This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 23 November 2014, At: 15:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK

Journal of Education forTeaching: Internationalresearch and pedagogyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20

Teachers' Perceptions ofMentoring in a CollaborativeModel of Initial TeacherTrainingLynn Jones , David Reid & Stuart BevinsPublished online: 03 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Lynn Jones , David Reid & Stuart Bevins (1997) Teachers'Perceptions of Mentoring in a Collaborative Model of Initial Teacher Training, Journalof Education for Teaching: International research and pedagogy, 23:3, 253-262, DOI:10.1080/02607479719990

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607479719990

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any formto anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use canbe found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Journal of Education for Teaching, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1997

Teachers’ Perceptions of Mentoringin a Collaborative Model of InitialTeacher TrainingLYNN JONES, DAVID REID & STUART BEVINSFaculty of Education, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester

M13 9PL, England

ABSTRACT United Kingdom government-led initiatives in initial teacher training in the 1990s

have focused heavily on the skills required for good classroom performance per se. The

apprenticeship model and a reduction in the contribution made by higher education to the

theory of teaching and learning has characterised the paradigm, which is developing devotees

in other countries beyond the United Kingdom. Whilst university academics have long shown

concern that such a model might, in fact, devalue the professional skills of newly quali ® ed

teachers, this study provides evidence that these concerns are spreading to the teaching

community itself. The experienced mentors interviewed in this study argue for increased

re¯ ection away from the immediate pragmatic demands of the classroom. Newly quali ® ed

teachers, it is argued, need training not only in their role as classroom managers, but also in

their wider professional commitments. This includes an appreciation of the academic basis of

their profession and the relevance of a politico-accountability pro® le if a lifelong contribution

to the profession is to be secured.

INTRODUCTION

This paper re¯ ects on theoretical approaches to mentoring by examining the construct of

the `good mentor’ as formulated by teachers involved in mentoring following innova tions

introduced by the British Government in Department for Education (DfE) circular number

9/92 (DfE, 1992). The mentors who have contributed to this study work within what

Furlong et al. (1996) refer to as the `collaborative’ model of initial teacher training, having

been trained as mentors within an explicit `empowerment’ paradigm (see Reid, 1993,

1994). In the light of empirical research using Kelly’ s repertory grid technique we take

issue with an idealised view of practitioner cultures and a tendency to see university

training, in contrast, as hierarchical static and reproductive. We will question ways of

distingu ishing between tutor and mentor roles in terms of a `theory’ and `practice’

dichotomy, both in principle and on the grounds that it does not respond to mentors’ own

perceptions of the situationÐ at least as demonstrated in this study.

There are interesting similarities and differences between the constructs elicited in

this study and the features of good mentoring that are summarised in reviews such as that

of Cochran-Smith & Paris (1995) , who cite several sources as emphasising the criteria of

0260-7476/97/030253-09 $7.00 Ó 1997 Journal of Education for Teaching

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

254 L. Jones et al.

good classroom practice and an on-going interest in the development of teaching as the

basis for mentor selection. They refer to State policy in the US focusing on:

a `personal relationship ` in which `instruction and guidance’ are provided so

that the beginner achieves `a practical working command of what is known

about how to teach effectively’ . The mentor’ s role ¼ is de® ned by a list of

activities including orienting the beginner to district and school `policies,

procedures and expectations’ , and providing `feedback, coaching and support ’

¼ the interactions between mentors and beginne rs are expected to be sensitive,

non-judgmental and support ive, and it speci® ed that they are intended to focus

on the beginners’ classroom performance. Cochran-Smith (1995, p. 183)

The concurrence on important characteristics of the mentoring relationship, the emphasis

on the quality of the relationship and the discourse between mentor and student (`real talk’ ,

`not the discourse of instruction or the didactic talk’ (op. cit. p. 189) that silences or

pre-empts) re¯ ects a reassuring commonality . However, this is neither surprising nor new.

Mercer (1995) has commented that such assistance with learning is frequent and normal.

What we take issue with is the privileging of `teacher talk’ as the optimum basis of teacher

training presented in such reviews. As a result of our study we also question the

idealisation of `apprenticeship’ as presented in the work of such theorists as Lave &

Wenger (1991) . This is because:

(a) it does not correspond with the views of the mentors we interviewed;

(b) it re¯ ects a false dichotomy between university based training and school-based

training which does not take account of the variety of models available for teacher

training (for example, the cascade model of mentoring, by which increasing numbers

of school staff are drawn into training, the mentor empowerment model and the

school-centered (SCITT) model), nor does it recognise the practice that is represented

by the university;

(c) it negates the importance of re¯ ection and of studies in educational theory which are

currently provided more by the university than the school but which the empowerment

model aims to enable mentors to provide .

We are anxious to keep open the debate about exactly what `partnership’ in initial teacher

education means and should mean, and, as Furlong et al. (1996) do, continue to wonder

whether `a different sort of professional’ (and perhaps, by implication, a devalued sort) is

emerging from recent reforms.

DESIGN AND INSTRUMENTATION

Twenty mentors were selected to represent the range of subjects and types of school in the

area covered by the University of Manchester’ s mentoring scheme. In line with the

empowerment model and the current emphasis on research methods that do not impose

predetermined categories onto data, a method was chosen that allows mentors’ own

perceptions to emerge. Constructs elicited from mentors were listed and interviews

recorded to provide illustrative material. Construct lists were checked for inter-rater

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teachers Perceptions of Mentoring 255

reliability, with each interview being analysed by at least two researchers. The average

difference in constructs was one in thirty-four. The triadic technique (see below) and the

verbatim transcription made the level of agreement on the constructs extremely high.

Kelly’ s triadic technique involves every respondent being supplied with a random set

of three of the elements extracted from the following list:

· the ideal mentor

· a weak mentor

· the senior co-ordinator in the school

· a university subject tutor

· myself as I am

· myself as I would like to be

· the student

· other colleagues in my department, and

· someone who taught me whom I admired.

These elements were chosen to include all those most intimately involved in the training

process, aspects of self that would elicit positive and negative constructs in a real and an

ideal situation (giving an indication of the yardstick by which mentors measure their

performance). and a role model for them as they learned what it is to be a good teacher.

For each triad of elements, respondents were asked to state ways in which two of the

elements were similar and different from the third (see Winter, 1992 for a full account of

Kelly’ s theory and method). From this initial qualitative analysis a picture of the good

mentor became apparent (see also Reid & Jones, 1997).

CONSTRUCTS Of `THE GOOD MENTOR’

Mentoring was seen as most effective when it incorporated such practical help as for

example:

· provid ing guidance

· observing the students’ teaching and classroom management

· provid ing feedback

· enabling students’ understanding, for example by

giving experience of a wide range of age and ability

demonstrating equipment

modelling good teaching and classroom management

allowing students to observe less successful classrooms

advising on classroom management

· helping with time management

· provid ing encouragement

· introducing students to whole school issues.

Mentors who provided regular time, immediate feedback and a sense of availability

were seen as most effective. Whilst many of the mentors interviewed commented on the

impossibility of functioning as they would like to do, it was acknowledged that one of the

major lessons a student could learn was that teaching is stressful and that, in the intensity

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

256 L. Jones et al.

of interpersonal relationships, crises will arise as teachers fall below the high standards

they set themselves. This applies as much to ful® lling their role as mentor as to any other

responsibility as the follow ing comments illustrate.

And I would like to be all the things I should be. I would like to have an in® nite

amount of time and patience. I would like to be a better listener. I would like to

be more open in my ideas. I would like to relate to people more rapidly and

easily. I’ d like to know more about my subject. I would like to be a better

teacher. And myself as I am, on a lot of days, I am none of those things. I’ m

short of time, I’ m crabby, I’ m bad tempered, I’ m not teaching well. I think that’ s

really important . I think it important that the student learns to cope with that and

sees me failing. (Mentor A)

The roles of mentor and tutor were often seen as different but complementary:

The support I give is primarily concerned with how they (the students) are going

to cope with the kids, cope with the lessons and achieve the best possible results

within a fairly limited arena. So we do look at their further professional

development, but it’ s not our prime consideration. Whereas my experience of the

university subject tutor is that naturally and rightly their priorities are reversed.

(Mentor B)

A strong relationship between the mentor and the tutor was seen to be valuable and

facilitative:

With my experience with Mr X those two [university subject tutor and ideal

mentor] go hand in hand, because as a subject tutor I think he has been on the

ball, down to earth, he knows the grass roots about the job. An ideal mentorÐ

well, I think that what I have done with Mr X and the relationship we have built

up togetherÐ well I think Mr X respects me and I think he would say that I was

a good mentor. (Mentor C)

These mentors tend to take the view many tutors hold, that the ability to balance support

and challenge to the student, and to allow for risk-taking within lim its was as much their

responsibility as that of the tutors. In short, good mentoring is seen by the mentors

themselves as being able to give suf® cient good quality time to the students, and to exhibit

the features laid out in Table I.

DISCUSSION

Lunt et al. (1992) cite Clutterbucks’ (1985) work as locating the roots of mentoring ® rmly

within the apprenticeship system and emphasise the `power-dependency status’ (op. cit.

p. 138) of this model, if only because of the higher level of expertise located in the mentor.

Perhaps for this reason many mentors stress the importance of being approachable and

building the sort of relationship that balances being the guide with being the supportive

friend.

Cochran-Smith and Paris suggest that there is a `curious paradox at work’ (p. 182) in

the current mentoring system. Although it appears to be teachers’ skills and knowledge

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teachers Perceptions of Mentoring 257

TA

BL

EI.

Inte

rpers

on

alsk

ills

(in

clu

din

g

Inv

olv

em

ent

Ex

peri

ence

and

exp

ert

ise

teac

hin

gp

roces

ssk

ills

)P

erso

nal

ity

Ab

ilit

ies

Com

mit

men

tto

men

tori

ng

Inth

ecla

ssro

om

(and

The

abil

ity

to:

rela

teto

and

Co

n®

den

tG

ood

class

roo

mte

ach

er

Str

ivin

gto

imp

rov

eas

ap

refe

rab

lyin

ara

ng

eo

fre

all

yget

tok

no

wth

eIn

spir

ing

Go

od

class

roo

m

mento

rcl

ass

roo

mse

ttin

gs)

stud

ent,

encou

rage

Sat

is®

ed

as

op

pose

dto

managem

ent

and

contr

ol

Com

mit

ted

topu

pil

sIn

the

sub

ject

are

aco

n®

den

ce,

est

abli

shfr

ust

rate

din

thei

rw

ork

Un

ders

tan

ds

men

tori

ng

Hav

ing

asy

mp

ath

etic

Of

dif

fere

nt

teac

hers

rap

po

rt,

off

erfr

ien

dsh

ipH

as

sen

seo

fh

um

our

pro

ces

s

inte

rest

indevelo

pm

ent

of

the

Of

wo

rkin

gw

ith

stu

den

tG

ood

com

mu

nic

atio

nsk

ills

Has

inte

rest

sb

eyo

nd

wo

rkH

aso

ver

vie

wof

PG

CE

cou

rse

stud

ent

teach

ers

Go

od

inte

amw

ork

(wit

hth

eF

resh

rath

er

than

cyn

ical

Fu

nct

ions

well

Ab

leto

form

aclo

seA

war

eo

fw

hat

wil

lw

ork

inth

est

ud

ent,

Univ

ersi

tyS

ub

ject

Moti

vat

ed

Pra

cti

cal

rela

tio

nsh

ipw

ith

the

stud

ent

class

roo

mT

uto

ran

doth

erco

llea

gu

es)

Tak

es

resp

on

sib

ilit

yM

ento

rtr

ain

ed

on

a1;

1b

asis

,w

itho

ut

Encou

rage

exp

erim

enta

tio

nA

pp

roach

able

Go

od

atd

eali

ng

wit

h

do

min

atin

gan

dth

ed

evelo

pm

ent

of

the

Help

ful

stud

ents

stud

ent’

sow

nte

achin

gst

yle

Do

n’t

min

dbein

gob

serv

edL

earn

sfr

om

men

tori

ng

(sees

Encou

rage

exp

erie

nti

al

and

Ho

nes

tit

as

two-w

ayle

arn

ing

dis

cov

ery

lear

nin

gE

nth

usi

asti

cpro

ces

s)

Enable

stud

ent

tow

ork

wit

hR

ecog

nis

eso

wn

need

sfo

r

clas

s(b

yp

rov

idin

gb

ack

up

supp

ort

dis

cip

lin

e)S

ub

ject

speci

alis

t

Ab

leto

rela

teto

pup

ils

Kn

ow

sh

ow

scho

ol

run

s

Res

po

nsi

ve

tost

ud

ent

nee

ds

Kn

ow

sh

ow

dep

artm

ent

run

s

Wil

lin

gto

tak

eri

sks

Has

pu

pil

sgenu

inely

engaged

Enable

sm

ixed

abil

ity

teac

hin

g

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

258 L. Jones et al.

that is privileged within this model, the initial training of both mentor and student within

the University system, they suggest, means that both mentors and student teachers base

their work in know ledge generated and developed by researchers in the university sector,

thus `relegating teachers to the role of receivers rather than the producers of knowledge’

(p. 184). They then go on to argue that

Teachers’ ways of know ing include how teachers treat the data of school life as

diverse texts to be connected and interpreted, how they see the events in their

classrooms, how they think through issues and raise questions, and how they

interpret children’ s actions. These ways of knowing also include the questions

that teachers consider are unanswerable, the kinds of information they consider

problematic ¼ and which bodies of knowledge they bring to bear on particular

situations. (op. cit. p. 184)

The argument quite arbitrarily identi ® es university-guided mentoring as reproductive and

re¯ ecting an hierarchical model of interaction; whereas school-based mentoring is seen as

re¯ ecting collaborative and egalitarian principles of teaching practice and allowing a `more

emancipatory socialisation’ and challenge to the status quo. There are productive parallels

with the work of Lave and Wenger, who have developed a more general concept of

`legitimate peripheral participation’ within a theory of situated learning (see Hanks, 1991,

p. 14). Emphasis is placed on teacher knowledge rather than on academic `researcher

knowledge’ and on the quality of the relationship and in particular the type of talk that

occurs. Some of the mentors in this study are recognisable within this paradigm, for

example

they (the students) seem to be on quite good terms with the subject tutors, but

perhaps there is that bit of distance between them. Whereas they felt easier

talking to me ¼ (Mentor D)

On the other hand, although some mentors saw tutors as without experience at least of the

children in their school, most were very positive about the link between the tutor and

themselves. Mentors often commented that they wished that the university provided

students with more practical advice and it was suggested that in their own practice the

tutors should model the sort of teaching strategies that could be used in the classroom .

Our empirical data lead us to take issue with two main aspects of practice-focused

approaches to initial teacher training. First, the over-glamourisation of the apprenticeship

paradigm and, second, the focus in the literature on the distinction between two of® cial

pedagogic discourses in developing an effective model of teacher education. For Cochran-

Smith and Paris, teacher know ledge is the kind that will question such issues as policies,

stereotypes and organisational practices and look at whose interests are served by the

current system. Hence the importance, for them, of the student learning from a mentor

rather than from within the university sector which itself is seen as reproductive,

conservative and lacking the language of reform . This rather idealised notion of appren-

ticeship of student to mentor runs contrary to the argument concerning the depth of

resistance to change that exists within systems (Hargreaves, 1990). In our study most

mentors strongly emphasised that the learning process was a two-way communication,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teachers Perceptions of Mentoring 259

rather than the essentially one-way process implicit in the apprenticeship/pedagogic

discourses models enabling

¼ contact with new ideas, a chance to sit back and watch someone else teach

and review your own teaching techniques ¼ contact with the outside world, the

broader world of education, seeing things done a new way, having an extra pair

of hands around, trying new apparatus and doing new things. (Mentor E)

School-based training was regarded as having mutual bene® ts, but as very much con-

strained by funding and other pressures on schools and higher education institutions. Apart

from reference to the `chemistry’ that prompts a spontaneous mentoring relationship there

was little to value the apprenticeship model over the academic-input model. Mentors often

expressed regret that they were too unaware of the current educational theory which they

felt was needed to underpin what they were saying about practice and felt that the

university should do more to provide them access to it. In contrast, on the occasions when

tutors were criticised it was on the grounds of the separation of theoretical and practical

aspects of the students’ learning. Clearly, mentors within the collaborative model of

mentor-empowerment see a need for both theoretical and practical provision within initia l

teacher training. However, they do not see a necessary separation of the two nor of the

sources of input; rather, they see a need for integration of the learning and for the providers

to operate as an organic and dynamic whole.

Billig et al. (1988) have commented on the false dichotomy drawn between tra-

ditional and progressive approaches to education. A similarly unnecessary dichotomy

between the academic world and the community of practice is currently popular within the

literature and has been since the turn of the decade. We would challenge the assumptions

that university based work is inherently more abstract and reproductive. Indeed, one of the

criticisms made of the move to school-based training and competency learning is that it

breaks the link between the primary academic base and practice and therefore shields it

from the critical eye of theoretical research (Moore, 1994). Moreover, teachers’ pro-

fessional standing is very much affected by its relationship with the universities’ academic

base and this is threatened by the move towards competency based training and the

production of teachers as classroom technicians rather than as professionals (Jones &

Moore, 1993, 1995). While research can bene® t from the re¯ ective criticism of the

practitioner, so teaching can bene® t from research that explores the effects of particular

forms of educational practice (Jones, 1996). The two forms of practice can be seen as

complementary, rather than in competition as a zero sum game as presented by Lave and

Wenger and Cochran-Smith and Paris.

CONCLUSION

Whilst acknowledging the `diverse texts’ of school life, Cochran-Smith and Paris fail to

acknowledge the need for the trainee teacher to have access to, and time to re¯ ect on, the

`diverse texts’ of professional socialisation. Teachers do not just operate in the community

of other teachers, but in the community of the classroom, the school, parenthood, academia

and increasingly within the area of political accountability . Each of these has their unique

educational and non-educational discourses and orders. It is necessary for each student

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

260 L. Jones et al.

teacher to acquire a coherent philosophy which will facilitate effective professional

operations within such a complex discursive arena, and failure to do so will invariably lead

to premature burn-out as a recognition of professional helplessness dawns. Many teachers

currently leave the profession (or even worse, may remain and under-perform) because of

the dif® culty they experience in coming to terms with the responsibilities placed, often

top-dow n, upon them. Day-to-day teacher knowledge and educational theory do not stand

in opposition, but in a complex interrelationship. Although school-based training may

come closest to addressing the discourses and regulative principles that are operating in the

classroom, little is gained and much is lost from reducing theoretical input, and the

opportunities that provide for rigorous critical re¯ ection away from the immediate

pragmatic demands of the classroom. Access to critical discourses and research, as well as

time to assimilate these, are crucial to teacher development and professional status.

Whether the teachers in our sample hold genuinely different views from other teachers

because of their exposure to the empowerment model, or whether this particular investiga-

tive technique encourages the expression of a different view of the training process is not

clear. What is clear is the legitimate and widely held view amongst the cohort, a view in

contrast to much current received wisdom, that separation of theory and practice, (much

more the removal of theory from practice), contributes to the mis-education of teachers in

training. These mentors show a concern for a judicious balancing of in-school and

out-school experience. Our evidence suggests that this is possible through a `mentor

empowerment’ model which aims to support mentors in providing access to out-of-school

educational experience and understanding. But fundamentally what is required is an

approach that acknowledges the full range of pedagogic discourse, rather than separating,

or placing in opposit ion, theory and practice. What is new and encouraging in this study

is not so much what the teachers are sayingÐ see for example, Pring’ s 1996 argument

about the marriage between academic respectability and its enhancing in¯ uence on the

professional preparation of teachersÐ but the fact that it is the teachers themselves that are

saying it. Teachers who have become experienced in the new methods of training and who

hold no direct vested interest in the role of higher education in initial teacher training.

REFERENCES

BILLIG, M., CONDOR, D., EDWARDS, D., GANE , M., M IDDLETON . D. & RADLEY, A. (1988) Ideological

Dilemmas: a social psychology of everyday thinking (London, Sage).

COCHRAN-SMITH, M. & PARIS, P. (1995) Mentor and mentoring: did Homer have it right?, in: J. SMYTH

(Ed.) Critical Discourses on Teacher Development (London, Cassell).

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (DfE) (1992) Initial Teacher Training (Secondary Phase), Circular 9/92

(London, DfE).

FURLONG, J., WHITTY, G., WHITING, C., M ILES, S., BARTON, L. & BARRETT, E. (1996) Re-de® ning partner-

ship: revolution or reform in initial teacher education?, Journal of Education for Teaching, 22(1),

pp. 39±55.

HANKS, W.F. (1991) Foreword, in: J. LAVE & E. WENGER (Eds) Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral

participation (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

HARGREAVES, A. (1990) Curriculum and Assessment Reform (Milton Keynes, Open University Press).

JONES, L. (1996) Links with research, in: R. DUNNILL & G.H. PRICE (Eds) Partnership in Initial Teacher

Education (Manchester, Manchester Monographs).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teachers Perceptions of Mentoring 261

JONES, L. & MOORE, R. (1993) Education, competence and the control of expertise. British Journal of

Sociology of Education, 14(4), pp. 385±397.

JONES, L. & MOORE, R. (1995) Appropriating competence: the competency movement, the New Right and

the `cultural change’ project, British Journal of Education and Work, 8(2), pp. 78±92.

LAVE , J. & WENGER, E. (1991) op. cit.

LUNT , N., BENNETT, Y., MCKENZIE, P. & POWELL, L. (1992) Understanding mentoring, The Vocational

Aspect of Education, 44(1), pp. 135±140.

MERCER , N. (1995) The Guided Construction of Knowledge: talk amongst teachers and learners

(Clevedon, Multilingual Matters).

MOORE , R. (1994) Professionalism, expertise and control in teacher training, in: M. W ILKIN & D. SANKEY

(Eds) Collaboration and Transition in Initial Teacher Training (London, Kogan Page).

PRING, R. (1996) Just desert, in: J. FURLONG & R. SMITH (Eds) The Role of Higher Education in Initial

Teacher Training (London, Kogan Page).

REID , D.J. (1993) Training for mentor empowerment: contexts and challenges, Mentoring: partnership in

education, 1(1), pp. 42±50.

REID , D.J. (1994) Towards empowerment: an approach to school-based mentoring, in: B. FIELD & T.

FIELD (Eds) Teachers as Mentors: a practical guide (London, Falmer Press).

REID , D.J. & JONES, L. (1997) Partnership in teacher training: mentors’ constructs of their role,

Educational Studies, 23(2), in press.

W INTER, D.A. (1992) Personal Construct Psychology in Clinical Practice (London, Routledge).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

01 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014