When Helping Hurts: Developmentally Appropriate Teacher Mentoring Editor’s Note: This article appears as one of a series written especially for Ala Breve by experts in the field of music education.


By Michael A. Raiber, PHD


Although we in music teacher education work diligently to prepare young music educators during their preservice education, we must also recognize that “most of the learning to teach music occurs in the first years” (Conway, 2010, p. 268). During this time, many young music educators seek the advice of mentors. These mentoring relationships are sometimes formal, such as school district or state sponsored programs that pair entry-level music educators with more experienced teachers. Other mentoring relationships are informal and include more spontaneous meetings like those with a colleague at a conference or convention. No matter what type of relationship, mentors can have a substantial influence on young music teachers who value mentor’s insights and expertise (Conway, 2010).


Research suggests, however, that all mentoring is not created equal (Drafall, 1991; Glickman, 1985; Glickman, Gordan & Ross-Gordon, 1995). Before providing feedback or advice, effective mentors consider the developmental level of the educator they are intending to help. These mentors use this information to ‘package’ the feedback they are providing in ways that will be understood by the mentee. This research suggests when mentors fail to match their supervisory approach with a teacher’s developmental level, intended help is often misunderstood and/or ignored.


Music Teacher Development A number of approaches have been used to investigate teacher development. However, a ‘teacher concerns’ model (Fuller & Bown, 1975) has attracted significant attention in recent music education research on this subject (Killian, Dye & Wayman, 2013; Miksza & Berg, 2013; Powell, 2014). This model suggests that development is reflected by shifts in teacher concerns. These concerns are defined by the elements that garner a teacher’s primary attention or their most pressing psychological need at any given moment. Fuller and Bown classified these concerns into three levels of teacher development, a) self- or survival concerns, b) teaching or task concerns, and c) student-learning or student- impact concerns. While Fuller and Bown


38


provide clear definitions and lists of characteristics for each level, they also recognize teachers will most often share concerns on multiple levels. They additionally note context can have significant impact on teachers’ concerns. In a new context or setting, young teachers tend to revert to task concerns or self-concerns even if they were previously operating at student-learning concerns levels in more familiar contexts. It is, therefore, the preponderance of concerns shared by the teacher that will help mentors focus their feedback.


Self-concerns are characterized by a teacher’s need to establish his or her sense of self as a teacher rather than a student. These teachers often have concerns about personal adequacy or being ‘cut out’ to teach. They are easily influenced by their perceptions of student acceptance and external evaluations concerning their teaching performance. When talking with teachers operating at this developmental level, their comments often begin with “I.” Common statements might include, “I hope the students like me” or “I don’t want to be the mean teacher.”


Those functioning at a task concerns level focus on mastery of teaching techniques and the day-to-day work of teaching. These music educators are most concerned with issues like planning lessons or rehearsals, mastering materials, and applying teaching strategies. These teachers will share thoughts like, “I am concerned that I talk too much in rehearsal” or “I need to know more about grade 2 repertoire.” These teachers are often very lesson plan oriented. If their plan contains several steps of instruction, they will follow those steps without regard to student needs. The goal is to present or teach the plan.


Music educators who are primarily concerned with student learning will share comments and questions like, “I am having trouble balancing individual student needs within my classroom”, or “How do I help my more advanced performers stay engaged while I provide more remedial instruction to the students who need it?” These teachers are most concerned with student achievement,


student engagement, motivation for learning, and the personal well-being of their students. One will find these teachers ‘come off their plans’ when it is necessary to meet the needs of the students in the classroom. While they do not lose sight of desired learning outcomes, they are willing to arrive at those outcomes in various ways and will allow the learner to at least partially define the means and methods to get there.


Developmental Supervision Glickman (1985) developed a supervisory model that accounts for teacher development. The goal of this model is to match the supervisory approach with the teacher developmental level so the mentored teacher both understands the information being provided and uses the information to further his or her development. Glickman’s model was intended to facilitate in-service teacher development, but Drafall (1991) successfully applied the model to facilitate pre-service music teacher development as well. Glickman’s model places supervisory behaviors in three categories, a) directive behaviors, b) collaborative behaviors, and c) non-directive behaviors.


Using directive supervisory behaviors, the mentor will choose the goals for the teacher and direct the teacher to implement specific actions. The mentor may ask for and consider teacher feedback but remains the source of information while offering alternatives from which the teacher may choose a course of action. This supervisory approach is appropriate to use when time is short and concrete actions need to be taken or when the teacher lacks needed knowledge, skills, or experience necessary to affect change. To be effective, the teacher must view the mentor as a credible source and the mentor must be willing to take responsibility for the actions of the teacher. This suggests that effective mentors who find a directive approach necessary develop relationships with those they supervise. They work with these teachers over time and provide additional feedback when needed.


Mentors who choose to use a collaborative August/September 2015


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44