroom management strategies.
Mentor 1 emphasised the need for modelling of primary science teaching practices, “I don’t believe
that to teach science the way I teach can be taught at uni, they’ve actually got to see it in practice.”
Mentor 4 concurred, “Probably a demonstration lesson, to actually show them how science is done.”
This means not only teaching science but teaching it well. Likewise Mentee 3 stated, “showing us
how to teach science by teaching a lesson.” The demonstration of science lessons, and the mentor’s
exhibition of behaviours conducive to developing the mentee’s primary science teaching appeared to
assist the mentee’s development as a science teacher in the primary school.
80
Two mentees claimed that they needed some understanding of teaching primary science or otherwise
essential information modelled from the mentor may unknowingly pass by. They also inferred that
they needed mentors to model science language but may need to simplify such language to facilitate
the mentee’s understanding. For example:
I suppose the fact that the prac teachers don’t have any knowledge; therefore, when
they [the mentors] talk to us about things that we did have knowledge about we’d say,
‘Yes we know what you mean.’ But when they tried to talk about things in science…
we probably don’t know what they’re talking about… the content. (Mentee 3)
Modelling primary science teaching allowed mentees to observe practice first-hand. This appeared
to commence with the modelling of how to program for science teaching. When discussing
modelling Mentor 4 stated, “I must have my program up to date for them.” Modelling provided the
mentee with an appreciation of the structure for teaching science. Furthermore, observing a lesson
unfold also provided the mentees with a firmer idea of the knowledge and skills necessary for
teaching primary science. This is illustrated by the following:
I must show them how a lesson flows. I must make sure that there’s an introduction, a
middle and that they see a conclusion, so that they can then see how a lesson is meant
to happen. And then you must show them how this can flow into the next lesson.
(Mentor 4)
All mentors in this study were concerned about the quality of their own mentoring and modelling of
primary science teaching. The intention of “making sure that you’re doing it right for them [and]
setting the correct example for them to follow” (Mentor 4), highlighted the concern for ensuring
effective mentoring. One mentee (Mentee 1) had stated more specifically that she wanted to see
good examples of mentors’ “practices and their classroom management strategies in science.”
81
Even though mentors and mentees agreed that modelling science teaching was essential for
developing mentees’ practices, and this included programming, modelling pedagogical knowledge
and skills, and classroom management strategies, neither group overtly mentioned specific issues
advocated in the literature (Section 2.10.1.4), such as modelling the teaching of traditionally difficult
science topics. However, mentors stated the need to model enthusiasm and incorporated the need to
have mentees model enthusiasm for teaching science.
4.2.5 Providing feedback on primary science teaching practices
When the mentee teaches science, the mentor has substance on which to provide feedback. Indeed,
mentees expect feedback from their mentors. The issues arising from the interviews were that
mentees expected:
1. Observation of their primary science teaching.
2. Oral and/or written feedback on their science teaching practices.
The findings from the interviews indicated that the agenda for talking about the development of
primary science teaching arose from observing the mentee teach. By focussing on the mentee’s
science teaching experiences during the mentoring discussions, mentees were provided with
guidelines on how to teach science more effectively. However, mentors needed to observe mentees
teach primary science so they can discuss and decide what works and what does not, for example:
Being given the opportunity to teach the class. That’s made a difference when my
teacher said, ‘Try it now while you’re here. You’ve got to try these things. If they
don’t work, they don’t work. At least you know now because you’re here.’ Having
the opportunity to try anything and she lets me try anything and even if it doesn’t
work she says, ‘Well you know you’ve learnt something.’ (Mentee 4)
82
Mentors indicated there was a lack of time to provide feedback on teaching, which also includes the
time to form a positive mentoring relationship and discuss key curriculum issues with briefings on
lesson plans. Mentor 1 stated, “It’s hard to find the time to put into the student-teachers,” and
Mentor 3 noted succinctly, “Time is a factor.” Three mentees in Phase 1 of this study concurred that
insufficient time to communicate effectively can impede the mentoring process, especially when
some pedagogical concepts require simplification to secure an understanding.
One mentee claimed she needed to experiment with teaching practices in order to develop greater
pedagogical understandings. To illustrate, Mentee 1 stated, “a teacher must show confidence in their
[preservice teachers] students by letting them experiment and try things for themselves. Those
mistakes help me learn more.” Mentors were also viewed as facilitators to develop the mentee’s
initiative for teaching science, as part of their feedback. For example, Mentee 4 states, “to allow the
students [mentees] to use their initiative while giving guidance.” Most importantly, mentors need to
have insightfulness for providing feedback, as Mentee 6 states, mentors “need to have a good grasp
of what they’re talking about.” The mentor’s feedback can provide opportunities for mentees to
reflect on primary science teaching practices.
Generally, mentors needed to observe their mentees teach primary science in order to provide
feedback. Although oral feedback was more immediate and convenient, written feedback formalised
the process and allowed the mentee to carefully consider the key issues outlined by the mentor.
4.2.6 Summary and conclusions
This study suggests that mentors and mentees have the same or similar focuses on the issues
associated with mentoring and effective primary science teaching. For example, both mentors and
mentees agreed that addressing the mentee’s needs for teaching primary science aims at enhancing
teaching practices and, hence, a greater opportunity for quality learning. Without doubt, mentees are
83
at different levels of attaining competence in primary science teaching. One mentee may have a
well-designed science lesson but requires guidance for the delivery of a lesson, while another mentee
may be competent with classroom management but requires a stronger focus for the content of a
science lesson. Specific mentoring in primary science teaching may make the difference. The
effective mentor is observant and can discuss a whole range of specific issues dealing with primary
science teaching, that is, anything from the class organisation and student management to current
pedagogical beliefs.
The literature (Sections 2.7 and 2.10) outlines mentoring components that aim to assist the mentee’s
development of primary science teaching. Results from Phase 1 of this research suggest that
development of items on an instrument to measure perceptions of mentoring needs to include the five
areas identified in the literature. All mentors and mentees comments in this study could be located in
five key areas. Firstly, the mentor’s personal attributes (Section 2.10.1.1) such as instilling
enthusiasm, providing guidance, and being supportive as these may have an impact on the quality of
mentoring a mentee receives. Secondly, a mentor will need to articulate system requirements
(Section 2.10.1.2) such as the curriculum, aims, and policies that guide science teaching practices in
order to provide departmental requirements. Thirdly, the mentor’s pedagogical knowledge of
science education (Section 2.10.1.3) is a key factor in the mentoring process. Fourthly, the mentor’s
modelling of science teaching practices (Section 2.10.1.4) can allow mentees to observe, reflect, and
evaluate towards forming their own practices. Finally, a mentor needs to observe mentees’ science
teaching practices and provide oral and written feedback on such practices (Section 2.10.1.5).
The following section will detail the development and pilot testing of a survey instrument reflecting
these five key areas to determine mentees’ perceptions of effective mentoring in primary science
teaching.
84
4.3 Phase 2: Developing, pilot testing, and refining an instrument
Phase 2 investigated 21 preservice teachers’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary science
teaching through a pilot survey instrument that aimed to measure such perceptions. The aim of
Phase 2 was to develop, pilot test, and refine this instrument and provide data for addressing the third
research aim (Section 1.6). The instrument was developed by clustering attributes and practices
suggested by the interview data (Section 4.2) and the literature for mentoring in primary science
teaching to each of the five factors, namely, Personal Attributes, System Requirements, Pedagogical
Knowledge, Modelling, and Feedback (Section 2.10).
Results from this pilot survey indicated that there was considerable variation between mentees’
perceptions of their mentoring (see also Hudson, 2003a). The response frequencies for this cohort of
first-year preservice teachers (N=21) suggested that their mentoring in primary science teaching was
not comprehensive. Frequencies on the survey responses indicated that a little more than half the
mentees either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they received mentoring in primary science
teaching, which also means that nearly half this cohort were either uncertain or disagreed that they
received mentoring in this field. Out of the 35 survey items requiring a circled response, 25 items
did not have a “strongly disagree” response by any first-year mentee, which may indicate that first-
year preservice teachers were not critical enough to determine effective mentoring for primary
science teaching or were not actually receiving it. It is also possible that these mentors were very
effective in their mentoring, although this is unlikely if mentors have not been educated on providing
specific mentoring in primary science and particularly if science was taught little, if at all, in
Australian schools (Goodrum, et al., 2001; Mulhollland, 1999). It was considered that subsequent
testing of the survey instrument may be more insightful with more experienced preservice teachers as
they may be more discerning with their expectations of mentoring in primary science teaching. Prior
to further pilot testing with more experienced preservice teachers, five experts in the fields of science
education, professional experiences, survey design, and statistical analysis examined the wording of
85
each item on the instrument with the characteristics of the descriptive statistics in order to refine the
instrument.
This refined instrument was then pilot tested further on 59 final year preservice teachers (Section
3.3.1.2). The aim of this pilot test was to further refine the instrument and provide data on the five
theoretical factors (i.e., Personal Attributes, System Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge,
Modelling, and Feedback) associated with mentoring and primary science teaching (see also Hudson
& Skamp, 2003). An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of these results presented in the next
section provided data on the unidimensionality of these factors.
4.3.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
An initial EFA of the survey content responses (N=59) provided an indication of the dimension of
each factor and also indicated the presence of five unidimensional factors. EFA produced squared
multiple corrections (SMC), Cronbach alphas, and eigenvalues for each factor (i.e., Personal
Attributes, System Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge, Modelling, and Feedback; Table 4.1).
Table 4.1
Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis for each of the Five Factors (N=59)
First component
extracted
Factor
Eigenvalue
Percentage
of variance
Cronbach
alpha
Personal Attributes 5.41 68 .93
System Requirements 2.93 73 .78
Pedagogical Knowledge 6.80 69 .94
Modelling 4.54 65 .90
Feedback 2.24 75 .81
86
Items associated with the factor Personal Attributes were entered in SPSS10 factor reduction and
extracted only one factor (eigenvalue = 5.4), which accounted for 68% of the variance of the items
on this scale. However, a Squared Multiple Correlation (SMC) of .42 (less than the .50 rule of
thumb; Hair et al., 1995) for the item “Assisted with university assignments” indicated that this item
was not significantly related to the factor Personal Attributes, according to the criteria adopted and
so the item was omitted from further consideration. Items associated with System Requirements
provided only one eigenvalue greater than one and accounted for 73% of the variance, which
indicated that each of these items contributed to the factor labelled System Requirements.
However, the items linked to Pedagogical Knowledge produced a second eigenvalue greater than one
(with 10% of variance), which indicated more than one factor associated with these eleven items.
Using the Varimax rotation method in SPSS10 factor reduction, the item “Obtained equipment”
indicated it was predominantly responsible for the extraction of a second factor, as it was the only
item to produce a square multiple correlation over .50 on that factor (SMC = .94). The model was
improved by omitting this item and, subsequently, only one factor was extracted with 69% of
variance and a higher Cronbach alpha (.94), thus improving the model. Assigned items entered into
Modelling and Feedback extracted only one factor each. Items associated with Modelling accounted
for 65% of the variance, while the items associated with Feedback accounted for 75% of the
variance. After another respecification (dropping the item “Obtained equipment”), the five factors
namely, Personal Attributes, System Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge, Modelling, and
Feedback had Cronbach alpha coefficients of internal consistency reliability of .93, .78, .94, .90, and
.81, respectively (Table 4.1).
4.3.2 Summary and conclusions
Pilot tests of this instrument provided data towards improving the instrument by omitting two items
(“Assisted with university assignments” and “Obtained equipment”). The exploratory factor analysis
indicated that these five factors were unidimensional, which provided confidence for conducting
87
Confirmatory Factor Analysis in the next phase of this study. This refined instrument was then
administered to a larger sample, which is reported in the following section.
4.4 Phase 3: Administering and assessing this refined instrument
Phase 3 aimed at addressing the third research aim (Section 1.6) and investigated preservice
teachers’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary science teaching through the refined Mentoring
for Effective Primary Science Teaching survey instrument (MEPST, Appendix 1), which aimed to
measure such perceptions. The results and discussions of Phase 3 will be presented in the following
two sections: Firstly, the MEPST instrument was assessed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(CFA, Section 4.4.1) to determine the significance of a five factor model with factors: Personal
Attributes, System Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge, Modelling, and Feedback. Secondly,
descriptive statistics of mentees’ perceptions of specific mentoring attributes and practices associated
with each of these factors are reported (Section 4.4.2). Summaries and conclusions complete Phase 3
(Section 4.4.3) and Stage 1 of this research (Section 4.4.4).
4.4.1 Assessing the MEPST instrument
In the MEPST instrument developed for Phase 3 of this research, the underlying initial model
(N=331) assumed that the responses to the items (associated attributes and practices) would directly
contribute to their assigned factor. The five factors were hypothesised to covary with each other
(Table 4.2).
This measurement model met the validity requirements in that it had less parameters (n=100) than
observations (n=1035), each latent variable had a scale (as noted in Table 4.2, where one indicator
per factor is fixed to equal 1.0), and there were two or more indicators (items) per factor (Kline,
1998). Data were collected in order to analyse the model by administering it to a sample of
Australian preservice teachers enrolled in the final year of their undergraduate Bachelor of Education
degree or equivalent (Section 3.3.1.3).
88
Table 4.2
Three Tested Models for a Five-Factor Analysis (N=331)
Initial model Respecified model Final model
Personal Attributes reflect3
confidence4 encourage9 comfortable24 comfortable24 comfortable24 approachable27 positive32 positive32 positive32 teachoften37 confidence39 confidence39 confidence39 flexible40 attentive42 attentive42 attentive42 supportive43 supportive43 supportive43 System Requirements content1 aims5 aims5 aims5 policy10 policy10 policy10 curriculum17 curriculum17 curriculum17 assign26 Pedagogical Knowledge preparation8 preparation8 preparation8 management12 management12 management12 planning13 planning13 planning13
implementation14 timetabling16 timetabling16 timetabling16 strategies21 strategies21 strategies21 knowledge22 knowledge22 knowledge22 questioning25 questioning25 questioning25 solve problems36 solve problems36 solve problems36 viewpoints41 viewpoints41 viewpoints41 assessment44 assessment44 assessment44 articulate45 Modelling programs2 coping6 teaching11 teaching11 teaching11 implementation14 implementation14 enthusiasm15 enthusiasm15 enthusiasm15 manage class18 manage class18 manage class18 hands-on28 hands-on28 hands-on28 effective31 effective31 effective31 rapport33 rapport33 rapport33 language34 language34 language34 well-designed35 well-designed35 well-designed35 Feedback reflect3 reflect3 programming7 evaluation19 evaluation19 evaluation19 observation20 observation20 observation20 oral23 oral23 oral23 written29 written29 written29 review plans38 review plans38 review plans38 articulate45 articulate45
Note: The number after each item relates to its position on the initial instrument for N=331 (Appendix 1).
89
Resulting from an analysis of the pilot tests, CFA was estimated by assigning items to factors for
analysing and assessing four models, including an independence model. As this study is laying a
foundation towards developing an instrument, model respecifications were necessary to determine
the most statistically relevant variables assigned to each factor (Hair et al., 1995). Data was
collected from the survey instrument responses for analysing the hypothesised initial model (as
administered to N=331, Section 3.3.1.3); however this analysis necessitated two model
respecifications (Table 4.2; Appendix 1 indicates the number of each item on this instrument).
Hence, four models were analysed using this data. The independence model, which tested the
independence of each variable, and the initial (hypothesised) model, emanating from preliminary
development and EFA. As a result of analysis of these two models, a further two models were
developed and tested, that is, a respecified model and a final model.
Various assumptions need to be met in order to interpret the CFA with more confidence (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 1996). The sample size should preferably exceed 200; especially where there is increased
model complexity, and a ratio of 10:1 for the number of subjects to the number of parameters is
considered acceptable (Kline, 1998). In this study the ratio of participants to parameters was
approximately 9:1. In each analysis (N=331) standard errors of skewness and kurtosis were both
within the acceptable ±2 range (Piovanelli, 2000), and for the final model (Figure 4.1) skewness
ranged from .013 to .797 and kurtosis ranged from .061 to 1.354.
The response scales of the variables were all the same (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996), that is, a
variable from each factor was scaled to one and other variables associated with that factor were
measured relative to the scaled variable. Other assumptions include independent observations, and
the linearity of all relationships (Hair et al., 1995).
Mentoring for Effective Primary Science Teaching (MEPST)
Implementation
Evaluation
Aims
Curriculum
Policy
Rapport
Language
Enthusiasm
Effective
Hands-on
Manage class
Teaching
Well-designed
Observation Oral WrittenReview plans Articulate
ReflectComfortablePositive Confidence AttentiveSupportive
Preparation
Management
Planning
Timetabling
Strategies
Knowledge
Questioning
Solve problems
Viewpoints
Assessment
PersonalAttributes
SystemRequirements
PedagogicalKnowledge
Modelling
Feedback
s
s
s
s ss
Note: Two-way arrows indicate factor covariances with circles representing the latent variables (factors) and
rectangles respresenting the measured variables (indicators). Error variances, squared multiple correlations, regression weights, standardised regression weights, and standard errors are reported in Table 4.5. Factor correlations, covariances, and standard error covariances are reported in Table 4.4. Correlated variables: “Teaching” and “Manage Class,” “Planning” and “Implementation,” “Observation” and “Oral,” “Attentive” and “Supportive.”
Figure 4.1. Final model for mentoring in primary science teaching, after respecifications.
90
91
The Independence Model and the Initial Model
The independence model, which tests the null hypothesis that all observed variables (items) were
uncorrelated, was rejected, that is, χ2(527) = 11966, p < .001, CMIDF = 22.7, IFI and CFI = .000,
RMR = .883, RMSEA = .237 (Table 4.3; for criteria see Section 3.3.1.3). Accordingly, the initial
model proposed that the five factors covary and were associated with each indicated item (Table
4.2). However, respecifications, which will be discussed in the following section, were necessary to
improve the initial model, that is, χ2(935) = 3078, p < .001, CMIDF = 3.29, IFI = .842, CFI = .841,
RMR = .097, RMSEA = .083 (Table 4.3).
Table 4.3
Fit Indices for Independence, Initial, and Respecified Models (N=331)
Model χ2 df CMIDF IFI CFI RMR RMSEA
Independence model
11966 527 22.7 .000 .000 .883 .237
Initial model (Table 4.4)
3078 935 3.29 .842 .841 .097 .083
Respecified model (Table 4.4)
1460 513 2.85 .900 .909 .075 .075
Final model (Figure 4.1)
1335 513 2.60 .922 .921 .066 .070
The respecified model.
Respecifications aim to develop a better fitting model (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996; Hair et al., 1995).
Further analysis of the SEM statistics, combined with additional reflections on the relationship
between the latent variables and the meaning of each item on the survey, provided insights towards
respecifications. The following discussion relates to the items on the survey (Appendix 1), where for
example “support43” refers to the forty-third item on the survey “was supportive of me for teaching
science.”
92
In the initial model, which was developed from preliminary investigations and EFA, the item
“content1” appeared to be duplicated through the combination of some pedagogical knowledge items
(e.g. “knowledge22,” “strategies21”). It was also considered that “confidence4” was duplicated to
some degree in “confidence39,” and “encourage9” was duplicated by items “support43” and
“enthuse15.” Consequently, in the first respecified model the items “content1,” “confidence4,” and
“encourage9” were dropped. Other items were dropped because they had squared multiple
correlations of less than .50 (“programs2” [.449], “coping6” [.474], “assign26” [.131],
“approachable27” [.226], “teachoften37” [.227], “flexible40” [.416]; see Kline, 1998).
AMOS analysed the data as a five-factor model; however System Requirements had two items
(“policy10” and “curriculum14”) with squared multiple correlations of less than .50 that were
retained, as System Requirements is theoretically integral to the model (see correlations and
covariances in Table 4.4), and each latent variable requires at least two indicators (Kline, 1998).
Similarly, “assessment44” was less than the .5 rule of thumb but was also retained on theoretical
grounds (Chapter 2).
Further reflection and analysis of data provided justification for relocating one variable,
“articulate45,” initially considered to be pedagogical knowledge but was more characteristic of
providing effective feedback (e.g., Berliner, 1986); therefore it was removed from Pedagogical
Knowledge and assigned to Feedback. AMOS statistics also indicated that it was appropriate to
correlate four pairs of item residual variances (i.e., “teaching11” and “manage class18,”
“planning13” and “implementation14,” “observation20” and “oral23,” “attentive42” and
“supportive43;” p < .001, standard errors [SE] range: .030 to .048). These respecifications improved
the model (Table 4.3, “Respecified model”), particularly the Incremental Fit Index (IFI = .900) and
the Comparative Fix Index (CFI = .909).
93
Table 4.4
Factor Correlations and Covariances for the Final Model (N=331)
Factors Correlations Covariances *SE cov.
Personal attributes & System requirements .772 0.653 .077
Personal attributes & Pedagogical knowledge .956 1.113 .105
Personal attributes & Modelling .879 1.120 .110
Personal attributes & Feedback .946 1.112 .105
System requirements &
Pedagogical knowledge .863 0.707 .080
System requirements & Modelling .761 0.682 .082
System requirements & Feedback .697 0.577 .073
Pedagogical knowledge & Modelling .855 1.056 .107
Pedagogical knowledge& Feedback .904 1.030 .101
Modelling & Feedback .762 0.950 .102 Note: All correlations and covariances were statistically significant (p < .001) * SE cov. – Standardised errors for covariances
The final model for mentoring in primary science teaching.
In the final analysis of the results and the intended meaning of each survey item, two more
reassignments to the “respecified model” were applied to complete the final model: one item,
“implementation14” (which aligned more with a mentor’s practical knowledge of implementing
teaching) was removed from the modelling factor and assigned to pedagogical knowledge; and,
another item, “reflect3” (which appeared more characteristic of a mentor’s personal attributes and
ability to encourage reflection on practice) was removed from feedback and assigned to personal
attributes. After respecifying the two items, better goodness of fit indexes and a lower CMIDF were
indicated, that is, χ2(513) = 1335, p < .001, CMIDF = 2.60, IFI = .922, CFI = .921, RMR = .066,
RMSEA = .070 (Table 4.3).
94
Table 4.5
Factors and Associated Item Measurements for the Final Model (N=331)
Factors and items *EV SMC RW SE (RW) SRW Personal attributes reflect3 0.31 0.580 0.865 0.051 0.762 comfortable24 0.23 0.694 0.924 0.047 0.833 positive 32 0.22 0.701 0.941 0.047 0.837 confidence39 0.19 0.736 1.000 0.858 attentive42 0.30 0.644 0.914 0.049 0.919 supportive43 0.21 0.688 0.986 0.050 0.972 System requirements aims5 0.35 0.612 1.128 0.091 0.782 policy10 0.47 0.449 0.930 0.086 0.670 curriculum17 0.42 0.486 1.000 0.697 Pedagogical knowledge preparation8 0.23 0.696 1.000 0.835 pk.management12 0.30 0.653 1.003 0.055 0.808 planning13 0.21 0.711 0.978 0.042 0.843 implementation14 0.31 0.719 0.952 0.049 0.848 timetabling16 0.36 0.555 0.890 0.055 0.745 strategies21 0.25 0.716 0.980 0.050 0.846 knowledge22 0.36 0.578 0.854 0.052 0.760 questioning25 0.29 0.667 0.928 0.050 0.817 solve problems36 0.26 0.668 0.849 0.046 0.817 viewpoints41 0.27 0.665 0.944 0.051 0.815 assessment44 0.43 0.477 0.793 0.055 0.690 Modelling teaching11 0.38 0.527 0.727 0.052 0.726 enthusiasm15 0.31 0.601 0.823 0.050 0.775 manage class18 0.35 0.550 0.833 0.054 0.742 hands-on28 0.25 0.681 1.000 0.825 effective31 0.18 0.799 0.943 0.046 0.894 rapport33 0.23 0.735 0.910 0.047 0.858 language34 0.33 0.665 0.856 0.048 0.816 well-designed35 0.21 0.761 0.946 0.048 0.872 Feedback evaluation19 0.26 0.677 0. 984 0.054 0.817 observation20 0.24 0.634 1.015 0.046 0.796 oral23 0.20 0.705 1.000 0.840 written29 0.31 0.606 1.003 0.059 0.779 review plans38 0.34 0.623 0.971 0.056 0.789 articulate45 0.33 0.641 0.916 0.052 0.801 * EV - Error variances or measurement errors SMC – Squared multiple correlations RW - Regression Weights SE(RW) - Standard Errors (Regression Weights) SRW- Standardised Regression Weights
This final model was also more conceptually connected. Correlations and covariances of the five
factors were statistically significant (p < .001, Tables 4.4 and 4.5).
Regression weights, which provide an indication of the relative contribution each variable makes to
the specified factor (Agresti & Finlay, 1997) were also statistically significant (range: .80 to 1.13; p
< .001). Standardised regression weights ranged from .67 to .89 (p < .001), and all standard errors,
95
which are a measure of how much the value of a test statistic varies from sample to sample, were
minimal for all items in the final model (≤.01, see Table 4.5). The final model is illustrated in Figure
4.1, where circles represent the five latent variables (factors), and rectangles represent the measured
variables (indicators).
Mean scale scores and standard deviations for each of the five factors are presented in Table 4.6.
Cronbach alpha scores for each factor may be considered acceptable (Table 4.6).
Table 4.6
Mean Scale Scores, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach Alphas for each of the Five Factors
(N=331)
Factor Mean scale
score*
SD Cronbach
alpha
Personal Attributes 3.14 1.08 .93
System Requirements 2.29 0.93 .76
Pedagogical Knowledge 2.76 1.01 .94
Modelling 3.09 1.07 .95
Feedback 3.14 1.11 .92
* Percentage of mentees who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” their mentor provided that specific
mentoring practice.
4.4.2 Descriptive statistics of mentoring attributes and practices associated with each factor
Further insight into mentors’ attributes and practices for mentoring in primary science teaching can
be gained by examining items associated with each factor. Hence, the following presents descriptive
statistics of mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary science teaching within each of the
theoretical five factors as indicated by the final model.
Factor 1: Personal attributes.
96
Results indicated that 64% of mentees’ “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that their mentors were
supportive of their mentees’ development of primary science teaching, and 56% of mentors were
perceived to be comfortable in talking about science teaching with their mentees. A little more than
half the mentors (53%) were perceived to listen attentively to their mentees, and less than half to
have instilled confidence (46%) and positive attitudes (45%) for teaching primary science. Finally,
65% of mentors were perceived as not to display personal attributes to aid the mentee’s reflection on
teaching practices (Table 4.7).
Table 4.7
Descriptive Statistics of Personal Attributes for Mentoring Primary Science Teaching (N=331)
Mentoring practice %* Mean SD
Supportive
64 3.46 1.31
Comfortable in talking
56 3.30 1.22
Attentive
53 3.19 1.31
Instilled confidence
46 3.10 1.28
Instilled positive attitudes
45 3.07 1.23
Assisted in reflecting 35 2.72 1.25
* %=Percentage of mentees who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” their mentor provided that specific mentoring practice.
97
Factor 2: System requirements.
Items displayed under the factor System Requirements presented a vastly different picture from the
previous factor. The primary science mentoring practices associated with System Requirements
were perceived by mentees to be all below 25% (Table 4.8).
Table 4.8
Descriptive Statistics of System Requirements for Mentoring Primary Science Teaching (N=331)
Mentoring practice %* Mean SD
Discussed aims
23 2.40 1.11
Outlined curriculum
18 2.27 1.11
Discussed policies
16 2.22 1.07
*%=Percentage of mentees who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” their mentor provided that
specific mentoring practice.
Factor 3: Pedagogical knowledge.
In this study, only 25 to 45% of mentors were perceived by mentees to provide the attributes and
practices associated with Pedagogical Knowledge for effective primary science teaching. In the
planning stages before teaching science only 37% of mentors assisted in planning, with 44%
discussing the timetabling of the mentee’s teaching and 45% assisting with science teaching
preparation (Table 4.9).
In addition, 65% of mentors were perceived not to have discussed the implementation and content
knowledge of primary science lessons, and a further 69% may not have discussed questioning skills
towards more successful learning. Mentees’ responses indicated that the majority of mentors did not
assist with classroom management (44%), teaching strategies (41%), assessment (31%) or problem
solving strategies (25%) for effective science teaching practices, and mentees indicated that
providing different viewpoints on teaching science was not a high priority with 35% of the mentors
(Table 4.9).
98
Table 4.9
Descriptive Statistics of Pedagogical Knowledge for Mentoring Primary Science Teaching (N=331)
Mentoring practice %* Mean SD
Guided preparation
45 2.87 1.27
Assisted with timetabling
44 2.91 1.27
Assisted with classroom management
44 2.85 1.32
Assisted with teaching strategies
41 2.86 1.23
Assisted in planning
37 2.72 1.23
Discussed implementation
35 2.70 1.19
Discussed content knowledge
35 2.73 1.19
Provided viewpoints
35 2.81 1.23
Discussed questioning skills
31 2.67 1.21
Discussed assessment
31 2.64 1.22
Discussed problem solving
25 2.60 1.10
* %=Percentage of mentees who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” their mentor provided that specific mentoring practice.
Factor 4: Modelling.
Modelling teaching provides mentees with visual and aural demonstration of how to teach, yet other
than modelling a rapport with their students (58%) less than half the mentees perceived that their
mentors modelled science teaching practices. For example, mentees indicated that 48% of mentors
displayed enthusiasm for science teaching and only 44% modelled science teaching, which included
having a well-designed science lesson (Table 4.10). In addition, most mentors were perceived not to
have modelled classroom management (57%), effective science teaching (58%), or a hands-on lesson
(60%), and 60% of mentors did not model the use of science syllabus language, which is required to
scaffold the mentee’s learning about how to teach science (Table 4.10).
99
Table 4.10
Descriptive Statistics of Modelling Primary Science Teaching (N=331)
Mentoring practice %* Mean SD
Modelled rapport with students
58 3.36 1.24
Displayed enthusiasm
48 3.08 1.23
Modelled a well-designed lesson
44 3.09 1.26
Modelled science teaching
44 2.68 1.25
Modelled classroom management
43 2.96 1.30
Modelled effective science teaching
42 3.11 1.22
Demonstrated hands-on
41 3.01 1.26
Used syllabus language
40 3.04 1.22
* %=Percentage of mentees who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” their mentor provided that specific mentoring practice.
Factor 5: Feedback.
The results had shown that 54% of mentees perceived their mentors reviewed their lesson plans,
however, 67% of mentors were perceived not to have articulated their expectations for science
teaching. Nevertheless, mentees claimed that 74% of mentors observed them teaching science, with
62% providing oral feedback on their science teaching. Written feedback was considerably less
(45%), as was the mentor’s feedback on evaluating the mentee’s science teaching (46%, Table 4.11).
100
Table 4.11
Descriptive Statistics of Feedback on Primary Science Teaching (N=331)
Mentoring practice %* Mean SD Observed teaching for feedback
74 3.72 1.37
Provided oral feedback
62 3.32 1.28
Reviewed lesson plans
54 3.13 1.32
Provided evaluation on teaching
46 2.96 1.29
Provided written feedback
45 2.95 1.38
Articulated expectations
33 2.75 1.23
* %=Percentage of mentees who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” their mentor provided that specific mentoring practice.
4.4.3 Summary and conclusions
Firstly, percent responses for response categories and mean scores on each of the five factors
indicated that a considerable number of mentees “strongly disagreed,” “disagreed” or were
“uncertain” they had received mentoring practices in primary science teaching. Between 35 to 64%
of mentees thought they had mentors who had exhibited Personal Attributes. Of particular note is
the very low percentage (16-23%) of mentees who perceived they were not mentored in System
Requirements, which is required for science education reform to occur (Bybee, 1997). Likewise,
most mentees (25-45%) perceived they had not received mentoring in Pedagogical Knowledge and
Modelling (40-58%), and 33-74% of mentees considered they received Feedback. Assuming that
mentees’ perceptions can be considered indicative of possible mentoring practices in primary science
education then the quality of mentoring in primary science education in Australia needs to be
enhanced. Nevertheless, the combination of mentors perceived as observing lessons (74%), being
supportive (64%), and providing oral feedback (62%) were positive starting points for the mentoring
process.
101
Secondly, the MEPST instrument was developed through an extensive literature search on mentoring
and science education, a small exploratory qualitative study, critiques by experts in the field, two
pilot tests, and a CFA study of 331 final year preservice primary teachers from nearly half the
universities involved in primary teacher education in Australia. Although confirmatory factor
analysis supported the reliability and partial validation of this instrument, the model required
respecification of particular items (e.g., assign26, flexible40). Nevertheless, analysis of the
instrument (MEPST) for determining mentees’ perceptions of mentoring practices in primary science
teaching indicated highly statistically significant correlations between the five factors and each of the
associated items on the MEPST instrument (Tables 4.2 to 4.5). Through structural equation
modelling (e.g., Hair et al., 1995; Stevens, 1996) a five-factor model was hypothesised to compose
an integrated system.
4.5 Conclusion of Stage 1
The analysis on mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary science teaching confirmed five
factors suggested by the literature as indicators of effective mentoring, namely, Personal Attributes,
System Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge, Modelling, and Feedback; and Cronbach alpha
reliability coefficients further indicated an acceptable final model. Reporting the items on the survey
instrument within these five factors presented a way to identify such mentoring attributes and
practices in primary science teaching towards developing better practices for both mentoring and
primary science teaching. The following final model presents a description of the mentoring factors
and associated attributes and practices, which provided a basis for the development of a mentoring
intervention in primary science teaching:
102
Factor 1: Personal attributes.
Attributes to instil positive attitudes and confidence for teaching primary science and to assist
mentees to reflect on their primary science teaching practices require mentors to be attentive,
supportive, and comfortable in talking about science.
Factor 2: System requirements.
Most education systems have curriculum requirements for each school subject, including primary
science. The primary science curriculum, its aims, and the related school policies for implementing
system requirements are fundamental to any educational system. They provide uniformity and
direction for implementing primary science education.
Factor 3: Pedagogical knowledge.
The mentor’s pedagogical knowledge of primary science is required for guiding the mentee with
planning, timetabling, preparation, implementation, classroom management strategies, teaching
strategies, science teaching knowledge, questioning skills, problem solving strategies, and
assessment techniques. It is implied that the mentor would be able to assist the mentee to improve
science teaching practices because of a focus on these aspects. Expressing various viewpoints on
teaching primary science may also assist the mentee to formulate a pedagogical philosophy of
science teaching.
Factor 4: Modelling.
The mentor must model planning and teaching primary science (consistent with current system
requirements). This will require mentors to have enthusiasm for science, and involve mentees, not
only in teaching science, but also teaching it effectively with well-designed hands-on lessons that
display classroom management strategies and exemplify a rapport with students. The discourse used
by the mentor when modelling science teaching needs to be consistent with the current syllabus.
103
Factor 5: Feedback.
Mentors need to review the mentee’s primary science lesson plans and programs. Observing the
mentee’s primary science teaching provides content for the mentor to express oral and written
feedback on the mentee’s science teaching, and allows for reflective practices (Desouza & Czerniak,
2003). The mentor must show the mentee how to evaluate primary science teaching, so that the
mentee can more readily reflect upon practice.
This concludes Stage 1 of this research, which aimed primarily at developing an instrument to
measure mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary science teaching, which further
indicated support for a five-factor mentoring model. The development of the MEPST survey
instrument provided the basis for designing a mentoring program that focuses on effective primary
science teaching; therefore Stage 2 (Chapter 5) focused on developing a small-scale mentoring
intervention for primary science teaching, which was linked to this instrument. In addition, the
instrument was used to assess the effectiveness of this intervention.
104
Chapter 5
Results and Discussion of Stage 2: Development of a Mentoring
Intervention for Primary Science Teaching
5.1 Chapter preview
The development of a survey instrument that measures mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring in
primary science teaching and the literature provided a basis for developing a mentoring intervention
in this field. This chapter is concerned with the results and discussions of Stage 2 of this research,
that is, the development of a mentoring intervention for primary science teaching, which focused on
the fourth research aim (Section 1.6), to develop a mentoring intervention with mentoring strategies
related to these factors and associated variables for mentoring preservice teachers of primary science
and assess the effects of such an intervention. A brief description is provided on the pilot testing of
the mentoring intervention (Section 5.1.1), then control group and intervention group MEPST scores
are presented and discussed (Section 5.2) as the results from administering the intervention and the
MEPST survey. MEPST-Mentor scores (Section 5.3), and booklet notations and interviews on
mentors’ perceptions of the specific mentoring intervention are provided (Section 5.4). Mentees’
science teaching efficacy belief (STEBI B) results (Section 5.5) and mentors’ science mentoring
efficacy belief results (Section 5.6) are also provided and discussed. This chapter is completed with
a summary and conclusions on these results (Section 5.7) and Stage 2 conclusions (Section 5.8).
5.1.1 Pilot testing the mentoring intervention
The mentoring intervention for enhancing primary science teaching was based on the previously
established five factors, namely, personal Attributes, System Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge,
Modelling, and Feedback, which were supported by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA, see Tables
4.3, 4.4, and 4.5). The intervention (Section 3.3.2), which was also based on the MEPST instrument
(Appendix 2), was pilot tested with the researcher (as mentor) and two final year preservice teachers
105
during their four-week professional experiences; one from April to May 2002 (Hudson, 2002), and
the other from May to June 2002 (Hudson, 2003b, 2003c). Both participants were purposefully
selected to be especially informative (Neuman, 2000) because they were final year, mature-aged
preservice teachers with high academic results. After consultation with two science education
experts and consideration of the pilot tests, the mentoring program was refined for implementation in
Stage 2 of this research. The mentoring program was then implemented with an intervention group
involving 12 mentors and their respective mentees (n=12), which was compared to the mentoring
received from a control group involving 60 mentors and their respective mentees (n=60, see Section
3.3.2). The following sections report the results of these two groups across the five factors and
associated items.
5.2 Control group and intervention group MEPST scores
The MEPST instrument provided data for analysis of control group and intervention group mentees’
perceptions of their mentoring in primary science teaching. The following will report and discuss
ANOVA comparisons of the control group and intervention group data within each factor and then
further report and discuss the results of the items associated with each factor for each group.
An ANOVA was conducted on the survey results comparing the mean scores on each of the
previously identified factors for the intervention and control groups. Table 5.1 reports the mean
scores and standard deviations (SD) on each of the five factors for the control and intervention
groups along with the results of an independent sample t-test comparing the mean scores for each
group. This table shows that there were statistically significant differences in mean scores in the
control and intervention groups on four of the five factors, with the latter group having a higher
mean score on each factor. The difference in the mean scores on Feedback was not statistically
significant (p > .05), although the intervention group still scored higher than the control group on this
factor.
106
Table 5.1
Descriptive Statistics, ANOVA Comparisons, and Effect Sizes of the Five Factors for Control and Intervention Groups
Control
(n=60)
Intervention
(n=12)
Factor
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
difference
Effect
size (d)
t
(df=70)
Personal Attributes
3.42 1.11 4.00 0.62 0.58 0.55 1.76*
System Requirements
2.40 1.02 4.14 0.86 1.74 1.47 5.53**
Pedagogical Knowledge
2.88 1.07 3.67 0.50 0.79 0.76 2.48*
Modelling
3.18 1.02 3.87 0.62 0.63 0.64
2.06*
Feedback 3.30 1.10 3.85 0.81 0.54 0.51 1.62
** p < .01, * p < .05
Further, Table 5.1 reports calculations of the effect size of the difference in mean scores between the
two groups. “Effect sizes of .20 are considered small; .50, medium; and, .80, large” (Hittleman &
Simon, 2002, p. 178). The largest effect size [d] was evident with System Requirements. For the
intervention group the mean score was 4.14, while the control group mean score was 2.40, which
indicated a very large effect size in favour of the intervention group, that is, d(70) = 1.47, p < .01.
The effect size was also considered large for Pedagogical Knowledge with a control group mean
score of 2.88 and an intervention group mean score of 3.67 (d = .76). Personal Attributes and
Modelling would be classified as at least medium effect sizes (d = .55 & d = .51, respectively; Table
5.1). t-tests indicated that mentees’ perceptions of the specific mentoring intervention was
statistically and educationally significant on four of the five factors (Table 5.1); effect size was
lowest for Feedback. The difference in sample size was recognised and the differences considered.
Where the larger variance was associated with the larger sample, the test was less likely to correctly
identify the statistically significant differences in the means (Kline, 1998). Accordingly, the results
107
from this statistical test should be viewed conservatively. Further elaboration of the items associated
with each factor provides more insight into the perceptions of the mentoring intervention practices.
Tables 5.2 to 5.6 present the mentoring practices and/or attributes associated with each factor in
descending rank order according to the frequency of responses for mentees who either agreed or
strongly agreed their mentor provided the specific mentoring practice and/or attribute.
Factor 1: Personal attributes.
Mentees in the control group generally agreed that mentors exhibited Personal Attributes for
mentoring primary science teaching (mean score range: 2.69 to 3.93, SD range: 1.09 to 1.32, Table
5.2). Even though 80% of mentees indicated that their mentors were supportive, 10% strongly
disagreed. Thirty percent of mentees claimed that the mentor did not make them feel positive or
confident about teaching primary science, with 27% claiming that the mentor did not listen
attentively to the mentee about their science teaching. Other than instilling confidence to teaching
science (49%) and assisting in reflecting on practices (48%), the majority of mentors practised the
attributes associated with the factor labelled Personal Attributes (Table 5.2).
In comparison to the rank order statistics of the control group, the intervention group presented a
very different set of statistics. In this latter group, only half the mentors appeared comfortable in
talking about science (50%); however all other practices associated with Personal Attributes were
significantly higher (mean score range: 3.33 to 4.50, SD range: .67 to 1.38, Table 5.2), with 92% of
mentees indicating that mentors were supportive, instilled positive attitudes, and assisted with
reflective practices in their science teaching. Mentors were perceived by their mentees to be more
attentive (67%) and instilled a confidence in the mentees for teaching science (83%, Table 5.2).
108
Table 5.2
Descriptive Statistics of Personal Attributes for Mentoring Primary Science Teaching (Control-
Intervention Mentees)
Control group (n=60) Intervention group (n=12) Mentoring practice
%* Mean SD %* Mean SD
Supportive
80 3.93 1.25 92 4.50 1.38
Comfortable in talking
68 3.62 1.21 50 3.33 0.98
Attentive
57 3.31 1.30 67 3.58 0.90
Instilled positive attitudes
53 3.25 1.32 92 4.42 0.67
Instilled confidence
49 3.20 1.31 83 4.17 0.72
Assisted in reflecting
48 2.69 1.09 92 4.00 0.95
* %=Percentage of mentees who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” their mentor provided that specific mentoring practice
Factor 2: System requirements.
About a quarter of the mentors in the control group were perceived by mentees to provide System
Requirements (mean score range: 2.37 to 2.45, SD range: 1.14 to 1.22, Table 5.3). Only 25% of
mentors outlined science curriculum documents, and 22% discussed the science syllabus aims and
the school’s science policy. Conversely, 75% of mentors or more did not provide their mentees with
System Requirements for primary science teaching.
The intervention group indicated significantly higher involvement from mentors in System
Requirements (mean score range: 3.75 to 4.42, SD range: .87 to 1.14, Table 5.3) with three quarters
of mentors outlining the science curriculum and discussing the aims for teaching science, and 92% of
mentors discussing the school’s science policy (Table 5.3). This represented a greater than 250%
109
increase in these perceptions of mentoring practices for the mentors involved in the intervention
compared to the control group.
Table 5.3
Descriptive Statistics of System Requirements for Mentoring Primary Science Teaching (Control-
Intervention)
Control group Intervention group
Mentoring practice %* Mean SD %* Mean SD
Outlined curriculum
25 2.37 1.22 75 3.75 1.14
Discussed aims
22 2.45 1.14 75 4.25 0.87
Discussed policies
22 2.37 1.18 92 4.42 0.90
* %=Percentage of mentees who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” their mentor provided that
specific mentoring practice.
Factor 3: Pedagogical knowledge.
Only two items (“assisted with timetabling” and “assisted with classroom management”) associated
with the factor Pedagogical Knowledge received a higher than 50% rating from the 60 mentees in the
control group (mean score range: 2.47 to 3.35, SD range: 1.21 to 1.39, Table 5.4). For the control
group, the Pedagogical Knowledge mentoring practices for primary science teaching involved, in
descending rank order: preparation (45%), questioning techniques (40%), planning (38%), teaching
strategies (37%), knowledge (35%), problem solving (33%), providing viewpoints (32%), and
discussing assessment (21%) were exercised by less than half the mentors in this group (Table 5.4).
Pedagogical knowledge is considered an essential reason for involving preservice teachers in
professional experiences, yet most mentors do not provide this knowledge in the area of primary
science, which significantly diminishes the value of the mentee’s professional experience for science
teaching.
110
Table 5.4
Descriptive Statistics of Pedagogical Knowledge for Mentoring Primary Science Teaching (Control-
Intervention)
Control group Intervention group
Mentoring practice %* Mean SD %* Mean SD
Assisted with timetabling
63 3.35 1.33 92 4.42 0.67
Assisted with classroom management
53 3.10 1.37 92 3.83 0.83
Discussed implementation
50 3.05 1.33 92 4.00 0.74
Guided preparation
45 2.91 1.39 58 3.00 1.35
Discussed questioning techniques
40 2.95 1.27 83 4.00 0.85
Assisted in planning
38 2.85 1.30 83 3.67 0.98
Assisted with teaching strategies
37 2.80 1.27 58 3.00 0.95
Discussed knowledge
35 2.76 1.24 67 3.91 0.99
Discussed problem solving
33 2.67 1.24 67 3.58 1.08
Provided viewpoints
32 2.73 1.21 42 3.33 1.15
Discussed assessment
21 2.47 1.21 62 3.67 1.23
* %=Percentage of mentees who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” their mentor provided that
specific mentoring practice.
In contrast to the control group, only one item (“provided viewpoints”) received a less than a 50%
rating from the 12 mentees in the intervention group; even so, all items associated with Pedagogical
Knowledge were higher (Table 5.4) than the control group statistics. In comparison to the control
group, data indicated an increase in intervention group mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring by
more than 100% for four items (“discussed questioning techniques” = 83%, “assisted in planning” =
83%, “discussed problem solving” = 67%, “discussed assessment” = 62%, Table 5.4), and an
increase of more than 50% for five items (“assisted with timetabling” = 92%, “assisted with
classroom management” = 92%,“discussed implementation” = 92%, “discussed knowledge” = 67%,
111
“assisted with teaching strategies” = 58%, Table 5.4). One item (“guided preparation”) increased by
more than 25%, which may also be attributed to the mentoring intervention.
Factor 4: Modelling.
Items associated with Modelling indicated that mentors in the control group did not generally model
science teaching practices for their mentees (mean score range: 2.63 to 3.62, SD range: 1.21 to 1.30,
Table 5.5). Although 62% of mentors were perceived to have modelled a rapport with students and
55% demonstrated at least one hands-on lesson, less than half the mentors modelled enthusiasm for
teaching science (48%), science syllabus language (45%), science teaching (43%), classroom
management (42%), effective science teaching (35%), and well-designed science lessons (35%,
Table 5.5).
Table 5.5
Descriptive Statistics of Modelling Primary Science Teaching (Control-Intervention)
Control group Intervention group
Mentoring practice %* Mean SD %* Mean SD
Modelled rapport with students
62 3.62 1.17 50 3.25 1.22
Demonstrated hands-on
55 3.45 1.28 92 4.58 0.67
Displayed enthusiasm
48 3.37 1.21 75 3.91 1.08
Used syllabus language
45 3.20 1.21 42 2.17 1.19
Modelled science teaching
43 3.15 1.16 92 4.38 0.79
Modelled classroom management
42 3.05 1.17 92 4.41 0.67
Modelled effective science teaching
35 2.63 1.30 75 4.08 0.99
Modelled a well-designed lesson
35 2.98 1.26 83 4.17 0.72
* %=Percentage of mentees who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” their mentor provided that
specific mentoring practice.
112
In the intervention group, modelling a rapport with students (50%) and using science syllabus
language (42%) were lower than in the control group; however all other Modelling practices were
higher than the control group’s results (Table 5.5). In the intervention group, 92% of mentors were
perceived to have modelled science teaching with at least one hands-on lesson and all but one mentor
demonstrated classroom management strategies. Mentees in the intervention group indicated that
83% of mentors had well-designed lessons, and three quarters of mentors modelling effective science
teaching and displayed enthusiasm for science teaching. Four items associated with Modelling
practices represented an increase of intervention group mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring of
over 100% compared to the control group (Table 5.5).
Factor 5: Feedback.
According to the mentees (n=60), most mentors in the control group provided Feedback on the
mentees’ primary science teaching (mean score range: 2.63 to 3.62, SD range: 1.21 to 1.30, Table
5.6). Oral feedback (70%) was practised more than written feedback (58%), and although 72% of
mentors observed the mentee’s teaching, 67% evaluated the mentee’s teaching, and 53% reviewed
the mentee’s lesson plans, only 37% of mentors articulated their expectations for teaching science.
The quality of mentoring in the area of Feedback may be diminished by the inadequate articulation
of expectations for teaching primary science.
All mentoring practices for Feedback were higher for the intervention group (mean score range: 3.33
to 4.25, SD range: .45 to 1.27, Table 5.6) with 100% of mentors observing their mentees teach
science, and all mentors in this group provided oral feedback on the mentee’s science teaching.
Ninety-two percent of mentors evaluated the mentee’s science teaching, and 67% reviewed the
mentee’s science lesson plans and provided written feedback. The mentees indicated that 58% of
mentors in the intervention group articulated their expectations for teaching science (Table 5.6).
113
Table 5.6
Descriptive Statistics of Feedback on Primary Science Teaching(Control-Intervention)
Control group Intervention group
Mentoring practice %* Mean SD %* Mean SD
Observed teaching for feedback
72 3.73 1.16 100 4.08 0.99
Provided oral feedback
70 3.58 1.39 100 4.25 0.45
Provided evaluation on teaching
67 3.33 1.37 92 4.00 0.85
Provided written feedback
58 3.28 1.33 67 3.83 1.27
Reviewed lesson plans
53 3.05 1.31 67 3.33 1.15
Articulated expectations
37 2.83 1.78 58 3.58 1.00
* %=Percentage of mentees who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” their mentor provided that
specific mentoring practice.
Additionally, Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients for the five factors (i.e., Personal Attributes,
System Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge, Modelling, and Feedback) provided further
validation of the final analysis of the MEPST instrument (.92, .88, .95, .92, .92 respectively).
5.3 MEPST-Mentor scores
Table 5.7 indicated that all mentors “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they provided mentoring on
three factors, namely, Personal Attributes, Modelling, and Feedback (mean scale scores of 4.22 to
4.39); they also believed that they supported mentees’ growth in Pedagogical Knowledge (3.92), but
less so with their support of mentees about System Requirements (3.42). However, mentors’ scores
were higher than the mentees’ scores on four of the factors; the exception was System Requirements.
The paired mean differences and t-tests indicated no significant difference between the perceptions
of mentors and mentees, which was most obvious for Personal Attributes (mentors’ mean scale score
4.19; mentees 4.0; t(11) = 0.85) and Pedagogical Knowledge (3.92 and 3.67; t = 1.39). These
differences were also noted for System Requirements (3.42 and 4.14; t = 1.93), Modelling (4.22 and
114
3.81; t = 2.05), and Feedback (4.39 and 3.85; t = 2.06; Table 5.7). This infers broad agreement
between these mentors and mentees on the mentors’ practices; therefore the intervention may have
been implemented as designed.
Table 5.7
Comparing Mentees’ and Mentors’ Perceptions on the Five Mentoring Factors Linked to the
Intervention
Mentoring factor
Mentor scale scores (n=12)
MEPST-Mentor
Mentee scale scores (n=12)
MEPST
Paired mean differences
t* (df=11)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Personal Attributes
4.19 (0.35)
4.00 (0.62) 0.19 0.85
System Requirements
3.42 (0.78) 4.14 (0.86) 0.72 1.93
Pedagogical Knowledge
3.92 (0.32) 3.67 (0.50) 0.26 1.39
Modelling
4.22 (0.29)
3.81 (0.62) 0.41 2.05
Feedback
4.39 (0.45)
3.85 (0.81) 0.91 2.06
*p < .05
Further analysis of mean scores of specific items within the factors showed the direction of
mentor/mentee persepectives. There were two items associated with System Requirements where
mentors believed they had provided less input on school science policy (58% compared to 92%) and
the state syllabus (42% compared to 75%) than their mentees perceived. Differences in mean scores
for three items associated with Feedback were in the other direction with mentors believing they had
provided more assistance than mentees perceived with reference to articulating lesson expectations
(mentors 92%; mentees 58%); written feedback (83%; 67%), and reviewing lesson plans (92%;
67%). Clearly the participants interpreted these three specific mentoring practices in different ways
for such disparities to be present.
Perceptions of mentees’ mentoring experiences were supported by interview data from mentors
involved in the intervention group, which will be discussed in the next section.
115
5.4 Booklet and interviews: Mentors’ perceptions of the specific mentoring intervention
Mentors provided their perceptions of the mentoring intervention within the mentoring booklet and
through interviews (Section 3.3.2). The booklet and interview data from mentors were analysed for
common and divergent themes about general perceptions of the intervention program, specific
perceptions of the implementation of the mentoring strategies linked to the five factors, and the
mentors’ perceptions of the program’s success.
Firstly, the mentors and mentees’ roles were specified within the intervention program procedures,
which needed to be clear and attainable so that the participants felt comfortable within their roles.
These points were reflected in Mentor 3’s comment, “she [the mentee] felt comfortable because of
the way it was set out and the guidelines that were given. It’s not a test. She felt comfortable with
that.” Mentors recording of their mentoring interactions within the booklet provided evidence of
their mentoring and further demonstrated that the intervention was attainable.
Secondly, the mentoring sessions were designed to promote discussion on science teaching practices
across the five theoretical factors towards developing the mentee’s practices. Recorded details on
the mentoring sessions indicated that intervention mentors sequentially proceeded through the
booklet as intended. In interviews, these sessions were claimed to be “thorough” (Mentor 11), and
“clear and concise” (Mentor 2). Mentor 4 stated, “You could really get things pinpointed down to
exactly what you needed to find out and what you had to do to go about trying to improve things
with the mentee.” Further, the five factors were considered by mentors as providing clear guidance
for mentoring in primary science education. For example, Mentor 1 stated, “I think it’s [points to the
five-factor model within the mentoring program] a very important part of the process. It reminds
you what is actually a part of the program.” When asked if there was a need to clarify any term or
issue within the mentoring intervention, two mentors stated Pedagogical Knowledge required clearer
explanation; this term may not be widely used in the primary education system. Nevertheless, all
116
mentors agreed that the items were relevant to the factors, even though they may not have known the
literature associated with each item. For instance, Mentor 2 stated:
I agree they [points to the items that are associated with a factor] fit in with science. I
was reading through them and I don’t know Williams and I don’t know Tobin and
Fraser but I agree with the things that are there and the strategies that go with them.
Thirdly, the strategies within the mentoring intervention presented a practical focus for developing
the mentee’s primary science teaching. Recorded details in the booklet indicated that all mentors
utilised the various booklet proformas (Appendices 5, 6, and 7). Interviews provided an insight into
mentors’ views of the mentoring strategies within the mentoring intervention. For example, Mentor
14 claimed that the mentoring strategies assisted “to make sure that you’re on target.” According to
Mentor 1, the strategies “made mentoring more focused on what I was trying to get across to her [the
mentee] in specific areas of help with her, and particular pointers that she could maybe improve upon
in the next lesson on.” Mentor 5 stated, “There was enough detail that allowed me to reflect on what
I was supposed to be doing.”
Mentors also commented specifically on various mentoring strategies. For example, the mentor-
modelled science lesson allowed the mentee to reflect on the mentor’s practices such as planning,
preparation, procedures, and classroom management for effective science teaching. Mentor 8
claimed that this strategy allowed the mentee “to focus on certain things when she was doing her
own teaching. I think that gave the mentee a bit of empowerment.”
Finally, and most importantly, several mentors reported that the mentees’ confidence in teaching
primary science had increased because of the mentoring intervention. For example, Mentor 4 noted
that because of the intervention her mentee “felt very comfortable, and [I am] very confident that she
would be able to teach science when she goes out.” Indeed, mentors clearly articulated the success
in this intervention program for both the mentees and mentors’ development. To illustrate, Mentor
117
11 claimed that her mentee was developing as a primary science teacher through the intervention
program and that she “was getting results with [her] mentoring.” Mentor 5 stated, “I felt that there
was a strong impact on the student teacher’s [mentee’s] performance. The student [mentee] was
better planned and organised because of these strategies.” And as a program for developing mentors,
Mentor 12 stated, “It made me pick up the syllabus again and re-read it.” Similarly, Mentor 9
declared, “It made me think about science a bit more and how I should be doing it. It helped me to
participate in science.”
The interviews with these mentors suggested that the intervention clearly defined the roles for the
mentors and the mentees. The interviews also indicated that the mentoring sessions promoted
discussion on science teaching practices across the five factors towards developing the mentee’s
practices, particularly as strategies within the mentoring program were focused on developing the
mentee’s primary science teaching. Analysis of the interview data (Section 3.3.2) also indicated that
specific mentoring may increase the mentee’s self-efficacy in primary science teaching, as several
mentors reported this to be the case as a result of the mentoring program.
5.5 Mentees’ science teaching efficacy belief (STEBI B)
The pretest and posttest intervention STEBI scores for the mentees as a group and individually is
shown in Tables 5.8 and 5.9 repectively, and are compared to indicate the pretest-posttest differences
for personal belief and for outcome exptectancy (Section 3.3.2). Posttest intervention mean scores
for the group indicated educational significance (approx. .5 SD) and further indicated a statistically
significant increase in the personal science teaching belief (from 48.1 to 52.0; t(11) = 3.51, Table
5.8) but not in the outcome expectancy scores (36.9 to 37.2; t(11) = 0.56, Table 5.8). Only small
changes in outcome expectancy have been found in previous studies (Enoch & Riggs, 1990).
Table 5.8
Paired t-test for Mentees’ Personal Beliefs and Outcome Expectancies (n=12)
118
Pretest Posttest
Self-efficacy Mean
(SD)
Mean
(SD)
Paired mean
difference
t
(df=11)
Personal Belief
48.08
(6.5)
51.92
(6.1)
3.84
3.51*
Outcome
Expectancy
36.92
(5.7)
37.42
(5.0)
0.50
0.56
* p < .05, two-tailed.
Table 5.9 indicated that mentees varied in their confidence to teach science, for example, Mentee 4
was “uncertain” about her confidence (score = 39, which is well below the mean score in Table 5.8),
yet the remaining 11 indicated they had some (six with scores between 40 and 46) or considerable
(five with scores of 53 to 59, Table 5.9) confidence in their science teaching ability (mean score
48.1). Ten of these mentees increased in their PSTE scores from between 1 and 12 response units
and two mentees showed a small negative change; these two were the mentees with the highest
(mentee 6: 59) and lowest (mentee 4: 39) pretest scores (Table 5.9).
Overall, following the intervention, the mentee low in pretest confidence did not increase in
confidence, while the others had more confidence (four with scores between 46 to 51, Table 5.9) or
considerable confidence (seven with scores between 52 and 58) (mean score 51.9; SD 6.1, Table
5.8). The highest difference was noted in the mentees’ personal science teaching beliefs, t(11) =
3.51 (Table 5.8).
119
Table 5.9
Individual Mentee’s Pretest and Posttest Intervention Personal Belief and Outcome Expectancy
Scores (n=12)
Personal Belief* Outcome Expectancy** Mentee
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
1 46.00 51.00 37.00 39.00
2 53.00 58.00 43.00 39.00
3 46.00 54.00 47.00 45.00
4 39.00 37.00 35.00 35.00
5 41.00 46.00 32.00 36.00
6 59.00 58.00 40.00 38.00
7 55.00 56.00 44.00 44.00
8 53.00 57.00 31.00 33.00
9 53.00 55.00 37.00 40.00
10 47.00 51.00 37.00 38.00
11 40.00 52.00 30.00 36.00
12 45.00 48.00 30.00 26.00
* Personal Science Teaching Efficacy (PSTE, range: min. = 13, max. = 65)
** Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy (STOE, range: min. = 10, max. = 50)
5.6 Personal belief and outcome expectancy for mentoring of primary science teaching
The personal belief and outcome expectancy scores for the intervention mentors involved in
mentoring primary science teaching must be interpreted with caution as this instrument has not been
tested on a large scale. The STEBI B instrument was reworded to relate personal belief and outcome
expectancy items to mentoring science teaching rather than science teaching per se, and the sample is
too small to determine if these two factors (personal belief and STOE for mentoring) are still present
(although Cronbach alpha scales suggested the two factors may exist, i.e., .86 & .91, respectively).
The group and individual pretest and posttest intervention mentoring efficacy scores are shown in
Tables 5.10 and 5.11. Post intervention, the mentors’ personal belief scores for mentoring primary
120
science teaching indicated an increase of statistical significance (44.9 to 48.6; p < .05), as did the
outcome expectancy scores (24.5 to 27.3; p < .005, Table 5.10).
Table 5.10
Paired t-test for Mentors’ Personal Beliefs and Outcome Expectancies for Mentoring Preservice
Teachers in Primary Science (n=12)
Pretest Posttest
Self-efficacy Mean
(SD)
Mean
(SD)
Paired mean
difference
t
(df=11)
Personal Belief
44.9
(7.1)
48.6
(7.4)
-3.67
2.65*
Outcome
Expectancy
24.5
(5.4)
27.3
(5.6)
-2.75
3.77**
* p < .05, ** p < .005, two-tailed.
Pretest mentoring personal belief scores indicated that three mentors (1, 3, 7) were uncertain about
their confidence to mentor in primary science teaching (scores from 33 to 39), and the remaining
nine indicated they had some confidence in their mentoring science teaching ability (42 to 54, Table
5.11).
121
Table 5.11
Individual Mentors’ Pretest and Posttest Intervention Personal Belief and Outcome Expectancy
Scores for Mentoring Primary Science Teaching (n=12)
Personal Belief* Difference Outcome
Expectancy**
DifferenceMentor
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
1 39 36 -3 29 32 +3
2 54 54 0 21 21 0
3 34 37 +3 27 29 +2
4 42 47 +5 29 30 +1
5 49 57 +7 33 33 0
6 44 44 0 15 17 +2
7 33 41 +8 28 29 +1
8 42 55 +13 24 33 +9
9 53 52 -1 27 32 +5
10 48 56 +8 24 28 +4
11 51 51 0 20 24 +4
12 50 53 +3 17 19 +2
* Personal Belief in Mentoring Science Teaching (range: 12 to 60)
** Outcome Expectancy for Mentoring Science Teaching (range: 8 to 40)
Seven mentors increased in their personal beliefs about mentoring science teaching, with four
remaining approximately unchanged and one perhaps losing some confidence. As has been found in
previous studies (Enoch & Riggs, 1990) outcome expectancy scores were relatively low (mean score
24.5 [maximum 40]; SD 5.4). Following the mentoring intervention, 10 of the 12 mentors increased
their outcome expectancy scores (by between 1 and 9 response units). Two mentors (8, 10) showed
relatively large increases on both pretest and posttest scales, especially Mentor 8 (personal belief 42
to 55 and outcome expectancy 24 to 33, Table 5.11). Although these results may be interpreted
tentatively, the data provide some evidence that the mentoring intervention may increase the
mentor’s personal belief and outcome expectancy for mentoring in primary science teaching, which
122
may also have an impact on the mentor’s primary science teaching. However, this will require
further research to determine such impact.
5.7 Conclusion of Stage 2
Comparisons of the perceptions of final year preservice teachers (mentees) involved in this specific
mentoring intervention with those who were involved in mentoring practices typically found in
professional experiences provided preliminary confirmation of the possible success of this specific
mentoring program. Investigating mentors’ perceptions of this specific mentoring program also
provided initial evidence that such a program may have positive effects on the mentor’s primary
science teaching and mentoring practices. Mentees indicated that mentors involved in the
intervention provided more mentoring in the specific mentoring practices associated with each of the
five factors (Tables 5.2 to 5.6), with the differences in the mean scores being statistically significant
on four of the five factors. This also suggests that the provision of a more detailed mentoring
framework to guide mentors, as provided in the mentoring intervention, may facilitate the inclusion
of specific mentoring strategies in professional experiences. The results of this specific mentoring
program for developing effective primary science teaching also suggested improvement in primary
science teaching practices for mentees. If changing practices are required for science education
reform then specific mentoring may create a shift in the way in which both mentors and mentees
teach primary science towards achieving science education reform. A specific intervention may be
used to sequentially and constructively mentor preservice teachers within a relatively short
professional experience period.
Chapter 6 presents the discussion that relates to this research.
123
Chapter 6
Discussion
6.1 Chapter preview
Chapter 6 presents a discussion of the results in relation to the four research aims. This chapter
commences with the first and second research aims that focused on perceptions of mentoring in
primary science teaching and factors and variables associated with this mentoring (Section 6.2).
Further insight is also presented on the attributes and practices associated with each factor namely,
Personal Attributes (Section 6.2.1), System Requirements (Section 6.2.2), Pedagogical Knowledge
(Section 6.2.3), Modelling (Section 6.2.4), and Feedback (Section 6.2.5). Discussion is provided for
the third research aim that focused on developing an instrument to measure mentees’ perceptions of
their mentoring in primary science teaching (Section 6.3), and the fourth research aim, which
focused on developing a mentoring intervention and gauging the effects of such an intervention
(Section 6.4). A conclusion for the chapter is then presented (Section 6.5).
6.2 The first and second research aims
The first two research aims were:
(1) To describe preservice teachers’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary science
teaching; and
(2) To identify factors and associated variables for mentoring preservice teachers of primary
science.
The five factors for mentoring preservice primary science teachers were identified through the
literature (Chapter 2) and preliminary investigations (Section 4.2). A five-factor model comprising
Personal Attributes, System Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge, Modelling, and Feedback was
validated through confirmatory factor analysis (Section 4.4.1). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of
124
their mentoring in primary science teaching on these five factors indicated that their mentoring was
largely inadequate for developing their primary science teaching (Section 4.4.2). A significant
number of mentees indicated that mentors had not demonstrated Pedagogical Knowledge, Modelling
or guidance with System Requirements (Section 4.4.2). Nevertheless, mentees agreed or strongly
agreed that the majority of mentors had demonstrated Personal Attributes to facilitate the mentoring
process and provided Feedback on the mentees’ practices. The first and second research aims will
now be discussed in relation to these five factors.
6.2.1 Factor 1: Personal Attributes
Mentors need to exhibit a number of personal attributes to develop mentees’ teaching of primary
science (Ackley & Gall, 1992; Galbraith & Cohen 1995). Correlations and covariances indicated in
this study a statistically significant positive relationship between the factor Personal Attributes and
the other four factors (Section 4.4.1). This implies that the mentoring process may be strengthened
with the inclusion of Personal Attributes, particularly as learning takes place within a social context
(Kerka, 1997) and a mentor’s personal attributes aim to facilitate such learning (Galbraith & Cohen
1995; Ganser, 1996a). This also implies that mentors’ Personal Attributes may affect the mentoring
of the other four factors (i.e., System Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge, Modelling, and
Feedback). In relation to Personal Attributes, mentors need to be: (a) supportive (Ackley & Gall,
1992; Ganser, 1991), (b) attentive (Halai, 1998; Kennedy & Dorman, 2002), and (c) comfortable
with talking about primary science teaching (Fairbanks et al., 2000; Jonson, 2002). Mentors also
need to: (d) instill positive attitudes in their mentees for teaching primary science (Feiman-Nemser &
Parker, 1992; Matters, 1994), (e) instill confidence in their mentees for teaching primary science
(Beck et al., 2000; Enochs et al., 1995), and (f) assist the mentee to reflect more positively on
practices for improving primary science teaching (Abell & Bryan, 1999; Upson et al., 2002).
Standardised regression weights of these six mentoring attributes and practices (variables) also
showed a statistically significant positive relationship to the Personal Attributes factor and each
made unique and common contributions to the variance on this factor (Section 4.4.1). This further
125
indicated that the quality of mentoring in primary science teaching may be enhanced when mentors
include these attributes and practices in their mentoring.
Mentors and mentees agreed that the mentor’s personal attributes can affect the mentoring process
(Section 4.2.1). The findings on the mentees’ perceptions of the six mentoring attributes and
practices associated with the Personal Attributes factor were generally consistent with the literature
(e.g., Little, 1990; Mager, 1990; Scott & Compton, 1996). However, the quantitative findings
indicated a significant number of mentors who did not provide these particular Personal Attributes
(Section 4.4.2). For example, 36% of mentors were perceived not to be supportive of their mentees’
development in primary science teaching (Section 4.4.2). Perhaps these mentors lacked confidence
or lacked sufficient knowledge of primary teaching and/or specific subject mentoring. This is
consistent with the findings that the teaching of primary science is largely inadequate in many
Australian schools as reported in Goodrum et al. (2001).
Having positive attitudes and confidence to teach may be related to developing self-efficacy and
autonomous teaching practices (Bandura, 1981). Yet, as 55% of mentors were perceived not to
instill positive attitudes in their mentees for teaching science and 54% were perceived not to instill
confidence (Section 4.4.2), many mentors may fail to develop these attributes in their mentees for
teaching primary science. Hence, the development of the mentee’s self-efficacy and autonomous
teaching practices may be diminished, particularly if mentees emulate many of the mentor’s
attributes (Matters, 1994).
Mentors’ personal attributes may aid in developing the mentee’s reflective skills (Desouza &
Czerniak, 2003). However, assisting mentees to reflect on primary science teaching practices had
the lowest rating for the Personal Attributes factor with only 35% of mentors perceived to provide
this practice (Section 4.4.2). The ability to reflect is fundamental to effective science teaching
because it enables teachers to improve upon their practices (Abell & Bryan, 1999; Desouza &
Czerniak, 2003; Schön, 1987). Mentors may need to improve on mentoring reflective practices so
that mentees can be assisted to reflect on their own primary science teaching.
There were also mentors who were perceived to demonstrate limited or no Personal Attributes, who
may mentor subsequent preservice teachers. Hence, if these mentors are to improve, they will need
to be provided with mentoring strategies that focus on specific personal attributes. The mentor’s
Personal Attributes affect the perceived mentoring of the other four factors (Section 4.4.1) and
contribute to the mentoring process (e.g., Figure 6.1).
Attributes
Modelling
Pedagogical Knowledge
Feedback
Personal
System Requirements
Figure 6.1. Personal Attributes and the mentoring process.
The inclusion of positive personal attributes for mentoring may assist in facilitating the mentoring
process (Galbraith & Cohen 1995; Ganser, 1996a). Further, the identification of these six personal
126
127
attributes provide a basis for assisting mentors’ conceptualisation of mentoring practices for
developing their mentees’ primary science teaching.
6.2.2 Factor 2: System Requirements
In primary science education, system requirements present quality control directions by providing a
curriculum that focuses on achieving specific aims for teaching (Lenton & Turner, 1999; Peterson &
Williams, 1998). System requirements are an essential aspect for reforming primary science
education (Bybee, 1997). The factor, System Requirements, was integral to the five-factor
mentoring model with correlations and covariances affirming a statistically significant positive
relationship between System Requirements and the other four factors (Section 4.4.1). This implies
that mentors’ provision of System Requirements may contribute to reforming primary science
education at the preservice level, particularly as current Pedagogical Knowledge is key to
educational reform (Bybee, 1997). Indeed, when beginning teachers commence employment in an
education system they will need an understanding of System Requirements. Mentors can provide
valuable assistance with mentees’ understanding of key practices associated System Requirements.
The three mentoring practices associated with System Requirements were focused on: (a) aims for
teaching primary science (Abu Bakar & Tarmizi, 1995; Harlen, 1999), (b) primary science
curriculum (Bybee, 1997; Jarvis et al., 2001), and (c) school policies (Luna & Cullen, 1995; Riggs &
Sandlin, 2002). Standardised regression weights of these mentoring practices associated with
System Requirements indicated unique and common contributions to the variance on this factor
(Section 4.4.1). Hence, the mentoring of aims, curriculum, and policies in primary science education
may advance the mentees’ understanding of System Requirements, especially if this mentoring is
connected with the other four factors (Section 4.4.1).
The qualitative findings also indicated that assisting mentees to understand aims, curriculum, and
policies was considered part of mentoring practices (Section 4.2.2). This is consistent with the
literature (Riggs & Sandlin, 2002; Shavelson & Stern, 1981). However, the quantitative findings
128
indicated that over 75% of mentees perceived that their mentors did not provide these three
mentoring practices. For example, although aims are emphasised for general teaching practices (Abu
Bakar & Tarmizi, 1995) and mandated as a system requirement (e.g., Board of Studies, 1993), 77%
of mentors in this study were perceived not to discuss with their mentees the aims for teaching
primary science (Section 4.4.2). Similarly, 82% of mentors were perceived not to outline the
primary science curriculum to their mentees, and 84% of mentors did not discuss primary science
school policies with their mentees (Section 4.4.2). These mentors were responsible for the mentee’s
understanding of aims, curriculum, and policies. School policies are legal documents that direct the
school’s teaching practices (Gonzales & Sosa, 1993); thus mentees who are not aware of the school’s
primary science policies may be teaching without school or system sanctions. This may also result
in professional conflict with other teachers in the school who implement such policies.
Most mentees perceived they were not mentored on System Requirements (Section 4.4.2), hence,
many final year preservice teachers may not be aware of aims, curriculum, or policies for teaching
primary science in relation to their final professional experiences. Even though universities have a
key role in educating preservice teachers on System Requirements, this essential aspect of primary
science education reform may not be implemented at the professional experience level. Indeed,
before preservice teachers enter the profession, there must be some assurance they have received
mentoring on System Requirements in the school setting for further understanding of an educational
system. However, this does not seem to be apparent within the majority of mentoring experiences
(Section 4.4.2). Mentors will also need to provide Pedagogical Knowledge so that mentees may
develop deeper understandings of System Requirements.
6.2.3 Factor 3: Pedagogical Knowledge
Pedagogical knowledge is developed within the school setting (Allsop & Benson, 1996; Hulshof &
Verloop, 1994) and is essential for supporting effective primary science teaching (Roth, 1998).
Mentors need to have pedagogical knowledge to guide their mentees’ teaching practices
129
(Kesselheim, 1998). The factor, Pedagogical Knowledge, indicated statistically significant positive
correlations and covariances with the other four factors (Section 4.4.1). Hence, the mentor’s
provision of Pedagogical Knowledge is key to the mentoring process overall. Similarly, the
omission of Pedagogical Knowledge in mentoring programs will limit or reduce the quality of
experiences mentees can receive within the school setting. Eleven mentoring attributes and practices
were associated with Pedagogical Knowledge, namely: (a) planning for teaching (Jarvis et al., 2001),
(b) timetabling (Williams, 1993), (c) preparation (Rosaen & Lindquist, 1992), (d) teaching strategies
(Lappan & Briars, 1995), (e) classroom management (Corcoran & Andrew, 1988), (f) questioning
skills (Fleer & Hardy, 1996), (g) assisting with problem solving (Breeding & Whitworth, 1999), (h)
content knowledge (Lenton & Turner, 1999), (i) implementation (Beck et al., 2000), (j) assessment
(Jarvis et al., 2001), and (k) providing viewpoints (Fleer & Hardy, 1996). The standardised
regression weights of these mentoring practices also indicated statistically significant positive
correlations to this factor with each contributing unique and common variances on this factor
(Section 4.4.1). Indeed, the five-factor model was strengthened because of the inclusion of these
specific practices. Thus, omitting one of these mentoring practices, for example, planning for
teaching, would provide less than adequate mentoring experiences for the mentee.
Mentors and mentees agreed that providing mentees with Pedagogical Knowledge in primary science
teaching was essential to the mentoring process (Section 4.2.3). However, quantitative findings
indicated that these perceptions of mentoring experiences varied considerably between mentees. For
example, a descending rank order of frequencies of the 11 Pedagogical Knowledge practices, which
mentees agreed or strongly agreed that their mentors articulated such mentoring, revealed that the
highest ranked practice of mentors was science lesson preparation (Section 4.4.2). Even as the
highest ranked practice, 55% of mentees perceived they had not received guidance for primary
science lesson preparation (Section 4.4.2). At the lowest end of the rank order, only 25% of mentors
were perceived to provide problem solving strategies for teaching primary science (Section 4.4.2).
Thus, as many as 75% of mentees may not have received comprehensive mentoring on Pedagogical
130
Knowledge for primary science teaching. Surprisingly, 51% of mentees perceived that they were not
required to teach primary science by their universities (Section 3.3.1.3). Accordingly, mentees who
were not confident in teaching science may not feel compelled to be involved with primary science
education, including science lesson preparation and problem solving strategies.
Mentoring includes a focus on pedagogical knowledge for improving teaching practices (Long,
1995); yet the majority of final year preservice teachers perceived they had not received mentoring
experiences linked to Pedagogical Knowledge (Section 4.4.2). Mentors who had not articulated
Pedagogical Knowledge for their mentees to teach science may have limited their mentees’
opportunities for developing their primary science teaching. Mentees who are not educated on
Pedagogical Knowledge for effective primary science teaching may not be able to create favourable
learning environments or adequately motivate their students (e.g., see Tobin & Fraser, 1990).
Hence, scientific literacy as a key goal of science education may not be promoted (e.g., Moreno,
1999). Science educators and the science community are continuously in debate over effective
science teaching (Breeding & Whitworth, 1999; Ramirez-Smith, 1997), and mentors, who may not
be experts in primary science teaching, may feel inadequate with their mentoring if effective science
teaching is not clear to them. Indeed, mentees need to understand practices associated with
Pedagogical Knowledge for their development as beginning practitioners (e.g., Allsop & Benson,
1996; Hulshof & Verloop, 1994; Mulholland, 1999; Roth, 1998). Generally, mentors will require
either further education on mentoring the practices associated with Pedagogical Knowledge or a
framework to facilitate the articulation of these Pedagogical Knowledge practices for development of
mentees’ primary science teaching.
6.2.4 Factor 4: Modelling
The mentees’ skills for teaching are learned more effectively by observing their mentors’ modelling
of teaching practices (Barab & Hay, 2001; Bellm, Whitebook, & Hnatiuk, 1997; Carlson & Gooden,
1999). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated that the factor, Modelling, showed a
131
statistically significant positive correlation with the other four factors (Section 4.4.1). This implies
that modelling primary science teaching practices is a key function in the overall mentoring process.
It further implies that modelling teaching practices may be linked to implementing primary science
education reform, particularly as beginning teachers can introduce change into the education system
(Rodrigue & Tingle, 1994). Eight attributes and practices were associated with Modelling primary
science teaching, that is, modelling: (a) enthusiasm (Long, 2002; Van Ast, 2002), (b) teaching
(Enochs et al., 1995; Little, l990), (c) effective teaching (Briscoe & Peters, 1997), (d) a rapport with
students (Ramirez-Smith, 1997), (e) hands-on lessons (Raizen & Michelson, 1994), (f) well-designed
lessons (Asunta, 1997), (g) classroom management (Smith & Huling-Austin, 1986), and (h) syllabus
language (Williams & McBride, 1989). Standardised regression weights of these eight mentoring
attributes and practices also indicated statistically positive correlations to the Modelling factor and
each made unique and common contributions to the variance on this factor (Section 4.4.1). This
further implies that mentoring may be enhanced by including these specific modelling practices.
Indeed, the modelling of these specific mentoring practices may lead to developing their mentees’
understanding of primary science teaching practices.
Data from interviews indicated that mentors considered modelling primary science teaching practices
essential for developing the mentee’s practices (Section 4.2.4). This is consistent with the literature
(Barab & Hay, 2001; Galvez-Hjoernevik, 1986). Despite acknowledging the benefits of modelling
practices, the majority of mentors were perceived not to model primary science teaching in this study
(Section 4.4.2). For example, even though mentees and mentors regarded classroom management for
primary science teaching as vital to professional experience programs (Corcoran & Andrew, 1988)
and mentors claimed that they needed to model classroom management when teaching science
(Sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4), 57% of final year preservice teachers perceived that they did not
experience this modelling during their professional experience program (Section 4.4.2). Similarly,
44% of mentors were perceived to demonstrate well-designed primary science lessons, which was
the same percentage as those who modelled science teaching (Section 4.4.2). Mentors demonstrated
132
slightly more well-designed lessons than hands-on lessons during the mentees’ professional
experience program (Section 4.4.2); hence the perception of well-designed lessons may not solely
involve hands-on experiences for students. Mentors requested support for improving their science
teaching methods, especially with hands-on activity planning (Section 4.2.4), which may be
indicated by the 59% of final year preservice teachers who perceived that their mentors did not
demonstrate a hands-on science lesson (Section 4.4.2). As most mentees have three professional
experiences during their preservice teacher education (Section 3.3.1.3), and if the previous two
professional experiences provided no modelling of hands-on science lessons in the primary
classroom, then a significant number of beginning teachers may not have been exposed to the
modelling of a hands-on science lesson with primary students as participants.
The inconsistency in the findings for this factor pertained to mentors’ modelling a rapport with
students during their teaching of a science lesson. Mentees perceived that 58% of mentors modelled
a rapport with students during the mentor’s teaching of a science lesson(s); however only 44% of
mentors were perceived to model the teaching of primary science. This data implies that the 14% of
mentors in the group who did not teach science may have demonstrated a rapport with their students
during their mentees’ primary science lessons, which is not the same as modelling a rapport with
students while teaching science.
Mentees who have not observed the mentor’s modelling of primary science teaching practices may
rely on their own experiences as a student in primary and secondary science classes, which may have
a negative affect on implementing current primary science education reform (e.g., Mulholland,
1999). Incorporating the eight attributes and practices associated with the Modelling factor may
assist mentors to more readily facilitate the mentees’ learning of primary science teaching and aid the
reform process. In addition, mentors who experience Modelling of primary science teaching may
also develop their own teaching practices. Hence, targeting mentors and mentees through a specific
mentoring intervention that includes modelling specific primary science teaching practices may lead
133
to improved teaching practices. This may also lead to implementing primary science education
reform.
6.2.5 Factor 5: Feedback
Finally, providing feedback allows for preservice teachers to reflect and improve teaching practices
(Schön, 1987), and this includes primary science teaching practices (Jarvis et al., 2001). Factor
correlations and covariances indicated that the factor Feedback was statistically significant with the
other four factors (Section 4.4.1). This implies that the mentor’s Personal Attributes may aid the
provision of feedback on the mentee’s primary science teaching practices. In addition, the mentor’s
feedback may include System Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge, and Modelling to further
facilitate the mentee’s development of teaching practices. Indeed, the mentor’s role would be
significantly reduced without the provision of Feedback in relation to the other four factors (Section
4.4.1). The six attributes and practices associated with the Feedback factor for developing the
mentee’s primary science teaching, requires a mentor to: (a) articulate expectations (Ganser 2002a),
(b) review lesson plans (Monk & Dillon, 1995), (c) observe practice (Tomlinson, 1995), (d) provide
oral feedback (Ganser, 1995), (e) provide written feedback (Rosaen & Lindquist, 1992), and (f)
assist the mentee to evaluate teaching practices (Long, 1995). The standardised regression weights
of these six mentoring attributes and practices were also shown to be statistically significant to this
factor and each made unique and common contributions to the variance on this factor (Section 4.4.1).
This implies that the provision of Feedback would be enhanced with the inclusion of these specific
attributes and practices. Indeed, a mentor who articulates expectations may present a clear picture to
the mentee for developing teaching practices. Mentors can provide feedback on the formative stages
of planning for teaching by reviewing lesson plans. Oral and written feedback requires observation
of teaching practices. Mentors can provide feedback on the mentees’ perceptions of their teaching
by referring to their mentees’ evaluations of their primary science teaching practices. Indeed, this
process of feedback may occur sequentially with expectations articulated each time a mentor
provides feedback (Figure 6.2).
Articulate expectations
Review lesson plans
Observation of teaching
Oral feedback
Written feedback
Feedback on evaluation
Figure 6.2. Mentors’ articulation of expectations.
The majority of mentors observed their mentees teaching, reviewed their mentees’ lesson plans and
provided oral feedback (Section 4.4.2). The need for providing this feedback is supported by the
literature on generic mentoring (e.g., Williams, 1993) and the qualitative findings in this study
(Section 4.2.5). The quantitative findings also showed that observing mentees’ primary science
teaching was perceived as the highest ranked Feedback practice employed by mentors (74%).
However, 12% of mentors were perceived not to provide oral feedback after observing the mentee
teach primary science (Section 4.4.2). There was a 20% difference between observing the mentee’s
science teaching and reviewing the mentee’s lesson plans. Thus, as many as 20% of mentors may
have observed their mentees teach primary science without reviewing their lesson plans. In addition,
15% of mentees indicated that they had not taught a science lesson during their professional 134
135
experience (Section 3.3.1.3), which suggests that between 31 to 46% of mentees taught science
without their mentors reviewing their lesson plans (Section 4.4.2). Although 62% of mentors were
perceived to provide oral feedback (Section 4.4.2), the duration or nature of this feedback is
unknown.
The quantitative findings of the mentors’ articulation of expectations, provision of written feedback,
and assistance of mentees’ evaluation of teaching practices indicated lower percentages of mentees’
perceptions of these practices (Section 4.4.2). For example, 66% of mentors perceived not to
articulate their expectations for primary science teaching (Section 4.4.2). This implies that many
mentees taught science without adequate direction. Indeed, these mentees may be planning without
knowledge of departmental, school and community expectations for teaching primary science. The
findings further indicated that 29% of mentors who were perceived to observe their mentees’
teaching did not provide written feedback. Mentors need to provide written feedback to ensure
mentees have a record of their science teaching performance and a way to reflect on teaching
practices (Bishop & Denley, 1997). It may be that oral feedback is easier to provide than written
feedback, which is reflected in the percentage of mentors who provided each in this study (Section
4.4.2).
Mentors’ feedback needs to be comprehensive (Foster, 1982; Griffin, 1985). As feedback of
mentees’ teaching practices addresses a mentoring program’s objectives (Long, 1995), and aids in
enhancing primary science teaching practices (Jarvis et al., 2001), the effectiveness of primary
science teaching and learning may be diminished if mentors do not provide feedback to their
mentees. Indeed, mentees who perceived that they had not received feedback from their mentors,
even if it were provided, indicated that either these mentors require further education on providing
feedback or the clarity of such mentoring was questionable. Thus, the identification of the six
attributes and practices associated with the Feedback factor may assist mentors in providing
comprehensive feedback. Furthermore, primary science education reform relies on developing
136
pedagogical knowledge and system requirements in teaching practices (Bybee, 1997), and mentors
who do not provide Feedback on primary science teaching practices may not articulate Pedagogical
Knowledge or System Requirements for enhancing their mentees’ practices.
6.2.6 Conclusion
The first and second aims of this study were achieved by describing mentees’ perceptions of their
mentoring in primary science teaching in relation to the identified factors and associated variables
for mentoring preservice teachers of primary science. The frequencies of these perceptions indicated
that mentoring in primary science teaching may be less than adequate. Nevertheless, the five-factor
mentoring model developed from the literature (Chapter 2) and the data (Section 4.4.1) more clearly
defines the mentoring parameters. Indeed, a mentor’s knowledge of these five factors may enhance
the mentoring process. For example, if mentors are aware that System Requirements form a key
component of mentoring then mentors may aim to incorporate such practices associated with this
factor. Indeed, mentoring programs need to include these factors so that mentors are provided with
specific mentoring knowledge, which may then be incorporated into their mentoring practices.
Finally, this five-factor model (Section 4.4.1) more clearly defines the mentor’s role; hence refined
definitions may now be applied to the terms “mentor” and “mentoring.” In teaching practice, a
mentor may be defined as a knowledgeable teacher who can demonstrate and articulate the necessary
personal attributes, system requirements, pedagogical knowledge, modelling, and feedback to
enhance a mentee’s teaching practices. Mentoring may be defined as the process of demonstrating
and articulating personal attributes, system requirements, pedagogical knowledge, modelling, and
feedback for the development of a mentee’s teaching practices. More specifically, a mentor of
primary science teaching may be defined as a knowledgeable teacher who can demonstrate and
articulate the necessary personal attributes, system requirements, pedagogical knowledge, modelling,
and feedback to enhance a mentee’s primary science teaching practices.
137
6.3 The third research aim
The third research aim was to develop an instrument to measure mentees’ perceptions of their
mentoring in primary science teaching. The Mentoring for Effective Primary Science Teaching
(MEPST) survey instrument (Appendix 2) was developed through an extensive literature search
(Chapter 2), a preliminary investigation (Section 4.2), pilot studies (Section 4.3), and refinements of
the instrument according to statistical and educational analyses (Section 4.4.1). In one of the pilot
studies, an exploratory factor analysis provided the unidimensionality of each factor with the
assigned mentoring attributes and practices. Acceptable Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients were
also produced for each factor (Section 4.3).
This survey instrument was refined in consultation with experts in the fields of science education,
professional experiences, survey design, and statistical analysis (Section 3.3.1). It was then
administered to 331 final year preservice teachers from nine Australian universities to gather
mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary science teaching. Although survey instruments
have been used to examine preservice teachers’ experiences in teaching primary science (Carlson &
Gooden, 1999) and measure their perceptions (e.g., Enochs & Riggs, 1990) and confidence levels for
teaching primary science (Crowther & Cannon, 1998), no instrument has been developed that links
the literature to mentoring practices for primary science teaching. Acceptable Cronbach alphas, CFA
goodness of fit measures, mean scale scores, standard deviations, and factor correlations and
covariances indicated the MEPST survey instrument can reliably measure mentees’ perceptions of
their mentoring in primary science teaching (Section 4.4.1).
Education has become outcome-driven towards further accountability, thus, schools and tertiary
education institutions need to evaluate mentoring programs. The MEPST survey instrument may be
used to evaluate mentoring programs for primary science teaching for the purposes of improving
mentoring practices. In addition, this instrument may be used to report on the extent of mentoring in
primary science teaching and, hence, provide a measure of accountability to the profession.
138
Measurement of mentoring practices may lead to designing professional development courses that
target specific mentoring practices, particularly as attributes and practices associated with each of the
five factors have been identified (Section 4.4.1).
Preservice teachers in their roles as mentees need to be aware of mentoring practices in primary
science teaching so that they can articulate their needs for specific mentoring. Hence, preservice
teachers of primary science need to be educated on mentoring practices that are linked to the five-
factor model in order to recognise the extent of mentoring offered to them. Indeed, specific
mentoring in primary science teaching appears to enhance the perceptions for mentoring and
teaching primary science (Section 5.4), which may lead to improved teaching practices (Section 5.5).
The third aim of this study was achieved by the development of the MEPST survey instrument,
which was shown to be a reliable measure of mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary
science teaching. Furthermore, the MEPST survey instrument may be used as a basis to provide:
accountability to the profession; professional development for mentors; an evaluation of professional
experience programs; and an education for mentees to identify and articulate their specific mentoring
needs. These applications may be used to advance mentoring practices for the enhancement of
primary science teaching.
6.4 The fourth research aim
The fourth research aim was to develop a mentoring intervention with mentoring strategies related to
these factors and associated variables for mentoring preservice teachers of primary science and
gauge the effects of such an intervention on mentoring practices. The development of the MEPST
survey instrument informed the development of a specific mentoring intervention (Chapter 5), which
also adhered to intervention guidelines (Section 3.3.2). Mentors indicated that the devised mentoring
strategies for each of the variables and mentoring sessions provided a clear and comprehensive
framework (Section 5.4). The data revealed that a connection was established between the
139
instrument, the strategies and the mentoring sessions by using the MEPST survey instrument to
measure the degree to which the mentoring intervention was implemented (Sections 5.2-5.6).
The MEPST survey instrument was used as one of the assessment tools to compare the
control/intervention group mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring in primary science teaching
(Section 5.2). At the conclusion of the mentoring program, the intervention group had medium to
high effect sizes over the control group on each of the five factors (Section 5.2). In addition,
intervention group mentees agreed or strongly agreed that they were mentored in each of the five
factors (Section 5.2). The data indicated that the mentoring intervention was successfully
implemented as designed (Sections 5.2-5.6). More specifically, the intervention group perceived
they received more mentoring in 31 of the 34 items listed on the MEPST survey instrument.
Surprisingly, the findings also indicated that mentors were willing to follow specific guidelines for
mentoring in primary science teaching (Section 5.4), which is inconsistent with Hulshof and
Verloop’s (1994) findings for generic mentoring. According to mentees, not one mentor in the
intervention group was perceived to be strong in science teaching (Section 3.3.1.3); however the
intervention group mentors participated willingly and incorporated these specific mentoring practices
as part of their general mentoring program (Section 5.6). Although more research is required, it also
appeared that mentoring may be used as an avenue for teacher professional development in
mentoring and primary science teaching (Sections 5.4 and 5.6).
The intervention group mentors were also administered a variation of Enochs and Riggs’ STEBI B
survey instrument to measure the efficacy belief of mentors involved with mentoring in primary
science teaching (Appendix 9). The findings indicated low outcome expectancy scores, which have
been found in previous studies on science teaching (Enoch & Riggs, 1990). Nevertheless, posttest
personal belief scores with the intervention mentors had increased (Section 5.6). This implies that
mentors believed they were able to provide more effective mentoring in primary science teaching
140
because of their involvement in the intervention. However, the variation of the Enochs and Riggs’
STEBI instrument applied in this study will require further research to validate this instrument.
There are several implications from this intervention for improving mentoring in primary science
teaching, which include a development of theoretical constructs, a modification to professional
practice for universities, education systems, and schools, and a development of specific mentoring.
The theoretical constructs defined in this study provide a more defined conceptualisation of
mentoring practices for enhancing primary science teaching. Indeed, the five-factor model can
provide a framework for educators to develop specific mentoring programs, and the specific
attributes and practices associated with these factors may also provide the scope for developing such
programs.
The implications for mentors and universities are also clear. Educating preservice teachers is
becoming more of a shared responsibility, particularly between universities and schools.
Universities and schools need to form stronger partnerships for developing specific mentoring
programs by collaborating to develop subject specific mentoring programs (Ramsey, 2000). This
collaborative partnership for developing specific mentoring programs may also address the Ramsey
Review’s (2000) third implication, which advocates a reconnecting of schools and teacher education
through professional experience. Indeed, proposals for collaboratively developing specific
mentoring programs may provide universities with opportunities to form stronger partnerships with
schools. Generally, mentors will need professional development in order to be educated towards
more effective mentoring practices in primary science teaching. Hence, universities and education
systems need to incorporate as part of professional experience programs specific mentoring that
allows mentors to implement mentoring attributes and practices as outlined in this study.
The implementation of a specific mentoring intervention will also require a means for assessing such
an intervention. The MEPST survey instrument can be used to gather mentees’ perceptions of their
141
mentoring in primary science teaching on the five factors and associated attributes and practices. In
addition, the MEPST-Mentor survey instrument may also be used to gather mentors’ perceptions of
their mentoring in primary science teaching. Results may be used as an accountability measure to
the profession and to assess mentors’ needs for specific professional development programs that aim
to improve mentoring practices at the school level. Indeed, collaboratively developing a specific
mentoring intervention may in itself be an avenue for professional development in the mentoring of
primary science teaching.
The fourth research aim was achieved by developing a specific mentoring intervention that focused
specific mentoring processes. It provided all mentors with a clear direction so that all mentees may
be targeted, and not just those who were fortunate enough to have a primary science teaching
mentor. Hence, a specific mentoring intervention may at least reduce the inadequate or non-existent
mentoring in primary science teaching, which includes mentoring in each of the five factors (i.e.,
Personal Attributes, System Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge, Modelling, and Feedback).
6.5 Conclusion
Generally, mentees are not entering the profession adequately educated in primary science teaching
(Goodrum et al., 2001). A key part of preservice teacher education is mentoring within professional
experience programs (Jasman, 2002); yet mentors may not be providing adequate mentoring (e.g.,
Section 4.4.2). The literature (Chapter 2) and qualitative analysis (Sections 4.2.1-4.2.6) provided the
basis for developing an instrument to measure mentees’ perception of their mentoring in primary
science teaching. Hence, identifying mentoring factors and associated attributes and practices for
effective primary science teaching provided a conceptual framework for learning how to mentor and,
consequently, how to teach primary science (e.g., Section 5.4). The outcome of the mentoring
program indicated that a specific mentoring intervention may enhance not only the mentees’
perception of mentoring but also the quality of mentoring itself (Sections 5.2-5.6).
142
Achieving primary science education reform requires economically viable strategies that target
preservice teachers and teachers. Although professional experiences are for the mentee’s
development, by having mentors involved in strategic mentoring for primary science teaching, the
mentor’s development of primary science teaching practices may also be enhanced. For mentoring
to remain as a viable component of quality preservice teacher education, the mentor’s role, the
mentee’s needs and subject-specific mentoring practices must be scrutinised and incorporated into
the mentoring process for developing more effective primary science teachers and, consequently, a
possibility of securing science education reform. Indeed, this study has shown that a specific
mentoring program may provide mentors with more effective mentoring strategies for enhancing
their mentees’ primary science teaching and, at the same time, mentors may enhance their skills in
both teaching and mentoring primary science within such professional experience programs.
143
Chapter 7
Summary, Limitations, and Further Research
7.1 Chapter preview
Chapter 7 presents a summary fo this thesis (Section 7.2), and limitations in relation to this research
(Section 7.3). Directions for further research are then provided (Section 7.4) followed by the thesis
conclusion (Section 7.5).
7.2 Thesis summary
This research was concerned with the development of an instrument to measure mentees’ perceptions
of their mentoring in primary science teaching (Stage 1), the development of an intervention linked
to this instrument, and gauging the effects of implementing this intervention (Stage 2). Stage 1
involved a preliminary exploration towards developing the MEPST survey instrument by
interviewing mentors and mentees. The instrument was developed, pilot tested, and refined to gather
mentees’ perceptions of mentors' practices related to primary science teaching. Statistical measures
were then employed to assess the refined instrument after administering it to 331 final year
preservice teachers. Stage 2 developed, pilot tested, implemented, and assessed this mentoring
intervention with 12 mentees and their mentors over a four-week professional experience; and used a
two-group posttest only design, which compared an intervention group (12 mentees) and a control
group (60 mentees) from the same university after their four-week professional experience program.
The MEPST survey instrument, a standardised instrument (STEBI B; Enochs & Riggs, 1990), and
researcher-designed instruments were used to gauge the effects of this intervention on specific
mentoring practices. Qualitative data (e.g., tape-recorded interviews and mentors’ transcripts)
further contributed to the analysis of the effects of the intervention. An overview of this research in
relation to each of the five factors (i.e., Personal Attributes, System Requirements, Pedagogical
Knowledge, Modelling, and Feedback) follows.
144
The MEPST survey instrument contained six attributes and practices associated with the factor
Personal Attributes. Generally, mentors were perceived to have Personal Attributes (Section 4.4.2),
however even though less mentors in the intervention group were perceived to be comfortable with
talking about science teaching compared with the control group, the intervention group mentors were
perceived to present more of the other Personal Attributes (Section 5.2). If encouragement and
support benefit mentees’ primary science teaching practices then specific mentoring strategies may
assist mentors to implement such practices. Indeed, the mentor’s Personal Attributes may be
employed to facilitate the mentoring process (Section 2.10.1.1), which is connected with the delivery
of the following four factors (Section 4.4.1).
System requirements are an essential component for primary science education reform (Section
2.10.1.2), especially as education continually changes and relies upon the implementation of system
documents. Although the practices associated with the System Requirements factor were perceived
by mentees not to be adequately mentored (Section 4.4.2), the findings from the specific mentoring
intervention indicated that mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring of the factor System
Requirements was enhanced considerably (Section 5.2). If the implementation of System
Requirements is key to primary science education reform (e.g., Bybee 1997), then a specific
mentoring intervention that guides mentors for improving mentees’ knowledge of System
Requirements has the potential for contributing to implementing primary science education reform.
Mentoring pedagogical knowledge is central to developing teaching practices within a mentoring
relationship (Section 2.10.1.3). Many mentees perceived they were not mentored in the attributes
and practices associated with the Pedagogical Knowledge factor (Section 4.4.2). However, the
specific mentoring intervention appeared to significantly increase the mentee’s perception of their
mentoring of Pedagogical Knowledge from mentors (Section 5.2). Without providing a direction for
effective mentoring practices, mentoring becomes largely a trial and error process (Crowe, 1995).
145
Thus, guided mentoring can provide opportunities to progress the mentee’s teaching practices
(Edwards & Collison, 1996; Little, l990; Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1998; Thies-Sprinthall, 1986;
Tomlinson, 1995), and specific mentoring in primary science teaching may further assist mentees to
become implementers of primary science education reform.
Knowing how to teach requires first-hand experiences, and the mentor who can model primary
science teaching practices may more readily scaffold the mentee’s development as a primary science
teacher (Section 2.10.1.4). Although most mentees perceived they had not received the modelling of
primary science teaching practices (Section 4.4.2), nearly all mentors in the intervention group
modelled primary science teaching practices (Section 5.2), regardless of their apparent lack of
expertise in primary science. Indeed, a well-designed intervention may be used to professionally
develop mentors (Section 5.4). In this way, teachers and preservice teachers may be targeted
simultaneously as agents of change.
Providing feedback on mentees’ practices is essential to the mentoring process (Section 2.10.1.5);
however many mentees’ perceived they had not received feedback on their primary science teaching
practices (Section 4.4.2). Nevertheless, all mentees in the intervention group agreed or strongly
agreed that their mentors provided feedback on their primary science teaching practices (Section
5.2), which was guided by the mentoring strategies and mentoring sessions (Appendix 3). This
indicated that mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring increased because of the intervention (Table
5.9). The results from the pretest-posttest had shown that purposeful mentoring may create a shift in
the way in which both mentors and mentees work (Sections 5.2 and 5.4) for enhancing practices
within a relatively short professional experience period (Sections 5.3 to 5.6).
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses have statistically validated the MEPST survey
instrument. In addition, this instrument (Appendix 2) was used on 72 final year preservice teachers
after their mentoring experiences, which provided further reliability of the instrument (Chapter 5).
This mentoring intervention may be implemented with existing practitioners who require further
146
professional development in primary science teaching. For example, it may be possible for primary
science consultants, principals, or primary science experts within the school settings to act as
mentors for developing teachers in the area of primary science. The MEPST survey instrument may
then be used to assess the intervention towards providing further professional development. There is
also the possibility that the MEPST survey instrument may be adapted for assessing the mentoring of
secondary science teaching, and may be altered to reflect other key learning areas, such as
mathematics. Further studies on specific mentoring may lead to improving the quality of mentoring
and teaching of primary science, and may provide an opportunity for implementing primary science
education reform.
7.3 Limitations
The first research aim explored the perceptions of mentees and their mentoring in primary science
teaching. These findings do not consider mentees’ previous experiences or that mentors may not
have provided these mentoring practices because they felt the mentees had already acquired those
skills. Mentees may be skilled in particular science teaching areas and consequently did not receive
specific mentoring as these skills may have been noted by the mentor. For example, although only a
quarter of mentors assisted mentees in problem solving strategies for teaching science, this may not
have been necessary for all mentees. Some mentees may have displayed knowledge of problem
solving, were prepared for teaching, and therefore did not require mentoring in this area. However,
this appears unlikely as on average less than half the mentors modelled science teaching practices in
this study, which may indicate a lack of confidence from mentors to adequately display their science
teaching skills and knowledge. Despite this possible limitation, mentees cannot be considered expert
enough that they do not require further mentoring in any of the areas linked to the MEPST survey
instrument. It is the mentor’s role to ensure that mentees receive full experiences regardless of
assumed or previous articulation of experiences. Indeed, the mentor may extend the mentees’
experiences in any of these areas. The mentor needs to scaffold the mentee’s learning and raise the
147
standard of teaching science in all aspects of the mentee’s teaching by addressing specific mentoring
issues.
It should also be emphasised that even though this specific mentoring intervention provided
guidelines for developing primary science teaching practices, the mentor needs to have the flexibility
to cater for the mentee’s needs. Kesselheim (1998) states “assistance was most useful when it
possessed a feature of immediate application” (p. 8). Thus, a mentee who requires further mentoring
in one specific area needs to be afforded appropriate and relevant scaffolding by the mentor.
Regardless of how well planned a mentoring intervention may be, contingent mentoring must allow
for individual learning (Stanulis & Russell, 2000).
Finally, while this research has demonstrated increased perceptions of mentoring practices following
a specific intervention (Chapter 5), it does not fully examine the improvement of primary science
teaching practices as a result of this intervention. Hence a larger study will be required to validate
the effects of specific mentoring for enhancing both mentors’ and mentees’ practices. Furthermore,
this research focused on preservice teachers and teachers and did not investigate university
coursework or lecturers’ roles for developing preservice primary science teachers. Undoubtedly,
further research is needed to describe and compare the practices between universities and schools for
the development of primary science teaching practices.
148
7.4 Directions for further research
This study has indicated directions for further research in mentoring primary science education.
Research that may further inform mentoring practices associated with the five-factor model may
include: developing and assessing an instrument that indicates a mentee’s primary science teaching
needs; exploring the level of mentoring required at each stage of a mentee’s education for
implementing primary science teaching; understanding what mentees learn from mentors’ modelling
of primary science teaching; developing and assessing instruments for a mentor’s provision of
feedback on a mentee’s primary science teaching practices; investigating the mentoring intervention
on a larger scale; and devising professional development programs for mentors that link with the
MEPST survey instrument.
Research to enhance the assessment of mentoring practices may include: validating the MEPST-
Mentor instrument so that mentors may use this tool to self-evaluate their mentoring practices, and
validating the instrument that measures personal belief and outcome expectancy for mentoring of
primary science teaching.
Further research beyond mentoring in primary science teaching may include: developing an
instrument to measure mentees’ perceptions of their mentoring in secondary science teaching and in
other key learning areas, such as mathematics; exploring the application of the intervention in other
key learning areas, such as mathematics; investigating the links of using the MEPST survey
instrument as a form of professional development for teachers; and devising professional
development programs that link to other key learning areas as a derivative of the MEPST survey
instrument.
7.5 Thesis conclusion
The teaching of primary science requires particular skills and knowledge, which must commence at
the preservice level. Preservice teachers’ experiences in teaching primary science education are
149
varied, yet when preservice teachers enter the teaching profession they are expected to teach primary
science with some level of competency. The learning that occurs at the preservice level can be
crucial for their implementation of primary science in the schools, and possibly for the rest of their
teaching career. Hence, preservice teachers need to be guided by more knowledgeable practitioners
who can contribute to their development as future teachers of primary science. Specific mentoring
may assist the implementation of primary science education reform. Therefore, identifying
mentoring factors and associated strategies for effective primary science teaching can be employed
to more effectively facilitate the development of the preservice teacher and, simultaneously, provide
professional development for mentors in their roles as teachers and mentors. Additionally, the
effectiveness of beginning teachers’ practices as a result of comprehensive preservice education,
which includes mentoring, has the potential to catalyse primary science education reform in schools.
This research identified and verified factors and associated attributes and practices for mentoring
preservice teachers of primary science. The five factors (i.e., Personal Attributes, System
Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge, Modelling, and Feedback) and associated mentoring
attributes and practices contributed to defining the mentor’s role and the mentoring process for
educating preservice teachers. A survey instrument was developed to measure mentees’ perceptions
of their mentoring in primary science teaching on these five factors. These factors and associated
attributes and practices also provided a conceptual basis for implementing a more effective
mentoring program. Finally, this research developed a successful mentoring intervention with
mentoring strategies related to these factors and associated attributes and practices derived from the
literature for the development of effective primary science teaching. Thus, the application of the
results from this research may contribute to achieving primary science education reform.
150
References
Abell, S. K., & Bryan, L. A. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach
elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 121-139.
Abell, S. K., & Bryan, L. A. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach
elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 121-139.
Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1992). Constraints to teaching elementary science: A case study of a
science enthusiast student teacher. Science Education, 76(6), 581-595.
Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1994). Constructing science in the elementary school: The socialization
of a science enthusiast student teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 77-
90.
Abu Bakar, K., & Tarmizi, R. (1995, January). Teacher preparation concerns: Professional needs
of Malaysian secondary science teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charleston, WV.
Ackley, B., & Gall, M. (1992, April). Skills, strategies and outcomes of successful mentor teachers.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
San Francisco, CA.
Adams, P., & Krockover, G. (1997). Concerns and perceptions of beginning secondary science and
mathematics teachers. Science Education, 81, 29-50.
Adelman, C., & Kemp, A. E. (1992). Case studies and action research. In A. E. Kemp (Ed.), Some
approaches to research in music education (pp. 111–136). Reading, UK: International
Society for Music Education.
Agguire, M., & Haggerty, S. (1995). Preservice teachers’ meanings of learning. International
Journal of Science Education, 17, 119-131.
Agguire, M., Haggerty, S., & Linder, C. (1990). Student-teachers’ conceptions of science teaching
and learning: A case study in preservice science education. International Journal of Science
Education, 12, 381-390.
151
Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Allsop, T., & Benson, A. (Eds.). (1996). Mentoring for science teachers. Bristol, PA: Open
University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans: A
project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics and technology. Washington,
DC: Author.
Anderson, G. N. (1995, August). Mentors and proteges: The influence of faculty mentoring on
undergraduate academic achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education, Orlando, FL.
Anderson, E. M., & Shannon, A. L. (1988). Towards a conceptualization of mentoring. Journal of
Teacher Education, 7, 38-42.
Anderson, R., & Mitchener, C. (1995). Research on science teacher education. In D. Gabel (Ed.),
Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3-44). New York: MacMillan.
Appleton, K. (1995). Student teachers’ confidence to teach science: Is more science knowledge
necessary to improve self-confidence? International Journal of Science Education, 17, 357-
369.
Appleton, K., & Asoko, H. (1996). A case study of a teacher’s progress toward using a
constructivist view of learning to inform teaching elementary science. Science Teacher
Education, 80(2), 165-180.
152
Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (1999, March). How do beginning elementary teachers cope with science:
Development of pedagogical content knowledge in science. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Education, Boston, MA.
Arredondo, D. E., & Rucinski, T. T. (1997, March). Using structured interactions in conferences
and journals to promote cognitive development among mentors and mentees. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, IL.
Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 28-32.
Ashton, P., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student
achievement. New York: Longman.
Asunta, T. (1997). Inservice science courses for primary teachers: Implementation of different
types of inservice training courses in Finland. Science Education International, 8(3), 18-23.
Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council. (1997). Foundations for Australia’s
future: Science and technology in primary schools. Canberra, Australia: Australian
Government Publishing Service.
Awaya, A., McEwan, H., Heyler, D., Linsky, S., Lum, D., & Wakukawa, P. (2003). Mentoring as a
journey. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 45-56.
Bainer, D. L. (1997, March). With a new lens: How partnering impacts teachers’ views of and
approaches to teaching science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Ball, D., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (1988). Using textbooks and teachers’ guides: A dilemma for
beginning teachers and teacher educators. Curriculum Inquiry, (18), 401–423.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1981). Self referent thought: A development analysis of self-efficacy. In J. H. Flavell
& L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development frontiers and possible futures (pp. 200-239).
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
153
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge.
Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: Issues related to the
science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 70-102.
Barrett, R. (2002). Mentor supervision and development: Exploration of lived experience. Career
Development International, 7(5), 279-283.
Barrow, L. H., & Sawanakunanont, Y. (1994). Teaching strategies utilized one year after
participating in an inservice elementary science program. Journal of Elementary Science
Education, 6(2), 52-62.
Barry, K., & King, L. (1998). Beginning teaching: A developmental text for effective teaching.
Melbourne, Australia: Social Science Press.
Barta, K. M. (1992). An adult education internship in a division of continuing education. Journal of
Continuing Higher Education, 40(3), 41-47.
Barton, K. (2002). Will you mentor me? Your career. T+D, 56(5), 90-92.
Beattie, M. (2000). Narratives of professional learning: Becoming a teacher and learning to teach.
Journal of Educational Enquiry, 1(2), 1-23.
Beck, J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (2000). An exploratory study of teachers’ beliefs
regarding the implementation of constructivism in their classrooms. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 11(4), 323-343.
Beisenherz, P. C., & Yager, R. E. (1991). The school science supervisor: A necessity for a quality
program. School Science and Mathematics, 91(4), 152-156.
Beisenherz, P. C., & Yager, R. E. (1992). Wanted: Science supervisors. American School Board
Journal, 179(9), 45-46.
Beisenherz, P., & Dantonio, M. (1996). Using the learning cycle to teach physical science: A
hands-on approach for the middle grades. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.
154
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher development: A model from science education. Bristol, PA:
Falmer Press, Taylor and Francis Inc.
Bell, C. R. (1996). Managers as mentors: Building partnerships for learning. Toronto, ON:
McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Bell, J. (1993). Doing your research project (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Bellm, D., Whitebook, M., & Hnatiuk, P. (1997). The early childhood mentoring curriculum:
Trainer’s guide. Washington, DC: National Center for the Early Childhood Work Force.
Benson, G. (1989). Epistemology and science curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(4),
329-344.
Benton, P. (Ed.). (1990). The Oxford internship scheme: Integration and participation in initial
teacher education. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13.
Bickhard, M. H. (1997). Constructivism and relativisms: A shopper's guide. Science & Education,
6(1-2), 29-42.
Birse, M. (1996, August). The constructivist approach to science and technology. Paper presented
at the Australian and New Zealand Conference, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
155
Bischoff, P. J., Hatch, D. D., & Watford, L. J. (1999). The state of readiness of initial level
preservice middle grades science and mathematics teachers and its implications on teacher
education programs. School Science and Mathematics, Bowling Green, 99(7), 394-399.
Bishop, C. (2001). Case-based learning and the construction of professional practical knowledge
in teacher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Education, University of
Sydney, Sydney.
Bishop, K., & Denley, P. (1997). The fundamental role of subject matter knowledge in the teaching
of science. School Science Review, 79(286), 65-71.
Blackwell, J. (1989). Mentoring: An action strategy for increasing minority faculty. Academe, 75,
8-14.
Board of Studies. (1993). Science and technology k-6 syllabus and support documents. Sydney,
NSW: New South Wales Department of Education and Training.
Board of Studies. (1999). Science and technology k-6: Outcomes and indicators. Sydney, NSW:
New South Wales Department of Education and Training.
Booth, M., Shawyer, G., & Brown, R. (1988). Survival or training. Teaching History, 50(January),
18.
Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisations: Differences in mathematics
instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4),
473-498.
Borman, K., LeCompte, M., & Goetz, J. (1986). Ethnographic and qualitative research design and
why it doesn’t work. American Behavioral Scientist, 30(1), 42-57.
Boss, S. (2001). Building a teacher's "repertoire" takes time and training. Northwest Education,
7(2),10-11.
Braden, W. R. (1998). Homies: Peer mentoring among African-American males. Northern Illinois
University, IL: LEPS Press.
156
Breeding, M., & Whitworth, J. (1999, February). Increasing the success of first year teachers: A
synthesis of three studies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, DC.
Brickhouse, N. W., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives
of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 471-485.
Briscoe, C., & Peters, J. (1997). Teacher collaboration across and within schools: Supporting
individual change in elementary science teaching. Science Teacher Education, 81(1), 51-64.
Brown, C., & Borko, H. (1992). Becoming a mathematics teacher. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.),
Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 209-242). New York:
Macmillan.
Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1993). Making sense of teaching. Buckingham, UK: Open University
Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard
University.
Bullnough, R. (1989). First-year teacher: A case study. New York: Teachers College Press.
Burry, J. A., & Bolland, K. A. (1992). Describing expert science teaching. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation, (5), 313 – 319.
Burry-Stock, J. A., & Oxford, R. L. (1994). Expert science teaching educational evaluation model
(ESTEEM): Measuring excellence in science teaching for professional development.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8(3), 267-297.
Burton, L. (1990). Gender and mathematics: An international perspective. London: Cassell
Educational.
Bybee, R. W. (1972). The ideal elementary science teacher. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the National Science Teachers Association, New York City, NY.
Bybee, R. W. (1978). Science educators’ perceptions of the ideal science teacher. School Science
and Mathematics, 78(1), 13-22.
157
Bybee, R. W. (1985). The restoration of confidence in science and technology education. School
Science and Mathematics, 85(2), 95-108.
Bybee, R. W. (1987). Science education and the science-technology-society theme. Science
Education, 71, 667-683.
Bybee, R. W. (1993). Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal reflections.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bybee, R. W., & Champagne, A. B. (1995). The national science education standards. Science
Teacher, 62(1), 40-45.
Bybee, R. W., & McInerney, J. D. (Eds.). (1995). Redesigning the science curriculum: A report on
the implications of standards and benchmarks for science education. Colorado Springs,
Colorado: Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Pikes Peak Research Park.
Caldwell, B. J., & Carter, E. M. (Eds.). (1993). The return of the mentor: Strategies for workplace
learning. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Campbell, K., & Kovar, S. K. (1994). Fitness/Exercise science internships: How to ensure success.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 65(2), 69-72.
Cardellichio, T. (1997). The lab school: A vehicle for curriculum change and professional
development. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(10), 785-88.
Carlson, R. D., & Gooden, J. S. (1999, February). Mentoring pre-service teachers for technology
skills acquisition. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher
Education International Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Carpenter, P. G. (1982). Entering teaching: Perspectives of a cohort of student teachers. Canberra,
Australia: Commonwealth Government Printery.
Carpenter, P. G., Foster, W. J., & Byde, P. (1981). Entering teaching. Canberra, Australia:
E.R.D.C.
Carson, R. O. (1965). Adoption of educational innovations. Oregon, US: Centre for the Advanced
Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon.
158
Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teacher education (pp. 291–310). New York: Macmillan.
Carter, M., & Powell, D. (1992). Teacher leaders as staff developers. Journal of Staff Development,
13(1) 8-12.
Chang, W. (1998, April). Factors impeding in-service teachers from adopting constructivist
instruction approaches. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association
for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.
Cheng, M., & Brown, R. S. (1992). A two-year evaluation of the peer support pilot project: 1990-
1992. Toronto, Ontario: Research Department, Toronto Board of Education.
Cheung, D., & Ng, P. (2000). Science teacher’s beliefs about curriculum design. Research in
Science Education, 30(4), 357-375.
Christensen, L. (1991). Empowerment of preservice teachers through effective mentoring: Course
requirements. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama.
Cleminson, R. W. (1974). Guidelines and competencies for elementary science education: A course
module. New York: MSS Information Corporation.
Clemson, R. (1987). Mentorship in teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 9, 85-90.
Clifford, E. F., & Green, V. P. (1996). The mentor-protege relationship as a factor in preservice
teacher education: A review of the literature. Early Child Development and Care, 125, 73-
83.
Coates, D., Jarvis, T., McKeon, F., & Vause, J. (1998). All together now: Science support for
mentors and students. Primary Science Review, 55, 9-11.
Coates, D., Vause, J., Jarvis, T., & McKeon, F. (1998). Mentoring in primary science. Leicester:
SCI Centre, School of Education, University of Leicester.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Reinventing student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 104-
118.
159
Cohen, D. (1988). Teaching practice: Plus que ca change. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to
educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 27-84). Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan.
Cohen, N. H. (1995). Mentoring adult learners: A guide for educators and trainers. Malabar, FL:
Krieger.
Collins, A. (1998). National science education standards: A political document. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 34(7), 711-727.
Coombe K. (1989). The mentor system. Independent Education, 19(4), 24-26.
Corcoran, E., & Andrew, M. (1988). A full year internship: An example of school-university
collaboration. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 17-23.
Cox, C. A., & Carpenter, J. R. (1989). Improving attitudes toward teaching science and reducing
science anxiety through increasing confidence in science ability in inservice elementary
school teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 1(2), 14-34.
Creswell, J. W. (2002) Educational research. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill, Prentice
Hall.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research
process. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.
Crow, G. M., & Matthews. L. J. (1998). Finding one's way: How mentoring can lead to dynamic
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Crowe, C. (1995). The rookie year: First-year advice from a second-year teacher. English Journal,
84(2), 120-121.
Crowther, D. T., & Cannon, J. R. (1998, January). How much is enough? Preparing elementary
science teachers through science practicums. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Minneapolis, MN.
Curran, B., & Goldrick, L. (2002). Mentoring and supporting new teachers. Issues brief.
Washington, DC: National Governors' Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED467748)
160
Czerniak, C., & Chiarelott, L. (1990). Teacher education for effective science instruction: A social
cognitive perspective. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 49-58.
Czerniak, C. M. (1990, April). A study of self-efficacy, anxiety, and science knowledge in
preservice elementary teachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association
for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.
Czerniak, C. M., & Haney, J. J. (1998). The effect of collaborative concept mapping on elementary
preservice teachers’ anxiety, efficacy, and achievement in physical science. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 9(4), 303-320.
Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1997). Relationship between teacher beliefs and science
education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1, 247-266.
Damnjanovic, A. (1999). Attitudes toward inquiry-based teaching: Differences between preservice
and in-service teachers. School Science and Mathematics, Bowling Green, 99(2) 71-76.
Dana, T. M., Campbell, L. M., & Lunetta, V. N. (1997). Theoretical bases for reform of science
teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 419-432.
Danielson, C. (1999). Mentoring beginning teachers: The case for mentoring. Teaching and
Change, 6(3), 251-257.
Danielson, C. (2002). Developing and retaining quality classroom teachers through mentoring.
Clearing House, 75(4), 183-185.
Daresh, J. C., & Playko, M. A. (1995, April). Mentoring in educational leadership development:
What are the responsibilities of the proteges? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational
Leadership 55(5), 6-11.
Davydov, V. D., & Zinchenko, V. P. (1986). Vygotsky’s contribution to the development of
psychology. Soviet Psychology, 11, 108-114.
de Boo, M. (1997). Primary science teacher education: A way forward. Primary Science Review,
46, 4-7.
161
DeBolt, G. (1991, April). Mentoring: Studies of effective programs in education. Paper presented at
the Diversity in Mentoring Conference, Chicago, IL.
DeBolt, G. (Ed.). (1992). Teacher induction and mentoring: School-Based collaborative programs.
New York: State of University of New York Press.
Dembo, M. H., & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers’ sense of efficacy: An important factor in school
improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86, 173-184.
Dennick, R., & Joyes, G. (1994). New science teachers’ subject knowledge. School Science
Review, 76(275), 103-108.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Sage Publications.
Desouza, J. M. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2003). Study of science teachers’ attitudes toward and
beliefs about collaborative reflective practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(2),
75-96.
Dickinson, V. L., Burns, J., Hagen, E. R., & Locker, K. M. (1997). Becoming better primary
science teachers: A description of our journey. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(4),
295-311.
DiGeronimo, J. M. (1993). A buddy system for rookie teachers. Phi Delta Kappa, 75, 348.
Dollase, R. (1992). Voices of beginning teachers. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dow, K. L. (1971). Teaching science in Australian schools. Portland, Oregon: International
Scholarly Book Services.
Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1989). Mind over machine. New York: Free Press.
Ducharme, M., & Ducharme, E. (1993). School-based teacher education in the United States: An
uneven evolution. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 18(2), 15-22.
Dujari, A. (2001). Mentoring and career development of science teachers: Drawing newcomers into
the network of college educators. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(4), 278-280.
Dynak, J. (1997). Refining the general education student teaching experience through the use of
special education collaborative teaching models. Action in Teacher Education, 19(1), 64-74.
162
Eaddy, V. S. (1976). An evaluation of the technical internship in agricultural education. Journal of
the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 17(1), 12-5.
Edwards, A. (1998). Mentoring student teachers in primary schools: Assisting student teachers to
become learners. European Journal of Teacher Education, 21(1), 47-62.
Edwards, A., & Collison, J. (1996). Mentoring and developing practice in primary schools:
Supporting student teacher learning in schools. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Ellis, J. A. (2001). A dilemma in reforming science teacher education: responding to students’
concerns or striving for higher standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3),
253-276.
Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational
Review, 66(1), 1-26.
Endres, G. J., & Kleiner, B. H. (1990). How to measure management training and development
effectiveness. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(9), 3-7.
English, R. E., & Reigeluth, C. A. (1996). Formative research on sequencing instruction with the
elaboration theory. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(1), 23-42.
Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching
efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics,
90(8), 694-706.
Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L. C., & Riggs, I. M. (1995). The relationship of pupil control to
preservice elementary science teacher self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science
Education, 79(1), 63-75.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 505-526). New York: Macmillan.
Ernest, P. (1993). Constructivism, the psychology of learning, and the nature of mathematics: Some
critical issues. Science and Education, 2(1), 87-93.
Esler, W. K., & Elser, M. K. (1984). Teaching elementary science (4th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
163
Fagenson, E. (1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job experiences of proteges versus
non-proteges. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 10, 309-320.
Fairbanks, C. M., Freedman, D., & Kahn, C. (2000). The role of effective mentors in learning to
teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 102-12.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: Structural and conceptual alternatives. In W. R.
Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 212-233). New York:
Macmillan.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1996). Teacher mentoring: A critical review. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Teaching and Teacher Education, Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 397060)
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1998). Teachers as teacher educators. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 21(1), 63-74.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1987). When is student teaching teacher education? Teacher
and Teacher Education, 3, 255-273.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Parker, M. B. (1990). Making subject matter part of the conversation in
learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 32-43.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Parker, M. B. (1992). Mentoring in context: A comparison of two U.S.
programs for beginning teachers. NCRTL Special Report. East Lansing, MI: National
Center for Research on Teacher Learning.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Remillard, J. (1996). Perspectives on learning to teach. In B. Murray (Ed.),
The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base of the preparation of
teachers (pp. 63-91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Fensham, P. J., & Harlen, W. (1999). School science and public understanding of science.
International Journal of Science Education, (21)7, 755-763.
Fetherston, T. (1999). Students constructs about energy and constructivist learning. Research in
Science Education, 29(4), 515-525.
164
Fischer, J. (1990). Problems and issues in meta-analysis. In L. Videka-Sherman & W. J. Reid
(Eds.), Advances in clinical social work, R. E. Research (pp. 297-325). Silver Spring, MD:
NASW Press.
Fisher, H. E., & Weinberg, R. (1988). Making training accountable: Assess its impact. Personal
Journal, 67(1), 73-77.
Fitch, T., & Fisher, R. (1979). Survey of science education in a sample of Illinois schools: Grades
K-6 (1975-1976). Science Education, 62, 407-416.
Fitch-Hauser, M., & Padgett, S. B. (1991). Long distance supervision of internships. ACA. Bulletin,
75, 68-74.
Fleer, M., & Hardy, T. (1996). Science for children. Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.
Fleming, K. (1991). Mentoring: Is it the key to opening doors for women in educational
administration? Personnel, 61(6), 20-24.
Fogarty, M., & Lennon, J. (1991). Conceptions of teaching during induction. South Pacific Journal
of Teacher Education, 19(1), 43-48.
Foster, H. L. (1982). Preventing stress and burnout: A project that worked: The new teacher and
teacher aide project. Institute on Classroom Management and School Discipline. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED223544)
Fraser, B. J. (1988). A study of exemplary primary science teachers. Research in Science and
Technological Education, 6(1), 25-38.
Freedman, M. (1993). The kindness of strangers: Adult mentors, urban youth and the new
volunteerism. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Fullan, M. (1991). The NEW meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer Press.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in your school? New York:
Teachers College Press.
165
Furlong, J., & Maynard, T. (Eds.). (1995). Mentoring student teachers: The growth of professional
knowledge. New York: Routledge.
Furlong, V. J., Pocklington, P. J., & Miles, S. (1988). Initial teacher training and the role of the
school. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Gabel, D. L. (Ed.). (1993). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning project. New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Gaffey, C. S., Woodward, H., & Lowe, K. (1995). Improving school experience: An Australian
perspective. Action in Teacher Education, 17(2), 7-17.
Galbraith, M. W. (2003). The adult education professor as mentor: A means to enhance teaching
and learning. Perspectives: The New York Journal of Adult Learning, 1(1), 9-20.
Galbraith, M. W., & Cohen, N. H. (Eds.). (1995). Mentoring: New strategies and challenges. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gallagher, J. J. (2000). Advancing our knowledge in order to achieve reform in science education.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 509-510.
Galvez-Hjornevik, C. (1986). Mentoring among teachers: A review of the literature. Journal of
Teacher Education, 37(1), 6–11.
Ganser, T. (1991, February). Beginning teachers’ and mentors’ perceptions of effective mentoring
programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators,
New Orleans, LA.
Ganser, T. (1994, February). How mentors rank mentor roles, benefits of mentoring and obstacles
to mentoring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher
Educators, Atlanta, GA.
Ganser, T. (1995, April). A road map for designing quality mentoring programs for beginning
teachers. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Wisconsin Association for Middle
Level Education, Stevens Point, WI.
Ganser, T. (1996a). Preparing mentors of beginning teachers: An overview for staff developers.
Journal of Staff Development, 17(4), 8-11.
166
Ganser, T. (1996b). What do mentors say about mentoring? Journal of Staff Development, 17(3),
36-39.
Ganser, T. (2000). An ambitious vision of professional development for teachers. NASSP Bulletin,
84, 6-12.
Ganser, T. (2002a). How teachers compare the roles of cooperating teacher and mentor.
Educational Forum, 66(4), 380-385.
Ganser, T. (2002b). Sharing a cup of coffee is only a beginning. Journal of Staff Development,
23(4), 28-32.
Garrison, B. (1983). Internships vary widely in structure and academic status. Journalism
Educator, 38(1), 3-7.
Garrison, J. (1997). An alternative to von Glasersfeld’s subjectivism in science education:
Deweyan social constructivism. Science and Education, 6(3), 301-12.
Gaston, J. S., & Jackson, J. F. (1998). Mentoring and its implications. Idaho, US. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED426990)
Geddis, A. (1993). Transforming subject-matter knowledge: The role of pedagogical content
knowledge in learning to reflect on teaching. International Journal of Science Education,
15(6), 673-683.
Gee, C. J., & Gabel, D. L. (1996, April). The first year of teaching: Science in the elementary
school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, Louis, MO.
Geelan, D. R. (1997). Epistemological anarchy and the many forms of constructivism. Science and
Education, 6(1-2), 15-28.
Gehrke, N. J. (1988). On preserving the essence of mentoring as one form of teacher leadership.
Journal of Teacher Education, January– February, 43-45.
Giebelhaus, C. R., & Bowman, C. (2000, February). Teaching mentors: Is it worth the effort? Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Orlando, FL.
167
Giebelhaus, C. R., & Bowman, C. L. (2002). Teaching mentors: Is it worth the effort? Journal of
Educational Research, 95(4), 246-254.
Giebelhaus, C., & Bendixon-Noe, M. (1997). Mentoring: Help or hindrance? Research alive. Mid-
Western Educational Researcher, 10(4), 20-23.
Gilbert, J., & Qualter, A. (1996). Using questions and discussions to develop children’s ideas.
Primary Science Review, 43, 6-8.
Gillaspy, J. A. (1996, January). A primer on confirmatory factor analysis. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Gliessman, D. H. (Ed.). (1989). Applying a research-based model to teacher skill training. Journal
of Educational Research, 83(2) 69-81.
Godley, L. B. (1987). The teacher consultant role: Impact on the profession. Action in Teacher
Education, 8(4), 65-73.
Goerner, (1998). Web world and the turning of times. Unpublished manuscript.
Gold, Y. (1992). The factorial validity of a teacher burnout measure (Educators Survey):
Administered to a sample of beginning teachers in elementary and secondary schools in
California. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(3), 761-68.
Gold, Y. (1996). Beginning teacher support: Attrition, mentoring, and inducation. In J. Sikula (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 548-549). New York: MacMillan.
Gomez, M. L. (1990). Reflections on research for teaching: collaborative inquiry with a novice
teacher. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16(1), 45-54.
Gonzales, F., & Sosa, A. (1993). How do we keep teachers in our classrooms? The TNT response.
Idra Newsletter, 1, 6-9.
Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning
in Australian schools. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth
Affairs.
168
Gordon F. S. (1997). Mentoring: How to develop successful mentor behaviors (Revised Edition).
Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications.
Grandy, R. E. (1997). Constructivisms and objectivity: Disentangling metaphysics from pedagogy.
Science and Education, 6(1-2), 43-53.
Greene J. C., & Caracelli V. J. (Ed.). (1997). Mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and
benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New directions for evaluation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Greene, M. L., & Campbell, C. (1993). Becoming a teacher: The contribution of teacher education.
Lethbridge, Alberta: University of Lethbridge, Alberta.
Griffin, G. A. (1985). Teacher induction: Research issues. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 42-
46.
Grundy, S. (1998). The curriculum and teaching. In E. Hatton (Ed.), Understanding teaching (pp.
26-37). Sydney, Australia: Harcourt Brace Publishers.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage.
Gustafson, B., Guilbert, S., & MacDonald, D. (2002). Beginning elementary science teachers:
Developing professional knowledge during a limited mentoring experience. Research in
Science Education, 32, 281-302.
Hagger, H. (1992). Professional development through the Oxford internship model. British Journal
of Educational Studies, 40, 264 - 283.
Hagger, H., Burn, K., & McIntyre, D. (1993). The school mentor handbook. London: Kogan Page.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with
readings (4th ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall.
Halai, A. (1998). Mentor, mentee, and mathematics: A story of professional development. Journal
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1(3), 295-315.
Haley-Oliphant, A. E. (Ed.). (1994). Exploring the place of exemplary science teaching. this year in
school science 1993. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of
Science.
169
Hammersley, M. (Ed.). (1986). Controversies in classroom research. Philadelphia: Open
University Press.
Haney, A. (1997). The role of mentorship in the workplace. In M. C. Taylor (Ed.), Workplace
education (pp. 211-228). Toronto, Ontario: Culture Concepts.
Haney, J. J., Lumpe, A. T., Czerniak, C. M., & Egan, V. (2002). From beliefs to tactions: The
beliefs and actions of teachers implementing change. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 13(3), 171-187.
Hardy, M. D., & Taylor, P. C. (1997). Von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism: A critical review.
Science and Education, 6(1-2), 135-50.
Harlen, W. (1985). Teaching and learning primary science. New York: Teachers College Press.
Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding in science and its impact in the classroom.
Research in Science Education, 27, 323-337.
Harlen, W. (1999). Effective teaching of science. A review of research. Using Research Series, 21.
Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Council for Research in Education.
Harlen, W., & Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts of science: Impact
on confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19(1), 93-105.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1993). Teaching with analogies: A case study in grade 10
optics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1291-1307.
Hart, E. P. (1989). Toward renewal of science education: A case study of curriculum policy
development. Science Education, 73(5), 607-34.
Hatton, N., & Harman, K. (1997). Internships within teacher education programs in NSW: A
further review of recent Australian and overseas studies. Sydney, Australia: The University
of Sydney.
Hawk, P. (1987). Beginning teacher programs: Benefits for the experienced educator. Action in
Teacher Education, 8(4), 59-63.
Hay, J. (1995). Learning and changing. Transformational mentoring. London: McGraw-Hill.
170
Healy, C. C., & Leak, S. (1990). Beginning teachers’ perceptions of mentors. Journal of Teacher
Education, 37(1), 22-25.
Heller, M. P., & Sindelar, N. W. (1991). Developing an effective teacher mentor program. Fastback
319. Phi Delta Kappa. Bloomington, IN: Educational Foundation.
Hendricks, H., & Hendricks, W. (1999). As iron sharpens iron: Building character in a mentoring
relationship. Chicago, IL. Moody Press.
Henriques, L. (1997). Constructivist teaching and learning: A study to define and verify a model of
interactive-constructive elementary school science teaching. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. Retrieved 14 June, 2001, from
http://www.educ.uvic.ca/depts/snsc/temporary/cnstrct.htm
171
Hernandez, P., Arrington, J., & Whitworth, J. (1998, January). Professional development for
elementary science teachers: Implications for practice. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Minneapolis, MN.
Hernandez, S. (1999). Ten Commandments for setting standards. Education Update, 14(3), 15.
Herreid, C. F. (1994). Case studies in science: A novel method of science education. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 23(4), 221-29.
Hiatt-Michael, D. (2001). Preparing teachers to work with parents. Washington, DC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education, American Association of Colleges for
Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED460123)
Hill, P. W., Hurworth, R., & Rowe, K. J. (1998). The place of literacy and numeracy in the primary
school curriculum. A national survey. Canberra, Australia: AGPS.
Hittleman, D. R., & Simon, A. J. (2002). Interpreting educational research: An introduction for
consumers of research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hodge, S. R. (1997). Mentoring: Perspectives of physical education graduate students from diverse
cultural backgrounds. Physical Educator, 54(4), 181-195.
Hodgson, B., & Scanlon, E. (Eds.). (1985). Approaching primary science. London: Harper and
Row/The Open University.
Hodson, D., & Hodson, J. (1998). Science education as enculturation: Some implications for
practice. School Science Review, 80(290), 17-24.
Holdaway, E. A. (Ed.). (1994). The value of an internship program for beginning teachers.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(2), 205-21.
Hord, S. M., & Huling-Austin, L. (1986). Effective curriculum implementation: Some promising
new insights. Elementary School Journal, 87(1), 97-115.
House, E. R. (1974). The politics of curriculum innovation. Berekely, CA: McCutchan.
Howe, A. C. (1987). Teaching science teaching. Teaching Education, 1(2), 49-52.
Huang, A. C., & Lynch, J. (1995). Mentoring: The Tao of giving and receiving Wisdom. San
Francisco: Harper.
172
Huberman, M. (1995). Networks that alter teaching: Conceptualizations, exchanges and
experiments. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1(2), 193-211.
Hudson, P. (1994). Evaluation of science and technology in NSW North Coast schools.
Unpublished MEd thesis, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW.
Hudson, P. (2000). Integrating science, writing and art: Transporting passengers in the same
vehicle. Investigating: Australian Primary and Junior Science Journal, 16(1), 35-38.
Hudson, P. (2002). Constructive mentoring for primary science teaching: Exploring and designing
constructs for sequencing science lessons. Investigating: Australian Primary and Junior
Science Journal, 18(2), 17-22.
Hudson, P. (2003a). Mentoring first-year preservice teachers in primary science education. Action
in Teacher Education, 15(3), 68-77.
Hudson, P. (2003b). “Seeing the Light”: Mentoring and primary science teaching. Investigating:
Australian Primary and Junior Science Journal, 19(2), 15-19.
Hudson, P. (2003c). Reflective practices: Modelling and observing science teaching for preservice
teachers. Investigating: Australian Primary and Junior Science Journal, 19(3), 10-14.
Hudson, P., & Hudson, S. (2001). Linking visual arts with science and technology in the primary
classroom. Investigating: Australian Primary and Junior Science Journal, 17(4), 26-29.
Hudson, P., & Skamp, K. (2003). Mentoring preservice teachers of primary science. The Electronic
Journal of Science Education, 7(1). Retrieved 2 February, 2004, from
http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejse.html
Huinker, D., & Madison, S. K. (1997). Preparing efficacious elementary teachers in science and
mathematics: The influence of methods courses. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
8(2), 107-126.
Huling-Austin, L. (1989). Beginning teacher assistance programs: An overview. In L. Huling-
Austin, S. J. Odell, P. Ishler, R. S. Kay, & R. A. Edelfelt (Eds.), Assisting the beginning
teacher (pp. 3-18). Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators.
173
Huling-Austin, L. (1992). Research on learning to teach: Implications for teacher induction and
mentoring programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 173-80.
Huling, L., & Resta, V. (2001). Teacher mentoring as professional development. ERIC Digest.
ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education, American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education, NY.
Hulshof, H., & Verloop, N. (1994). The collaborating teacher as co-educator in teacher education.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 19,(2), 25-29.
Hunt, D., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool. Academy of
Management Review, 8(3), 475-485.
Hutto, N., Holden, J., & Haynes, B. (Eds.). (1991). Mentor training manual for Texas teachers.
Texas: Texas Education Agency.
James, R. K., & Hord, S. M. (1988) Implementing elementary school science programs. School
Science and Mathematics, 88(4), 315-334.
Jarrett, O. S. (1999). Science interest and confidence among preservice elementary teachers.
Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(1), 49-59.
Jarvis, P. (1995). Adult & continuing education: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Jarvis, T., McKeon, F., Coates, D., & Vause J. (2001). Beyond generic mentoring: Helping trainee
teachers to teach primary science. Research in Science and Technological Education,
19(1), 5-23.
Jasman, A. (2002, October). Initial teacher education: Changing curriculum, pedagogies and
assessment. Paper presented at Challenging Futures conference, University of New
England, Armidale, Australia.
Jean, E., & Evans, R. (1995). Internships/Mentorships for first-year principals: Implications for
administrative certification and graduate program design. Helene, MO: Montana State
Board of Education.
174
Jenkins, E. (1990). Scientific literacy and school science education. School Science Review,
71(256), 43-51.
Johnson, H. E. (1997). Mentoring for exceptional performance. New York: Griffin Publishing.
Johnson, N. A., Ratsoy, E. W., Holdaway, E. A., & Friesen, D. (1993). The induction of teachers:
A major internship program. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 296-304.
Johnston, J. (1996). Early explorations in science. Buckinghamshire, UK: Open University Press.
Johnston, S. (1992, April). Experience is the best teacher…or is it? An analysis of the role of
experience in learning to teach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Jonson, K. F. (2002). Being an effective mentor: How to help beginning teachers succeed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. New York:
Longman.
Juca, M. E. W., & Maskill, R. (1997). Demystifying constructivism: Spontaneous and genuinely
constructivist teaching in disadvantageous contexts. Science Education International, 8(3),
13-17.
Kagan, D. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65-
90.
Kahle, J. B. (1999, February). Evaluation results of the Ohio statewide systemic initiative. Paper
presented at the annual forum of the National Institute for Science Education, Arlington,
VA.
Kahle, J. B., & Damnjanovic A. (1994). The effect of inquiry activities on elementary students’
enjoyment, ease, and confidence in doing science: An analysis by sex and race. Journal of
Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 1, 17-28.
Kaser, J. S., Bourexis, P. S., Loucks-Horsley, S., & Raizen, S. A. (1999). Enhancing program
quality in science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
175
Kennedy, J., & Dorman, J. (2002). Development and validation of the extended practicum learning
environment inventory. Sydney, Australia: Australian Catholic University.
Kennedy, M. M. (1992). Establishing professional schools for teachers. In M. Levine (Ed.),
Professional practice schools (pp. 63-80). London: Teachers College Press.
Kerka, S. (1997). Constructivism, workplace learning, and vocational education. ERIC Digest No.
181. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED407573)
Kerka, S. (1999). New perspectives on mentoring. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult,
Career, and Vocational Education, ERIC Digest No. 194.
Kesselheim, C. (1998, April). The assistance relationship between content-specialist science
facilitators and their constituent teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.
Killion, J. P. (1990). The benefits of an induction program for experienced teachers. Journal of
Staff Development, 1I (4), 32-36.
Kimbell, R., Stables, K., & Green, R. (1996). Understanding practice in design and technology.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1979). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Training and Development
Journal, 33(6), 78-92.
Klemm, W. R. (1988). Ten ways to improve graduate teaching. College Board Review, 146, 16-19,
26-29.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York: The
Guildford Press.
Klug, B. J., & Salzman, S. A. (1990a, April). Formal induction vs. informal mentoring:
Comparative effects and outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
176
Klug, B. J., & Salzman, S. A. (1990b, February). Strengthening the team: An inclusive model of
university/school district support for novice teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Association of Teacher Educators, New Orleans, LA.
Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge
Adult Education.
Koerner, M. E. (1992). The cooperating teacher: An ambivalent participant in student teaching.
Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 46-56.
Koki, S. (1997). The role of teacher mentoring in educational reform. PREL briefing paper.
Honolulu, Hawaii: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning.
Konsky, C. (1982). Internships in speech communication: A national survey and commentary.
Association for Communication Administrators Bulletin, 41, 39-51.
Krasnow, M. H. (1993, April). Waiting for Thursday: New teachers discover teaching. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Atlanta, GA.
Lankard, B. A. (1996). The role of mentoring in career education: Trends and issues alerts. Ohio,
US. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED399403)
Lappan, G., & Briars, D. (1995). How should mathematics be taught? In National Research
Council. National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, A. E. (Ed.). (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science
concepts and thinking skills. NARST Monograph, Number One, 1989. National Association
for Research in Science Teaching, Department of Science Education, College of Education,
University of Cincinnati. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED324204)
Lawson, H. (1992). Beyond the new conception of teacher induction. Journal of Teacher
Education, 43(3), 163-172.
177
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic
research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1).
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students and teachers conceptions of the nature of science: A review of
the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science:
Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74(2), 225-39.
Lenton, G., & Turner, G. (1999). Student-teachers’ grasp of science concepts. The Journal for
Science Education, 81(295), 67-72.
Levin, T., Sabar, N., & Libman, Z. (1991). Achievements and attitudinal patterns of boys and girls
in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 315-328.
Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development. Phi Delta Kappa, 76(8), 591-
596.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school
success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.
Little, J. W. (1990). The mentor phenomenon and the social organisation of teaching. Review of
Educational Research, 16, 297-351.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teacher’s professional development in a climate of educational reform.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
Long, J. (1995, September). The challenge for change. Mentoring for school based teacher
education. Paper presented at the ATEA Conference, Australian Catholic University, North
Sydney, Australia.
Long, J. (1997). The dark side of mentoring. The Australian Educational Researcher, 24(2), 115-
133.
Long, S. (2002). Mentoring: A personal reflection. New Library World, 103(3), 94-97.
Looney, J. (1997, February). Mentoring the beginning teacher: A study of influencing variables.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Education Research Association,
Hilton Head, SC.
178
Lorenz, A. M. (1986). Internships in educational technology academic programs: A status report.
Journal of Instructional Development, 9(3), 25-27.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Loucks-Horsley, S. (1996). Professional development for science education: A critical and
immediate challenge. In R. W. Bybee (Ed.), National standards and the science curriculum:
Challenges, opportunities, and recommendations (pp. 83-95). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Loucks-Horsley, S. (Ed.). (1990). Elementary school science for the 90s. Association for
supervision and curriculum development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers
of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics,
Bowling Green, 99(5), 258-271.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Harding, C. K., Arbuckle, M. A., Murray, L. B., Dubea, C., & Williams, M. K.
(1987). Continuing to learn: A guidebook for teacher development. Andover, MA: The
Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands, and
National Staff Development Council.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1998). Designing professional
development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Loughran, J. (1995). Practicing what I preach: Modeling reflection practice to student teachers.
Research in Science Education, 25(4), 431-451.
Luft, J. A., Bragg, J., & Peters, C. (1999). Learning to teach in a diverse setting: A case study of a
multicultural science education enthusiast. Science Education, 83(5), 527-43.
Luft, J. A., & Patterson, N. C. (2002). Bridging the gap: Supporting beginning science teachers.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(4), 267-282.
Luna, G., & Cullen, D. L. (1995). Empowering the faculty: Mentoring redirected and renewed.
ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington, DC: George
Washington University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED399888)
179
Lunn, S., & Solomon, J. (2000). Primary teachers’ thinking about the English national curriculum
for science: Autobiographies, warrants, and autonomy. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37(10), 1043-1056.
Mager, G. M. (1990). A follow-up on the experiences of intern teachers: A report to the State
Education Department on the New York State mentor teacher-internship program for 1986-
1987 and 1987-1988. School of Education. New York: Syracuse.
Manning, P. C., Esler, W. K., & Baird, J. R. (1982). How much elementary science is really being
taught? Science and Children, 19, 40-41.
Manthei, J. (1992, April). The mentor teacher as leader: The motives, characteristics and needs of
seventy-three experienced teachers who seek a new leadership role. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Marchant, G. J., & Newman, I. (1996). Mentoring education: An interview with Carolyn M.
Evertson. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 9(2), 26-27,31.
Marek, E. A. (1990). Teachers’ understanding and the use of the learning cycle. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 27(9), 821-34.
Matters, P. (1994, January). Mentoring partnerships: Keys to leadership success for principals and
managers. Paper presented at the International Conference in Education, Melbourne
University, Victoria.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New
York: Routledge.
Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (1998). Constructivism in science education: A philosophical examination.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Matthews, P. S. C. (1997). Problems with Piagetian constructivism. Science and Education, 6(1-2),
105-19.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
180
May, A. (1989, February). Effective collaborative teacher preparation models: Defining the
relationship. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher
Educators, St. Louis, MO.
McCahon, K. M. (1985). Beginning teacher induction in the state high schools of the central
Queensland mining towns: Perceptions of first year teachers. Unpublished MEd. Admin.
Dissertation, University of New England, Armidale, NSW.
McCann, I., & Radford, R. (1993). Mentoring for teachers: The collaborative approach. In B. J.
Cadwell & E. M. Carter (Eds.), The return of the mentor: Strategies for workplace learning
(pp. 25-41). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
McDiarmid, G., & Williamson. B. (1990). Challenging prospective teachers’ beliefs during early
field experience: A quixotic undertaking? Journal of Teacher Education, 4(3), 12-20.
McIntyre, D. J., & Byrd, D. M. (Eds.). (1996). Preparing tomorrow’s teachers: The field
experience. Teacher education yearbook IV. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
McIntyre, D., Hagger, H., & Wilkin, M. (Eds.). (1993). Mentoring: Perspectives on school-based
teacher education. London: Kogan Page.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). What matters most in teachers’ workplace context? In J. W. Little &
M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 79-
103). New York: Teachers College Press.
Meadows, J. (1994). Science students on teaching practice. Primary Science Review, 31, 7-10.
Meek, A. (1998). America’s teachers: Much to celebrate. Educational Leadership, 55(5), 12-16.
Mellado, V. (1997). Preservice teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of the nature of
science. Science and Education, 6(2), 331-354.
Mellado, V. (1998). The classroom practice of preservice teachers and their conceptions of teaching
and learning science. Science Teacher Education, 82(2), 197-213.
Mentor Teacher Internship Program, 1993-94. (1994). OER Report. New York: OER. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED387 481)
Merseth, K. (1992). First aid for first-year teachers. Phi Delta Kappa, 73, 678-683.
181
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a
shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 20-30.
Miller, J. L. (1990). Creating spaces and finding voices: Teachers collaborating for empowerment.
New York: SUNY Press.
Miller, L. M., Thomson, W. A., & Roush, R. E. (1989). Mentorships and the perceived educational
payoffs. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(6), 465-67.
Mitchener, C. P., & Anderson, R. D. (1989). Teachers’ perspective: Developing and implementing
an STS curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 351-369.
Moir, E. (1990). Phases of first-year teaching. New Teacher News, 2(2), 6-7.
Monk, M., & Dillon, J. (Eds). (1995). Learning to teach science: Activities for student teachers and
mentors. London: Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis.
Moran, S. (1990). Schools and the beginning teacher. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(3), 210-213.
Moreno, N. P. (1999). K-12 science education reform: A primer for scientists. Bioscience, 49(7),
569-576.Morine-Dershimer, G., & Kent, T. (1999). The complex nature and sources of
teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),
Pedagogical content knowledge and science education (pp. 21-50). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Morley, M. K. (1990). Status of science education in Illinois elementary schools. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 27, 387-398.
Motz, L. L. (1997). Infrastructural support needed to meet science education reform. Science
Educator, 6(1), 28-32.
Mulholland, J. A. (1999). Beginning teachers and primary science: Learning and teaching science
in the preservice to inservice transition. Unpublished PhD thesis, Curtin University, Perth,
WA.
Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (1996). Breaking the cycle: Preparing elementary teachers to teach
science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8(1), 17-38.
182
Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2000). Beginning primary science teaching: Entryways to different
worlds. Research in Science Education, 30(2), 155-171.
Mullen, C. A., Whatley, A., & Kealy, W. A. (1999). Co-mentoring support groups in higher
education. Tuscaloosa, AL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED429494)
Mullen, C., Cox, M., Boettcher, C., & Adoue, D. (Eds.). (1997). Breaking the circle of one:
Redefining mentorship in the lives and writings of educators. New York: Peter Lang.
Muller, W. (1993). Legacy of the heart: The spiritual advantages of a painful childhood. London:
Fireside Press.
Murray, M. (1992). Beyond the myths and magic of mentoring. New York: Jossey-Bass.
Nash, D., & Treffinger, D. (1993). The mentor kit. A step-by-step guide to creating an effective
mentor program in your school [and] reproducible forms to accompany the mentor
program in your school. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for
America’s future. New York: Author.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th
ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Newby, T., & Heide, A. (1992). The value of mentoring. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
5(4), 2-15.
Nilssen, V., Gudmundsdottir, S., & Wangsmocappelen, V. (1998). Mentoring the teaching of
multiplication: A case study. European Journal of Teacher Education, 21(1), 29-45.
Nola, R. (1998). Constructivism in science and science education: A philosophical critique. In M.
R. Matthews (Ed.), Constructivism in science education: A philosophical examination (pp.
31-59). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
183
O’Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a
sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
29(8), 791-820.
Odell, S. (1989). Developing support programs for beginning teachers. In L. Huling-Austin (Ed.),
Assisting the beginning teacher (pp. 19-38). Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators.
Odell, S. J. (1990). Mentor teacher programs. What research says to the teacher. West Haven, CT:
NEA Professional Library. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED323185)
Odiorne, G. (1984). Strategic management of human resources. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Okebukola, P. A., & Jegede, O. J. (1992). Survey of factors that stress science teachers and an
examination of coping strategies. Science Education, 76(2), 199-210.
Olson, J. (Ed.). (1982). Innovation in the science curriculum. London: Croom Helm LTD.
Olstad, R. G., & Haury, D. L. (1983). A summary of research in science education -1982. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Orland, L. (2001). Reading a mentoring situation: One aspect of learning to mentor. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 17(1), 75-88.
Osborne, J. F. (1996). Beyond constructivism. Science Education, 80(1), 53-82.
Osborne, P. D. (1984). Making sense of our world: An interactive teaching approach: Handbook.
Hamilton, NZ: Science Education Research Unit, University of Wabato.
Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M. C. (1985). The generative learning model and its implications for
science education. Studies in Science Education, 12, 59-87.
Otte, M. (1998). Limits of constructivism: Kant, Piaget and Peirce. Science and Education, 7(5),
425-450.
Ovens, P. (1995). Is it 1995 or AD1? Primary Science Review, 37, 2-3.
Ovens, P. (2000). Reflective teacher development in primary science. New York: Falmer Press.
Page, F. M. (1994, April). Redefining student teaching supervision responsibilities. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans,
LA.
184
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.
Parsons, S., & Reynolds, K. E. (1995, April). Establishing an action research agenda for
preservice and inservice elementary teacher collaboration on self-empowerment in science.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
Patriarca, L. A., & Kragt, D. M. (1986). Teacher expectations and student achievement: The ghost
of Christmas future. Curriculum Review, 25(5-6), 48-50.
Pendry, A. (1990). Partnership: The Oxford internship scheme. In A. Williams (Ed.), Perspectives
on partnership – secondary initial teacher training (pp. 38-45). London: Falmer Press.
Peper, J. B. (1994, April). Mentoring, mentors and proteges. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Peterson, B. E., & Williams S. R. (1998). Mentoring beginning teachers. Mathematics Teacher,
91(8), 730-734.
Philips-Jones, L. (1982) Mentor and protégés. New York: Arbour House.
Piovanelli, M. (2000). SPSS10.0 for Macintosh: Release 10.0.7a, Standard version. WASTE text
engine, Software Mackiev, SPSS10 Inc.
Plummer, D. M., & Barrow, L. H. (1998). Ways to support beginning science teachers. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 9(4), 293-301.
Pontius, R. (1998, April). Correlation analysis and comparison of two self-efficacy instruments.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, San Diego, CA.
Portner, H. (2002). Being mentored: A guide for proteges. Thosand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Power, A., Clarke, M., & Hine, A. (2002, February). The internship: A journey of professional
learning through reflection. Paper presented at the Challenging Futures Conference,
University of New England, Armidale, NSW.
185
Prather, J. P. (1993). Reform revisited: The trend toward constructivist learning. Journal of
Elementary Science Education, 5(2), 52-70.
Pratt, H., & Hackett, J. (1998). Teaching science: The inquiry approach. Principal, 78(2), 20-22.
Project 21: Teachers for the twenty-first century. (1987). Toowong, Queensland: Board of Teacher
Education.
Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. (1994). (4th ed.). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Puttick, G. M., & Rosebery, A. S. (1998). Teacher professional development as situated sense-
making: A case study in science education. Science Education, 82(6), 649-77.
Radford, D. L., & Ramsey, L. L. (1996, March). Experiencing scientific inquiry and pedagogy: A
model for inservice training for science education reform. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
Raizen, S. A., & Michelson, A. M. (Eds.). (1994). The future of science in elementary schools. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ramey-Gassert, L., Shroyer, M. G., & Staver, J. R. (1996). A qualitative study of factors
influencing science teaching self-efficacy of elementary level teachers. Science Teacher
Education, 80(3), 283-315.
Ramirez-Smith, C. (1997). Isolation to interaction: Implications for preparing preservice
educators. Virginia, US. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED414258)
Ramsey, G. (2000). Quality matters. Revitalising teaching: Critical times, critical choices. Sydney,
NSW: Department of Education and Training.
Ramsey, S. J. (2001, March). Summer experiences promote reflective practice in preservice
teachers: The Oklahoma State University Science Summer Academy, one successful design.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education, Dallas, TX.
Ratcliffe, M. (1998). The purposes of science education. In R. Sherrington (Ed.), ASE Guide to
primary science education (pp. 3-12). Cheltenham, UK: Stanley Thornes.
186
Ratsoy, E. W. (1979). Skills of beginning teachers and perceived effectiveness of preparation
programs. Faculty of Education Program Evaluation Report Number 4. Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada: University of Alberta. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED184225)
Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1983). Instructional - design theories and models: An overview of their
current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reilly, J. M. (1992). Mentorship: The essential guide for schools and business. Dayton, Ohio: Ohio
Psychology Press.
Reiman, A. J., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1993). Promoting the development of mentor teachers:
Theory and research programs using guided reflection. Journal of Research and
Development in Education, 26(3), 179-85.
Reiman, A. J., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1998). Mentoring and supervision for teacher development.
New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Reinharz, S. (1979). Undergraduates as experiential learning facilitators. New Directions for
Experiential Learning. Enriching the Liberal Arts Through Experiential Learning, 6, 45-64.
Rhoton, J., & Bowers, P. (Eds.). (1996). Issues in science education. Washington, DC: National
Science Teachers’ Association.
Rice, D. C., & Roychoudhury, A. (2003). Preparing more confident preservice elementary science
teachers: One elementary science methods teacher’s self-study. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 14(2), 97-126.
Richardson, L. (1997). Fields of play: Constructing an academic life. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practices. Educational
Researcher, 19, 10-18.
Riggs, I. M. (1988). The development of an elementary teachers’ science teaching efficacy belief
instrument. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. E. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science
teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74, 625-637.
187
Riggs, I. M., & Sandlin, R. A. (2002, July). Professional development of mentors within a
beginning teacher induction program: How does the garden (mentors) grow? Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Rikard, G. L., & Beacham, B. (1992). A vision for innovation in preservice teaching: The
evaluation of a model program. Action in Teacher Education, 14(1), 35-41.
Riordan, G. (1995, March). Teachers’ perceptions of collaboration and clinical supervision. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, CA.
Ritchie, D., & Volkl, C. (2000). Effectiveness of two generative learning strategies in the science
classroom. School Science and Mathematics. Bowling Green, 100(2), 83.
Roberts, J. K. (1999, January). Basic concepts of confirmatory factor analysis. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association. San Antonio, TX.
Roberts, J. K., Henson, R. K., Tharp, B. Z., & Moreno, N. (2001). An examination of change in
teaching self-efficacy beliefs in science education based on duration of inservice activities.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 199-213.
Rodrigue, P., & Tingle, J. B. (1994). The extra step: Linking inservice and preservice teachers.
Science and Children, 31(4), 34-36.
Rosaen, C. L., Roth, K. J., & Lanier, P. E. (1989, March). Field experiences that teach:
Mentor/Faculty roles. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Rosean, C., & Lindquist, B. (1992). Collaborative teaching and research: Asking “What does it
mean?” Elementary Subject Centre Series No.73. Michigan: Institute for Research on
Teaching, MSU.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teachers workplace: The social organization of schools. New York:
Teachers College Press.
188
Roth, W-M. (1990, April). Collaboration and constructivism in the science classroom. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston,
MA.
Roth, W-M. (1991). Aspects of cognitive apprenticeship in science teaching. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake
Geneva, WI.
Roth, W-M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: interactions of
context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 709-
736.
Roth, W-M. (1996). Where is the context in contextual word problems? Mathematical practices and
products in grade 8 students’ answers to story problems. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 487-
527.
Roth, W-M. (1998). Science teaching as knowledgability: A case study of knowing and learning
during coteaching. Science Teacher Education, 82(3), 357-377.
Roth, W-M., McGinn, M., & Bowen, G. M. (1998). How prepared are preservice teachers to teach
scientific inquiry? Levels of performance in scientific representation practices. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 19, 25-48.
Rothman, J., & Thomas, E. J. (1994). Intervention research: Design and development for human
service. New York: The Haworth Press.
Rubba, P. A. (1992). The learning cycle as a model for the design of science teacher preservice and
inservice education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3(4), 97-101.
Runions, T. (1980). The mentor academy program: Educating the gifted/talented for the 80’s.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(4), 152-57.
Ryan, K. (1986). The induction of new teachers. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational
Foundation.
Saxl, E. R., Lieberman, A., & Miles, M. B. (1987). Help is at hand: New knowledge for teachers as
staff developers. Journal of Staff Development, 8(1), 7-11.
189
Schifter, D. (1996). What’s happening in math class? Envisioning new practices through teacher
narratives (Vols. 1-2). New York: Teachers College Press.
Schlechty, P. (1985). A framework for evaluating introduction into teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education, 36(1), 37-41.
Schlechty, P., & Vance, V. (1983). Recruitment, selection, and retention: The shape of the teaching
force. Elementary School Journal, 83, 469-487.
Schoeneberger, M., & Russell, T. (1986). Elementary science a little added frill: A report of two
case studies. Science Education, 70, 519-538.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Schön, D. (1992). The crisis of professional knowledge and the pursuit of an epistemology of
practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 6, 49-63.
Schoon, K. J., & Boone, W. J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of
preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 82, 553-568.
Schreck, T. J. (1993, November). Mentorship in practice: A multi-method approach. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Educational Research Association, Destin,
FL.
Schwartz, J. E. (1992). How can we evaluate ourselves? Arithmetic Teacher, 39(6), 58-61.
Schwartz, P., & Ogilvy, J. (1979). The emergent paradigm: Changing patterns of thought and
belief. Analytical report #7: Values and lifestyle program. Menlo Park, CA: SRI
International.
Scott, N. H., & Compton, E. (1996). Report on the 1995-96 beginning teacher induction program
in New Brunswick. New Brunswick, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED403246)
Seibert, J. H., & Sypher, B. D. (1989, November). The importance of internship experiences to
undergraduate communication students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Speech Association, San Fransisco, CA.
190
Settlage, J. (2000). Understanding the learning cycle: Influences on abilities to embrace the
approach by preservice elementary school teachers. Science Teacher Education, 84(1), 51-
70.
Sharpley, B., Tytler, R., & Conley, H. (2000, July). The science in schools project: A strategy for
enhancing school science. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian
Science Teachers’ Association, University of Western Australia, Perth.
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teacher pedagogical thoughts, judgments,
decisions, and behaviors. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455-498.
Shayer, M. (1991). Improving standards and the national curriculum. School Science Review,
72(260), 17-24.
Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (1981). Towards a science of teaching science: Cognitive development and
curriculum demand. London: Heinemann Education Books.
Shea, G. F. (1994). Mentoring: Helping employees reach their full potential. New York: American
Management Association.
Sherman, R., Voight, J., Tibbetts, J., Dobbins, D., Evans, A., & Weidler, D. (2000). Adult
educators' guide to designing instructor mentoring. Retrieved on 4 January, 2004, from
http://www.air.org/nrs/reports/Mentoring%20Guide.pdf
Sheskin, D. J. (1997). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. New
York: CRC Press.
Shipman, M. (1974). Inside a curriculum project. London: Methuen.
Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6),
12-16.
Shrigley, R. L. (1974). The attitude of preservice elementary teachers toward science. School
Science and Mathematics, 74(3), 437-446.
Shulman, L. (1986a). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
191
Shulman, L. S. (1986b). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A
contemporary perspective. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 3-
36). New York: MacMillan.
Shymansky, J., & Kyle, W. (1992). Establishing a research agenda: Critical issues of science
curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 749-778.
Sinclair, C. (1997). Redefining the role of the university lecturer in school-based teacher education.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 25(3), 309-324.
Skamp, K. (2001a). A longitudinal study of the influences of primary and secondary school,
university and practicum on student teachers’ images of effective primary science practice.
International Journal of Science Education, 23(3), 227-245.
Skamp, K. (2001b). Student teachers’ conceptions of effective primary science practice: A
longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 331-351.
Skamp, K. (Ed.). (1998). Teaching primary science constructively. Sydney, Australia: Harcourt
Brace.
Smith, D. C. (2000). Content pedagogical content knowledge for elementary science teacher
educators: Knowing our students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(1), 27-46.
Smith, J. J., & Huling-Austin, L. (1986). How can $290 make a beginning teacher a success.
American School Board Journal, 173(12), 46-47.
Smith, J., & Souviney, R. (1997). The internship in teacher education. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 24(2), 5-19.
Smith, W. E. (1996). When PDS stakeholders work together: Reflections on collaboration and
serendipitous discoveries in a preservice field experience. Contemporary Education, 67(4),
230-32.
Smithey, M. W., & Evertson, C. M. (1995). Tracking the mentoring process: A multimethod
approach. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 9(1), 33-53.
Smyth, J. C. (1995). Environment and education: A view of a changing scene. Environmental
Education Research, 1(1), 3-20.
192
Sode, J. R. (1992). The effects of mentoring upon first year secondary science teachers in Missouri.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
Solomon, J. (1997). Is how we teach science more important than what we teach? Primary Science
Review, 49, 3-5.
Sosa, A. S. (1988). Teachers need teachers: Roles and responsibilities. Unpublished manuscript.
San Antonio: Intercultural Development Research Association. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED360854)
Soutter, A., Kerr-Roubicek, H., & Smith, S. (2000). Guidelines for mentoring. Sydney, Australia:
NSW Department of Education and Training, Board of Studies.
Stahlhut, R. (1988, April). Coaching student teachers to elicit mentor role behaviors from their
cooperating teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans, LA.
Stanulis, R. N. (1994). Fading to a whisper: One mentor’s story of sharing her wisdom without
telling answers. Journal of Teacher Education, 45(1), 31-38.
Stanulis, R. N., & Russell, D. (2000). Jumping in: Trust and communication in mentoring student
teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 65–80.
Stapleton, C. D. (1997, January). Basic concepts and procedures of confirmatory factor analysis.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association,
Austin, TX.
Staton, A., & Hunt, S. (1992). Teacher socialization: Review and conceptualization.
Communication Education, 41(2), 109-137.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Strategic Research Directorate. (2000). Research guidelines: Guidelines for approving applications
from external agencies to conduct research in NSW government schools. Sydney,
Australia: New South Wales Department of Education and Training.
193
Sudzina, M. R., & Coolican, M. J. (1994). Mentor or tormentor: The role of the cooperating
teacher in student teacher success. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association
of Teacher Educators, Atlanta, Georgia.
Sullivan, C. G. (1992). How to mentor in the midst of change. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins
College Publishers.
Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1984). The impact of the student teaching experience on the
development of teacher perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 28-36.
Tamir, P. (1991). Professional and personal knowledge of teachers and teacher educators. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 7(3), 263-268.
Tannehill, D. (1989). Student teaching: A view from the other side. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 8(3), 243-53.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
The Many Paths To Success. (1997). Journal of College Science Teaching, 26(4), 247-252.
The National Science Standard Committee/ Australian Science Teachers' Association (ASTA).
(2002). National professional standards for highly accomplished teachers of science.
Canberra, Australia: ASTA.
The Schools’ Council. (1991). A national professional body for teachers: A discussion paper.
National Board of Employment, Education and Training. Canberra, Australia: Australian
Government Publishing Service.
Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1986). A collaborative approach for mentor training: A working model.
Journal of Teacher Education, 37(6), 13-20.
Thies-Sprinthall, L. M., & Gerler, E. R. (1990). Support groups for novice teachers. Journal of Staff
Development, 11(4), 18-22.
Thies-Sprinthall, L., & Sprinthall, N. A. (1987). Experienced teachers: Agents for revitalization and
renewal as mentors and teacher educators. Journal of Education, 169(1), 65-79.
194
Thomas, J. A., & Pedersen, J. (1998, January). Draw-a-science-teacher-test: A visualization of
beliefs and self-efficacy. Paper presented at the Association for the Education of Teachers in
Science (AETS) Conference, Minneapolis, MN.
Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74, 421-431.
Tobin, K. G. (1993). Referents for making sense of science teaching. International Journal of
Science Education, 15(3), 241-254.
Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1988). Investigations of exemplary practice in science and mathematics
teaching in Western Australia. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20(4), 369-71.
Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1990). What does it mean to be an exemplary science teacher? Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 27(1), 3-25.
Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J. J. (1987). What happens in high school science classrooms? Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 19, 549-560.
Tobin, K., Roth, W-M., & Zimmermann, A. (2001). Learning to teach science in urban schools.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 941-964.
Tobin, K., Tippins, D., & Gallard, A. (1995). Research on instructional strategies for teaching
science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp.
45–93). New York: MacMillan.
Tobin, K., Tippins, D., & Hook, K. (1994). Referents for changing a science curriculum: A case
study of one teacher’s change in beliefs. Science and Education, 3(3), 254-264.
Tomlinson, P. (1995). Understanding mentoring: Reflective strategies for school-based teacher
preparation. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and
measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
Upson, L., Koballa, T., & Gerber, B. (2002, January). Preparing science specific mentors: A look
at one successful Georgia program. Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of
the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC. 1007-1021.
195
Van Ast, J. (2002). Community college mentoring program mentor-mentee handbook. Ames, IO:
College of Education, Iowa State University of Science and Technology.
Van Cleaf, D. (1988). Planning models: Two alternatives to Hunter. Educational Considerations,
15(2), 13-15.
van den Berg, E. (2001). Impact of inservice education in elementary science. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 12 (1), 29-45.
Van Thielen, B. (1992). Tutoring beginning teachers through a mentor teacher program.
Monograph No. 16. Saskatchewan, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED354222)
Veal, W. R., & MaKinster, J. G. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies. Electronic
Journal of Science Education, 3(4). Retrieved 5 May, 2003, from
http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/vealmak.html
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research,
54(2), 143-178.
Veenman, S. (1987). On becoming a teacher: an analysis of initial training. Paper presented at the
Conference on Education of the World Basque Congress (2nd), Bilbao, Spain.
Veenman, S. (1993). Effects of a pre-service teacher preparation programme on effective
instruction. Educational Studies, 19(1), 3-18.
Veenman, S. (1995, September). Training in coaching skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Dutch Educational Research Association, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Veenman, S., de Laat, H., & Staring, C. (1998, September). Coaching beginning teachers. Paper
presented at the European Conference on Educational Research. Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Venville, G., Bryer, L., & Treagust, D. (1994). Training students in the use of analogies to enhance
understanding in science. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 40(2), 60-66.
Vesilind, E. M., & Jones, G. M. (1996). Hands-on: Science education reform. Journal of Teacher
Education, 47(5) 375-385.
196
Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Chapple, J. W. (1996). Preparing teachers to support inclusion:
Preservice and inservice programs. Theory into Practice, 35, 42-50.
Villani, S. (2002). Mentoring programs for new teachers: Models of induction and support.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). The construction of knowledge: Contributions to conceptual semantics.
Seaside, CA: Intersystems Publications.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching, Synthese, 80(1),
121-140.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1998). Footnotes to “The Many Faces of Constructivism.” Educational
Researcher, 25(6), 19.
Vonk, J. H. (1993, April). Mentoring beginning teachers: Development of a knowledge base for
mentors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Atlanta, GA.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, J. (1983). Integrating the traditions of experiential learning in internship education.
Journal of Experiential Education, 6(2), 7-14.
Wagner, T. (1998). Change as collaborative inquiry: A “constructivist” methodology for
reinventing schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(7), 512-517.
Walberg, H. J., & Lai, J. (1999). Meta-analytic effects for policy. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Handbook of
educational policy (pp. 419-453). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (1992). Science teaching and teachers’ knowledge: Prospects for reform
of elementary classrooms. Science Education, 76(5), 507 - 521.
Wang, J., & Odell, S. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standards-based reform: A
critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 481-546.
Ware, R. H. (1992, February). The collaborative role of higher education in the mentor teacher-
internship program in New York State. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association of Teacher Educators, Orlando, FL.
197
Watkins, K. E. (1991). Many voices: Defining human resource development from different
disciplines, Adult Education Quarterly, 41(4), 241-255.
Watters, J. J. (1994). Enhancing preservice teacher education students’ sense of science teaching
self efficacy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED375141)
Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2000). Developing motivation to teach elementary science: Effect of
collaborative and authentic learning practices in preservice education. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 11(4), 301-321.
Watters, J., Ginns, I., Enochs, L., & Asoko, H. (1995, November). Science teaching self-efficacy of
preservice primary teachers: A review of research in three countries. Paper presented at the
annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Hobart,
Tasmania, Australia.
Watts, M., & Jofili, Z. (1998). Towards critical constructivist teaching. International Journal of
Science Education, 20(2), 173-85.
Watts, M., Jofili, Z., & Bezerra, R. (1997). A case for critical constructivism and critical thinking in
science education. Research in Science Education, 27(2), 309-22.
Watts, M., & Bentley, D. (1987). Constructivism in the classroom: Enabling conceptual change by
words and deeds. British Educational Research Journal, 13(2), 121-35.
Weaver, D., & Stanulis, R. N. (1996). Negotiating preparation and practice: Student teaching in the
middle. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 27-36.
Webb, L., & Lane, J. L. (1986). Peer facilitation as practicum. Communication Education, 35(2),
163-66.
Welch, B. (1981). The familiarity factor: Reflections on a one-year cooperative education
internship. Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(2), 95-98.
West, J. E., & West, P. T. (1977). The administrative internship in education; token or triumph?
Catalyst for Change, 7(1), 4-5.
198
Westbrook, S. L., & Rogers, L. N. (1996). Beyond infomercials and make-and-take workshops:
Creating environments for change. In J. Rhoton & P. Bowers (Eds.), Issues in science
education (pp. 34-39). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
White, G. R. (1994). Partnership, mentoring and competences in teacher education. Scottish
Educational Review, 26(2), 143-150.
Wideen, M., Mayersmith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to
teach- making a case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational
Research, 68(130). Available OVID/Periodical Abstracts Research 03895414.
Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education: An introduction (7th ed.). Sydney, NSW:
Allyn & Bacon.
Wilder, G. Z. (1992). The role of the mentor teacher: A two-phase study of teacher mentoring
programs. New Jersey, US: Teacher programs council research report series. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED384680)
Wildman, T. M., & Borko, H. (1985). Beginning teacher’s handbook. Virginia, US. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 286852)
Wildman, T. M., & Niles, J. A. (1987). Reflective teachers: Tensions between abstractions and
realities. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 25-31.
Wildman, T. M., Maggliaro, S. G., Niles, R. A., & Niles, J. A. (1992). Teacher mentoring: An
analysis of roles, activities, and conditions. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 205-213.
Williams, A. (1993). Teacher perceptions of the needs as mentors in the context of developing
school-based initial teacher education. British Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 407–
420.
Williams, H., & McBride, N. (1989, August). Alternative practicum support services:
developmentally appropriate practice for early childhood teacher education students. Paper
presented at the International Conference on Early Education and Development, Hong
Kong, PRC.
199
Williams, P., Williams, M., Guray, C., Bertran, A., Brenton, R., & McCormack, A. (1994).
Perceived barriers to implementing a new integrated curriculum. Curriculum Perspectives,
14(1), 17-23.
Willis, H., & Dodgson, J. (1986). Mentoring of Canadian women in educational administration.
The Canadian Administrator, 36(7), 1-6.
Willis, S. (1995). Reinventing science education: Reformers promote hands-on, inquiry-based
learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 387324)
Wise, K. C. (1996). Strategies for teaching science: What works? Clearing House. 69(6), 337-38.
Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist
27(4), 531-541.
Wood, S., & Martin D. (1995, July). Professional development vs traditional inservice: Leading
teachers to find new ways to grow as professionals. Paper presented at the annual
conference of the Australian Teacher Education Association, Sydney, Australia.
Woolnough, B. E. (1994). Effective science teaching. Developing science and technology
education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Woolnough, B. E. (1997). Motivating students or teaching pure science? School Science Review,
78(285), 67-72.
Wright, C. (1984, July). Stereotyping: "Teacher" and "good teacher" characteristics. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research
Association, Jackson Hole, WY.
Wright, C. A., & Wright, S. D. (1987). Young professionals. Family Relations, 36(2), 204-208.
Wyatt, F. R., Meditz, N., Reeves, M., & Carr, M. K. (1999). A cohort model for supervision of
preservice teachers developed by mentor teachers. Teaching and Change, 6(3), 314-328.
Yager, R. E. (1991). The constructivist learning model. The Science Teacher, 51, 52-57.
Yager, R. E., Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1981). Science education attuned to social issues:
Challenge for the 80’s. The Science Teacher, 48(9), 12-14.
200
Yore, L. (1997, March). Leadership interns in undergraduate elementary school science education
programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the School Science and Mathematics
Association, Milwaukee, WI.
Yosha, P. (1991, April). The benefits of an induction program: What do mentors and novices say?
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, IL.
Yost, R. (2002). "I Think I Can": Mentoring as a means of enhancing teacher efficacy. Clearing
House, 75(4), 195-97.
Zachary, L. J. (2002). The role of teacher as mentor. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, 93, 27-38.
201
Appendix 1 Mentoring for Effective Primary Science Teaching:
Refined Survey for Phase 3 SECTION 1: This section aims to find out some information about you. To preserve your
anonymity, write your mother’s maiden name on this survey. Thank you for your participation in
this important study on your mentoring. Please circle the answers that apply to you. Mother’s maiden name: a) What is your sex? Male Female
b) What is your age? < 22 yrs 22 - 29 yrs 30 - 39 yrs > 40 yrs
c) What science units did you complete in Years 11 and 12 at high school?
(Please list, for example, 2 unit biology, 2 unit physics, 2 unit chemistry, etc.)
d) How many primary science curriculum/methodology units did you complete at university?
0 1 2 3 4 or more
e) How many block practicums have you now completed during your tertiary teacher education? (including this one).
1 2 3 4 5 or more
SECTION 2: This section aims to find out about this last practicum/internship. Please circle the
answer you feel is most accurate.
a) What is your mentor’s sex? Male Female
b) What was your mentor’s approximate age during this last practicum?
< 22 yrs 22 - 29 yrs 30 - 39 yrs > 40 yrs
c) How many science lessons did you teach during your last practicum/internship?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 or more
d) How many science lessons did your mentor teach during this last practicum/internship?
0 1 2 3 or more
e) Would primary science be one of your mentor’s strongest subjects?
Strongly agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly disagree
202
SECTION 3: The following statements are concerned with your mentoring experiences in primary science
teaching during your last practicum/internship. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree
with each statement below by circling the appropriate number to the right of each statement.
KEY SD = Strongly Disagree D = Disagree U = Uncertain A = Agree SA = Strongly Agree
During my final professional school experience (i.e., internship/practicum) in primary science teaching my mentor: SD D U A SA 1. displayed science content expertise. …….………………………….. SD D U A SA
2. showed me examples of how to program for science teaching. SD D U A SA
3. assisted me to reflect on improving my science teaching practices. SD D U A SA
4. increased my confidence to teach science. ………….……………. SD D U A SA
5. discussed with me the aims of science teaching. ………………… SD D U A SA
6. coped with the demands of the most recent science curriculum. … SD D U A SA
7. discussed my program for teaching science. ………….………….. SD D U A SA
8. guided me with science lesson preparation. …………..…………. SD D U A SA
9. encouraged me to teach science. ………………………………… SD D U A SA
10. discussed with me the school policies used for science teaching. SD D U A SA
11. modelled science teaching. ……………………………………… SD D U A SA
12. assisted me with classroom management strategies for science teaching. SD D U A SA
13. gave me clear guidance for planning my science teaching. …… SD D U A SA
14. assisted me with implementing science teaching strategies. …… SD D U A SA
15. displayed enthusiasm for teaching science. …………………..…… SD D U A SA
16. assisted me with timetabling my science lessons. ………………. SD D U A SA
17. outlined state science curriculum documents to me. ……………. SD D U A SA
18. modelled effective classroom management when teaching science. SD D U A SA
19. discussed evaluation of my science teaching. ……………………. SD D U A SA
20. observed me teach science. ……………………………………… SD D U A SA
21. developed my strategies for teaching science. …………………… SD D U A SA
22. discussed with me the knowledge I needed for teaching science. .. SD D U A SA
23. provided oral feedback on my science teaching. ………………….. SD D U A SA
24. seemed comfortable in talking with me about science teaching. …. SD D U A SA
203
25. discussed with me questioning skills for effective science teaching. SD D U A SA
26. assisted me with my university science assignments. …………… SD D U A SA
27. was approachable. ………………………………………………… SD D U A SA
28. used hands-on materials for teaching science. ……………………. SD D U A SA
29. provided written feedback on my science teaching. …….………… SD D U A SA
30. addressed my science teaching anxieties. …………………………. SD D U A SA
31. was effective in teaching science. ………………………………… SD D U A SA
32. instilled positive attitudes in me towards teaching science. ……… SD D U A SA
33. had a good rapport with primary students doing science. ………… SD D U A SA
34. used science language from the current primary science syllabus. SD D U A SA
35. had well-designed science activities for the students. …………… SD D U A SA
36. provided strategies for me to solve my science teaching problems. … SD D U A SA
37. allowed me to teach primary science as often as I wanted. …….. SD D U A SA
38. reviewed my science lesson plans. ……………………………… SD D U A SA
39. made me feel more confident as a teacher of primary science. … SD D U A SA
40. allowed me flexibility in planning for teaching science. ………… SD D U A SA
41. gave me new viewpoints on teaching primary science. …………. SD D U A SA
42. listened to me when discussing science teaching practices. ……. SD D U A SA
43. was supportive of me for teaching science. ……………………… SD D U A SA
44. showed me how to assess the students’ learning of science. …….. SD D U A SA
45 clearly articulated what I needed to do to improve my teaching of primary science.
SD D U A SA
Thank you for participating in this study.
204
Appendix 2
Mentoring for Effective Primary Science Teaching (MEPST) (This survey is to be conducted after the mentoring experience)
SECTION 1: This section aims to find out some information about you. To preserve your anonymity, write your mother’s maiden name on this survey. Thank you for your participation in this important study on your mentoring. Please circle the answers that apply to you. Mother’s maiden name: a) What is your sex? Male Female
b) What is your age? < 22 yrs 22 - 29 yrs 30 - 39 yrs > 40 yrs
c) What science units did you complete in Years 11 and 12 at high school?
(Please list, for example, 2 unit biology, 2 unit physics, 2 unit chemistry, etc.)
d) How many primary science curriculum/methodology units did you complete at university?
0 1 2 3 4 or more
e) How many block practicums have you now completed during your tertiary teacher education? (including this one).
1 2 3 4 5 or more
SECTION 2: This section aims to find out about this last practicum/internship. Please circle the answer you feel is
most accurate.
a) What is your mentor’s sex? Male Female
b) What was your mentor’s approximate age during this last practicum?
< 22 yrs 22 - 29 yrs 30 - 39 yrs > 40 yrs
c) How many science lessons did you teach during your last practicum/internship?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 or more
d) How many science lessons did your mentor teach during this last practicum/internship?
0 1 2 3 or more
e) Would primary science be one of your mentor’s strongest subjects?
Strongly agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly disagree
205
SECTION 3: The following statements are concerned with your mentoring experiences in primary science
teaching during your last practicum/internship. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree
with each statement below by circling the appropriate number to the right of each statement.
KEY SD = Strongly Disagree D = Disagree U = Uncertain A = Agree SA = Strongly Agree
During my final professional school experience (i.e., internship/practicum) in primary science teaching my mentor:
1. was supportive of me for teaching science. ………………………… SD D U A SA
2. used science language from the current primary science syllabus. SD D U A SA
3. guided me with science lesson preparation. …………..…………… SD D U A SA
4. discussed with me the school policies used for science teaching. .. SD D U A SA
5. modelled science teaching. ……………………………………….. SD D U A SA
6. assisted me with classroom management strategies for science teaching.
SD D U A SA
7. had a good rapport with the primary students doing science. …… SD D U A SA
8. assisted me towards implementing science teaching strategies. …. SD D U A SA
9. displayed enthusiasm when teaching science. …………………..…. SD D U A SA
10. assisted me with timetabling my science lessons. ……………….. SD D U A SA
11. outlined state science curriculum documents to me. ……………. SD D U A SA
12. modelled effective classroom management when teaching science. SD D U A SA
13. discussed evaluation of my science teaching. …………………….. SD D U A SA
14. developed my strategies for teaching science. …………………… SD D U A SA
15. was effective in teaching science. ………………………………… SD D U A SA
16. provided oral feedback on my science teaching. ………………….. SD D U A SA
17. seemed comfortable in talking with me about science teaching. …. SD D U A SA
18. discussed with me questioning skills for effective science teaching. SD D U A SA
19. used hands-on materials for teaching science. ……………………. SD D U A SA
20. provided me with written feedback on my science teaching. …… SD D U A SA
206
21. discussed with me the knowledge I needed for teaching science. .. SD D U A SA
22. instilled positive attitudes in me towards teaching science. ……… SD D U A SA
23. assisted me to reflect on improving my science teaching practices. SD D U A SA
24. gave me clear guidance for planning to teach science. …………… SD D U A SA
25. discussed with me the aims of science teaching. …………………. SD D U A SA
26. made me feel more confident as a science teacher. ……………… SD D U A SA
27. provided strategies for me to solve my science teaching problems.
SD D U A SA
28. reviewed my science lesson plans before teaching science. ………. SD D U A SA
29. had well-designed science activities for the students. ……………. SD D U A SA
30. gave me new viewpoints on teaching primary science. ………….. SD D U A SA
31. listened to me attentively on science teaching matters. ………….. SD D U A SA
32. showed me how to assess the students’ learning of science. …….. SD D U A SA
33. clearly articulated what I needed to do to improve my science teaching.
SD D U A SA
34. observed me teach science before providing feedback. ………….. SD D U A SA
207
Appendix 3 Mentoring Strategies Linked to Each Variable
Factor 1: Personal Attributes
Supportive of mentee Strategies: Allocate a time to listen to the mentee. Provide either empathy or possible solutions to assist the mentee with any concerns, difficulties or problems. Talking about science teaching Strategies: Ask mentee to state his/her particular skills/abilities/interests. Discuss with the mentee ways of incorporating these skills/abilities/interests into science teaching. For example, if the mentee has an interest in sport, outline how measurement of various sporting activities (distances, length, time etc.) can be incorporated in science lessons. Assist the mentee with specific focuses and suggestions for teaching science. Instil positive attitudes for teaching science Strategies: Speaking favourably and being enthusiastic about teaching science, and about students learning science. Outline the positive aspects of teaching science. For example, students are able to explore new knowledge, investigate the environment, and experiment with a variety of materials. Experimentation allows the students to use creative thinking and approaches. Assisting to reflect on improving practice Strategies: Pose questions for mentee’s to reflect upon science teaching practice. Provide the mentee with a copy of one of the ‘Reflection on teaching’, so that the mentee can provide some written evidence of self-reflection before meeting with you to discuss the outcome of a particular science lesson. Help the mentee analyse why events happened and propose alternative strategies for teaching science. Instil confidence for teaching science Strategies: Praise the mentee for areas of success or effort. Consider praise in these areas:
* preparation of science lesson and materials; * initiative in science teaching; * enthusiasm/keenness for science; and, * management of students’ learning about science.
Show the mentee that you are pleased about having him/her teach science. Encourage investigation/experimentation, and reassure the mentee that sometimes science lessons do not go according to plan. (This is where reflection on practice aims at improving subsequent lessons). Attentive to mentee’s communication Strategies: Consider allocating a specific non-interruptive and reasonable time for mentor-mentee communication. Listen to the mentee’s self-evaluation of a science lesson to encourage self-reflective practice, and being non-judgemental. Show an interest in the mentee as a primary science teacher, and as a colleague.
Factor 2: System Requirements
208
Aims for teaching science Strategies: Review with the mentee the aims of the state’s Science syllabus, and ask how the mentee has fulfilled some of these aims in previous practicums. Outline to the mentee how the activities within the support document focus on specific learning outcomes. School policy Strategies: Ask the mentee if other school science policies have been seen in previous practicums. Provide the mentee with a copy of your school’s policy on science (this may include a scope and sequence chart). Explain to the mentee of how you use the school’s science policy. Primary science curriculum Strategies: Ensure the mentee has access to a NSW Science & Technology syllabus. Ensure the mentee design lessons from the NSW Science & Technology syllabus and the school’s science policy with links to aims and indicators. Point out areas within the NSW Science & Technology syllabus for the mentee to focus on.
209
Factor 3: Pedagogical Knowledge Planning for teaching Strategies: Show how you plan for teaching science, that is, reference to the syllabus with aims, learning outcomes, indicators and lesson content ideas, the use of commercial texts, and how to sequence the lesson with an introduction, the body and the conclusion. Explain that assessment is linked to the learning outcomes and indicators of teaching any science lesson, therefore planning for science teaching must be initially linked to an aim. Point out particular students with special needs, and tell how you cater for these students in science, and other students with talents. Show examples of how to program, and how you program. Content knowledge Strategies: Refer the mentee to the NSW Science and Technology syllabus for information on the proposed topic of study. Show other sources for content information on a lesson you have taught or for the mentee’s proposed lessons. Timetabling science lessons Strategies: Provide for the mentee a copy of your classroom timetable, highlighting when science is taught. Discuss the flexibility of timetabling science, that is, some lessons may extend past the prior allocated time, or the value of teaching science when science has presented itself incidentally. Timetable with the mentee the four science lessons to be taught. Teaching strategies Strategies: Use the NSW Science and Technology syllabus to highlight the 41 teaching strategies that can be used when implementing a science lesson (pp. 142 – 227). Discuss your most preferred teaching strategies for science teaching. Preparation for teaching science Strategies: Show the mentee the location of resources for science teaching. Ask the mentee how the resources will be used, and how materials will be distributed. Explain the classroom organisation for teaching science, i.e., preparation of materials, and student arrangements. Ask the mentee what specific science skills might be used in the planning of a lesson.
210
Factor 3: Pedagogical Knowledge Continued
Problem solving Strategies: Demonstrate to the mentee how you handle issues as they arise. Talk to the mentee about what might be stressful situations, and discuss possible solutions. Classroom management Strategies: Tell the mentee about the students and their backgrounds. Discuss your classroom management approaches e.g., the reward system, co-operative learning. Questioning skills development Strategies: Explain to the mentee about open and closed questions, and lower and higher order questions. Ask the mentee to produce a set of questions that are sequential for a science lesson. Implementing practice Strategy: Discuss with the mentee how to implement a science lesson. Assessment of students Strategies: Explain to the mentee that assessments of students are related to how students have progressed the learning outcomes of a science lesson(s). Refer the mentee to the NSW Science & Technology syllabus. Demonstrate how you would assess students’ learning on a science lesson you had just taught, and show how you would record the students’ progress, e.g., checklist. Approaches for teaching science (Viewpoints) Strategies: Talk about approaches for teaching science, for example, constructivism where learning experiences are scaffolded with prior knowledge, and requires reflection on new experiences. Tell the mentee about how you envisage the teaching of science.
211
Factor 4: Modelling Rapport with students Strategies: Ask the mentee to observe how you interact with students, e.g., praise and reward students for their efforts in science. Demonstrate how you are firm but friendly in your approach to students when teaching science. Ask the mentee to identify how you respect students’ views.
Lesson design Strategies: Discuss with the mentee the need for knowing the students’ prior knowledge before commencing a lesson. (You can state if the students have completed lessons in the science area under question). Tell the mentee about previous science lessons you have taught. Demonstrate a lesson that has an obvious structure for the mentee to observe. For example, an introduction, student activities, and a conclusion. Show the planning of a science lesson to the mentee that involves the students using science equipment or supplies.
Effective modelling for teaching science Strategies: Demonstrate a lesson with a beginning (delivering the information for students to follow), a middle (student activity) and an end (discussion of what was learnt during the lesson). Demonstrate questioning skills throughout the lesson. Tell the mentee about previous science lessons you have taught, and analyse with the mentee your modelled science lesson. Provide the mentee with a ‘Mentee Observation’ guide.
Using syllabus language Strategy: Make references to the NSW Science and Technology syllabus and use the appropriate terms when discussing planning and teaching issues with the mentee.
Hands-on lessons Strategies: Demonstrate a lesson that uses a hands-on approach to science. Talk about safe practice when implementing hands-on science lessons.
Classroom management Strategies: Model for the mentee your classroom management strategies. Demonstrate for the mentee your reward system and the use of praise. Model how you organise students into groups.
Displaying enthusiasm Strategies: Talk positively about science and teaching science. Show enthusiasm for teaching science, and the benefits of new discoveries.
212
Factor 5: Feedback Observing science teaching Strategy: Watch the mentee teach a science lesson in order to provide specific feedback. Reviewing lesson plans Strategy: Review the mentee’s lesson plans before teaching, and provide positive constructive comments. Oral feedback Strategies: Compliment the mentee on a positive outcome (even during the lesson if it doesn’t interfere with the flow of the lesson). Ask the mentee for their thoughts on how the lesson proceeded. Provide to the mentee positive advice that focuses on achievements with practical suggestions for improving science teaching. Written feedback Strategies: Use one of the checklists provided (Feedback on teaching science) when observing the mentee teach a science lesson. This checklist may be helpful in discussions with the mentee at the conclusion of the science lesson. Allow the mentee to complete a ‘Reflection on Science Teaching’ sheet, provide your feedback and then hold discussions on the mentee’s reflections. Evaluating the mentee’s science teaching Strategies: Direct the mentee to the mentee’s reflection guide. Ask the mentee how the last lesson taught could be improved. Provide oral and/or written evaluations of the mentee’s science teaching. Articulating expectations Strategies: Outline your expectations of the mentee for the planning, teaching and assessment of the science lessons. Ensure that the mentee is aware of the practicum’s expectations for teaching in general and science teaching in particular. After complimenting the mentee on areas of successful planning, identify any area that may require further development. Make it clear to the mentee that teachers also make mistakes when teaching, particularly when trialing new science lessons. Reinforce with the mentee that teaching is an ongoing process, and that reflection on science teaching practice is a means for improving practice.
213
Mentoring for Effective Primary Science Teaching
First mentoring session
Focus Strategies Comments
System Requirements & Pedagogical Knowledge
• Refer to the state Science and Technology syllabus, outlining the sections, then allowing the mentee to borrow for planning • Ask the mentee to select a learning outcome for designing a lesson, and explain why these are linked to assessments • Refer to the school policy or scope and sequence chart on Science and Technology, and ask the mentee to select a topic • Ask the mentee to also refer to the policy when designing the first lesson • Discuss with the mentee the students’ prior knowledge on the mentee’s science topic
Modelling
• Model a science lesson for the mentee and ask the mentee to record observations on these practices: 1. Preparation 2. Classroom management and organisation 3. Type of lesson 4. Types of questions used 5. Science activity 6. Lesson conclusion 7. Points of interest • Ask the mentee to build upon these observations when planning the first science lesson
Feedback & Pedagogical Knowledge
• Allocate a time to talk and listen to the mentee after science lessons and write your decision here • Explain the preparation needed to teach science • Ask the mentee to state skills/abilities and inteany area and discuss how these could be incorinto a science lesson • Discuss and supply your class timetable and plan for the mentee’s teaching of the three science lessons (Discuss the need for flexibility) • Articulate your expectations of mentee for planning, teaching, and assessing the next science lesson • Ask the mentee for any concerns about planning and teaching primary science and try to address each one
214
Second mentoring session
Focus Strategies Comments System Requirements & Pedagogical Knowledge
• Ask if the mentee felt the aim of the science lesson was achieved, and how the mentee would know this • Discuss assessment of the science lesson, and make a reference to the indicators in the Science & Technology syllabus • Discuss classroom management strategies for the mentee’s science lesson and state the types of science lessons that are successful
Modelling
• Model the use of the Science and Technology syllabus by referring to aims and indicators, and related assessments • Model the use of the Science and Technology syllabus by referring to the teaching strategies section, and discuss with the mentee at least one teaching strategy that was used in the lesson • Show and discuss students’ work to demonstrate sequential lessons, and then ask the mentee to select another lesson that is a flow on from the mentee’s first lesson • Model content knowledge by explaining what sort of information you needed to know to make lessons sequential
Feedback & Pedagogical Knowledge
• Ask the mentee what was successful about the science lesson just taught (the mentee may refer to mentee’s reflection sheet) • Compliment the mentee on noticeable areas of success (refer to one of the mentor’s feedback sheets if necessary) • Explain to the mentee that there is always room for improvement even from experienced teachers, and ask where the mentee may be able to improve practice • Confirm/discuss the next lesson for your mentee to teach • Articulate your expectations for planning and teaching the next science lesson, e.g. I would like you to focus on ... • Ask the mentee for any concerns about planning and/or teaching primary science and try to address each one
215
Third & fourth mentoring sessions
Focus Strategies Comments System Requirements & Pedagogical Knowledge
• Ask if the mentee felt the aim of the science lesson was achieved, and how the mentee would know this • Discuss assessment of the science lesson, and ask the mentee to make a reference to the indicators in the Science & Technology syllabus • Discuss classroom management strategies for the mentee’s science lesson and state strategies that are successful
Modelling
• Model the use of the Science and Technology syllabus by referring to the teaching strategies section, and discuss with the mentee at least one teaching strategy that was used in the lesson • Model content knowledge by discussing other ways to make lessons sequential
Feedback & Pedagogical Knowledge
• Ask the mentee what was successful about the science lesson just taught • Compliment the mentee on noticeable areas of success and improvement • Confirm/discuss the next lesson for your mentee to teach • Articulate your expectations for planning and teaching the next science lesson, e.g. I would like you to focus on ... • Ask the mentee for any concerns about planning and/or teaching primary science and try to address each one
216
Final mentoring session
Focus Strategies Comments System Requirements & Pedagogical Knowledge
• Ask if the mentee felt the aim of the science lesson was achieved, and how the mentee would know this • Ask the mentee to state the link between assessment and outcomes • Discuss successful classroom management strategies for teaching science • Refer to the syllabus for other possible science units
Modelling
• State what you know about successful teaching strategies • Model content knowledge by discussing other possible science units
Feedback
• Ask the mentee what was successful about the science lesson just taught • Compliment the mentee on noticeable areas of success and improvement • Ask the mentee for any concerns about planning, teaching or evaluating primary science and try to address each one
217
Appendix 4
Mentee’s Observation Guide (Observation of a mentor’s demonstration science lesson)
1. Preparation What science equipment was prepared? What blackboard preparation was done? What resources are being used? Are there any other materials/resources available for the lesson?
2. Classroom management and organisation Where is the initial instruction being held? How are the students grouped? How is the teacher interacting with the students?
What reward system is in place?
How is praise given? How are the students provided with instructions?
3. Describe the type of lesson
218
4. Questioning Types of questions are being posed, (e.g., open, closed, lower order, and/or higher order)?
To whom are the questions directed? 5. Science activity Describe the type of science activity the students are engaged in? How is the teacher responding to students’ questions or answers? What materials/equipment are the students using? How is the teacher monitoring the activity? What aspect of the activity is capturing the interest of the students?
6. Lesson conclusion How are the students organised for concluding the lesson? How is the lesson concluded?
7. Other points of interest to consider for your own teaching
219
220
Appendix 5
Feedback on Science Teaching (Mentor’s feedback sheet)
Name: Key G = Good Topic: Date: RA = Requires attention 1. Preparation (Mentor’s feedback derived from the mentee’s lesson notes and preparation for teaching) G RA Comments • Lesson preparation is evident …………………..………. � � • The learning outcome of the science lesson is stated …….. � � • Links to the science syllabus are outlined ……………… � � • A link to the school’s science policy is evident ………… � � • The science lesson is appropriately timetabled ………… � � • Teaching strategies are outlined ………………..………. � � • Knowledge of subject matter is evident .......…………… � � • Preparation of science materials is evident …………… � � • Other classroom equipment was prepared in advance …… � � • Methods of assessing students’ learning are outlined … � � • Prior knowledge of the students is considered …………. � � 2. Teaching science (Mentor’s feedback while observing the mentee’s lesson) Is the mentee… G RA Comments • confident in teaching this science lesson? ………….….. � � • enthusiastic about science teaching? ……..…………….... � � • arousing the students’ interest in science? …...…………… � � • lesson well designed for the students? ……….……………. � � • clear and to the point with the explanations? ……….……. � � • providing a range of questions to students? ……………….. � � • catering for all students’ abilities? ………………………….. � � • holding the students’ attention when teaching science? …... � � • developing a good rapport with students? ………………… � � • effective in classroom management strategies? ………….... � � • displaying adequate science content knowledge ….……. � � • using terminology from the science syllabus? ……………… � � • using sufficient hands-on materials, where applicable? .... � � • allowing students to communicate their findings? ……….. � � • concluding the lesson by summarising the learning experiences and highlighting students’ achievements? � � 3. Evaluation and assessment • What level of success did the students achieve?
• How could the mentee improve upon this lesson? (refer to aspects outlined in sections 1 & 2)
Mentor’s Signature
221
Appendix 6
Reflection on Science Teaching (This mentee’s reflection sheet is to be used after the mentee’s science teaching)
Name: Key G = Good Topic: Date: RA = Requires attention 1. Preparation G RA Comments• Lesson preparation was evident …………………..………. � � • The learning outcome of the science lesson was stated … � � • Links to the science syllabus were outlined ……………… � � • A link to the school’s science policy was evident ……… � � • The science lesson was appropriately timetabled ………… � � • Teaching strategies were outlined ………………..………. � � • Knowledge of subject matter was evident .......…………… � � • Preparation of science equipment was evident …………… � � • Other classroom equipment was prepared in advance …… � � • Methods of assessing students’ learning were outlined … � � • Students’ prior knowledge was considered ……………… � � 2. Teaching science I felt I had… • confidence in teaching this science lesson ……….…….. � � • enthusiasm in my science teaching ………..…..………... � � • established a science-learning atmosphere …………...... � � • designed the lesson well for the students …………….…… � � • clear explanations that were to the point ………………... � � • explained the use of fair testing where necessary ………. � � • provided a range of questions to students ……………….. � � • catered for all students’ abilities ……….……………….. � � • held the students’ attention when teaching science ……… � � • a good rapport with students (firm but friendly) ….……... � � • effective classroom management strategies ……… ……. � � • displayed science content knowledge …………..………. � � • used language from the science syllabus ……….………. � � • used sufficient hands-on materials ……….……………... � � • organised sufficient materials/equipment ……….……… � � • aroused the students’ interests in science ………………. � � • allowed the students to communicate their findings ……. � � • concluded the lesson by highlighting students’ successes ... � � 3. Evaluation and assessment • What level of success did the students achieve? How do I know this?
• How could I improve upon this lesson? (refer to aspects outlined in Sections 1 & 2)
222
Appendix 7
Mentoring for Effective Primary Science Teaching-Mentor (MEPST-Mentor)
(This survey is to be conducted after the mentoring experience) SECTION 1: This section aims to find out some information about you. To preserve your anonymity, write your mother’s maiden name on this survey. Thank you for your participation in this important study on mentoring primary science. Please circle the answers that apply to you. Mother’s maiden name: a) What is your sex? Male Female
b) What is your age? 22 - 29 yrs 30 - 39 yrs 40-49 yrs > 50yrs
c) What science units did you complete in Years 11 and 12 at high school?
(Please list, for example, 2 unit biology, 2 unit physics, 2 unit chemistry, etc.)
d) How many primary science curriculum/methodology units did you complete at university?
0 1 2 3 4 or more
e) How many mentees have you supervised during your teaching career? (including this one).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 or more
f) How many science lessons did you teach during this last practicum/internship?
0 1 2 3 or more
g) Would primary science be one of your strongest subjects?
Strongly agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly disagree
223
SECTION 3: The following statements are concerned with your mentoring in primary science teaching during this last practicum/internship. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement below by circling the appropriate number to the right of each statement.
KEY SD = Strongly Disagree D = Disagree U = Uncertain A = Agree SA = Strongly Agree
During this last professional school experience (i.e., internship/practicum) for mentoring in primary science teaching, I felt I:
1. was supportive of the mentee for teaching science. ……………… SD D U A SA
2. used science language from the current primary science syllabus. SD D U A SA
3. guided the mentee with science lesson preparation. …………..…… SD D U A SA
4. discussed with the mentee the school policies used for science teaching.
SD D U A SA
5. modelled science teaching. ………………………………………… SD D U A SA
6. assisted the mentee with classroom management strategies for science teaching.
SD D U A SA
7. had a good rapport with my primary students doing science. …… SD D U A SA
8. assisted the mentee with implementing science teaching strategies. SD D U A SA
9. displayed enthusiasm when teaching science. …………………..… SD D U A SA
10. assisted the mentee with timetabling the mentee’s science lessons. SD D U A SA
11. outlined state science curriculum documents to the mentee. ……… SD D U A SA
12. modelled effective classroom management when teaching science. SD D U A SA
13. discussed evaluation of the mentee’s science teaching. …………… SD D U A SA
14. developed the mentee’s strategies for teaching science. ……….. SD D U A SA
15. was effective in teaching science. ………………………………… SD D U A SA
16. provided oral feedback on the mentee’s science teaching. …… … SD D U A SA
224
17. was comfortable in talking with the mentee about science teaching. SD D U A SA
18. discussed with the mentee questioning skills for effective science teaching.
SD D U A SA
19. used hands-on materials for teaching science. ……………………. SD D U A SA
20. provided written feedback on the mentee’s science teaching. …… SD D U A SA
21. discussed with the mentee the knowledge the mentee needed for teaching science.
SD D U A SA
22. instilled positive attitudes in the mentee towards teaching science. SD D U A SA
23. assisted the mentee to reflect on improving science teaching practices.
SD D U A SA
24. gave the mentee clear guidance for planning to teach science. …… SD D U A SA
25. discussed with the mentee the aims of science teaching. …………. SD D U A SA
26. made the mentee feel more confident as a science teacher. ……… SD D U A SA
27. provided strategies for the mentee to solve the mentee’s science teaching problems.
SD D U A SA
28. reviewed the mentee’s science lesson plans before teaching science. SD D U A SA
29. had well-designed science activities for the students. …………….. SD D U A SA
30. gave the mentee new viewpoints on teaching primary science. …. SD D U A SA
31. listened to the mentee attentively on science teaching matters. ….. SD D U A SA
32. showed the mentee how to assess the students’ learning of science. SD D U A SA
33. clearly articulated what the mentee needed to do to improve teaching science.
SD D U A SA
34. observed the mentee teach science before providing feedback? … SD D U A SA
225
SECTION 4
This final section asks you to provide answers on your mentoring in primary science teaching.
1. How many times did you talk with your mentee about science during your final block practicum? (circle)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 or more
2. Did you feel you had a good rapport with the mentee while teaching science? (circle)
Yes No Briefly explain your response.
3. What mentoring strategies do you think helped the mentee to feel successful with science teaching?
4. Were there any mentoring aspects you think made the mentee feel unsuccessful with science teaching?
5. Do you feel this mentoring program for teaching primary science was effective? (circle)
Yes No Briefly explain your response.
6. Do you feel that you will be a better mentor for primary science teaching because of this mentoring program?
Yes No Briefly explain your response.
7. What would you change about this mentoring program for primary science teaching?
(Please use the back of this sheet if you wish to comment further).
Thank you for completing this survey.
226
Appendix 8
Sample of Semi-Structured Interview Questions and a Mentor’s Response
Included here is one full transcript (Mentor 8) with the interviewer’s semi-structured questions (in
italics), and selected transcripts from mentors were categorised under specified subheadings.
First of all, what’s your opinion of the overall mentoring program for science teaching?
Mentor 8: I thought it was really positive, and was a good experience to go through just to see how I
felt about science teaching because I’ve never actually sat and reflected how I thought about science
teaching, and then being a mentor for somebody coming through was a good process to go through.
And the information in here was really informative but it was easy reading, it wasn’t anything too
heavy or anything like that, and good references. It gave some good background information.
Refer to the diagram on page 4 of the mentoring booklet. Do you think these five factors represent
this mentoring process in primary science teaching?
Mentor 8: (Points to system requirements) It takes in our syllabus requirements and the reference to
what the departments expectations are, but it also takes in the knowledge (points to pedagogical
knowledge) that the teacher needs to know in order to pass on their knowledge and beliefs to up and
coming teachers. (Points to modelling) Modelling’s a really good practice. If you can’t do it
practically then there’s no point knowing all the information if you can’t get out and use it. (Points to
Personal Attributes) And you always bring personal attributes to a lesson which will differ and that’s
what makes teaching so unique, and that’s why children get different experiences. (Points to
feedback) And feedback is really important because it gives prac students an idea of where to go to
next and gives them an opportunity to do it positively as well as any constructive criticism that needs
to be done. I don’t think there is anything else. It seems to cover everything. We found that it
covered everything for us.
227
How did you feel about the mentee’s observation of your modelled science lesson?
Mentor 8: It was O.K. The mentee filled it in.
So, it’s not a critique on the mentor?
Mentor 8: No, it just gave a bit of an outline of things to look for, for somebody else observing you. It
gave them a guideline but without being too critical or too in depth, it wasn’t sitting down and writing
an essay or anything like that. It gave them a broad outline as to what to look for.
Do you think it helped her in developing her own teaching of science?
Mentor 8: I think it did. I think she felt more empowered because she was actually commenting on a
so-called experience teacher or practising teacher. So I think that gave the mentee a bit of
empowerment to think ‘Oh somebody’s going to take note of what I’m saying’ and it’s early in the
process and not later in the process. And she gets a chance to focus on certain things that she can hone
in when she is doing her own teaching.
Refer to the “Feedback on Science Teaching” on page 33 of the booklet. Do you think this feedback
sheet is representative for mentoring in primary science teaching? What would you change?
Mentor 8: It was good. I don’t know whether another degree (G/RA) could have come into it, but all
the components of it were relevant and essential parts of it. So that was good that they were all
included. But good to me may not be good to someone else. I know that it’s a personal or
professional judgement that we’re making but maybe it could be … not outstanding, but detailed… or
satisfactory, rather than just good. And I think that the evaluation and assessment, I know it’s only
suppose to be a quick thing, for example, ‘what level of success did the mentee achieve’ well I found
it a bit difficult at times to say whether it was high, good, medium or whatever. I don’t know whether
it’s level of success but level of, a combination of things, like participation as well as achieving
outcomes, rather than just success.
228
Look at the “Reflection on Science Teaching” proforma used by the mentee. How do you think this
assisted the mentee?
Mentor 8: Yeah. This mentee it certainly helped because she’s a really reflective person, so it made
her sit down and go through in a bit more detail in what worked for her and what didn’t work for her.
So it made her reflect and that fitted in really well with the sort of person she is anyway. And each
time you could see her trying to develop skills she thought needed improvement on or things that she
thought needed improving in the classroom with classroom management or activities provided for the
kids, so it was really worthwhile for the mentee to sit down and fill those in.
Refer to the “Reflecting on Mentoring” guidelines. Did you feel this was helpful in any way or
unnecessary?
Mentor 8: It was helpful. I’ve supervised people but I don’t know if I’ve ever really taken on a
mentoring role as such, so it was good to keep reflecting back to this and making sure that I was
covering areas, and making sure that my mentee wasn’t missing out because I hadn’t had that
experience before so that was a really good reference to keep going back to.
Look at the first mentoring sessions from pages 37-41. Did you feel that the strategies reflected the
focuses for effective mentoring?
Mentor 8: Certainly did. Each strategy definitely reflected what the focus was.
Did you find that this booklet became a good guide for your mentoring in primary science teaching?
Mentor 8: Yes I did. And it was really good to sit down and talk to the student. You get caught up in
everyday teaching and you give them a bit of feedback or you give them written feedback but it’s not
always specific to science or to some of these points, so it was really good to sit down and verbally
talk about as well. Quite often you say ‘de, de, de, de’ and then you get on with whatever you’re
doing or with the written feedback you say if you’ve go any questions just ask me. It actually made
229
the questioning process more positive between myself and the mentee becuas we had a set agenda and
something to follow and we actually sat down and did it.
Was there anything that you would change with regard to the mentoring strategies?
Mentor 8: Each one lead onto the next lesson so anything that came out of the first lesson and the
discussion that happened after that lead to, like I could see an improvement or a change or whatever or
a consistency if it worked well in the4 first lesson then the mentee carried it over into the next lesson.
So the mentee thought that ‘Oh OK that needs addressing’ and they actually addressed it. No it was
only that … the aim… that was good because it made the mentee think that how am I going to know
that children are achieving the aim that I set for the lesson. So that was really good. The only one,
and I guess it’s because my mentee didn’t have many concerns and because it’s a K/1 class, it wasn’t
like high-tech experiments or anything like that, she didn’t have a lot of concerns.
Did you feel that by asking if she had any concerns that…
Mentor 8: It gave her an opportunity and she opened up when there were concerns, instead of skipping
over it and thinking that everything was positive then you haven’t got any concerns, so yeah.
230
So overall, what sort of experience do you think the mentee had because of this program?
Mentor 8: I think she had a really positive one, she wasn’t concerned about teaching science and
technology anyway, she had a really good practicum. So she’s had a couple of good positive
experiences in the classroom anyway on different levels. She found it really positive and it wasn’t any
extra workload really, the reflection she was doing in her programming and her daybook anyway, we
already planned for her to do science and tech., so it wasn’t anything over and above what was
expected anyway.
Was there anything at all that was too difficult for the mentee’s programming for science teaching?
Mentor 8: We didn’t find anything difficult. It fitted in with what we were doing and it’s part of
teaching anyway. It was a good reflective session for not only the mentee but for me too. It’s good
for experienced teachers to come back and think ‘Am I going back tot he syllabus and am I providing
these student teachers with a positive science teaching experience’ rather than just give a sheet.
On that point, what do you think about this mentoring program for your own professional
development? Did you feel that you got something out of this as well?
Mentor 8: Oh definitely. It’s really good having students because you’re always getting ideas and that
from them anyway and this is a good way of sharing experiences both ways. It wasn’t always giving
my mentee information, but it was a sharing experience rather than a one-way, sort of I’ll do this or do
that or have you tried this. Whereas, the mentee was giving feedback and was getting involved in it.
The mentee could see that science was practical but there is the explanation part of it as well but she
was really aware of the hands-on part of science and the importance of letting the kids get involved.
Were there any terms in the booklet you feel required further explanation?
Mentor 8: No. Everything seemed to be fine.
231
Anything else you want to talk about with regard to the program or the process?
Mentor 8: I think it was really good because I don’t think science it taught well enough in primary
school because in high school science is a specialised area. But it was good because it made me go
back and make sure that I was using the syllabus correctly and the kids were being exposed to the right
sort of learning and teaching.
232
Appendix 9
Mentoring Primary Science Teaching Efficacy Belief (For mentors to complete before and after the mentoring experiences)
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement below by circling the appropriate letters to
the right of each statement. To preserve your anonymity, please write your mother’s maiden name below. Mother’s Maiden Name:
KEY SA = Strongly agree A = Agree U = Uncertain D = Disagree SD = Strongly disagree 1. When a preservice teacher does better than usual in science teaching, it is often because the mentor exerted a little extra effort. SA A U D SD 2. I will continually find better ways to mentor preservice teachers’ science teaching. ……………………… SA A U D SD 3. Even if I try very hard, I will not mentor preservice teachers’ science teaching as well as I will in most subjects. ………………. SA A U D SD 4. I know the steps necessary to mentor the teaching of science concepts effectively. ……………………………….….. SA A U D SD 5. If preservice teachers are underachieving in science teaching, it is most likely due to ineffective science mentoring. ………….... SA A U D SD . 6. I will generally mentor science teaching ineffectively. ……... SA A U D SD 7. The inadequacy of a preservice teacher’s science teaching background can be overcome by good mentoring. ……………….. SA A U D SD 8. The low-performing science teaching by some preservice teachers cannot generally be blamed on their mentors. …………………. SA A U D SD 9. When a low-performing preservice teacher progresses in science, it is usually due to extra attention given by the mentor. ………….. SA A U D SD 10. I understand the teaching of science concepts well enough to be effective in mentoring primary science teaching. ………………… SA A U D SD 11. Increased effort in mentoring science teaching produces little change in some preservice teachers’ science teaching. …………… SA A U D SD 12. The mentor is generally responsible for the achievement of preservice teachers in science teaching. …………………….… SA A U D SD 13. Preservice teachers’ achievement in science teaching is directly related to their mentors’ effectiveness in science mentoring. SA A U D SD 14. I will find it difficult to explain to preservice teachers why science teaching works. ………..…………………………… SA A U D SD 15. I will typically be able to answer preservice teachers’ science teaching questions. ………..…………………………… SA A U D SD
233
16. I wonder if I will have the necessary skills to mentor preservice teachers’ science teaching. ……………………..…..… SA A U D SD 17. Given a choice, I will not invite the principal to evaluate my science mentoring. …………………………………. SA A U D SD 18. When a preservice teacher has difficulty in understanding a science teaching concept, I will usually be at a loss as to how to help the preservice teacher understand it better. ……………….… SA A U D SD 19. When mentoring preservice teachers’ science teaching, I will usually welcome preservice teacher questions. …………….. SA A U D SD 20. I do not know what to do to turn preservice teachers onto science teaching. …….…………………………………... SA A U D SD