COVER SHEET

Hudson, Peter and Millwater, Jan (2007) Mentoring for effective teaching of writing in the primary
school. In Proceedings Australian Teacher Education Association, Wollongong.

Accessed from http://eprints.qut.edu.au

 Mentoring for effective teaching of writing in the primary school
Peter Hudson & Jan Millwater
Queensland University of Technology

Abstract
Effective mentoring in English is considered paramount to a preservice teacher’s
development as it presents real-life contexts for pedagogical understandings. This study
provided qualitative data (questionnaire) and quantitative data (survey) on 24 mentors’
perceptions of their mentoring for teaching English and in particular teaching writing.
These mentors are cooperating teachers who had mentored second-year preservice teachers
(mentees) from one Australian university. Qualitative data indicated that developing a
good rapport in a mentor-mentee relationship keeps lines of communication open in order
to assist the mentee’s learning. In addition, the mentor’s modelling of teaching writing,
demonstrating specific writing strategies, and providing positive yet constructive feedback
were considered successful mentoring strategies, while a mentee’s lack of content
knowledge, inadequate personal writing skills, and not knowing how to multi-task with
many students may contribute towards a mentee feeling unsuccessful as a writing teacher.
Mentors advocated methods for enhancing mentoring practices, which included university-
facilitated professional development, linking syllabus content and teaching approaches,
and sharing pedagogical content knowledge with colleagues. The quantitative data
presented mentors’ perceptions of their attributes and practices across five factors for
mentoring (i.e., Personal Attributes, System Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge,
Modelling, and Feedback) with 67% or more of these mentors (n=24) agreeing or strongly
agreeing they provided all the 34 items associated with the survey. The factor System
Requirements had the lowest percentage range (67-71%) while Feedback had the highest
range (83-100%). However, mentees may not agree with their mentors’ perspectives,
hence, further research comparing the two perspectives may lead towards targeting more
effective approaches for mentoring the teaching of writing.

1
The response to the demands for better teaching of reading, writing, and mathematics (the
3Rs) has increased in Australia (Adkins, Grant, Summerville, Barnett, & Buys, 2003), and
in literacy and numeracy the advocacy for improvement has been such that schools and
states have scripted standards and testing towards these ends (Reid, 2005). Preservice
teacher education appears to be a starting point for feeding reform measures into education
systems, and tertiary education has a fundamental role for which it needs to draw upon
practical and professional experiences in the field of teaching to connect current theories.
Hence, the quality of input from current teachers in their roles as mentors will be
paramount to the development of preservice teachers’ practical skills for advancing
pedagogical practices in the 3Rs.

A return to teaching the basics and an attempt to relieve the estimate that a high percentage
of students leave school without acquiring functional literacy (Lievesley& Motivans,
2000), does not mean returning to traditional ways of inspections and reports on teachers.
Research into professional development has wrought more strategies for upskilling
teachers for which mentoring has been very effective in accomplishing change in teachers
and their work (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2000; Kochan & Pascarelli, 2003).

In the mid 1990s, the American Association of Teacher Education analysed data from a
survey of teacher educators, school teachers and university and school administrators that
identified mentoring as the most critical strategy for professional developing teachers
(Anderson, 1992). International educators in the USA and the UK at the time (Bey &
Homes, 1990, 1992; MacIntyre, Hagger & Wilkin, 1993) reported that mentoring should
be the most common response to the school-based learning needs of beginning teachers.
Policy makers as early as 1990 – The Schools Council Report: Australia’s Teachers -
acknowledge that mentoring helped with careers and friendships but could also advance
the pedagogical knowledge of recipients. Mentoring has become more widespread within
specific curriculum areas. Researchers have investigated mentoring in global perspectives
(Kochan et al., 2003; Cullingford, 2006); in school contexts (Carr, Herman & Harris, 2005;
Fletcher, 2000), with teachers, preservice and first-year teachers (Cox, 2004; Hurst &
Reading, 2002; Podson & Denmark, 2000), and within specific disciplines (e.g., Hudson,
2004) to show that mentoring can scaffold learning across any field. Below we have drawn
upon and emphasised generic mentoring attributes and practices to investigate mentoring
in a specific field, namely, learning how to teach writing. Mentoring in this sense can be
called a pedagogy of colleagues.

Mentoring is acknowledged as a tool for professional transformation and gives credence to

the relationship basis of the mentee (preservice teacher) and mentor (cooperating
classroom teacher). Mentors whether they are appointed mentors, buddy mentors or peer
mentors must build and maintain a relationship with the purpose of creating a
psychological climate of trust (Jipson & Paley, 2000; Zhao & Reed in Kochan et al., 2003).
This in turn leads to the intuitive acceptance of modelled attitudes and practices (Fletcher,
2002; Podson & Denmark, 2000). Questions, responses and interactive feedback must be
carefully framed for sharing honest reflections on practices and to keep respect within this
relationship (Cox, 2004). Without developing a mentor-mentee rapport, there is no
connection to each other and transformation rarely occurs. The emphasis on the
relationship within mentoring is the main distinction from its close but suspect neighbour,
“supervision”, which often implies no modelling of practice, a more distant relationship,
and a key purpose of “performance assessment”. Supervision by contrast is stigmatised by
its imbued imbalance of “power.”

2
If the relationship is shared democratically then mentees are empowered and open to
reconstructing practice or their theoretical frameworks rather than alienated from the task
of reframing their own teacher identity or being so fearful of making a transition to a safer
place of operation. This is especially noted in preservice and beginning teachers (Podson
& Denmark, 2000) in the teaching of writing or other subjects. A mentee’s development in
learning to teach writing should be equally based with the mentor as co-learners with the
classroom students. Therefore, mentoring may be easily adapted one step further, that is,
into the application of teaching performance. Conferencing and conversing
(communication skills) are integral to mentoring processes (Fletcher, 2000; Millwater &
Short, 1999; Routman, 2000) with the appropriate channel of communication as the main
instructional conduit (Hurst & Reading, 2002).

Successful mentoring programs should have a balanced amount of structure to suit

individual needs within the partnership. If there is too little structure then initial enthusiasm
wanes, participants ask, What are we supposed to do?; meetings are little more than a nice
chat; disillusionment occurs; and the loosely-structured mentor-mentee partnership does
not achieve goals. On the other hand, if there is too much structure then preservice teachers
often comment that mentoring feels contrived and stifled with too much paperwork, and
excessive reporting and rules inhibit the relationship, wasting valuable time (Fletcher,
2000). Most importantly, mentoring must be flexible to address the mentee’s needs, but
this will require mentors to have an understanding of specific mentoring practices favoured
by current literature.

Preservice teachers can improve their performance skills through critical reflection for
improving practices (Mullen, 2000; Tillman, 2000). Comparing and contrasting new and
old lessons and observations of lessons are often fruitful activities if guided by an astute
mentor (Podson & Denmark, 2000). Yet, a lack of communication can create problems for
developing mentees’ understanding and knowledge of a subject (e.g., writing). The
confrontative function (Cohen, 1995) of the mentor must be used to address problems
directly. This honest and critical support is a bonus and generally welcomed by the mentee
and/or the mentor (Carr et al., 2005; Cox, 2000). Indeed, collaboration and open
communication can overcome most problems (Carr et al., 2005).

The purpose of this literature was to assist in understanding that the following inquiry
investigates how the various components of effective mentoring could be used to support
the professional development of teachers in their roles as mentors. The generic components
of the mentoring process as explored were used to frame opportunities for mentoring
preservice teachers in the teaching of writing. The aim of this study was to determine
mentors’ perceptions of their practices for mentoring their preservice teachers’
development as teachers of writing. Appendix 1 outlines mentors’ attributes and practices
for mentoring preservice teachers in this specific field.

Data collection methods and analysis

The mentors in this study are cooperating teachers who had mentored second-year
preservice teachers (mentees) from one Australian university. This study uses both
qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. The qualitative data collection
involved mentors’ (n=24) written responses to statements and questions related to their
mentoring of preservice teachers for learning how to teach writing. These statements and
questions included: Explain your rapport with the mentee while mentoring writing. What
mentoring strategies do you think helped the mentee to feel successful with teaching
writing? Were there any mentoring aspects you think made the mentee feel unsuccessful

3
with teaching writing? What do you think may enhance your mentor skills in writing? Data
were transcribed and coded for commonalities (see Hittleman & Simon, 2002).

A five-factor model for mentoring has previously been identified, namely, Personal
Attributes, System Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge, Modelling, and Feedback
(Hudson, 2003). These five factors and items associated with each factor have been
justified statistically with the literature (see Hudson, Skamp, & Brooks, 2005) and form the
basis for the survey instrument used in this study. Hence, quantitative data was collected
through this survey instrument (Appendix 1) and analysed using SPSS (a statistical
analysis package) for means, standard deviations, and percentages across the above five
factors for mentoring.

Context for study

Participants in this study involved 24 mentors (male=5, female=19) associated with an
Australian university. The mentors’ ages varied (38% between 22 - 29 years; 38%
between 30 - 39 years, and 25% between 40-49 years), as did their experiences for
mentoring (42% had mentored between 4 to 9 mentees, 50% had mentored more than 10
mentees, while for 8% this was their first mentee). All mentors except one completed at
least one English methodology unit at tertiary level with 87% completing two or more
units. Finally, 88% agreed or strongly agreed that English writing was one of their
strongest teaching subjects, and 92% demonstrated at least one English writing lesson to
their mentees, including 42% who had demonstrated 4 or more lessons.

Results and discussion

The following provides qualitative and quantitative data. The qualitative data focuses on
mentors’ perspectives about: (1) the importance of developing a good rapport in a
mentoring relationship; (2) mentoring strategies that may make the mentee feel successful;
(3) practices that may make the mentee feel unsuccessful; and, (4) suggestions for
enhancing mentoring practices. The quantitative data focuses on the five factors for
mentoring, namely, Personal Attributes, System Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge,
Modelling, and Feedback.

The importance of developing a good rapport

Establishing a good rapport in a mentor-mentee relationship can aid in facilitating teaching
practices, and it is important that the “lines of communication are always open” (Mentor
20). In this study, it was claimed that part of developing a rapport relied on the mentee’s
“confidence for discussing ideas and experiences” (Mentor 3). Yet, six mentors believed
they did not have a good rapport with their mentees while mentoring writing, mainly
“because of the mentee’s attitude” (Mentor 18). Most mentors (n=13) expressed their
rapport with their mentees in terms of the mentee’s enthusiasm or willingness for
developing teaching practices, particularly if they were “receptive to suggestions and
willing to try new ideas” (Mentor 24). Three mentors recognised the value of learning from
each other as a result of a good mentor-mentee relationship, for example, “Lots of
information to share – teacher also learned new information” (Mentor 21). Mentor 8
suggested she had to contribute significantly towards developing a rapport with her
mentee: “My latest mentee was very structured in her approach and needed lots of coaxing
to try different approaches”.

Mentoring strategies that may make the mentee feel successful

Mentors wrote about their mentoring strategies they believed helped their mentees to feel
successful with teaching writing. Modelling effective teaching practices was the most
prevalent strategy articulated by mentors in this study, including “a lot of observation

4
lessons for developing [the mentee’s] understanding of how to teach writing” (Mentor 13).
Other strategies reported by mentors involved more specific modelling strategies, to
illustrate, “Modelling, being specific, I think it depends on the focus for teaching episodes.
Graphic organisers, brainstorming ideas, modelling, stimulus pictures” (Mentor 15). Other
specific mentoring practices included: “using criteria and set expectation sheets so [the
mentee] knew what was expected” (Mentor 8), “Modelling good practice such as
questioning, joint construction, guided writing and independent writing” (Mentor 14), and
the “use of planning such as mind maps” (Mentor 5).

Further modelling was suggested as follows:

Set clear expectations, understanding curriculum and its needs, and developing
confidence with own skills. (Mentor 17)

Modelling, shared development of lessons, scaffold planning, independent

planning. (Mentor 19)

Observing lessons/looking at planning documents for that term so student could

see the relevance and the need to teach these lessons. (Mentor 20)

Modelling strategies and then critically discussing them with mentee. Focusing
on expected outcomes-making students aware of expectations (Mentor 21)

Getting the mentee to break down the genre for teaching and making an
assessment tool before teaching the lesson. (Mentor 22)

Modelling different strategies and genres while explaining reasons for differing
approaches. (Mentor 23)

Use web-modelling, writing introductions only, supportive material from reading

schemes. (Mentor 24)

Mentor 11 suggested that any modelling would be beneficial to the mentee including
“demonstrating a ‘bad’ lesson and comparing it to a well-planned successful lesson”.
However, providing “positive feedback, clearly presented feedback sheets for lessons,
encouragement of risk-taking” (Mentor 4) were considered ways to make the mentee feel
more successful. Mentor 18 claimed that mentoring can be very difficult when a mentee
has a negative attitude. Indeed, as preservice teachers are only at the learning stages for
teaching writing, confidence may be lacking which would require “a great deal of support
and encouragement” (Mentor 10). Although it is most important for mentees to “have a
go” (Mentor 7), “lots of practical examples and strategies such as visual literacy” (Mentor
3) can assist in facilitating success for the mentee.

Practices that may make the mentee feel unsuccessful

Each mentor was asked if there were any mentoring aspects they thought may have made
the mentee feel unsuccessful with teaching writing. Mentoring generally occurs when there
is time to talk to the mentee, which is usually outside classroom teaching times. It is
important for mentees to understand that cooperating teachers in their roles as mentors may
not have sufficient time for full involvement in the mentoring process, as there are
unpredictable circumstances within active school settings that can distract a mentor, and
the first and foremost priority is a student’s health and safety. One mentor claimed that
insufficient time for involvement in the mentoring process may lead to a mentee feeling
unsuccessful as it could portray inadvertently non-commitment from the mentor.

5
Mentor 8 claimed that her mentee may have felt less successful for teaching writing as she
lacked knowledge of “level 3 and level 4 outcomes”. This mentor explained that a lack of
knowledge produced an “inability to articulate to students what she expected”. Mentor 6
also stated that a mentee would feel more successful with an understanding of the “Student
levels associated with syllabus requirements and the low socio-economic clientele”. Three
mentors pointed towards their mentees’ inadequate preparation, that is, “unprepared by the
university training and background” (Mentor 10). While Mentor 11 wrote, “Not discussing
aims of teaching writing and not discussing syllabus documents with the mentee” may
produce unsuccessful feelings.

Teaching is an all-consuming occupation, particularly as teachers generally deal with more

than one “client” at any one time, unlike the luxuries afforded in other professions. Hence,
unsuccessful feelings may come from the voluminous task of catering for all students
within a lesson, to illustrate, “I think the mentee became aware of how difficult it can be to
attend to all students when writing and give suitable feedback” (Mentor 12). Although it is
very difficult to determine what may cause a mentee to feel unsuccessful from a mentor’s
perspective, other suggestions included, “a weakness in the management of completed
work and reluctant students” (Mentor 21). The competency with basic skills may also lead
to a lack of confidence, for example, “Background knowledge of grammar,
punctuation/spelling etc. always plays a part when confidence is discussed” (Mentor 20).
In addition, a lack of basic skills may impede the mentee’s success for teaching writing, for
example, Mentor 24 stated the mentee needed skills in “Handwriting on the blackboard”.
Another also claimed that there tended to be a “focus on teaching skills rather than content
due to weaknesses of intern’s teaching practices” (Mentor 19).

Suggestions for enhancing mentoring practices

Mentors responded with various suggestions on how they could enhance their own mentor
skills and practices for a mentee’s learning to teach writing. These suggestions included:
knowledge of a literature-based unit (Mentor 2) with understanding of the links between
syllabus literate futures and approaches to teaching (Mentors 6, 12, 20); professional
development from universities for the mentors (Mentors 4, 10, 14); conferencing strategies
(Mentor 15); analyzing years 3, 5, and 7 writing skills tests and marking guides (Mentor
24); and, sharing strategies, approaches, content with colleagues (Mentors 7, 16, 21). It
was strongly suggested by a few mentors that mentees “needed to have basic writing skills
themselves” (e.g., Mentor 1). Finally, some mentors wanted more time with their mentees
and longer practicum durations (e.g., Mentors 13, 22, 23).

Issues and concerns for practice

Some mentors had issues about the preservice teacher preparation for learning how to
teach writing. The most prominent concern was the mentee’s content knowledge
preparation, for example, “My mentee did not know how to effectively write lesson plans –
the mentee’s own writing skills were average and at times had difficulty teaching subject
matter they were not demonstrating themselves” (Mentor 1), and “Mentees do not have the
necessary knowledge of individual student needs and capabilities. They also have to define
expectations of students which mentees find difficult to ascertain and implement as a
general rule” (Mentor 8). Yet, there were also concerns about ensuring mentees have basic
understanding about school requirements in the subject area. To illustrate, “Our school has
specific genre to be taught in each year level so any feedback applies to teaching note
taking skills, information reports and visual presentation skills” (Mentor 4). Nevertheless,
many of the concerns were “All are important but it can come down to time and experience
and/or confidence with aspects of teaching writing” (Mentor 12).

6
Some mentees may have very limited pedagogical skills requiring significant mentor
involvement: “I spent an inordinate amount of time assisting the mentee to understand the
basic principles of teaching writing” (Mentor 16). Periodically, a mentee may be over-
confident without ability, for instance, “I had a student [mentee] who was overly confident
without the ability to analyse her own performance objectively. I feel that students and
mentors require an extremely explicit list of standards and responsibilities” (Mentor 18).
This call for more explicit standards was not uncommon among these mentors not only for
the mentoring processes but also the responsibilities assigned to mentees for their
preparation of learning how to teach writing: “I feel that students [mentees] should know
how to break down a genre so they know what scaffolding to provide. They should also
know how to do formal evaluation on writing such as assessment rubrics” (Mentor 22).

Timetabling writing lessons for mentees presented difficulties, particularly when writing
lessons appear to “run over time” frequently. For instance:
A major difficulty is full completion of work both from a time aspect and from
an understanding aspect. Students are always writing to a structure. There needs
to be scope for writing as expression – just to tell the story or express feelings.
This practice combined with knowledge of text types (and time to complete the
task!) would enhance students’ own confidence and output (Mentor 21).

Mentors’ perceptions of their mentoring across five factors

A survey (Appendix 1) provided information about mentors’ perceptions on their specific
mentoring attributes and practices across five factors, namely, Personal Attributes, System
Requirements, Pedagogical Knowledge, Modelling, and Feedback. Surprisingly, 67% or
more of these mentors (n=24) agreed or strongly agreed they provided all the 34 items
associated with the survey (see Appendices 1 & 2). The factor System Requirements had
the lowest percentage range (67-71%; Table 2, Appendix 2), while Feedback had the
highest range (83-100%, Table 5, Appendix 2). Specific items that were recorded on the
lowest percentage range include providing viewpoints about current teaching practices, and
discussing aims, policies and problem solving for teaching writing (67%). It was
interesting to note that 90% or more of mentors claimed they had provided mentoring
practices on 16 items (Appendix 2). However, this perspective may not be related to the
mentees’ perception of their mentoring in this subject area. Indeed, other research
(Hudson, 2005) investigating mentees’ perceptions for science teaching indicated less than
25% of mentees agreed or strongly agreed their mentors provided the three practices
associated with System Requirements. Further research to compare the two perspectives
(mentors and mentees) may provide disparities between these two perspectives for
teaching writing, which can lead towards a way for targeting mentoring processes more
effectively.

Conclusion
This study indicated through qualitative and quantitative data mentors’ perceptions of their
mentoring for teaching writing. The outcomes of this study showed the importance of: (1)
developing collaborative and professional mentoring partnerships, (2) modelling the
teaching of writing, and (3) providing constructive feedback on the mentee’s progress on
teaching writing. Mentors confirmed the importance of developing a rapport in the mentor-
mentee relationship in order to provide opportunities for the mentee to communicate. Yet,
developing a congenial and professional relationship can require scaffolding and support
from mentors, as they are the ones in a position of power with knowledge of the school
culture, education system, and “ownership” of the classroom. Mentors will need to be
perceptive on this balance of power and use strategies to encourage mentees to talk openly
about teaching practices where necessary. Mentoring also requires flexibility in order to
address a mentee’s specific needs.

7
Modelling teaching practices was articulated strongly by mentors as a way to demonstrate
how to teach writing. Such modelling commences with planning using syllabus documents,
organising resources, demonstrating knowledge on teaching strategies and text types, and
connecting outcomes to assessments with thoughtfully designed rubrics. Mentees’
observations of such practices must be purposeful with mentees identifying and
deconstructing processes that lead to effective teaching. In addition, mentees may be able
to develop their conceptions of effective practices whether mentors’ modelling is effective
or not (i.e., learning what to do and what not to do).

Finally, mentees may feel more successful when provided with constructive feedback that
aims to build the mentee’s confidence and performance. Mentors generally indicated a
need for explicit standards in mentees’ knowledge of writing structures before they enter a
practicum. Consequently, successful practices for mentees need to include basic
knowledge of grammar, text types, sentence structures, other writing components (e.g.,
metaphors, similes), and handwriting skills. Conversely, mentees may feel unsuccessful
when mentors do not spend time discussing the teaching of writing. As mentees are new to
the profession, they need to be aware of the limited time available to mentors, especially
with the varied demands of planning, preparation, teaching (which is usually the majority
of a school day), assessment, attending to duties, and communicating with parents, staff,
and students. Nevertheless, mentors themselves acknowledged through the survey that they
needed to improve on providing viewpoints about current teaching practices, and
discussing aims, policies and problem solving techniques for teaching writing. Developing
these mentoring practices may be facilitated through university handbooks for mentors and
professional development programs. In addition, mentees need to have realistic
expectations about their mentors’ time, and focus on their own development of writing
knowledge and skills before entering a professional school experience. Mentees may not
agree with their mentors’ perspectives, hence, further research comparing the two
perspectives may lead towards targeting more effective approaches for mentoring the
teaching of writing.

References

Adkins, B., Grant, E., Summerville, J., Barnett, K., & Buys, L. (2003, November).
Community and learning for the new economy. Paper presented to the Social
Change in the 21st Century Conference, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane.
Anderson, C. (1992). Visions of change: A report of the clinical schools project. ERIC
Clinical Schools Clearinghouse, American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education. Washington, D.C.
Bey, T.M., & Holmes, C.T. (Eds.). (1990). Mentoring: Developing successful new
teachers. Reston Va: Association of Teacher Educators.
Bey, T.M., & Holmes, C.T. (Eds.). (1992). Mentoring: Contemporary principles and
issues. Reston Va: Association of Teacher Educators.
Bunday, M.C., & Kelly, J.A. ( 1996) National Board Certification and the Teaching
Profession’s Commitment to Quality Assurance, Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3), 215-19.
Carr, J.F., Herman, N., & Harris, D.E. (2005). Creating dynamic schools through
mentoring, coaching, and collaboration. CA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Cohen, N.H. (1995). Mentoring adult learners: A guide for educators and trainers.
Malabar, FL: Krieger.

8
Cox, R. (2004). The mentoring spirit of the teacher. Inspiration, support and guidance for
aspiring and practising teacher-mentors. New Zealand: Essential Resources.
Cullingford, C. (2006). Mentoring in education: An international perspective. England:
Ashgate Publishing.
Fletcher, S. (2000). Mentoring in schools. London: Kogan Page.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2000). Mentoring in the new millenium Theory into
Practice, 39(1), 50-56.
Hudson, P. (2003). Mentoring first-year preservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education: The
Journal of the Association of Teacher Educators, 15(3), 91-99.
Hudson, P. (2004). Subject-specific mentoring for developing primary teaching practices.
International Journal of Practical Experiences in Professional Education, 8(2), 18-28.
Hudson, P., Skamp, K., & Brooks, L. (2005). Development of an instrument: Mentoring for
effective primary science teaching. Science Education, 89(4), 657-674.
Hurst, B., & Reading, G. (2002). Teachers mentoring teachers. Indianna: Phi Delta Kappa
Educational Foundation.
Jipson, J., & Paley, N. ( 2000). Because no-one gets there alone: Collaboration as co-
mentoring. Theory into Practice, 39(1), 36-42.
Kochan, F.K., & Pascarelli, J.T. (Eds.). (2003). Global perspectives on mentoring.
Transforming contexts, communities, and cultures. USA: Information Age.
Lievesley, D., & Motivans, A. (2000). Taking literacy seriously. Retrieved 6 January,
2006, from http://www.uis.unesco.org/en/news/news_p/news8.htm.
McIntyre, D., Hagger, H., & Wilkin, M. (Eds.). (1993). Mentoring: Perspectives on
school-based teacher education. London: Kogan Page.
Miller, A. (2002). Mentoring students and young people: A handbook of effective practice.
London: Kogan Page.
Millwater, J., & Short, J. (1999). A quick guide to mentoring, facilitating and coaching.
from Building Parnership Retrieved 20 March, 2007, from
https://olt.qut.edu.au/udf/TPP/sec/index.cfm
Mullan , C.A. (2000). Constructing co-mentoring partnership: Walkways we must travel.
Theory into Practice, 39(1), 4-11.
Podsen, I.J., & Denmark, V.M. (2000). Coaching & mentoring. First-year & student
teachers. New York: Eye on Education.
Routman, R. (2000). Conversations. Portsmouth, N.H. Heinneman.
Reid, A. (2005). Rethinking national curriculum collaboration: Towards an Australian
curriculum. Canberra: Australia Department of Education, Science and Training.
Tillman, B.A. (2000). Quiet leadership: Informal mentoring of beginning teachers.
Momentum, 31(1), 24-36.

9
 Appendix 1

Mentoring for Teaching Writing

The following statements focus on mentoring for teaching writing during your mentee’s (student teacher’s) last field
experience (practicum). Please indicate the degree to which you disagree or agree with each statement below by circling only
one response to the right of each statement.

Key
SD = Strongly Disagree
D = Disagree
U = Uncertain
A = Agree
SA = Strongly Agree

During this last field experience (internship/practicum) for mentoring the teaching of writing, I felt I:
1. was supportive of the mentee for teaching writing. ………… SD D U A SA
2. used writing language from the current English syllabus. SD D U A SA
3. guided the mentee with writing lesson preparation. ………… SD D U A SA
4. discussed school policies with the mentee for teaching writing. SD D U A SA
5. modelled the teaching of writing. ………………………… SD D U A SA
6. assisted the mentee with classroom management strategies for teaching writing.
SD D U A SA
7. demonstrated how to develop a good rapport with students while teaching writing.
SD D U A SA
8. assisted the mentee with implementing writing teaching strategies. SD D U A SA
9. displayed enthusiasm when modelling the teaching of writing. SD D U A SA
10. assisted the mentee to timetable the mentee’s writing lessons. SD D U A SA
11. outlined writing curriculum/syllabus documents to the mentee. SD D U A SA
12. modelled effective classroom management when teaching writing. SD D U A SA
13. discussed evaluation of the mentee’s teaching of writing. … SD D U A SA
14. developed the mentee’s strategies for teaching writing. …… SD D U A SA
15. was effective in modelling the teaching of writing. ……….. SD D U A SA
16. provided oral feedback on the mentee’s teaching of writing. SD D U A SA
17. was comfortable talking with the mentee about teaching writing. SD D U A SA
18. discussed with the mentee questioning skills for effective writing teaching.
SD D U A SA
19. used hands-on materials for teaching writing. ……………. SD D U A SA
20. provided written feedback on the mentee’s teaching of writing. SD D U A SA
21. discussed with the mentee the knowledge the mentee needed for teaching writing.
SD D U A SA

10
During this last field experience (internship/practicum) for mentoring the teaching of writing, I felt I:

22. instilled positive attitudes in the mentee for teaching writing. SD D U A SA

23. assisted the mentee to reflect on improving writing teaching practices.
SD D U A SA
24. gave the mentee clear guidance for planning to teach writing. SD D U A SA
25. discussed with the mentee the aims of teaching writing. …. SD D U A SA
26. made the mentee feel more confident as a writing teacher. SD D U A SA
27. provided problem solving strategies for the mentee’s teaching of writing.
SD D U A SA
28. reviewed the mentee’s writing lesson plans before teaching writing.
SD D U A SA
29. had demonstrated well-designed writing activities for the students. SD D U A SA
30. gave the mentee new viewpoints on teaching writing. …… SD D U A SA
31. listened to the mentee attentively on teaching writing matters. SD D U A SA
32. showed the mentee how to assess the students’ learning of writing. SD D U A SA
33. clearly articulated what the mentee needed to do to improve the teaching of writing.
SD D U A SA
34. observed the mentee teach writing before providing feedback? SD D U A SA

11
 Appendix 2
Table 1
“Personal Attributes” for mentoring the teaching of primary writing (n=24)
Mentoring Practices %* M SD
Comfortable in talking 96 4.42 0.58
Assisted in reflecting 92 4.00 0.42
Instilled positive attitudes 92 4.08 0.50
Listened attentively 88 3.95 0.62
Supportive 88 4.13 0.74
Instilled confidence 79 3.83 0.49
* %=Rank-order percentage of mentors who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” they provided
that specific mentoring practice.

Table 2
“System Requirements” for mentoring the teaching of primary writing (n=24)
Mentoring Practices %* M SD
Outlined curriculum 71 3.71 0.86
Discussed aims 67 3.79 0.78
Discussed policies 67 3.67 1.05
* %=Rank-order percentage of mentors who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” they provided
that specific mentoring practice.

Table 3
“Pedagogical Knowledge” for mentoring the teaching of primary writing (n=24)
Mentoring Practices % M SD
Assisted with teaching strategies 96 4.13 0.45
Discussed content knowledge 96 4.20 0.66
Assisted with classroom management 92 4.25 0.61
Guided preparation 92 4.08 0.65
Discussed implementation 88 4.04 0.69
Assisted in planning 83 3.96 0.69
Discussed assessment 83 4.08 0.65
Assisted with timetabling 79 4.04 0.81
Discussed questioning techniques 79 3.96 0.75
Provided viewpoints 67 3.88 0.74
Discussed problem solving 67 3.75 0.85
* %=Rank-order percentage of mentors who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” they provided
that specific mentoring practice.

Table 4
“Modelling” the teaching of primary writing (n=24)
Mentoring Practices % M SD
Modelled classroom management 96 4.54 0.59
Displayed enthusiasm 96 4.33 0.56
Modelled teaching 92 4.42 0.65
Modelled a well-designed lesson 92 4.17 0.70
Modelled rapport with students 88 4.21 0.66
Modelled effective teaching 79 3.96 0.62
Used syllabus language 75 3.83 1.13
Demonstrated hands-on activities 71 3.83 1.05
* %=Rank-order percentage of mentors who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” they provided
that specific mentoring practice.

Table 5
12
Providing “Feedback” on mentoring the teaching of primary writing (n=24)
Mentoring Practices % M SD
Observed teaching for feedback 100 4.46 0.51
Provided oral feedback 96 4.46 0.59
Provided evaluation on teaching 96 4.46 0.59
Reviewed lesson plans 92 4.29 0.75
Articulated expectations 92 4.08 0.50
Provided written feedback 83 3.92 0.88
* %=Rank-order percentage of mentors who either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” they provided
that specific mentoring practice.

13