Dear Dianne, Sarah and Michael - thanks for engaging in the discussion so promptly. I have followed previous discussions, though not taken part - perhaps there are many out there doing similar!
 
I have enjoyed Dianne's considerable contributions to previous debates, so thanks for continuing to make some time this week, too. I raised the notion of getting a perspective on ourselves in performance because it was a salutary experience for me. You suggest audio and video recording, Dianne: I would add peer/mentor observation and feedback to that, and wonder if it perhaps might have been an important aspect of the success that the NUT- commissioned research into Peer Coaching (one of the GTCE RoMs) which found peer coaching with colleagues to be one of the most valuable forms of INSET for teachers. That 'mirror' that we provide as mentors is, hopefully, one of the aspects of classroom observation as part of mentoring ITT practices. I wonder how much of our value as mentors in those circumstances comes simply from providing that - i.e. would a video camera equate to our role?!
Regarding Dianne's point on 'agency' - that's a useful term and you describe the processes well, I think. I am intrigued, however, by the question of why giving agency might in itself lead to more effective practice - e.g. actual classroom performance, which is what my research seemed to indicate (to my relief, for there is actually , and surprisingly, very little reseach exploring whether the assumed link between promotion of reflective practice and actual performance does in fact lead to improved performance). Might it be that the reflective discussion enhances understanding on the part of the mentee, perhaps? Or might there be other mechanisms?
 
Sarah asked about the mentee's own questions. That, too is an intriguing line. I had assumed/hoped that the openness of my generic questions would enable, and possible promote, the mentees to raise their own questions. They certainly did at times, but I did not explore whether there were others that were unaddressed.
 
Sarah raises, too, the aspect of mentees becoming mentors themselves. As a trainer of mentors, I do see that in practice. To me that reinforces the value of trying to become better ourselves at mentoring - so that we 'model' as effective a process as we can. Interestingly, on one placement I  'modelled' the dialogic approach by using it with the trainees in the presence of the class teacher mentors (n=8) on my first visit to each (i.e. week 2 of the 6-week placement), and explored whether that modelling alone was effective in promooting its use. Whilst all but one mentor said they had liked and used the approach themselves, my observations of their mentoring and my interviews of the trainees at the close of the placement indicated that the mentors had in fact used a 'feedback' approach rather the dialogic review one. Might that indicate the importance of Sarah's point - i.e. that what we have experienced ourselves is what we go on to practice (as Argyris and Schon found) rather than what we have learned in other ways? In which case, how can we effectively change mentoring behaviours?
 
Michael draws attention to the positive starter, agreeing on its importance. I agree. I also make very clear on my first visit - when that is possible (and in 90% of the time it is) - that in my judgement the trainee will pass the placement, so that our discussions are about gaining the most learning from the placement to get even better levels of performance than just a pass. I think that is important, and seems to work - in that, although, as a visiting tutor, I am usually a stranger to my mentees I am impressed that they immediately get into dialogue especially focussed on their concerns ( I usually have to keep emphasising the positives for them!). So, the difficult 'serious' cases are mostly ones where the trainee is likely to fail a placement - actually quite rare - other than instances where there is a reluctance to be reflective (actually often the two go together). Of course, the fact that I have not told them they will pass (whereas I have told the others I am mentoring), might serve to reinforce their anxieties and those anxieties then get in the way of their development. Since they are a very small minority of cases I feel the apparent positive effects on the remainder outweighs that risk, though it does worry me. 
One instance I recall, a trainee just did not reply to my questions on my first visit, so I explained the process to him - why I was asking him them, and steadily over the placement he responded more and more (we make 4 observation visits over a final placement). In the post-placement interview he claimed that being 'forced' (as he put it) to reflect in this way (by both myself and the teacher mentor in this case) had been the most significant element in his development. However, I do find that some ( but only a few) trainees on their early placements do seem to need to hear the judgemental positives of a feedback approach, before they seem to feel confident enough to engage themselves in leading the process.
 
Thanks
Peter
 

________________________________

From: BERA-MENTORING-COACHING on behalf of Dianne Allen
Sent: Mon 06/07/2009 21:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: SIG E-seminar with Peter Stopp; Mentoring as Dialogue (6 - 10 July)


Hi Sarah, Peter and others,
 
I regret that my participation with this week's seminar will be brief.  
 
I am limited by resources, and recognise that (1) I have been finding the different topics of this series of e-seminars very helpful, (2) to get the most out of any seminar, I need to participate as fully as possible, (3) while this session appears to be much more 'down my alley', I also need to take a breather from such participation to be able to return with vigour, and hopefully with effectiveness, to any other seminars on offer.
 
I also realise that the context Sarah shared, with some time constraints, and preparations to a specific outcome, means that what 'suits' me and my preferences, does not necessary serve the needs of the whole group.  I just didn't want my 'silence', as this point, to be misconstrued.
 
I do recognise that what Peter is saying about being unaware of my own practice is key to the next steps, (a) somehow becoming more aware - having some vantage point to observe myself; (b) the focusing on my incongruent responses - where what I do is not what I really want to do, and (c) that audio or video data will be key to helping me be more effective in catching myself doing what I don't want to do.
 
My input to item 4 of Peter's questions might well be able to be summarised around the matter of 'agency' for the student teacher ... the dialogic approach leaves as much of the agency, for the next attempt at better practice, with the student teacher ... the questions ask help the student teacher think about aspects of their observable practice, where there is some equity of observation of what was done (Argyris and Schon's observable 'theory-in-use'), and then to bring forward the internalities that were informing that action (matters that are not observable, and might be guessed, but guessed incorrectly, by a mentor).  The questions, if framed appropriately, leave the student teacher in charge of thinking about and then re-designing what they think they can do, and do differently.   Learning to ask the appropriate dialogic questions of yourself is another step in becoming a truly reflective practitioner - agent-experient as Schon speaks of.
 
Dianne Allen
Kiama
 

	
1.	How applicable.... 
2.	Is there a need, ... 
3.	Might mentors (including ourselves!) assume that they/we are accurately aware of how they/we are mentoring, or is there perhaps a widespread gap between espoused beliefs and actual performance? See discussion above. 
4.	Why should the promotion of dialogue - e.g. in the dialogic review process - be apparently effective, compared to giving direct feedback? See http://www.cfkeep.org/users/peterstopp/mentoring%20conversations <http://www.cfkeep.org/users/peterstopp/mentoring%20conversations>  > Research on reflection

 
 

Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service <http://www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems> 

Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln values people and promotes equal opportunity.

The information contained in this E-mail is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Access to this E-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, copy, distribute or disclose the E-mail or any part of its contents or 

take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the Postmaster at [log in to unmask] or telephone the IT Services Department on 01522 583664.

As Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln cannot accept responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of this E-mail or attachments, we recommend that you subject these to your virus checking procedures prior to use.



Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service - www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems