When Helping Hurts: Developmentally Appropriate Teacher Mentoring

By Michael A. Raiber, PHD

Editor’s Note: This article appears as one of a series written especially for Ala Breve by experts in the field of music education.

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) selfor survival concerns, b) teaching or task concerns, and c) student-learning or studentimpact concerns. While Fuller and Bown 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 teacherstend 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, theircomments 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 modelis 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 approach may do so for several reasons. They may determine the teacher being advised is functioning at a moderate level. The teacher demonstrates the ability to make effective decisions, but may not have the confidence to implement actions with authority. Additionally or alternatively, the mentor may determine the teacher’s knowledge base is similar to his or her own and both mentor and teacher are invested in the decision being considered. Often, when a collaborative approach is used, both the mentor and the teacher are equally committed to solving the problem. A collaborative approach requires the mentor and teacher openly discuss possible solutions and reach an agreed-upon decision regarding how to improve instruction that is genuinely acceptable with both parties. As a result the teacher is affirmed in his or her ideas about teaching.

When an effective mentor determines the teacher is functioning at a high level and possesses most of the knowledge and expertise necessary to be effective, he or she will often choose to use a non-directive supervisory approach. In doing so the mentor will start by asking open-ended questions to guide the teacher’s thinking, but decisionmaking and implementation remains the sole responsibility of the teacher. The mentor will not interject ideas, but only clarify the thoughts or ideas provided by the teacher. The goal of this approach is to assist the educator in thinking through alternatives that help the teacher reach his or her own conclusions.

Developmentally Appropriate Mentoring

Matching a teacher’s developmental level (Fuller & Bown, 1975) with a specific supervisory approach (Glickman, 1985) is likely to provide the most effective mentoring outcomes for all involved. This suggests a directive approach would be most effective for teachers operating at a self-concerns level. At this point, mentor feedback should not only provide solutions to immediate issues, but also help direct the teacher’s concerns away from self and more toward teaching. As teaching concerns become the educator’s primary focus, mentoring should change to a more collaborative approach. As the mentor and teacher work together to find answers to the issues at hand, effective mentors steer conversations away from teaching concerns and focus on student learning. In effect, mentors model this concern for the teacher. As the teacher’s concerns become centered on student learning, the effective mentor moves to a non-directive approach, coaching the teacher as he or she makes decisions for themselves. In general, as teachers become increasingly aware of their impact, they are provided greater autonomy.

A note of caution is necessary at this point, because the process outlined above appears to suggest that effective mentoring is very systematic with teachers consistently moving from one concerns level to the next. Fuller and Bown note, however, that teacher development is not linear, but fluid,as teacher concerns tend to revolve rather than evolve depending upon context. Therefore, the mentoring approach must be fluid as well. Even if the mentoring approach has been non-directive, it is not uncommon to find it necessary to provide a directive approach when teachers are in new environments or have new information to apply to their teaching. Additionally, a teacher may be at different stages of development in different environments. For example, a young band director’s concerns may be focused on student learning in the concert ensemble, but due to lack of experience, he or she is self-concerned when working with a jazz ensemble. Effective mentors will match their supervisory approach to the developmental level demonstrated by the teacher at any given time. Mentors have had and will continue to have a tremendous effect on young music educators. When mentors effectively assess a teacher’s developmental level and match their supervisory approach to that assessment, they are likely to find their feedback and advice to be increasingly effective. The outcome will benefit many, but most importantly, students in music classrooms will be the primary beneficiaries of effective teacher mentoring.

References

Conway, C. (2010). Issues facing music teacher education in the 21st century: Developing leaders in the field. In H. S. Abeles & L. A. Custodero (Eds.), Critical issues in music education: Contemporary theory and practice, (pp. 259-275). New York: Oxford University Press.

Drafall, I. E. (1991). The use of developmental clinical supervision with student teachers in secondary choral music: Two case studies. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9210787)

Fuller, F. F. & Bown, O. H. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education 74th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part II (pp. 25-52). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Glickman, C. D. (1985). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P. & RossGordon, J. M. (1995). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Killian, J. N., Dye, K. G. & Wayman, J. B. (2013). Music student teachers: Prestudent teaching concerns and post-student teaching perceptions over a 5-year period. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(1), 6369.

Miksza, P. & Berg, M. (2013). A longitudinal study of preservice music teacher development: Application and advancement of the Fuller and Bown teacher concerns model. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(1), 44-62.

Powell, S. (2014). Examining preservice music teacher concerns in peer and field teaching settings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(4), 361-378

Dr. Michael Raiber is a Professor of Music and holds the Busey Chair in Music Education at Oklahoma City University. .