IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Mentoring Experiences, Issues, and Concerns in the Student-Teaching Program:
Towards a Proposed Mentoring Program in Teacher Education

Susan Galamay-CacholaSaint Mary’s University, Philippines
Ma. Cristeta M. Aduca
Saint Mary’s University, Philippines
Federicia C. Calauagan
Saint Mary’s University, Philippines

7

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Abstract
Mentoring involves the process of experienced teachers teaching and guiding student-teachers
on the different aspects of the teaching-learning process. This study aimed to determine thementoring experiences of cooperating teachers and student-teachers using quantitativequalitative design. Survey questionnaires based on Hudson’s model were distributed andinterviews were conducted among cooperating teachers and student-teachers. Means,standard deviations, t-test for independent samples and paired samples t-test were used toanalyze the data. Qualitative responses were analyzed and categorized thematically. Findings
indicate that the cooperating teachers perceived they greatly mentored student-teachers interms of personal attributes, system requirements, pedagogical knowledge, modeling, andfeedback which were validated by the student-teachers except in the area of system
requirements wherein they were mentored moderately. The study concluded that thecooperating teachers mentored to a great extent the student-teachers. Provision of continuing
professional education for cooperating teachers to enrich their skills on mentoring studentteachers and more time for post-conference were recommended.
Keywords: feedback, pedagogical knowledge, personal attributes, modeling, system
requirements

8

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Teaching is a complex process which necessitates that teacher preparation programs provide
intensive training such as mentoring by expert teachers. Through mentoring, student teachers
learn about the teaching process specifically the acquisition of the required basic skills andprofessional knowledge (Mena, Hennissen, & Loughran, 2017). Student teachers are fieldedto laboratory schools as part of the student teachers’ training. Student teaching placements areimportant in preparing student teachers since these field involvements provide authentic andrelevant teaching experiences. In addition, these teaching experiences provide student
teachers opportunities to learn instructional and class management strategies from mentor
teachers (Chizhik, Chizhik, Close, & Gallego, 2017).
However, the realities of classroom teaching present problematic areas in the student teaching
program. On one hand, student teachers are under-prepared for actual classroom teaching.
The study of Soslau and Raths (2017) presented some problematic aspects of student teachingsupervision such as giving feedback, specifically on planning, assessment, and relationshipwith pupils, among others. On the other hand, some supervisors or cooperating teachers finddifficulty in providing evaluative feedback to student teachers, keeping communication
channels open, and maintaining positive daily interactions inasmuch as they perform bothformative and summative evaluations.
Mentoring has become a crucial component of pre-service field experiences such as student
teaching (Bird & Hudson, 2017). Proper and adequate mentoring of student-teachers is vitalin the student teaching program inasmuch as experienced mentors provide career andpsychosocial support to relatively less experienced protégés – the student-teachers (Menges,
2016; Cakir & Kocabas, 2016). Accordingly, it is mandatory that the cooperating teachers
who are tasked to mentor students demonstrate expertise in content and pedagogy, effective
communication skills, possession of a positive attitude and a professional demeanor,manifestation of genuine interest in preparing and supporting aspiring teachers, ability toeffectively prepare and support aspiring teachers, and willingness to work with other teacher
preparation professionals (Gareis & Grant, 2014).
Cooperating teachers provide inspiration to their student-teachers through their dedication to
uphold quality instruction which is made possible through relevant teacher education training
and programs (Gorozidis & Papaioannou, 2014) to improve their skills and become more
proficient. Cooperating teachers who manifest greater efficacy in their role as mentors tostudent-teachers become more effective instructional models and inspire stronger
performances by student teachers. As mentors, cooperating teachers also believed that they
benefited from reflecting on their teaching (Aspfors & Fransson, 2015) and sharing theirexperiences with colleagues (Clarke, Killeavy, & Moloney, 2013).
Crucial to the success of mentoring is the mentor-mentee relationship. Several studies have
explored the mentoring experiences that take place in the student teaching program. The
studies of Hudson (2016) and Ulvik and Sunde (2013) indicated that a positive mentor–
mentee relationship is essential for the mentee’s development of teaching practices. Findings
revealed that positive relationships required the achievement of trust and respect by sharing
information, resources, and expectations and by being professional, enthusiastic, andsupportive with collaborative problem-solving. For a positive mentoring relationship toprosper, certain attributes are desired for both mentors and mentees. The study of Hudson andHudson (2014) indicated that mentors’ desirable attributes included enthusiasm, commitment,
and resilience and mentors’ essential practices comprised planning, preparation, and building
a teaching repertoire for mentees. In addition, Hudson (2013) investigated the mentor

9

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018teachers' expectations of desirable attributes and practices for mentees. Mentees are expected
to manifest desirable attributes such as being enthusiastic, personable, committed to children,
love learning, open/reflective to feedback, resilient, and taking responsibility for theirlearning. In terms of desirable practices mentees are expected to plan and prepare for teaching,reflect on their teaching practices, understand school and university policies, know students
for differentiated learning, and build a teaching repertoire such as teaching strategies,
behavior management, content knowledge, and questioning skills.
Mentor-mentee relationship is also founded on articulation of expectations at the beginningof the mentee’s school experiences. Mentees have high expectations of their mentors in termsof supervision and support (Kemmis, Heikkinen, Fransson, Aspfors, & Edwards-Groves,2014), pedagogical knowledge practices, and meeting teaching standards (Yirci, Karakose,
Uygun, & Ozdemir, 2016). Mentors expected their mentees to be risk takers with high levelsof professionalism that have students at the center of learning how to teach. As presented by
Hudson (2013), the development and provision of positive mentoring relationships are
essential to student-teachers’ learning. Trust and respect build and sustain mentor-mentee
relationship along with mentors’ professionalism, open communication, attentive listening
and friendly dispositions (Hudson, 2013; Straus, Johnson, Marquez, & Feldman, 2013).
Support provided by mentors consisted of providing information for planning, access toresources, and two-way dialoguing with feedback and reflections. Other forms of mentor
support also entailed encouraging mentees to get out of their comfort zone and explore andlearn new teaching practices.
This study was conceptualized in view of the clamor of student teachers for quality
supervision in the student teaching program and the mandate to provide quality education.
This study explored the mentoring experiences of the cooperating teachers and student
teachers in the areas of personal attributes, systems requirements, pedagogical knowledge,
modeling, and feedback as well as their issues and concerns in terms of supervision. It also
investigated whether there was significant difference in the extent of mentoring experiences
cooperating teachers provided and student-teachers received. Further, the study also exploredaspects of mentoring that need to be addressed and program in teacher education that can be
crafted to provide support for the professional development and training of cooperatingteachers in preparation for more effective mentoring practices towards the student teachers.
ProfileA. Teacher-respondents
1. In-campus
cooperatingteachers
2. Off-campus
cooperatingteachers
B. Student-teachers

Hudson’s Five Factor
Model
A. Personal
attributes
B. Systems
requirements
C. Pedagogical
Knowledge
D. Modelling
E. Feedback
Figure 1. Research paradigm

10

Recommendations
that will enhanceteacher educationin the graduate
schoolIAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

The model of mentoring suggested by Bird and Hudson (2015) indicates five factors that arelinked to mentoring attributes and practices. The first factor refers to mentors’ personal
attributes which consist of mentors’ support of the mentees, ease of communication especiallydiscussion of teaching practices, and active listening to the mentees. The personal attributesof the mentors encourage the mentees to reflect on their pedagogical practices, inspire selfconfidence and positive attitudes.
The second factor in mentoring is on systems requirements. Mentors need to communicatethat educational systems have requirements such as aims, policies, and curricula. The
complexities for executing system requirements may be indicated in the pedagogicalknowledge mentors must articulate for effective teaching (Bird & Hudson, 2015).
Pedagogical knowledge, the third factor, indicates that mentors articulate making learningplans for teaching. Mentors need to discuss aspects of the preparation such as use of resources,
appropriate teaching strategies, and content knowledge of the mentee. The mentor can assist
the mentee in case incidental problems arise during lessons such as managing student behavior
inasmuch as the mentor has gained experience on how to deal with various student personality
types and behavior traits. The mentor can also assist the mentee on the art of questioning suchas formulating question that are of low order thinking or high order thinking. Learning plans
follow a certain structure and mentors can discuss the different parts and how these parts are
implemented. Mentors can also provide pedagogical knowledge about evaluation of students’learning and explain how it is linked to curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment (Bird &Hudson, 2015).
Modeling as the fourth factor indicates that the mentor’s readiness as a teacher can nurturethe development of desirable teaching traits in the mentee. Significantly, the teacher-student
relationship is vital to the teaching-learning process and establishing a positive relationshipwith students can demonstrate to the mentee how these behaviors can facilitate learning. The
mentor also needs to model proper classroom language appropriate for student learning,
instruction (what to do and what not to do), effective teaching, classroom management, handson lessons, and well-designed lessons (Bird & Hudson, 2015).
The fifth factor indicates the importance of feedback. Effective mentors communicate
expectations and provide guidance to the mentee in terms of reviewing lesson plans, observing
the mentee’s teaching performance, providing oral and written feedback, and giving further
advice on the mentee’s evaluation of their teaching and how the mentees establish a learning
environment (Bird & Hudson, 2015).
Hudson’s model indicates that effective mentoring of practice teachers can reinforce andenhance teaching practices that will contribute to improved student learning. Skillful analysis
of practice teachers’ teaching performance can have a profound effect on the learning that
occurs in the classroom. Because student learning is the primary function of the schools,
effective supervision of instruction is very critical. Thus, the pre-service teaching curriculum
should include a variety of teaching strategies designed to meet the diverse needs of all
students in our complex society.
In these contexts, the mentoring experiences of cooperating teachers and student-teachers
were investigated through a survey and structured interview guide questions. The study was
conducted to provide insights into cooperating teachers’ role as mentors. Likewise, areas fordevelopment in terms of supervision and instruction were also determined. Findings served

11

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018as basis in drafting a program that addressed the needs of cooperating teachers and enhanced
the teacher education program. These experiences provided insights on how mentors canmake the practice teaching experience of student-teachers meaningful and help them acquireand develop pedagogical knowledge, skills and values essential in their formation as futureteachers in accordance with the requirements of the National Competency-Based Teacher
Standards (NCBTS).
Methodology
This study used quantitative-qualitative design. The quantitative design was used to determine
the extent of mentoring cooperating teachers provided to their student-teachers. It also
investigated the extent of mentoring received by student-teachers from their cooperatingteachers. In the quantitative design, survey questionnaires were distributed to the respondents.
This method was used to find existing realities that can provide essential information for the
study. Qualitative design, specifically the use of interview, was also employed to surface
responses that enriched the numerical data gathered in the survey. The study was conducted
at Saint Mary’s University, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya (SMU), and the public schools in
Nueva Vizcaya where the student-teachers were deployed in theiro-campus teachingexperience. SMU is one of the five Congregatio Immaculati Cordis Mariae (CICM) schools
in the Philippines founded in 1928 and earned its university status in 1994.
The tools that were used in gathering the data were a researcher-designed questionnaire basedon Hudson’s five factor model and structured interview guide questions constructed by the
researchers. There were two sets of questionnaire and interview guide questions answered by
the respondents. The first set was for cooperating teachers and the second set was for the
student teachers. The Cronbach alpha of .956 indicated that the survey questionnaire had very
high reliability. The Likert scale used in the interpretation of the data was as follows: 1.001.49 (Not at all); 1.50-2.49 (Little extent); 2.50-3.49 (Moderate extent); 3.50-4.00 (Great
extent).
The study used population sampling wherein all of the 71 student-teachers who were enrolled
in the Student Teaching Program in the school year 2016-2017 were respondents in order toobtain a holistic picture of the study. Teacher-respondents were those who were assigned
student teachers to mentor. There were 61 Off-campus cooperating teachers and 30 Oncampus cooperating teachers.
To determine the extent of mentoring provided by the cooperating teachers and received by
the student-teachers, means, medians and standard deviations were used. To determine thesignificant difference in the extent of mentoring provided by the off-campus and in-campus
teachers, t-test for independent samples was used. To determine the significant difference inthe extent of mentoring received by the student-teachers, paired samples t-test was used.
Qualitative responses from the written interview were used to support the qualitative data.
Qualitative responses were also analyzed and categorized thematically.
Results and Discussion
Extent of Mentoring Practices Cooperating Teachers Provide to Student Teachers
Table 1 presents the extent of mentoring practices cooperating teachers provided to student
teachers in terms of personal attributes. As indicated by the overall mean (Off-campus=3.81;
In-campus= 3.85), the cooperating teachers perceived that they greatly mentored the student-

12

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018teachers in terms of their personal attributes. The off-campus cooperating teachers
demonstrated high willingness to model positive values while the cooperating teachers in theon-campus displayed commitment to mentor the student-teachers and passion for teaching toa large extent. Verbatim responses from the cooperating teachers indicated that they had“always been positive in teaching”. The cooperating teachers also indicated the need for theprovision of “orientation about good personal attitude” such as “always be on time; beflexible” and making themselves “available for student-teachers” and “promote comfort” and“help them gain confidence in teaching” by “treating them with respect, mentoring by
coaching, lending, motivating, inspiring them to teach”. In addition, an in-campus cooperatingteacher indicated that she used Appreciation, Time and Encouragement (ATE). She pointed
that “student teachers learn best when they feel that their cooperating teachers help them havetheir knowledge, skills and values as future teachers”.
Table 1. Extent of mentoring practices cooperating teachers provide to student teachers interms of personal attributes
In my mentoring with student-teachers, I
demonstrate that I …

Cooperating Teachers
Off-campus (N=61)

Cooperating Teachers
On-campus (N=30)

Mean

SD

QD

Mean

SD

QD

1. am flexible

3.74

0.44

Great

3.67

0.54

Great

2. am open-minded

3.84

0.37

Great

3.77

0.43

Great

3.74

0.44

Great

3.77

0.43

Great

3.85

0.35

Great

3.97

0.18

Great

3.84

0.37

Great

3.90

0.30

Great

3. foster confidence by providing
opportunities for friendship4. promote comfort and confidence and help
student teachers feel comfortable in teaching
5. make myself available for my studentteachers
6. show willingness to model positive values

3.92

0.27

Great

3.83

0.37

Great

7.am committed to mentor my studentteaches
8. am passionate in teaching

3.74

0.44

Great

3.97

0.18

Great

3.85

0.35

Great

3.97

0.18

Great

Overall Mean

3.81

0.28

Great

3.85

0.23

Great

Table 2. Extent of mentoring practices cooperating teachers provided to student teachers interms of system requirements

In my mentoring with student-teachers, I…
1.orient student teachers about school
requirements
2.provide guidelines for theaccomplishment of school records/forms
3.give instruction about grading systems
and school policies
Overall Mean

Cooperating Teachers
Off-campus (N=61)
Mean
SD
QD

Cooperating Teachers
On-campus (N=30)
Mean
SD
QD

3.56

0.53

Great

3.63

0.66

Great

3.51

0.56

Great

3.17

1.05

Moderate

3.59

0.49

Great

3.33

0.84

Moderate

3.55

0.43

Great

3.38

0.76

Moderate

Table 2 shows the extent of mentoring practices cooperating teachers provided to student
teachers in terms of system requirements. The overall mean (Off-campus=3.55; Incampus=3.38) indicates that the off-campus cooperating teachers greatly mentored thestudent-teachers while the in-campus teachers only to a moderate extent. The off-campus
teachers greatly mentored student-teachers on orienting student-teachers about school13

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

requirements, provided guidelines for the accomplishment of school records/forms and gave
instruction about grading systems and school policies while the in-campus teachers did these
only to a moderate extent. The interview conducted with cooperating teachers showedverbatim comments indicating that they mentored the student-teachers in matters concerning“orientation on school requirements” and “…the policies of the school” to a high degree.
Table 3.Extent of mentoring practices cooperating teachers provided to student teachers interms of pedagogical knowledge
Cooperating Teachers
Off-campus (N=61)

Cooperating Teachers
On-campus (N=30)

In my mentoring with student-teachers, I …

Mean

SD

QD

Mean

SD

QD

1.coach via sharing ideas or telling information

3.69

0.46

Great

3.80

0.40

Great

2.plan collaboratively with my student-teachers onlearning plans
3.provide essential resources for teaching

3.7

0.61

Great

3.73

0.45

Great

3.51

0.59

Great

3.73

0.45

Great

4.share my vision/ principles of teaching

3.57

0.59

Great

3.77

0.50

Great

5.share my knowledge about

3.66

0.60

Great

3.67

0.54

Great

a. Problem-solving

3.61

0.66

Great

3.63

0.55

Great

b. Timetabling

3.72

0.55

Great

3.70

0.46

Great

c. Assessment

3.77

0.61

Great

3.83

0.37

Great

3.65

0.44

Great

3.73

0.4

Great

Overall Mean

Table 3 presents the extent of mentoring practices cooperating teachers provided to student
teachers in terms of pedagogical knowledge. The overall mean (Off-campus =3.65; Incampus= 3.73) shows that the in-campus teachers mentored more the student-teachers in their
sharing their pedagogical knowledge. The cooperating teachers also greatly mentored thestudent-teachers in their sharing of knowledge about assessment. Cooperating teachers
believed in the importance of mentoring student teachers on matters concerning pedagogicalknowledge stating that “if student-teachers’ schedule will be given earlier, they will be given
more time for close supervision”. Moreover, the cooperating teachers believed that studentteachers should be given “ample time to prepare and teach them to have time table” and that“a schedule that will work should be given so that student-teachers and cooperating teachers
can really collaborate”.
Table 4 shows the extent of mentoring practices cooperating teachers provided to student
teachers in terms of modeling. The overall mean (Off-campus= 3.74; In-campus=3.93)
indicates that the off-campus and in-campus teachers greatly mentored the student-teachers
in terms of modeling. The off-campus showed high enthusiasm in teaching (Mean=3.80)
while the in-campus teachers greatly demonstrated enthusiasm (Mean=3.97) and effectiveclassroom management. Verbatim comments from cooperating teachers pointed out that they
did “coach and share ideas in choosing appropriate strategy”, “share their vision of teaching”
because they believed that “experiential teaching is lasting and more meaningful”. In addition,a cooperating teacher also emphasized to her student-teacher that “all were provided to moldhim as good teacher – important information and best strategies”. Still, another cooperatingteacher shared that teaching is a vocation as indicated in her statement, “I believe that teaching
is not only a job, it’s a ministry”. They indicated that they modeled to student-teachers their“… adoption of reflective teaching approach”.

14

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Table 4. Extent of mentoring practices cooperating teachers provided to student teachers interms of modeling
Cooperating Teachers
Off-campus (N=61)

Cooperating Teachers
On-campus (N=30)

In my mentoring with student-teachers, I …

Mean

SD

QD

Mean

SD

QD

1.demonstrate how to teach the subject matter

3.67

0.65

Great

3.93

0.25

Great

2.show enthusiasm

3.80

0.60

Great

3.97

0.18

Great

3.demonstrate effective classroom management

3.75

0.62

Great

3.97

0.18

Great

4.demonstrate rapport with students

3.74

0.63

Great

3.87

0.34

Great

Overall Mean

3.74

0.59

Great

3.93

0.18

Great

Table 5. Extent of mentoring practices cooperating teachers provided to student teachers interms of feedback
Cooperating Teachers
Off-campus (N=61)

Cooperating Teachers
On-campus (N=30)

In my mentoring with student-teachers, I …

Mean

SD

QD

Mean

SD

QD

1.provide positive feedback

3.64

0.65

Great

3.87

0.34

Great

2.encourage students to practice reflective teaching

3.61

0.69

Great

3.83

0.37

Great

Overall Mean

3.62

0.66

Great

3.85

0.35

Great

Table 5 presents the extent of mentoring practices cooperating teachers provided to student
teachers in terms of feedback. The overall mean (Off-campus=3.62; In-campus=0.662)
indicates that the cooperating teachers greatly mentored the student-teachers in terms ofproviding feedback and encouraging students to practice reflective teaching. The cooperatingteachers believed that they have mentored the student teachers and that they have provided“…positive feedback and suggestions for improvement” which “…provides actionable
information” “…to develop the confidence of student-teachers”.
Table 6 shows the difference in the extent of mentoring practices cooperating teachers
provided to student teachers. Among the five factors, modeling (t=-2.31; p=0.023)
andfeedback (t=-2.136; p=0.035) yielded significant results. This indicates that the in-campus
teachers perceived that they mentored greatly the student-teachers in terms of modeling andgiving feedback than the off-campus teachers and the difference is significant.
Table 6. Difference in the Extent of Mentoring Practices Cooperating Teachers Provided toStudent Teachers
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
1. Personal Attributes

Equal variances assumed

0.302

0.584

-0.68389

0.496

2.System Requirements
3. Pedagogical
Knowledge

Equal variances not assumed

21.856

0.000

1.156

38.4020.255

Equal variances assumed

0.041

0.84

-0.82589

0.412

4. Modeling

Equal variances not assumed

7.568

0.007

-2.31

79.702

0.023

5. Feedback

Equal variances not assumed

9.556

0.003

-2.13688.427

0.035

15

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Extent of mentoring practices student–teachers received from cooperating teachers
Table 7 presents the extent of mentoring practices student–teachers received from cooperatingteachers in terms of personal attributes. As indicated by the overall mean (Off-campus=3.60;
In-campus=3.72), the student-teachers were mentored greatly by the cooperating teachers interms of their display of personal attributes. The off-campus teachers greatly mentored on
showing passion in teaching (Mean=3.70) while the in-campus teachers demonstrated
willingness to model positive values (Mean=3.83). The student teachers found their mentors
conscientious in their task of mentoring them through their own personal witnessing as
expressed in their verbatim comments to “… approach them and talk about their performancein teaching” to “share experiences that they can adopt”. Moreover, the student-teachers werementored greatly by cooperating teachers who extended their “moral support”, who were“kind enough to guide us in every teaching” and were “very kind and willing to share theirexperiences and knowledge” and showed “enthusiasm” in their teaching.
Table 7. Extent of mentoring practices student–teachers received from cooperating teachers
in terms of personal attributes
Cooperating Teachers
Off-campus
Statements
1.My cooperating teacher demonstrates
flexibility
2. My cooperating teacher demonstrates
open-mindedness
3. My cooperating teacher fosters confidence
by providing opportunities for friendship
4. My cooperating teacher promotes comfort
and confidence and help student teachers feel
comfortable in teaching
5. My cooperating teacher makes herself
available for mentoring
6. My cooperating teacher demonstrates
willingness to model positive values
7. My cooperating teacher demonstrates
commitment to mentoring
8. My cooperating teacher shows passion inteaching.

Mean

SD

3.54

0.62

3.68

0.55

3.56

0.60

3.55

0.65

3.52

0.67

3.73

0.53

3.58

0.69

3.70

0.57

Overall Mean

3.60

0.47

QD
Great
Great
Great
Great
Great
Great
Great
Great
Great

Cooperating Teachers
On-campus
Mean

SD

QD

3.58

0.62

3.76

0.52

3.70

0.61

3.73

0.58

3.73

0.53

3.83

0.37

3.69

0.57

3.75

0.52

3.72

0.46

Great
Great
Great
Great
Great
Great
Great
Great
Great

Table 8. Extent of mentoring practices student–teachers received from cooperating teachers
in terms of system requirements
Cooperating Teachers
Off-campus
My cooperating teacher
1.orient us about school requirements
2.provide guidelines for the accomplishmentof school records/forms
3.give instruction about grading systems andschool policies
Overall Mean

Mean

SD

3.32

0.67

3.27

0.69

3.18

0.76

3.26

0.63

16

QD
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate

Cooperating Teachers
On-campus
Mean

SD

3.35

0.65

3.41

0.68

3.29

0.74

3.35

0.63

QD
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Table 8 presents the extent of mentoring practices student – teachers received fromcooperating teachers in terms of system requirements. As shown in the overall mean (Offcampus=3.26; In-campus=3.35), student teachers believed they were mentored on system
requirements only to a moderate extent. These system requirements consisted of orientation
about school requirements, provision of guidelines for the accomplishment of school
records/forms, and giving of instruction about grading systems and school policies. Verbatim
comments by the student-teachers stated they were mentored on “how to make standard lesson
log of SMU-HS” and “how to make Department of Education Learning Plans”.
Table 9. Extent of mentoring practices student–teachers received from cooperating teachers
in terms of pedagogical knowledge
Cooperating Teachers
Off-campus
QD
Mean SD

Cooperating Teachers
On-campus
QD
Mean SD

3.56

0.60

Great

3.65

0.65

Great

3.52

0.60

Great

3.55

0.71

Great

3.35

0.61

Moderate

3.46

0.69

Moderate

3.34

0.75

Moderate

3.46

0.73

Moderatea. Problem-solving

3.17

0.77

Moderate

3.48

0.69

Moderateb. Timetabling

3.42

0.66

Moderate

3.62

0.57

Great

c. Assessment

3.55

0.60

Great

3.61

0.64

Great

3.39

0.51

Moderate

3.53

0.57

Great

My cooperating teacher
1. coaches via sharing ideas or tellinginformation
2. plan collaboratively with student-teachers
on learning plans
3. provide essential resources for teaching
4. share his/her vision and principles ofteaching
5. share his/her knowledge about:

Overall Mean

Table 9 shows the extent of mentoring practices student-teachers received from cooperatingteachers in terms of pedagogical knowledge. The overall mean shows that the student-teachers
were mentored on pedagogical knowledge by the in-campus teachers to a great extent(Mean=3.53) and only to a moderate extent by the off-campus teachers (Mean= 3.39). The
student-teachers considered they were greatly mentored by the off-campus and in-campus
teachers through their sharing of ideas or telling information. However, they were least
mentored by the off-campus teachers on solving problems and least mentored by the incampus teachers on provision of essential resources for teaching and sharing their vision andprinciples of teaching, although still to a moderate extent. The student-teachers pointed outthat they were greatly mentored by their cooperating teachers through their assistance andsupport on how to “make lesson logs from syllabus”. The student-teachers were also helpedby their cooperating teachers who “gave advice and suggestions in teaching strategies andclassroom management”, demonstrated “questioning techniques”, provided “lists of strategies
in summarizing the lesson and ways in purposeful closure”, extended “materials needed,
comfort and ideas in delivering lesson” shared “…video clips on how to teach 21st century
learners” and “introduced several methods in conducting activities”.
Table 10 shows the extent of mentoring practices student–teachers received from cooperatingteachers in terms of modeling. The overall mean (Off-campus=3.50; In-campus = 3.59)
indicates that the student-teachers were mentored to a great extent by the cooperating teachers
in terms of modeling. The student-teachers were greatly mentored by the cooperating teachers
in terms of modeling enthusiasm in teaching and the least area of mentoring was on how to17

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018teach the subject matter, although still to a moderate extent. The student-teachers believed
they were greatly mentored by their cooperating teachers who demonstrated “how to
introduce lesson in an engaging way”, “how to teach subject matter”, “how to establish rapport
with students”, “how to handle class when there is group activity” and “how to conclude thelesson”.
Table 10. Extent of mentoring practices student-teachers received from cooperating teachers
in terms of modeling
Cooperating Teachers
Off-campus
My cooperating teacher
1.demonstrates how to teach the subject matter

Mean

SD

3.42

Cooperating Teachers
On-campus
Mean

SD

0.64

QD
Moderate

3.54

0.75

QD
Great

3.65

0.61

Great

2.shows enthusiasm

3.59

0.64

Great

3.demonstrate effective classroom management

3.52

0.62

Great

3.59

0.64

Great

4.demonstrate rapport with students

3.48

0.67

Moderate

3.62

0.64

Great

Overall Mean

3.50

0.53

Great

3.59

0.56

Great

Table 11. Extent of mentoring practices student-teachers received from cooperating teachers
in terms of feedback
Cooperating Teachers
Off-campus
My cooperating teacher
1.provides positive feedback

Mean

SD

3.59

0.57

2.encourages students to practice reflective
teaching

3.59

0.62

Overall Mean

3.59

0.56

QD
Great
Great
Great

Cooperating Teachers
On-campus
Mean

SD

3.63

0.56

3.62

0.64

3.62

0.55

QD
Great
Great
Great

Table 11 shows the extent of mentoring practices student-teachers received from cooperatingteachers in terms of feedback. As presented in the overall mean (Off-campus=3.59; In-campus= 3.62), the student-teachers were mentored by the cooperating teachers in both campuses interms of providing feedback and encouraging students to practice reflective teaching to a great
extent. The student-teachers agreed they were greatly mentored by their cooperating teachers
who “finds time to tell feedback about strengths and quality of my teaching” during the “postconference” wherein they were provided “feedback if their strategy is effective”. The studentteachers were greatly helped by the cooperating teachers because “in the post conference, they
told us about our weaknesses and how to improve our teaching methods”. The studentteachers were also mentored on the importance of “providing nice and proper feedback tostudents” and the “use of appropriate activities and instructional materials” in teaching.
Table 12 shows the difference in the extent of mentoring practices student teachers received
from cooperating teachers. The results yielded no significant difference. This indicates thatthe mentoring the student-teachers received from the cooperating teachers were statisticallythe same.

18

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Table 12. Difference in the extent of mentoring practices student-teachers received fromcooperating teachers
Paired Samples Statistics

1. Personal attributes
2. System requirements
3. Pedagogicalknowledge
4. Modeling
5. Feedback

Off-campus
In-campus
Off-campus
In-campus
Off-campus
In-campus
Off-campus
In-campus
Off-campus
In-campus

Mean
3.60
3.72
3.26
3.35
3.39
3.53
3.50
3.59
3.59
3.62

SD
0.479
0.462
0.632
0.639
0.519
0.571
0.537
0.562
0.568
0.552

t
-1.466df
70

Sig. (2-tailed)
0.147

-0.89

70

0.377

-1.58370

0.118-1.04370

0.301-0.37170

0.711

Discussion and Limitations of the Study
The mentors’ task of providing feedback to student teachers is crucial to the mentoringprocess. Mentors have the responsibility to assist their mentee in terms of their career andprovide advice, support, and feedback and “be a sounding board for the mentee” (Straus et al,2013). The cooperating teachers had done a great job in mentoring the student-teachers
especially in their witnessing of personal qualities that student teachers should imbibe as
future teachers. Effective mentors must be altruistic, honest, trustworthy, and active listeners.
The mentoring cooperating teachers provided to student teachers was indeed significant
inasmuch as student teachers found difficulty in accomplishing school system requirements.
The importance of an advisor or a mentor in guiding inexperienced teachers especially in theirperformance of bureaucratic duties and management of educational activity should not be
underestimated (Yirci et al, 2016). This implies that cooperating teachers realize theimportance of mentoring students and sharing their expertise on content knowledge as well
as strategies. It also indicates that cooperating teachers need to practice reflective approach inteaching so that they could better mentor the student teachers on what teaching strategies work
for a more effective teaching learning situation (Aspfors & Fransson, 2015).
Similarly, the cooperating teachers demonstrated commitment to their mentoring task ofteaching through practice. Cooperating teachers who demonstrated and modeled content
knowledge and strategies enhanced the professional development of student teachers as wellas improved their student teachers’ teaching methods and skills (Liu, Tsai, & Huang, 2015).
The findings imply that the cooperating teachers had provided more mentoring to student
teachers in terms of modeling specifically demonstrating how to teach the subject matter,showing enthusiasm, demonstrating effective classroom management, and establishingrapport with students as well as providing positive feedback and encouraging students topractice reflective teaching.
The study of Sempowicz and Hudson (2012) also affirmed that mentor-mentee’s personal
attributes had significant impact on their mentoring relationship which affected theeffectiveness of the mentors’ feedback and the mentees’ abilities to critically reflect on theirpractices. Student teachers who have positive relationships with their mentors are more likely

19

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

to employ university-taught methods in their classrooms, take their supervisors’ advice, andview their supervisor as very knowledgeable regarding content, methods, and students in the“real” classroom (Asplin & Marks, 2013).
As mentees, student teachers need to learn the teaching strategy of timing within the lesson
structure to promote student interest in learning. Mentors emphasized the need to prepare andmanage resources and aids as well as the ability to solve problems in the classroom such aschanging strategies whenever necessary (Hudson, 2013). In addition, student teachers need to
be provided with feedback and assessment on their student teaching. Student teachers, inreturn, should be open to feedback, be active listeners, and be respectful of their mentor’s
input and time (Straus et al, 2013).
This study is limited to determining the mentoring experiences of the cooperating teachersand student teachers as indicated in the five aspects of mentoring presented by Hudson. The
study focused only on surfacing the mentoring experiences in general and did not explore thecultural practices between mentor and mentees. Web-based learning and e-mentoring may
also be explored in future studies to strengthen the mentoring process.
Aspects Needing to be Addressed
Reinforcing personal attributes through open communication, active listening, andself-learning
The responses of the participants to the structured interview guide questions yielded five
major themes relative to the need for mentoring. The first theme is reinforcing personal
attributes through open communication, active listening and self-learning which concurs withexisting studies on the beneficial effects of mentoring in the respondents’ formation as
prospective teachers. The quality of the cooperating teachers’ relationship with practiceteachers has direct impact on how they enact principles of practice. The positive relationshipand open communication with their cooperating teachers inspires them to reflect on theirpedagogical practices and develop their self-confidence and positive attitudes. Mentormentee’s personal attributes had significant impact on their mentoring relationship which
affected the effectiveness of the mentors’ feedback and the mentees’ abilities to criticallyreflect on their practices. In this theme, mentoring is the process which supports learning
development and improves performance of an individual. It manifests through the mentors’
treating the practice teachers with respect, having an open and motivational consultation,
showing moral and sometimes financial support, sharing ideas and experiences, providing
comfort and boosting one’s confidence and providing time to listen (Hudson, 2016; Hudson& Hudson, 2014; Kemmis et al, 2014; Hudson, 2013; Straus et al, 2013; Ulvik & Sunde, 2013;
Sempowicz & Hudson, 2012).
Providing intensive orientation on educational goals, aims, policies and curricula
The second theme is focused on providing intensive orientation on educational goals, aims,
policies, and curricula. Pre-service teachers need to acquire an understanding of the
expectations, components, goals, and challenges of the student teaching experience. Mentors
need to communicate that educational system has requirements such as aims, policies, andcurricula. The complexities for executing system requirements may be indicated in thepedagogical knowledge mentors must articulate for effective teaching (Aspfors & Fransson,
2015; Asplin & Marks, 2013; Gareis & Grant, 2014; Gorozidis & Papaioannou, 2014;
Hobson, Harris, Buckley Manley, & Smith, 2012). Most of the respondents acquired

20

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018knowledge about the school assignments and policies; Department of Education Orders,
policies and requirements, and the what, why and how of the K to 12 curriculum.
Enhancing pedagogical knowledge in teaching
Enhancing pedagogical knowledge in teaching is another theme that emerged from the study.
Mentoring is a deliberate pairing of a more skilled or experienced person with a lesser skilled
or experienced one with agreed-upon goals. The lesser skilled person is assisted to grow anddevelop specific competencies (Menges, 2016; Cakir & Kocabas, 2016). This includes thedevelopment of pedagogical knowledge practices such as planning, preparation, teachingstrategies, questioning skills, assessment and how these practices influence the mentee’s
practice teaching. Willing, capable, and compatible mentors who possess varied expertiseprovide richer and more dynamic mentoring experiences (Gareis & Grant, 2014; Hudson,2012).
Nurturing the development of desirable teaching practices through modeling
The next theme is nurturing the development of desirable teaching practices throughmodeling. Experienced teachers can provide help by providing strategies they developed.
Moreover, student teachers can be guided in the acquisition of knowledge and skills byassigned mentors who model pedagogical practices Hudson’s (2012). Hudson’s study (2007)
revealed that mentors modeled teaching and classroom management, had a good rapport withstudents, and enthusiasm. The theme underscores the importance of mentoring of cooperatingteachers who have a repertoire of effective pedagogical practices and up-to-date curriculum
and professional knowledge to better assist student teachers in pre-service education (Yirci etal, 2016; Kemmis et al, 2014).
Communicating achievable expectations and providing constructive feedbacks
The last theme, which is communicating achievable expectations and providing constructive

feedback, reveals similar insights from the participants. This supports one of the findings of
Sempowicz and Hudson (2012) that “mentors expressed expectations for teaching, modeledreflective practices to their mentees, and provided time and opportunities for mentoring which
would influence the mentees’ reflective practices and their pedagogical development.” The
importance of communicating expectations and giving regular feedback on student teachers’
assessment in their practice teaching are also important concerns cooperating teachers should
provide. Providing professional development for the cooperating or mentor teacher in
preparation for accommodating a student intern is significant. Student interns must havementors who are skilled and experienced in mentoring and who can nurture positive
development toward becoming an effective teacher. Moreover, Teacher Education
Institutions need to ensure that mentor teachers are adequately prepared to model effective
strategies to facilitate the practice teaching experience. The study also reiterated that mentor
teachers understand their role in facilitating the internship experience because their roles are
critical to the development of the student intern (Gareis & Grant, 2014).
Conclusions
In the light of the findings, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. The cooperating teachers mentored to a great extent the student teachers in terms of
personal attributes, pedagogical knowledge, modelling, and feedback.
2. The student teachers need more intensive mentoring on the area of system
requirements.

21

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Recommendations
The following recommendations are presented:
1. Cooperating teachers should undergo continuing professional education specificallyin terms of mentoring student-teachers along the domains mentioned. A course
specifically on supervision and instruction be included in the curriculum to further
strengthen the cooperating teachers’ mentoring practices and skills.
2. More time for post-conference between the cooperating teachers and student-teachers
be provided to discuss supervisory concerns and address further mentoring needs.

22

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

References
Aspfors, J., & Fransson, G. (2015). Research on mentor education for mentors of newly
qualified teachers: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 48,
75–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.02.004
Asplin, K. N., & Marks, M. J. (2013). Increasing the influence of university supervisors during
student teaching. Professional Educator, 37(1), n1.
Bird, L., & Hudson, P. (2015). Investigating a model of mentoring for effective teaching.
Journal of Teaching Effectiveness and Student Achievement, 2(2), 11–21.
Cakir, L., & Kocabas, I. (2016). Mentoring in gifted student’s education and a model
suggestion. Educational Process: International Journal, 5(1), 76–90.
https://doi.org/10.12973/edupij.2016.51.6
Chizhik, E. W., Chizhik, A. W., Close, C., & Gallego, M. (2017). SMILE (Shared Mentoring in
Instructional Learning Environments): Effectiveness of a lesson-study approach to
student-teaching supervision on a teacher-education performance assessment. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 44(2), 27.
Clarke, M., Killeavy, M., & Moloney, A. (2013). The genesis of mentors’ professional andpersonal knowledge about teaching: Perspectives from the Republic of
Ireland. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 364–375.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2012.755513
Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Strengthening clinical preparation: The holy grail of teacher
education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 547–561.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2014.939009
Gareis, C. R., & Grant, L. W. (2014). The efficacy of training cooperating teachers. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 39, 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.12.007
Gorozidis, G., & Papaioannou, A. G. (2014). Teachers' motivation to participate in training andto implement innovations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.12.001
Hobson, L. D., Harris, D., Buckner-Manley, K., & Smith, P. (2012). The importance of
mentoring novice and pre-service teachers: Findings from a HBCU student teaching
program. Educational Foundations, 26(3/4), 67–80.
Hudson, P. (2016). Forming the mentor-mentee relationship. Mentoring & Tutoring:Partnership in Learning, 24(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2016.1163637
Hudson, P. B. (2013). Desirable attributes and practices for mentees: Mentor teachers'
expectations. European Journal of Educational Research, 2(3), 107–118.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.2.3.107
Hudson, P. (2013). Developing and sustaining successful mentoring relationships. Journal of
Relationships Research, 4. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2013.1
Hudson, P. (2013). Mentoring as professional development: Growth for both mentor andmentee. Professional Development in Education, 39(5), 771–783.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.749415
Hudson, P. (2013). Mentoring pre-service teachers on school students' differentiatedlearning. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 11(1).
Hudson, P. (2012). How can schools support beginning teachers? A call for timely induction
and mentoring for effective teaching. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(7),70–84. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n7.1 Hudson, P. B., & Hudson, S. M.
(2014). Mentors’ and mentees’ views about desirable attributes and practices forpreservice teachers. In 5th World Conference on Learning, Teaching and Educational
Leadership, 29 - 31 October 2014, Prague, Czech Republic. (Unpublished)

23

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Kahraman, M., & Kuzu, A. (2016). E-mentoring for professional development of pre-service
teachers: A case study. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), 76–89.
Kemmis, S., Heikkinen, H. L., Fransson, G., Aspfors, J., & Edwards-Groves, C. (2014).
Mentoring of new teachers as a contested practice: Supervision, support andcollaborative self-development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 154–164.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.001
Koedel, C., Parsons, E., Podgursky, M., & Ehlert, M. (2015). Teacher preparation programs andteacher quality: Are there real differences across programs? Education Finance andPolicy, 10(4), 508–534. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00172
Langdon, F. J. (2014). Evidence of mentor learning and development: An analysis of New
Zealand mentor/mentee professional conversations. Professional Development in
Education, 40(1), 36–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2013.833131
Liu, S. H., Tsai, H. C., & Huang, Y. T. (2015). Collaborative professional development ofmentor teachers and pre-service teachers in relation to technology
integration. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 161–172.
Mena, J., Hennissen, P., & Loughran, J. (2017). Developing pre-service teachers' professional
knowledge of teaching: The influence of mentoring. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 66, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.03.024
Menges, C. (2016). Toward improving the effectiveness of formal mentoring programs:
Matching by personality matters. Group & Organization Management, 41(1), 98–129.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115579567
Potter, J. P., Hollas, T., & Coyne, J. (2016). Strengthening collaboration for successful field
experiences. Cogent Education, 3(1),. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1226561
Savage, S. L., Cannon, D., & Sutters, J. P. (2015). The yellow brick road to licensure:
Mentoring student teachers through the practicum experience. Art Education, 68(4), 22–
27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2015.11519326
Sempowics, T., & Hudson, P. (2012). Mentoring pre-service teachers reflective practices
towards producing teacher outcomes. International Journal of Evidenced based
Coaching and Mentoring, 10(2), pp.52–64. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/54145
Soslau,E., & Raths, J. (2017). Problems in student teaching. The Journal of Teaching and
Learning, 11(1), 20–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v11i1.4612.
Straus, S. E., Johnson, M. O., Marquez, C., & Feldman, M. D. (2013). Characteristics of
successful and failed mentoring relationships: A qualitative study across two academic
health centers. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical
Colleges, 88(1), 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31827647a0
Ulvik, M., & Sunde, E. (2013). The impact of mentor education: Does mentor education
matter? Professional Development in Education, 39(5), 754–770.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.754783
van Ginkel, G., Verloop, N., & Denessen, E. (2016). Why mentor? Linking mentor teachers’
motivations to their mentoring conceptions. Teachers and Teaching, 22(1), 101–116.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1023031
Yirci, R., Karakose, T., Uygun, H., & Ozdemir, T. Y. (2016). Turkish adaptation of thementorship effectiveness scale: A validity and reliability study. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(4), 821–832.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1440a

Corresponding Author: Susan Galamay-Cachola
Contact email: susangcachola@gmail.com

24