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