Mentoring Research

7/28/2019 Mentoring Research

1/58

ADZU Mentoring Program: Evolution and Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

If teaching itself is already a daunting task, teaching in the tertiary

level, especially by a new graduate, is even more as there seems to be no

particular teacher education institution that prepares an individual to teach

in the tertiary level. This seemingly lack of preparation to teach in the

tertiary level after obtaining a baccalaureate degree has probably led to the

creation of a state policy that requires any individual who desires to teach in

the tertiary level to possess at least a masters degree. However, with the

paucity of masters degree holders, higher education institutions are forced

to hire teachers even without the completion of such requirement. Even

though later in their teaching career these teachers pursue their graduate

studies, their early years of teaching may prove to be challenging. With this,

higher education institutions run the risk of providing their students with

inept faculty and or losing potential faculty because of frustrations in

teaching. As this is the case in the Philippines, there is a need to enforce a

professional induction such as mentoring in the tertiary level to ensure that

university students are under the tutelage of quality teachers and that the

number of quality teachers are sustained. As Gagen and Bowie (2005)

contend Mentoring has been used in many professional-development

settings to support individuals new to profession (p. 40).

Incidentally, Feiman-Nemser (as cited in Petersen, 2006) contends that

Mentoring has been identified as a mechanism for supporting teaching

Tanguilig & De Los Reyes (2012). ADZU Mentoring Program | 1


2/58

practice in the higher education contexts (p. 1). Evertson and Smithey

(2000) corroborate this contention saying,Mentoring support for beginning

teachers has become part of a broad movement in improving teacher

education (p. 294). It has emerged as the most common response of school

authorities to the needs of new teachers in the different areas of the

teaching profession, especially in improving the quality of instruction that

includes facilitating learning and managing classroom. School administrators

design mentoring programs with high hopes that it will serve as a vehicle for

reforming teaching and teacher education. However, reforming teaching

does not only entail improving the way teachers facilitate learning in the

classroom but it also includes other issues in the teaching profession like the

environment and the people involved in the school system. In fact, Jenkins

(2010) argues that the promise of mentoring goes beyond helping novice

teachers survive their first year of teaching. He elucidates that if mentoring

is to function as a strategy of reform, it must be linked to a vision of good

teaching, guided by an understanding of teacher learning, and supported by

a professional culture that favors collaboration and inquiry (p.1). Therefore,

the mere existence of a mentoring program is not sufficient to expect reform

to ensue; it must be endeavored with proper planning, implementation, and

monitoring. To achieve this, an institution must need the collaboration of the

key players of the mentoring program.

Adam (1998) corroborates this contention by defining mentoring as a

process of an integrated approach to advising, coaching, and nurturing,



3/58

focused on creating a viable relationship to enhance individual career,

personal, professional growth and development. Moreover, Alleman (as cited

in Matters, 1998) describes mentoring as a partnership where a more

experienced person assists a less experienced other to achieve a level of

personal attainment, excellence, and eminence not possessed previously.

This view on mentoring as a partnership is reflected in many mentoring

programs today in any level of learning institutions.

The study of Davis and Higdon (2008) examines the effects of

induction partnership on the instructional practices of beginning teachers in

early elementary classrooms. Overall, the results suggest that a schools, or

of any learning institution for that matter, induction partnerships may

contribute to the development of teacher effectiveness during the first year

of teaching. This contention can be supported by the extensive review on

mentoring from early 1980s to early 2000 made by Ingersoll and Strong

(2011). Based on the empirical findings on teachers classroom instructional

practices, beginning teachers who were provided with some form of

mentoring performed better at various aspects of teaching. The improved

performance was especially evident in classroom practices such as keeping

students on task, developing workable lesson plans, using effective student

questioning practices, adjusting classroom activities to meet students

interests, maintaining a positive classroom atmosphere, and demonstrating

successful classroom management. It could be inferred that the mentoring



4/58

given to them might be intended for their improvement on the preceding

practices.

The potential of mentoring to develop collaborative culture among

professionals makes it a critical topic in education today. In fact, accrediting

agencies in the Philippines may look into the mentoring programs of the

schools they evaluate because settings like the academe involve working

together in order to achieve their target goals, and mentoring is widely

recognized as one of the effective means to foster collaboration, enhance

learning opportunities, and improve the quality of teaching.

In the Ateneo de Zamboanga University (ADZU), the creation of the

mentoring program is, in fact, a response to the recommendation of the

Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges, and Universities

(PAASCU). During its visit in ADZU in 2002, PAASCU noticed that 60% of

ADZU faculty had teaching experience under five years, and subsequently

recommended that a mentoring program be instituted to help develop the

teaching competencies of these faculty (see Appendix A).

Since its beginning in 2004, the ADZU Mentoring Program has not been

evaluated. The program needs to be evaluated not only to respond to

PAASCU recommendation but also to inform ADZU administrators and faculty

members of the outcomes of the program. As ADZU Mentoring Program has

undergone a number of metamorphoses, from Mentor-Mentee structure to

Pedagogy Training, Instruction Supervision Team (IST), and Professional



5/58

Growth Circle, the current undertaking also focuses on the evolution of the

program.

This study, therefore, attempted to describe the evolution of ADZU

Mentoring Program and conduct an evaluation of the program vis-a-vis its

objectives.

Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions:

1. How did ADZU Mentoring Program evolve?

2. In what ways ADZU Mentoring Program (mentor-mentee structure)

assisted the ADZU college faculty in terms of the following

objectives:

A. Use of suitable learning strategies and student-centered

teaching methodologies;

B. Identification of areas for improvement in classroom

management and developing corresponding strategies;

C. Construction of assessment tools suited to subject objectives

and student ability level;

D. Development of skills needed for personal growth and team

development; and

E. Providing acculturation assistance to new faculty?

3. In what ways the following structures helped achieve the objectives

of the mentoring program:



6/58

A. Pedagogy Training

B. Instruction Supervision Team

C. Professional Growth Circle?

4. What do faculty members suggest to improve the different

structures of ADZU Mentoring Program?

METHODOLOGY

Design

This study employed qualitative method as it attempted to describe

the evolution and evaluation of ADZU Mentoring Program. For the most part,

the discussions of evolution and evaluation of the said program were built on

the different focus group discussions with faculty members who experienced

at least one of the structures of mentoring. Moreover, the discussions were

also based on the interviews with the key informants and the records

pertaining to the program.

Sampling Design

In determining participants for this study, purposive sampling was

employed. For the focus group discussions, the following served as the

criteria in choosing the participants: (a) new faculty (hired on contractual

basis, either full-time or part-time) at the time the mentoring program was

implemented; (b) beneficiary of any of the mentoring structures; and (c)

faculty of ADZU at the time the study was carried out. For the key informant



7/58

interviews, the succeeding criteria were used: (a) senior faculty (served as a

mentor); (b) department chairs (at the time the structures were

implemented); and (c) key administrator (Senior Dean or Academic Vice-

President) at the time the mentoring program was implemented.

Participants

Based on the preceding criteria, there were a number of faculty

members who were involved in the focus group discussions. To ensure the

proper conduct of focus group discussions, the participants were grouped

according to the mentoring structure they participated in.The following were

the groupings and the number of participants for each grouping: (a) one

group for Mentor-Mentee with eight participants (all faculty members), (b)

another group for Mentor-Mentee with four participants (all faculty

members), (c) one group for Pedagogy Training with five participants (all

faculty members), (d)one group for Instruction Supervision Team with seven

participants (all faculty members), (e) another group for Instruction

Supervision Team with six participants (all faculty members), (f) one group

for Professional Growth Circle with five participants (all faculty members), (g)

another group for Professional Growth Circle with eight participants (all

former level chairs of CON), (h) another group for Professional Growth Circle

with three participants (one former dean of CSIT and two former chairs of

Mathematics Department), (i)another group for Professional Growth Circle

with six participants (former chairs of departments under CSIT and SLA), (j)

another group for Professional Growth Circle with nine participants (all



8/58

faculty members), and (k) another group for Professional Growth Circle with

six participants (current level chairs of CON). Hence, a total of eleven groups

participated in the focus group discussions. For other details about the

respondents, see Appendices.

For the key informant interviews, four former mentors and two key

administrators (former Senior Dean and current Academic Vice-President)

participated.

Instruments

Given that the study employed focus group discussions and key

informant interviews, instruments for this study were interview

questionnaires. These questionnaires consisted of questions that served as

guides for the researchers. For the sample questionnaires, see Appendices.

Data Gathering Procedures

This study underwent various steps to obtain the necessary data.

Foremost, all available written records pertaining to the structures of ADZU

Mentoring Program were collected from the different colleges and offices.

Primarily, these records were analyzed to determine the evolution of ADZU

Mentoring Program and to obtain answers to research questions.

Secondarily, these were also use to identify the mentors, mentees, and

other key persons of the program. Then, interviews with mentors were

conducted at different times. In the interviews, mentors were asked

questions such as How did you, as mentors, help the new teachers during

their first year of teaching in the ADZU?, How did you help your mentee



9/58

develop skills needed for personal growth and team development?, and

How did you help you mentee adjust to the culture of ADZU?.

Based on the same records, groupings for the focus group discussions

were also made. Focus group discussions were done at different occasions as

there were a total of eleven groups. Before the focus group discussions were

conducted, formal invitations were sent to the prospective participants, and

their respective heads were also provided with permission letters. These

letters indicated the necessary information about the study for participants

to understand the nature of their participation.

During the focus group discussions, participants were encouraged to

freely and honestly share their experiences with a particular structure of

mentoring, focusing on questions such as In what ways the Mentor-Mentee

Structure assisted you in using student-centered teaching strategies?, In

what ways the Pedagogy Training Structure assisted you in managing

classrooms? and In what ways the Instruction Supervision Team Structure

assisted you in developing professional skills?. Their responses were audio-

recorded for later analyses. Then, afterwards, the participants were

reassured of the confidentiality of the experiences they shared.

Consequently, the data obtained from the focus group discussions were

transcribed and analyzed.

To further substantiate the results, interviews with key informants such

as the former Senior Dean and the current Academic Vice-President were



10/58

conducted. Data from these interviews were also analyzed and integrated in

the results.

Data Analysis

As the study employed the qualitative method, textual analysis was

used to analyze the data, and the analysis was guided by the four structures

of ADZU Mentoring Program: Mentor-Mentee, Pedagogy Training, Instruction

Supervision Team, and Professional Growth Circle.



11/58

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section has been organized following the sequence of the research

questions.

Evolution of ADZU Mentoring Program

Soon after PAASCU recommended on the creation of a mentoring

program, ADZU responded by putting together a list of possible mentors

from its roster of permanent faculty of the different units grade school, high

school, and college. The Senior Dean (now Academic Vice-President)

instructed the heads of the different units to submit names of faculty who

possessed the special qualities such as commitment, experience and

expertise, ability to provide inputs on effective management, and willingness

to support his or her mentee professionally, and even personally. By January

2003, the different heads submitted lists of possible mentors, totalling to 32

faculty 9 for the Grade School unit, 7 for the High School unit, and 16 for

the College unit (see Appendices).

Thereafter, the Senior Dean and these mentors met to identify the

needs of the program and the ways to address these needs. From this

meeting, they identified the following as the needs of the program: a)

mentoring/ coaching seminar, b) follow-up meetings with new faculty to

orient on ADZU core values, c) documentation of activities related to

mentoring program, d) research on new teachers profile, mentors profile,

and students profile, and e) monitoring and evaluation schemes. To help



12/58

them understand these areas of concern, ADZU invited Maria Cynthia Javier-

Gavino, who had the related background and experience in mentoring (see

Appendices for the minutes of the meeting).

To meet the first need, ADZU invited Dr. Mila Lagrosa, a professor from

Ateneo de Manila University, to conduct training on mentoring with the

identified mentors. The training was designed to help the mentors develop a

doable personal plan on enhancing their skills on listening, art of

questioning, process observation, and feedback giving for more effective

coaching and mentoring(see Appendices). It was attended not only by the

mentors but also heads of the different units and department chairs. It

should be noted, however, that most of those who attended were from the

college unit. The decision to pilot the program with the college unit after the

training was likely due to this fact.

In the second semester of school year 2003 2004, ADZU decided to

do the initial implementation of the mentoring program with the College of

Arts and Sciences (now having two entities, School of Liberal Arts and

College of Sciences and Information Technology) for reasons that one college

did not have new faculty and the other did not have mentors to carry out the

job as they were already loaded with 24 units. For this initial implementation,

five mentors were selected and each was assigned to one or two mentees,

who were new in the college. They were given 1.5 unit service load to fulfil

their role Be a coach as well as mentor to the mentee (see Appendices).



13/58

From here, it can be said that the ADZU mentoring program was officially

forged.

Mentor-Mentee Structure. In the initial implementation, ADZU was

concerned about the selection of mentors. To resolve this, a committee,

which composed of the different department chairs, was formed to develop a

set of guidelines. The committee then identified the following as bases for

mentor selection: (a) involvement in professional development, (b) teaching

experience of mentor, (c) proximity to and compatibility with new teacher,

(d) attitude toward teaching, (e) commitment to mentoring, and (f) method

of appointment. Hence, the five mentors were chosen based on these.

The five mentors had been tapped by ADZU and other schools in the

city and even in the region to conduct seminars and trainings on their fields

of specialization. In other words, they were actively engaged and involved in

the professional development not only of the faculty at ADZU but also of

those in other schools. In terms of teaching experience, the five had been in

the teaching profession for no less than five years at the time they were

chosen. Not only they had the teaching experience, they also had the right

attitude toward teaching since they were seen having the compassion for

students as evidenced by their high scores in student evaluation. This

positive attitude toward students and towards teaching could make them

better mentors as the processes of teaching students and mentoring new

faculty are almost the same (Missouris Mentoring Framework, 2005).



14/58

They were also physically closed to their assigned mentees since

they belonged to the same college, that is, College of Arts and Sciences

(CAS). This is important to maintain visibility and presence, especially during

planning and conferencing. The five mentors were also compatible with their

mentees since they belonged to the same college and some even taught

similar subjects. For instance, a mentor was a teacher of computer science

and her mentee was also a teacher of the same course (see Appendices).

Although, the pairing eventually changed where, for instance, a mentor was

a teacher of natural sciences and the mentee was a teacher of computer

science, the mentors were chosen based on their ability to provide inputs

and guidance in pedagogy to new faculty.

Before they embarked on their duties as mentors, they were oriented

on their responsibilities, such as identifying problems/areas for coaching,

formulating together with mentee a plan of action to address identified

problems, monitoring implementation of plans, doing evaluation of plans,

etc. (see Appendices for the complete list of mentors responsibilities), which

they accepted and committed to implement faithfully. Having met the

guidelines of mentor selection, the Senior Dean then made their

appointments as mentors official by approving their 1.5 service loads.

Evidently, ADZU recognized the importance of training the mentors

first before asking them to carry out the task. Notice that while the heads of

the different units submitted names of possible mentors, the chosen faculty

were not asked to perform the task immediately. Foremost, they were all



15/58

asked to attend a formal training that was conducted by Lagrosa in October

2004. The training was meant to bolster their skills in listening, art of

questioning, process observation, and feedback giving for more effective

coaching and mentoring.

The support for mentor training was also evident as most of the

administrators actively participated in the training. After the training,

Lagrosa led those who were present in evaluating the training.

However, because many of the prospective mentors from grade school

and high school units were not present, the Senior Dean decided to

commence the program with the college unit. Notice, however, that of the 16

nominated to be mentors in the college unit, only five were chosen for the

initial implementation. This was because there were only few new faculty

members in CAS to mentor, and the chosen five were compatible with these

mentees.

After the training, the mentors were also oriented on their

responsibilities before they started mentoring (see Appendices for the

responsibilities). To determine whether or not the mentors fulfilled their

responsibilities well, a thorough study should be done. But, the reports (see

Appendices) show that they satisfied their responsibilities in establishing

contact and professional relationship with new faculty, maintaining

confidentiality, providing communication, feedback, and observations, and

orienting the new faculty on school policies and rules.



16/58

To establish contact with the new faculty, the mentors individually

planned with their mentees schedules for meetings and observations. For

instance, a mentor reported, From November 10 21, 2003 I kept on

visiting her in her office to establish rapport with herOn November 27, I

went to visit her in her office and I was happy because she gave me her

class schedule voluntarily.Similarly, another mentor also reported, This is

my first meeting with my mentee . We talked about a few things about

ourselves to get to know each other better. During this time, [mentee]

shared her difficulties in dealing with the students in her Physics 212 class

(see Appendices).

After conducting observations, most, but not all, provided feedback on

their mentees strengths and weaknesses. They identified areas to focus for

succeeding observations and followed through on these during post

conferences. In the case of a mentor from SLA, for example, he reported that

after observing his mentees class, the latter asked from him for

clarifications. He added, He has also sought for suggestions that can

improve his performance(see Appendices).They saw to it that they

exercised confidentiality at all times and encouraged their mentees to put

the latters trust on them.They also informed their mentees of the school

policies when needed. Although they were not always available for their

mentees because of their other responsibilities, they made sure they were

present on the set schedules.



17/58

From the focus group discussion conducted with the mentees, it

revealed that there was no specific set of responsibilities given to them as

mentees. They were simply informed about the program and their assigned

mentors. Sharing mutual respect with their mentors came as a normal

response for professionals and they need not have to be reminded to do so.

They also found their mentors as being professional. They communicated,

mostly informally, with their mentors about their needs. The extent to which

these needs, including the rest of the objectives of ADZU Mentoring Program,

were addressed is discussed in the latter part of this study.

Pedagogy Training Structure. From its initial implementation in the

second semester of School Year 2004 2005 up to the present, ADZU

Mentoring Program has taken different forms. At the beginning, it was a one-

on-one mentoring, where one mentor is assigned to one mentee. After two

years, it metamorphosed to a group mentoring, where one mentor is

assigned to two to three mentees, and together, the latter meet with their

mentor for enhancement sessions. This structure became known as

Pedagogy Training. The change was brought about by the seemingly poor

attendance of mentees in mentoring sessions during the initial

implementation. When asked during an interview, the mentors stated that

their mentees expressed that they had many other responsibilities to attend

to. In the same interview, the mentors also suggested that the mentees did

not feel obliged to attend as they were not given deloads. These, in addition



18/58

to the few faculty members who were hired during the said school year, were

considered when the mentor-mentee structure was modified.

With the new structure, Pedagogy Training, the new faculty members

were gathered as a group once a week to attend enhancement trainings

facilitated by one of the senior faculty. In other words, the new faculty

served as the mentees while the facilitator of the trainings functioned as the

mentor. To ensure attendance of mentees to these trainings, the mentees

were given deloads of three (3) units. In the same way, the mentor

(facilitator), was given three units of deloads. These mentees were made to

attend the Pedagogy Training for one semester. The only thing lacking from

this form, which is important, was the conduct of classroom visits.

Instruction Supervision Team (IST) Structure. In the same school

year the Pedagogy Training was created, another structure evolved

Instruction Supervision Team (IST). The goals of IST were (1) to help teachers

use a variety of instructional strategies, integrate critical thinking in their

teaching, and foster a positive and active learning environment in the

classrooms; and (2) to provide data to be used as a source of faculty

development program and in-service training (see Appendices). To achieve

these goals, five (5) faculty members from the different departments were

chosen to serve as members of the team, and as a form of incentives, the

members were given deloads depending on the number of hours and

number of faculty they would observe per semester 3 units for 54 hours per

semester with at least 15 faculty to be observed and 1.5 units for 27 hours



19/58

per semester with at least 8 faculty to be observed. As members of IST, they

were tasked to observe classes using PAASCU and ADZU evaluation sheets,

to submit reports about best practices and areas for improvement to

different departments and colleges, to make recommendations for faculty

development program and in-service training, and to compile teaching

strategies for demonstration. The team was to perform these tasks not only

to the department they belonged but also to other departments. In other

words, the IST was intended for the entire college unit of the university. And

this structure was expected to be continued in the succeeding years.

However, the focus group discussion with the respondents revealed

that the IST ceased to exist in some colleges in the years that followed. In

School Year 2008 2009, it could be said that only College of Science and

Information Technology (CSIT) and School of Liberal Arts (SLA) implemented

IST structure. The other colleges, though assigned faculty for IST, did not

seem to have followed the guidelines on the conduct of IST. One college

even assigned the task of IST to a department chair, which contradicted to

the IST members function to assist the deans and chairs to evaluate

teachers. In other words, it was difficult to determine whether the assigned

faculty performed his or her role as a chair or as an IST member.

In the succeeding year, CSIT stopped implementing IST, leaving SLA as

the only remaining college that has implemented IST up to the present.

Explanation to the cessation in the implementation of IST in the other

colleges may not be offered as the focus group discussions concentrated on



20/58

the faculty members who were considered as mentees. But, the focus

group discussions suggested that the reason is mostly administrative.

Professional Growth Circle Structure. To augment support for both

new and old faculty members, ADZU created the Professional Growth Circle

(PGC), which could also be considered a structure of mentoring. From the

interview with the key informant, PGC was described as an opportunity for

faculty to engage in professional discussions. However, the focus group

discussion with faculty members revealed that the notion of PGC seemed to

vary from one department to another. The variations could be narrowed

down into the following: (a) structure, whether it was conducted as a part of

a regular activity such as departmental meeting or as a separate activity in

the form of either a lecture-series, a workshop, or a combination of both; (b)

participants, whether it was participated only by faculty members of one

department or also by those of other departments; and (c) frequency,

whether it was held once a month, twice a semester, or once a semester.

These differences could be attributed to the fact that there was no clear

definition, including guidelines, given as to the conduct of PGC. However,

despite these differences, it could be observed that the conduct of PGC

sessions geared towards achieving one objective, that is, to develop the

faculty members professional skills. With PGC, the faculty members could

develop competence in their respective field and confidence in their

presentation of information.



21/58

ADZU Mentoring Program Structures vis--vis Program Objectives

When ADZU created the Mentoring Program, it clearly specified the

objectives it intended to attain. These were the following: (a) use of suitable

learning strategies and student-centered teaching methodologies; (b)

identification of areas for improvement in classroom management and

developing corresponding strategies; (c) construction of assessment tools

suited to subject objectives and student ability level; (d) development of

skills needed for personal growth and team development; and (e) providing

acculturation assistance to new faculty. Hence, this study evaluated the

program by juxtaposing its outcomes with the aforementioned objectives.

Mentor-Mentee Structure. As this was the first structure to be

implemented, this study first focused on the outcomes of this structure. In

terms ofusing student-centered strategies, the focus group discussions

revealed that Mentor-Mentee structure assisted the new faculty members by

providing them some inputs on the strategies and reinforcing use of these

strategies through positive feedback. One faculty from Computer Science

Department pointed out that her mentor taught her how to prepare and

conduct laboratory activities. She said, as opposed to just teaching, for

example, problem-solving , [my mentor] would encourage that you ask

solutions from the students and then synthesize the solutions afterwards.



22/58

Another faculty from the same department supported the claims of the

above former faculty, saying I was using [my mentors] strategy in teaching

IT 111 and then when I am assigned to teach multimedia subjects, [my

mentor] was the one who was constantly mentoring me, telling me what

possible projects to give . . . how to handle a subject and something like

that. If ever there are . . . some difficulties, problems, I would usually ask

[my mentor].Similarly, a faculty from the Computer Engineering

Department mentioned that his mentor advised him about doing hands-on

activity even outside the laboratory. He said, If you feel that you would help

the students learn more by giving them hands-on activities, then the

absence of laboratory schedule should not stop you from giving them hands-

on activities.

Moreover, a faculty from the School of Liberal Arts indicated that

during her first year of teaching in ADZU, her mentor observed her and

offered her positive feedback on the use of small group work in class. This

feedback, according to the faculty, motivated her to continue using student-

centered strategies.

Notice, however, a faculty from the Natural Science Department

claimed that her mentor did not share any student-centered strategy

because her area of specialization was different from her mentors.

Moreover, she indicated that her mentor did not observe her, but they met

once in a while to talk about other things like books to be used in her

classes.



23/58

With regard to managing classrooms, Mentor-Mentee structure

assisted the new faculty members also by giving them some inputs on how

to better manage their classrooms. For instance, one faculty stated that her

mentor reminded her to ensure that the chairs in the classroom are arranged

and students are seated before she would start the class. Another faculty

mentioned that she would normally approach her mentor whenever she

would encounter problems in class. She cited that one time she asked for an

advice from her mentor on handling inattentive students. She stated, we

usually approach [our mentor] and ask for advice if we cannot hold a class

because they were just too rowdy she would say You dont just stand in

front of the blackboard. You can go around. You walk around. Dont look at

the students at the front row only. Look at the students at the back,

something like that. I think she was of help.

Additionally, a faculty from the Computer Science Department

indicated that the most impactful advice in classroom management he

acquired from his mentor was to have interaction with students by asking

questions and by explaining clearly and giving them more real-life examples.

A faculty from the Natural Science Department added that during her first

year of teaching, she was advised by her mentor to form small groups when

conducting classes in the laboratory so that she could easily manage the

class. She explained that the advice was helpful because through it she

could determine which of the group members were really on task.



24/58

When it comes to constructing appropriate tests, the Mentor-Mentee

structure assisted the new faculty members by having more experienced

faculty members (mentors) provide feedback on the exams prepared by the

new faculty members. A faculty from the Computer Science Department

shared, I remember that there were times when [my mentor] collected

the exam, at least the midterms and final exams, and usually she would

make comments and her comments were on how you phrase the general

instructions, how you phrase the questions, why is this [test] worth two

points, why is this [test] worth five points. You should give lower points to

this [test], higher points or simply scrap the whole thing out. She added

that she applied those things taught to her, and now when new teachers

would ask her about tests, she would also tell them the same suggestions on

constructing tests.

Similarly, a faculty from the same department indicated that his

mentor helped him in terms of allotting time for exam and using rubric for

project-based exams. He stated, During my first year, I remembered [my

mentor] told me that, if I will have a written exam, it should last for one

hour and thirty [minutes] and then when I shifted from giving written exams

to project based exams, she told me that when giving the projects, it should

be together with the rubrics so that the students would be guided when they

are making their projects and I have been bringing that with me since then.

He further explained that project-based was more appropriate for their field



25/58

because when students would have their job in the future, they would not be

required to write but to make projects, which would enhance their skills.

Another faculty from the Computer Engineering Department stated

that his mentor assisted him by showing some examples of the exams for

the courses he taught. He said, There were instances when you dont know

how to start your test or your exam, so some of the teachers handling those

courses before showed sample exams as your guide and you start it from

there. Notice that the faculty included not only his supposed mentor but

also other senior faculty members who also taught the same courses in the

past.

Moreover, a faculty from the School of Liberal Arts mentioned that her

mentor taught her to be mindful of the level of questions asked in the tests.

She shared, During my first year, I thought it (constructing test) is just

preparing the test exam without knowing that the questions should be high

level questioning, not the low level questioning. Just to find out when my test

question was submitted to [my mentor], there were so many corrections in

red ink. That was the time that I see to it that the questions usually I start

with what and when should be changed to a high level questioning

that is where the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation should come in. This is

where I learned to prepare to come up with a table of specification in

order to find out the level [distribution] of questions.

In terms ofdeveloping professional skills, the Mentor-Mentee Structure

helped the new faculty in limited ways. Two of those present in the focus



26/58

group discussion stated that their mentors influenced them to develop

primarily social skills. A faculty from the School of Liberal Arts indicated that

her mentor would recommend her to be the head of a particular committee,

thereby developing her leadership skill. Another faculty from the Computer

Science Department indicated that all his mentors inspired him to achieve

what they had achieved.

With the exception of these two faculty members, the other faculty

members suggested that the Mentor-Mentee Structure did not seem to assist

them in terms of developing professional skills. What helped them though

were the senior faculty members, who were not necessarily mentors, of their

department. In fact, one faculty of the Computer Engineering Department

stated that everyone is considered a mentor in their department.

Furthermore, with regard to adapting to ADZUs culture, the structure

could not be clearly attributed as an acculturation factor since the faculty

members present in the focus group discussion indicated other factors such

as the Orientation of New Teachers and Ignatian Conversation Growth Circle

(ICGC), where they learned about ADZU core values such as magis. The

faculty members from the Computer Science Department and Computer

Engineering Department suggested that ADZUs culture of excellence was,

and is, something enforced in their departments. In other words, they have

imbibed these values not because of the Mentor-Mentee structure but

because of other factors.



27/58

Notice that the respondents from the Computer Science Department

and Computer Engineering Department present for the focus group

discussion on Mentor-Mentee structure did not seem to be aware of the

existence of a formal mentoring program. Those who they referred to as

mentors were senior faculty members in their department. Even with this

situation, their sharing in the focus group discussion may still be considered

since those they called as mentors were among those who were chosen to

be the mentors for the implementation of the mentoring program. It may

seem, therefore, that the mentors did not formally introduce to the new

faculty members, at least for the aforementioned departments, about the

program and their roles as mentors.

In addition, it may also be concluded that some of those who were

chosen as mentors, such as the case of those in the Computer Science

Department and Computer Engineering Department, extended their roles as

mentors to new faculty members in their respective departments. This was

so especially when these mentors were eventually appointed as department

chairs, and as chairs they would serve as mentors to the new faculty

members of their departments. This situation is not entirely uncommon. In

fact, Gagen and Bowie (2005) suggest that ideal mentors may also be

department chairs.

As a whole, the Mentor-Mentee Structure was more helpful to new

faculty in using student-centered strategies, managing classroom, and

constructing appropriate assessments. However, the said structure was not



28/58

fully utilized to develop other professional skills and to adapt to ADZUs

culture.

Pedagogy Training Structure. In terms ofusing student-centered

strategies, this particular structure assisted the new faculty by deliberately

exposing and training them to use student-centered strategies, especially

those that ADZU has subscribed to such as Experiential Learning,

Cooperative Learning, and Inductive Method. This was the case because this

structure utilized the lecture-workshop format, where the facilitators

(mentors) provided inputs on the strategies and the faculty members

(mentees) performed some workshops to deepen understanding of the

strategies and enhance skills in employing those in the classrooms. Although

those faculty members with bachelors degree in education and who

participated in the Pedagogy Training expressed that they encountered

those strategies in their undergraduate course, they indicated that the said

training strengthened their understanding of student-centered strategies and

encouraged the use of those in their classrooms. As one faculty from SLA

stated most of the strategies that were introduced to us during the

training are strategies that we had already learned back in college but

what I would consider as a good thing or an advantage for undergoing that

Pedagogy Training is that it gave me more options especially that we were

placed in a group where we had different specializations to think what

strategy to work for which situation .



29/58

Another faculty from the same school mentioned For me, since Im an

education undergraduate [sic] basically it served as a refresher to the

strategies that I was taught when I was in college. So it was helpful in a way

that in college I had to learn so many strategies. During the training,

significant strategies were highlighted so that I would know which ... could

be applied in various situations .

Moreover, the faculty members with bachelors degree other than

education indicated more appreciation of the Pedagogy Training as they

were not exposed to these strategies when they were pursuing their chosen

field. As one faculty of the Mathematics Department stated as for me

so the class [Pedagogy Training] introduced a lot of, for example, ideas as to

how we can come up with a new approach in delivering our objectives so

in our [sic] case I am more familiar with the usual setting in the room, the

chalk board, teacher-centered approach, but then during the class

[Pedagogy Training] there is another avenue for us to have the objectives

fulfilled .

When probed about specific strategies they learned and still use in

class, most of them indicated Experiential Learning. With this strategy, they

noticed that their students became more engaged and more participative in

learning.

This seemingly positive reaction towards Pedagogy Training was also

expressed by a faculty from Management Department and another from

Computer Science Department. The former mentioned that as a



30/58

management graduate, he did not have any background on teaching

strategies because management courses are content-based. According to

him, the training provided him some strategies to improve his teaching

method. Similarly, the latter stated that she learned about the Whole Brain

Approach from the said training. Knowledge of the said approach encouraged

her to use student-centered activities such as role plays.

With regard to managing classrooms, Pedagogy Training assisted the

new faculty members by orienting them on managing group activities

properly and by introducing them to classroom routines. For instance, one

faculty pointed out that the training taught him how to group students

systematically during cooperative learning activity. Another faculty shared

that the training showed him how to set students mood for the lesson by

conducting simple activities and how to call the attention of inattentive

students by asking questions. For him, these techniques have helped him

manage his own classes up to the present.

Moreover, another faculty mentioned that the training reminded him to

employ some routines such as praying and checking of attendance before

starting a class. These routines helped create order in his classes. As Gagen

and Bowie (2005) contend, Managing class routines efficiently can minimize

the need to provide disciplinary interventions (p. 43). He also added that

the training taught him how to construct the right objectives for his lessons

and these objectives helped him organize the flow of his lessons. Another



31/58

faculty indicated that the training taught him how to accommodate students

differences and needs by restructuring the classroom setting once in a while.

When it comes to constructing assessment tools suited to subject

objectives and student ability level, Pedagogy Training assisted the new

faculty by providing specific session on test construction. In this session, the

new faculty were oriented on the guidelines of test construction. For

instance, a faculty from the Computer Department indicated that the training

reminded her to take extra caution in copying items from books, especially

for identification type of test. She learned that if items from a book, or any

source for that matter, be included in a test, they should be properly

restated so that students would be discouraged to simply memorize; instead,

they would be challenged to think deeply of the answers. She also added

that she learned that in constructing multiple choice items, guidelines should

be followed. Moreover, she stated that the training reminded her of other

guidelines in constructing tests such as to include only items about topics

that were discussed in class and to consider subject objectives, time

allotment, and level of students. She stated that since then she has tried to

follow these guidelines whenever she would construct a test.

According to a faculty from the Management Department, the training

taught him how to grade essay questions through the use of rubrics. This

seemed to be important to him as his tests would normally include a

scenario for students to analyze critically and respond to questions in essay

form. Furthermore, two faculty members shared that the training helped



32/58

them address the issue on appropriateness of tests through considering

Blooms Taxonomies in constructing different levels of questions. This

seemed to be of great help, especially for faculty whose bachelors degree

was other than education. As one of them stated what I can remember is

when you make questions, you have to, somewhat like prepare questions

that would test the knowledge of the studentsand then you have questions

that would also check the critical thinking, questions that would be on the

application .

In terms of developing skills needed forpersonal growth and team

development, Pedagogy Training seemed to have assisted the faculty in

limited ways by giving them the opportunities to become more confident in

interacting with other faculty members. When asked about how the said

training assisted them in developing personal and social skills, only two of

the faculty members responded. They both shared that the training allowed

them to work with those from other departments during workshops and

these developed their confidence. Seemingly, this particular structure did not

focus on developing skills that could lead to self-growth and team

development.

With regard to adapting to the culture of ADZU, Pedagogy Training

seemed to have assisted the new faculty in rather indirect way. In fact, when

asked about how it helped them acculturate with ADZU, the faculty members

grappled for a response. Upon probing, one mentioned that the conduct of

the said training itself made him realize how ADZU has focused on



33/58

excellence, and in such case, excellence in educating students. Another

faculty responded that the training made her imbibe ADZUs call for cura

personalis (personal care). She said that the training made her realize that

teachers should be concerned about students learning in the classroom and

that they should not only be concerned about being able to deliver a lesson

but also making sure that learning takes place.

From the preceding discussion, it could be observed that Pedagogy

Training was more helpful in assisting new faculty in terms of using student-

centered strategies, managing classrooms, and constructing appropriate

assessments. However, when it comes to developing other skills, especially

for self-growth and collaboration, and adapting to ADZUs culture the said

structure fell short. But, these could be expected as the Pedagogy Training

was created simply to complement with the Mentor-Mentee structure.

Instruction Supervision Team. As mentioned earlier, IST was created

to support the ADZU Mentoring Program. Thus, the study also investigated

how this particular structure helped achieve the objectives of the mentoring

program. With regard to using student-centered strategies, data from the

focus group discussions revealed that the IST assisted the new faculty

members indirectly by encouraging them to use strategies such as group

works, role plays and other activities during post conferences. Kram (as cited

in Gong, Chen, & Lee, 2011) called this indirect learning as personal

learning, which he defined as the acquisition of knowledge, skills, or

competence contributing to individual development, including self-reflection,



34/58

self-disclosure, active listening, empathy, and feedback[emphasis mine] (p.

810). The feedback occurred during post-conferences, or after an IST

member observed a faculty conducting a class. One faculty from SLA

mentioned that the IST provided him some guidelines on his areas for

improvement. He stated, for example, I was given instructions like you

have to group your students, and then put number heads so that the

students will have equal chance to participate in the classroom.He further

added, I think there were twice I was told [sic] because mostly I would do it

in my own way like for example, teacher-centered style, and then later I

shifted to student-centered .

In addition, the IST also assisted them by providing positive feedback on

the activities they did, thereby encouraging them to continue using the

student-centered strategies. Three of the faculty members from SLA

suggested that the IST members appreciated what they conducted in their

classes and this appreciation motivated them to employ more student-

centered strategies. Another faculty from SMA expressed similar opinion,

saying, [an IST member] observed me, and then she really encourages

[sic] me to use these student-centered teaching strategies, which I learned

from the Whole Brain Approach.

This, however, was practiced only by some colleges since there were IST

members of some colleges that simply observed the classes of new faculty

members but failed to conduct post-conferences. One faculty stated

based from [sic] my own experience, there was no feedback. She will



35/58

emphasize one or two items of those [sic] long list of things that we should

do as instructors.This appears to explain the absence of written

documents about the conduct of observations and post-conferences in a

particular college, because ideally the IST member should submit written

reports to the dean of the college he or she belongs to.

In terms ofmanaging classrooms, the new faculty members indicated

that the IST assisted them by creating an impetus to properly manage the

class, knowing that they would be observed by an IST member. This was so

since most observations were announced. One faculty mentioned that every

time an IST member would observe his class, he became particularly mindful

about managing the class, especially in handling group activities. Another

faculty stated that the IST made him conscious about time, saying, In my

case, there was feedbacking [sic] actually it helped like, for example the

time, so I have to divide my time for the activity, the other for my input, and

the other for the processing or synthesis. From that time on, Ive become

conscious about dividing my time.

Moreover, two of the faculty members indicated that the feedback

given by the IST member during post-conferences improved the way they

managed their classes. One of them cited, the [IST] asked me to

distribute the recitation to the rest of the students, especially there were

students at the back who were not paying attention. So, I did not notice that.

It was only after the feedback when I was informed that there were

students at the back who were not paying attention. Another mentioned



36/58

that part of my strategy to manage my own classroom, I try to make

students participate. When I lecture I also ask questions, critical questions,

for them to stop talking because its their habit of talking when one is

lecturing.When asked to what extent his practices could be attributed to

IST, he responded that it was through the feedback of IST that he became

more concerned about managing his classroom.

When it comes to constructing appropriate assessments, the IST

appeared to have fallen short in assisting the new faculty. In fact, only one of

them responded positively, saying that the IST member offered him some

feedback on how to improve his activity, especially in evaluating students

using rubric. But, overall, the IST did not seem to focus on assessments. In

the focus group discussions, the faculty members indicated that these

(assessments) could possibly be not part of the responsibilities of the IST.

The written documents on IST did not also indicate specific stipulations on

assessments.

Similarly, in terms ofdeveloping skills needed for personal growth and

team development, the IST provided limited assistance to the new faculty. As

the ISTs primary concern was conducting classroom observations, the

feedback from the IST members centered on what were directly observed

such as teaching strategies and classroom management. If there was

another professional skill developed due to ISTs feedback, it would be

communication skill as this was also observable during classroom visits. One

faculty stated that the IST member assigned to him articulated the need to



37/58

improve his communication skill. And he suggested that that feedback

encouraged him to develop further his communication skill. Notice that the

faculty did not indicate how the IST helped them in terms of developing skills

in working with a team.

With regard toproviding acculturation assistance to new faculty, the

IST assisted the faculty by giving specific feedback related to ADZU core

values and by setting good models of these values. One value of ADZU that

was enforced by IST is the culture of excellence. Through the classroom

observations and feedback, the IST inculcated into the faculty the

importance of giving excellent education to students. A faculty commented

that the IST served as a model in structuring the class like incorporating the

Whole Brain Approach and the IST member served as a symbol of an ideal

faculty of the college.

As a whole, the IST, through classroom observations and feedback, was

more helpful in terms of improving use of student-centered strategies and

classroom management. However, when it comes to constructing

appropriate assessments, developing professional skills for self-growth and

team development, and acculturating to ADZU culture, IST assisted in limited

and indirect ways such as modelling the core values of ADZU.

Professional Growth Circle (PGC). The creation of this structure

might not have considered the existing mentoring program, but because its

goal appeared to have complemented the goals of mentoring, this study also



38/58

examined the outcomes of this structure and how these assisted in achieving

the objectives of mentoring program.

Since the conduct of PGC focused more on content than strategies,

such structure assisted the faculty indirectly in terms of using student-

centered strategies. For instance, some faculty members of the College of

Nursing revealed that through activities they performed during the

workshops they learned to employ similar activities in their classes. As one

faculty shared, In FDAR workshop, we had group dynamics there and we

had to present. Then, we realized that what our students have been writing

on their notebooks or on the charts, are the things that some of us have

written as well. The speaker refreshed us on what to write down and what

not to write down. It was nice cause we learned and translated it in the

area.

Another faculty from School of Liberal Arts indicated that she learned

about strategies from one the PGC sessions. She stated, I just remember,

the session of [one of the faculty-presenter]... thats the time I learned

something about strategies and information gap activities and other ways to

do information gap activities but most sessions are very much focused on

content.

Moreover, the implicit effect of PGC to faculty in using student-

centered strategies is also corroborated by the findings from the interviews

with former deans and department chairs. One of the department chairs

from College of Science and Information Technology stressed that the topic



39/58

on the Texas Instrument helped the teachers teach students how to graph

functions. But he emphasized that as a whole the PGC was more focused on

content, not on strategies.

One of the department chairs of the School of Liberal Arts stated,

Although not explicitly mentioned, the principle of communicative teaching,

which is student-centered teaching, is shown in the PGC sessions. The

structure of PGC in itself models the use of student-centered strategies,

especially when a faculty re-echoes [sic] a seminar-workshop on strategies.

Another chair from the same school also mentioned, The program on

Peace Integration is participant-centered. Activities were employed, and in

employing the activities, the participants were exposed to student-centered

activities. For example, the topic [sic] history of Mindanao, the participants

were asked to draw a timeline, then they were asked to draw an object

which symbolizes the history of Mindanao. Another activity was a group

work, grouping the participants according to their culture and then there

were questions about their perception about the culture.

Similarly, in terms of managing classrooms, PGC also assisted the

faculty in incidental ways. One faculty from CON mentioned, During my first

few years, classroom management was really a struggle. But as we had the

different seminars or sessions, I realized that if my students are loud and

noisy . . . we also experience that with some of our speakers. Therefore, if

our students react that way, we also react that way. So, perhaps I could

adjust how I manage my classroom based on that experience.This



40/58

experience was also validated by another faculty from CON, saying We

learned how to manage the classroom based on how the speakers managed

the session.

Furthermore, findings from the interviews with key informants

reflected the same experience. One faculty from SLA stated, In a way, the

PGC has helped the teachers in managing their classroom. The PGC sessions

served as a training ground. The presenter must be opened to criticism,

which is the same way in the classroom. There would be hard criticisms from

the students and the faculty should be opened to that. Criticisms, as a term,

refers to students questions; meaning managing students questions.

Another department chair also mentioned, The dynamics in the PGC is

translated in [sic] the classroom. When a faculty manages the PGC in the

form of seminar-workshop, the same dynamics is translated to [sic] the

classroom.

It should be noted that, except for those cited above, the other faculty

members and department chairs and deans who participated in the study

indicated that the PGC did not assist them in terms of managing classrooms.

As has been explained earlier, PGC focused more on content.

When it comes to constructing appropriate assessments, PGC was also

limited in providing assistance to the new faculty. Although most of those

who participated in the study indicated that assessment was not focused in

the PGC, there were some who stated that PGC assisted them. For instance,

the faculty from CON mentioned that they had a PGC session on test



41/58

construction with two of the senior faculty in ADZU. A former department

chair also shared that they had one PGC session with a senior faculty on test

construction. According to her, in that session, the faculty learned to

identify questions that fall under HOTS. Somehow the session helped the

faculty developed appropriate tests.

Another former department chair mentioned that that they had one PGC

session in their department on particular software, which helped them

prepare a particular type of exam.

From the preceding statements, it appears that attention on

assessment was less in PGC structure. The case could be said in terms of

how the said structure assisted the faculty in developing professional skills

and adapting to ADZUs culture.

In terms ofdeveloping professional skills, PGC assisted the faculty by

providing them opportunities to enhance their communication skills and

interpersonal skills. Since the faculty served as speakers during PGC

sessions, they developed confidence in speaking in front of an audience. As

PGC sessions were also structured in such a way that faculty members

expressed their opinions freely, the skills of the faculty in communication

were also improved. Additionally, since faculty members also worked in

groups during PGC sessions, their skills in active listening, problem solving,

making decisions, negotiating, and leading a group were also developed.

According to the faculty from CON, these skills, including reflective thinking,



42/58

were developed during the conduct of Ignatian Conversation Growth Circle

(ICGC), which their college conducted almost every month.

With regard to adapting to ADZUs culture, PGC assisted the faculty

largely in developing academic excellence. One faculty from SLA indicated,

When we do PGC, it is reflected in how we adapt the culture of ADZU. For

example, you were talking about excellence Im a psychology teacher, it

reflects my being able to imbibe that value of excellence in me not just

being constrained with the parameters of psychology but being able to gain

information and knowledge, understanding about other fields as well, which

is what is expected of a teacher in ADZU.

Additionally, PGC also assisted in developing sense of spirituality

among faculty members. This is particularly true for the CON where ICGC

was held regularly. As one faculty of CON stated, the session was held on

the culture of peace. The culture of the College of Nursing has changed. It

used to hit hard during the Ateneo Fiesta, but now the culture slowly

changes.This was also supported by the experience of one of the former

department chairs. He stated, Through PGC, we are able to see how we ask

questions without putting each other down . . . . Somehow through PGC, we

are able to learn the culture of ADZU that you can disagree without being

disagreeable. In addition, those new in the department do not have the

hesitation to ask the senior faculty.

The faculty members also stated that other core values of ADZU such

as cura personalis were also developed. One faculty from CON indicated that



43/58

from PGC she imbibed the value of cura personalis, and in turn, she would

try to instill the same into her students. She stated, we always tell our

students to bring the Ateneo way of life . . . they have to be men and women

for others.

In a similar vein, a faculty from SLA mentioned that he learned to develop

cura personalis from the sessions on Gender Sensitivity. The same faculty

also stated that PGC sessions exhibited ADZUs culture of dialogue and sense

of community as seen in the manner criticism is expressed among the

faculty.

Overall, the PGC seemed to have assisted the new faculty in indirect

ways in terms of using student-centered strategies, managing classrooms,

constructing appropriate assessments, developing professional skills, and

adapting to ADZUs culture. However, of these five areas, PGC appeared to

have contributed more in the last two areas, especially in developing other

professional skills such as public speaking, managing workshops, and team

building. With ICGC as an activity for PGC, at least from the facultys

perspectives, faculty members did not only develop intellectually but also

spiritually.

Moreover, based on the above findings on PGC, it appeared that the

concept of PGC resembled what Darwin and Palmer (2009) called mentoring

circles, which they reported to have benefits such as building confidence in

the workplace; changing stereotypes in the organization; sharing personal

and professional information; and closer and richer relationships (p. 127).



44/58

Facultys Perspectives on Improving ADZU Mentoring Program

As ADZU Mentoring Program is in its developing stage, it is not without

imperfections. Thus, this study also gathered suggestions from faculty

during the focus group discussions to improve the different structures of

ADZU Mentoring Program. The succeeding discussion delves into these

suggestions, which are organized by structure.

Mentor-Mentee Structure.The suggestions of respondents for this

structure focused on the issues pertaining to the mentor. Problems

concerning mentor-mentee relationship, specifically on pairing, are common

in mentoring programs. As Ehrich et al. (as cited in Bell & Treleaven, 2011)

observed, in their review of mentoring within the fields of education,

business, and medicine, that mismatch in professional expertise and

personality was among the most frequently cited problems with mentoring

relationships.

First, the respondents suggested that matching of mentor and mentee

should be based on specialization and familiarity. Specifically, they

mentioned that, should mentor-mentee structure be continued, both the

mentor and the mentee must share the same or related field of

specialization. To recall, the initial implementation of Mentor-Mentee

Structure focused more on assisting the faculty in developing pedagogical

skills since the faculty members were assumed to have possessed the

adequate knowledge of content. As a result, identifying the mentors did not



45/58

strictly consider the similarity of mentors and mentees in terms of

specialization.

Not only that the mentor and mentee should possess similar

specialization, the respondents also suggested that they should come from

the same department, or what they considered familiarity, so that the

mentors would be more accessible. Missouris Mentoring Framework (2005)

calls this proximity. Although to some extent this was address during the

initial implementation, the suggestion was raised due to some of the

mentors who were assigned to mentees belonged to different departments.

For instance, a mentor was a teacher from Natural Sciences Department and

the mentee was from Computer Science Department. Again, this occurred

because the mentors were chosen based on their ability to provide inputs

and guidance in pedagogy to new faculty.

Furthermore, in the preceding suggestions, the respondents did not

categorically indicate how the pairing would be done, whether they prefer to

choose their own mentors or not; what they stated, however, that they

preferred some flexibility in the assignment of mentors. They suggested that

a mentee should not be limited to one mentor. There should be a pool of

mentors, who possess knowledge of and skills in different areas, from whom

the mentees can seek assistance depending on their needs. This suggestion

supports de Janasz, Sullivan, and Whitings (2003) intimation that mentoring

programs must transcend the traditional structures as they impede

individuals to one persons point of view and that new teachers must have



46/58

access to multiple mentors in order to meet the demands of todays rapidly

changing work environment. Correspondingly, Darwin (as cited in Darwin &

Palmer, 2009) contends that People are now more likely to receive

mentoring support from a number of different people (p. 126), as some of

the respondents experiences would validate.

Additionally, they implied that the structure be implemented on a

departmental level; in other words, instead of the Academic Vice President to

decide whether a new faculty be assigned to a mentor, the respective

departments, through the chairs, decide on the matter. This was suggested

possibly because some departments such as the Computer Science

Department had some form of Mentor-Mentee Structure, but it was not

formalized by providing the mentors the specified deloads. In relation to

this, since there were departments who lacked adequate senior faculty to

serve as mentors, in which case the department chairs become the mentors,

the respondents suggested that the former be given additional deloads.

Through this, the department chairs could have more time to engage in

mentoring their assigned mentees.

Pedagogy Training.The suggestions of the respondents for

Pedagogy Training could be categorized as follows: (a) schedule, (b) topics,

and (c) follow-ups. Firstly, they suggested that the schedule for the

Pedagogy Training be improved so that all topics listed in the program could

be covered. They implied that not all topics that were identified for the



47/58

training were carried out during the training. Availability of the participants

was cited as the main reason for this issue.

Secondly, some of them recommended that the training would include

topics such as the importance of research. As one faculty mentioned

perhaps there could be a session on how to get ourselves involved with [sic]

research because our idea of research its for more seasoned faculty.

This suggestion should be welcomed as research seems to be the trend in

the tertiary level.

Finally, the respondents suggested that there should be follow ups in

to the training. They further suggested that the follow up could be in two

ways: one, allowing them to observe the classes of senior faculty, and

another, meeting them after their first year of teaching in the university.

According to them, observing the senior faculty would allow them to acquire

ideas on how these faculty members conduct their classes. This particular

suggestion concurs to Missouris Mentoring Framework (2005), which

specifies the time for new teacher to observe master (senior) teacheras one

of its ten indicators. Moreover, meeting them after a year of teaching for

a discussion on how they performed in their first year would allow them to do

introspection on how they conducted their classes. From this meeting, it

could be ascertained whether they performed properly, making it also as a

form of evaluation.

Instruction Supervision Team.The respondents suggestions on IST

centered on the improvement of the procedure and the inclusion of other



48/58

focal points for observations. As part of its procedure, it was suggested that

the IST should stay in the class to be observed the entire period, so he could

witness how the class was conducted from beginning to end. Some of the

faculty members implied that there were IST members who came in the

middle of their classes and stayed for few minutes only. Also, the IST

member and his assigned faculty must agree on the areas to be observed, so

the faculty could also focus on these areas.

Additionally, when conducting observations, the IST should ask for the

course syllabus to ascertain whether the learning outcomes for the days

lesson are achieved and whether faculty is on schedule. It was also

suggested that the IST should conduct post conferences after each

observation as accordingly there were IST members who failed to perform

this particular responsibility. And during post conferences, the IST members

have to be transparent of their observations. In other words, they should

reveal to the faculty observed not only the positive observations but also the

areas for improvement, or vice versa.

Since constructing appropriate assessments was not focused by the

IST in the past, the respondents suggested that this particular topic be given

attention by the IST members. And when they do, the focus should not only

be on pen and paper tests but also end-of-discussion questions or activities

that can also serve as assessments. For this to be implemented

appropriately, the IST member and his assigned faculty should come from

the same or related field of specialization.



49/58

Similar to one of the suggestions for Mentor-Mentee structure, the

faculty members also indicated their desire to observe the IST members

conducting classes. In doing so, the former could learn the good practices of

the latter. Moreover, to ensure that the IST would perform their

responsibilities dutifully, there should be individuals who would monitor the

conduct of IST. If the monitoring is to be performed by the deans of the

different colleges and schools, they should be mandated to submit

documentations of the IST observations and post conferences with faculty

members.

Professional Growth Circle. Because the conduct of PGC sessions

varied in the different departments and colleges, foremost, the faculty

members suggested that it should be standardized through the provision of a

clear set of guidelines. Aside from the rationale, the guidelines must

delineate clearly the structure and the frequency of the PGC sessions. As

In terms of structure, the faculty members suggested that this should

be done departmentally since each department has specific needs. However,

for cases when some departments perceive similar needs, the PGC session

could be conducted interdepartmentally. By doing so, resources could also

be maximized. With regard to resources, the respondents suggested that

specific budget should be allotted for PGC. The budget would cover mostly

materials and food. According to the respondents, the provision of food

would also encourage the faculty members to participate in PGC sessions.



50/58

To ensure attendance of faculty members, the respondents suggested

that attendance should be strictly monitored. One even suggested to enforce

similar policy on faculty attendance, where the facultys salary is deducted

corresponding to the number of absences incurred.

In terms of frequency, the respondents recommended that

departmental PGC sessions be conducted once a month and

interdepartmental once a semester. Conducting PGC session every month

with different faculty serving as resource speaker or facilitator would compel

the faculty to develop professionally. In other words, identification of

resource speaker would not be dependent on the attendance of seminars or

trainings as practiced in the past. With this structure, it is hoped that most, if

not all, faculty members would have the opportunity to serve as a resource

speaker or facilitator.

Furthermore, the respondents suggested that in choosing the topics for

PGC sessions, the departments and colleges should consider the schools

vision and mission. With this, the faculty members would be equipped with

knowledge and skills that would assist the school in meeting its vision and

mission.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

From the preceding discussion, the findings could be summarized as

follows:

1. ADZU Mentoring Program commenced with Mentor-Mentee structure.

While the structure appeared to have assisted some of the mentees



51/58

primarily in improving student-centered strategies and classroom

management, it seemed to have failed in affecting all mentees as it

lacked effective schemes in monitoring and evaluating both the

mentors and mentees. There were mentors who were reported not

conducting post conferences after classroom observations. The

conduct of classroom observations without the post conferences did

not seem to have helped the mentees as the latter were left

uninformed whether they performed well or not. This, among other

issues such as the lack of proper orientation on the mentees

responsibilities that consequently affected their participation in the

program, contributed to the seemingly ineffectiveness of the program.

2. To increase participation of mentees, the program was modified from

one-to-one structure known as Mentor-Mentee to group structure

called Pedagogy Training. With this new structure, mentees were given

deloads (three units) that compelled them to participate in the

program. Also, in this program, more mentees (new faculty members)

were trained to handle pedagogical issues (or topics) in lesser time. As

mentees pedagogical skills were developed in similar fashion,

monitoring and evaluating their skills could be easily performed. These

pedagogical issues served as focal points of the observations, making

the monitoring and evaluating more consistent. And these

observations were executed by the heads of the departments that the

mentees belonged to.



52/58

3. Although the department heads were primarily tasked to monitor and

evaluate the mentees, ADZU introduced Instruction Supervision Team

to assist the former in those functions. This was to ensure that all

mentees would be observed and given feedback. However, as

d

Documents

Mentoring Research