Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MENTORING BEGINNING TEACHERS FOR COGNITIVE GROWTH
Kelly B. Batts
A Dissertation Submitted to the
University of North Carolina Wilmington in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
Department of Educational Leadership
University of North Carolina Wilmington
2010
Approved by
Advisory Committee Karen Wetherill John Fischetti
Tim Markley Elizabeth Foster Chair
Accepted by
Robert Roer Dean, Graduate School
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. vi DEDICATION .............................................................................................................................. vii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1
Background Information ......................................................................................................1 Teacher Attrition ......................................................................................................2 High Quality and Effectiveness ...............................................................................3 Factors Affecting Beginning Teachers’ Perceived Success .....................................4 Mentoring and Induction..........................................................................................6
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................7 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................8
Cognitive Developmental Theory ............................................................................8 Reflective Judgment...............................................................................................11 Reflective Judgment Model ...................................................................................12
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................13 Research Questions ............................................................................................................13 Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................13 Definition of Key Terms ....................................................................................................14 Summary ............................................................................................................................15
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................................17 The Problem .......................................................................................................................17
Factors Affecting Attrition .....................................................................................18 Attrition Linked to Effectiveness ...........................................................................19 Mentoring and Induction........................................................................................20 Program Evaluation ...............................................................................................22
Studies on Mentor Support for Beginning Teachers..........................................................23 Mentoring for Cognitive Development ..................................................................26 Preparation for Mentors .........................................................................................27
Cognitive Developmental Theory ......................................................................................28 Optimal Conditions for BT Cognitive Development .........................................................31 Reflective Judgment Model ...............................................................................................34 Teacher Problem Solving ...................................................................................................41
Well-Structured Versus Ill-Structured Problems ...................................................42 Assessing Reflective Judgment..........................................................................................42 Sequential Transformative Strategy ...................................................................................44 Summary ............................................................................................................................45
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY ....................................................................48 Introduction ........................................................................................................................48 Research Questions ............................................................................................................48 Research Design.................................................................................................................48 Setting ................................................................................................................................51 Participants .........................................................................................................................52
iv
Beginning Teachers ...............................................................................................52 Mentors ..................................................................................................................53
Training Components and Professional Development Model ...........................................54 Instruments .........................................................................................................................55
Quantitative ............................................................................................................55 Qualitative ..............................................................................................................56 Researcher as Instrument .......................................................................................57
Procedure ...........................................................................................................................58 Phase 1 ...................................................................................................................58 Phase 2 ...................................................................................................................59 Phase 3 ...................................................................................................................60
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................61 Quantitative Data Analysis ....................................................................................61 Qualitative Data Analysis ......................................................................................61
Limitations .........................................................................................................................62 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS ...............................................................................................................64
Phase 1 ...............................................................................................................................66 Quantitative Data ...................................................................................................66 Training ..................................................................................................................67 Qualitative Data .....................................................................................................72
Phase 2 ...............................................................................................................................74 Implementation and Support ..................................................................................74 Qualitative Data .....................................................................................................74 Multiple Cases .......................................................................................................81
Cases 1-3 ....................................................................................................81 Cases 4-6 ....................................................................................................84 Cases 7-9 ....................................................................................................86
Phase 3 ...............................................................................................................................88 Quantitative Data ...................................................................................................89 Qualitative Data .....................................................................................................93
Research Question 1 ..........................................................................................................97 Research Question 2 ..........................................................................................................98
Trainer/Researcher Questions and Discussion.......................................................99 Beginning Teacher Development ........................................................................102
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................104 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................104 Summary of Results .........................................................................................................105 Limitations of the Study...................................................................................................109 Recommendations for Further Research ..........................................................................111 Discussion ........................................................................................................................113 Final Thoughts .................................................................................................................120
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................122 APPENDIX ..............................................................................................................................133
v
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine the use of the Reflective Judgment Model
(RJM) in developmental mentoring and its potential impact on cognitive complexity in
Beginning Teachers (BTs). Two research questions guided the study: (a) What is the relationship
of different problem-solving rationales of beginning teachers to different stage levels of
cognitive complexity?; and (b) How can a teacher’s stage level of cognitive complexity be
promoted through specific mentoring strategies? The measurements of cognitive complexity and
the mentoring strategies employed in this study were based on the research of King and
Kitchener (1994), who developed the Reflective Judgment Model (RJM). The three phase,
sequential transformative strategy involved both a treatment and a non-treatment group of
mentors and BTs. In phase 1, three mentors were trained and coached in the use of a
developmental model of mentoring that was based on the RJM. During this phase, 29 treatment
group BTs and 26 non-treatment group BTs took a pretest of reflective judgment called the
Reasoning about Current Issues (RCI) test. During phase 2, the treatment group mentors
delivered mentoring strategies based on the RJM and qualitative data was collected to document
the implementation of the strategies and to document the progress of the BTs. Also, during phase
2, each RJM mentor focused on three BTs each, who became cases to explore in depth. In phase
3, the RCI was administered to all BTs as a posttest and a t-test was performed to determine the
significance of the mean change between the two groups. While the quantitative data showed no
significant difference in the mean changes between the treatment and non-treatment groups, the
qualitative data collected revealed significant changes occurring in six of the nine focus BTs.
Keywords: developmental mentoring, reflective judgment, beginning teachers, cognitive
complexity, Reflective Judgment Model
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost I want to extend my deepest admiration and gratitude to my
dissertation committee members. Dr. Elizabeth Foster, who has stretched my thinking beyond
belief, I thank you for your challenging questions, your constructive feedback, and for sharing
your knowledge with me for the past three years. Dr. John Fischetti, who has stretched my
creativity, I thank you for your enthusiasm, for your support, and for believing in me. Dr. Karen
Wetherill, who has been a mentor, coach, and support to me since my days as an undergraduate,
I thank you for always making me feel like had something important to contribute to the field of
education.
There are several others who made my research study a positive experience. Leslie P.,
Leslie S., and Marcia K., thank you so much for your contributions to this study, but thank you
even more for your friendship. To all my other office colleagues, Bob, Kim, Jennifer, Lynne,
Jessica, Daffinette, Wendy, Pam, and Patti, you really are the “Dream Team!” We have shared
office space, ideas, emotions, and good times. I am thankful to be a part of your team.
Finally, I want to thank all of my mentors from the world of public schooling: Sherry C.,
Cathy H., Julie C., Pat H., Catherine T., Jan W., Sue M., Sylvia L., Virginia T., Marc S., Deloris
R., Beth M., and Cathy B. I have learned something from each of you. It is a blessing to have
worked with so many great leaders in education. You may not ever know the impact you have
had on my life, my education, and my career. Thanks!
vii
DEDICATION
To my husband, Chuck Batts, who has given up his wife for the last few years, I am
grateful that you said, “Sure,” when I said I wanted to go back to school yet again. I am grateful
that you said, “No” when I said I wanted to quit. And most of all, I am grateful that you always
remind me not to take myself so seriously.
To my kids, Brooke and Jack, I could not be more proud of you. Throughout this whole
process, neither of you ever complained that Mommy was on the computer too much. You
always encouraged me to finish my work before I went out to play. You really are the loves of
my life!
Finally, to my parents, Butch and Shirley Budd, and to my brother, Curt Budd, you are all
“model” educators, parents, friends, and mentors. I want to be just like you when I grow up!
viii
LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Assumptions about Knowledge: Stages 1-7 of the Reflective Judgment Model ..............36 2. Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for the Reflective Judgment Interview (RJI), the Reflective Judgment Highest Stage Hit, and the Prototypic Reflective Judgment Interview (PRJI) by Time of Testing ................................................................39 3. Sample Schedule of Coaching and Data Collection ..........................................................60 4. Beginning Teacher (BT) Problem Solving ........................................................................77 5. Reasoning about Current Issues (RCI) Test Completers’ Demographics .........................90 6. RCI Pretest and Posttest Scores Means and Standard Deviations .....................................91 7. Mentoring Strategies and BT Development ......................................................................95
ix
LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Method and Procedure for this Study ................................................................................49 2. Mentor Services Continuum ............................................................................................117
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Chapter I is the introduction to the study. Sections contained in this chapter are
background information, statement of the problem, theoretical framework, purpose of the study,
research questions, significance of the study, definition of key terms, and summary.
Background Information
One of the largest working groups in our United States workforce is teachers. There are
more educators than doctors, nurses, and lawyers combined, and according to the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, in 2008 U.S. schools employed 3.5 million K-12 teachers. So it should come as
no surprise that citizens are concerned about the entire field of education from a societal,
governmental, and economic standpoint. Beginning in 1965 with the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) followed by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), federal
governmental policies have been coupled with enormous amounts of funding indicating, at least
on a surface level, the nation’s effort to support improvements in the U.S. public school system.
Teacher quality is one of the most important components of U.S. school improvement
efforts (Jupp, 2009). This focus on teachers is warranted, given that teachers are the primary
resource of public education and comprise the largest share of K-12 education budgets (Wayne
& Youngs, 2003; “Implementing NCLB: Key,” 2003). In August of 2009, the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act called for an allocation of $77 billion dollars for reform in
elementary and secondary education. Part of that allocation was to be spent on “improving
teacher effectiveness” and “gathering information to improve teacher performance” (White
House, 2009) More recently, President Obama expanded a federal grant competition, “Race to
the Top,” requesting more than one billion dollars to fund the program. One of the four selection
2
criteria of the grant calls for states to issue “assurances” to recruit, develop, reward, and retain
effective teachers and principals (Race to the Top, 2010). In order for state applications to meet
the criteria for consideration, they must show evidence that their reform plan will include ways
they will “improve teacher and principal effectiveness” (Race to the Top, 2010). While there is
an enormous amount of money and there are government regulations in place for the purpose of
supporting teacher quality, these efforts are met with several challenges.
Teacher Attrition
One challenge to the efforts in improving teacher quality is teacher attrition. Teaching is
often referred to as “the profession that eats its young” (Scherer, 1999, p. 14). Perhaps the
reference is due to the startling statistics regarding attrition rates of teachers. As many as half of
those trained to be teachers never enter teaching and 40% to 50% of those who enter teaching
leave the occupation within the first five years on the job (Ingersoll, 2007; Brooks-Young, 2007).
According to a report from the Alliance for Excellence in Education (2004), 14% of first time
teachers leave within their first year, 33% will leave within their third year, and by the fifth year
half of all new teachers will have left. Schools, districts, and states make an investment in a
teacher in terms of money, time, and human resources for training, support, and incentives. As
teachers exit so do the resources that were spent in developing and supporting them.
Furthermore, new resources must be allocated to train, support, and provide incentives for new
personnel. It is a conservative estimate that American schools spend about $2.6 billion annually
on merely replacing teachers who have dropped out of the profession (Alliance for Excellence in
Education, 2004). What is more detrimental than the loss of money during this process of
teachers coming and going, is that the culture of the school and the sustainability of initiatives
3
are both affected by the inconsistency that results from a revolving workforce (Alliance for
Excellence in Education, 2008). Ultimately, those inconsistencies affect student learning.
High Quality and Effectiveness
In terms of the quality factor, there is evidence that high quality teachers make a
difference in student achievement (Education Trust, 2003; Goldhaber & Brewer, 1997) however
a common definition for “high quality” as well as a common basis for what constitutes
“effectiveness” is hard to come by. It has been documented that differences in teacher
effectiveness are significantly correlated with student achievement (Borman & Kimball, 2005;
Ferguson, 1998; Goldhaber, 2002; Goldhaber & Brewer, 1997; Goldhaber, Brewer, & Anderson,
1999; Murnane & Phillips, 1981; Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004; Rowan, Correnti, &
Miller, 2002; Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997). Therefore, it seems reasonable that efforts to raise
teacher quality and teacher effectiveness would produce the best opportunities for student
learning. Unfortunately, legislative efforts to support this notion may be misguided based on the
definition of quality. Under NCLB, a “highly qualified” teacher is one that has full state teacher
certification, a minimum of a bachelor’s degree obtained from an accredited institution of higher
education, and subject matter and teaching skills competency in each of the academic subjects
taught (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Qualifications for Teachers and Professionals, 2004).
While Phillips (2010) found evidence that there may be some aspects of teacher training,
such as subject specific advanced degrees or additional courses in childhood development, that
were associated with higher student test scores these are not the aspects that are required for
“highly qualified” status as outlined by the NCLB legislation. Phillips (2010) states that the
hypothesized relationship between “highly qualified teachers and student achievement gains is
4
illusive” (p. 487). Instead, she promotes a more comprehensive study of teacher experiences to
determine what characteristics make the biggest difference (Phillips, 2010).
Teachers are one of the most important factors that explain the variation in student test
scores (Ding & Sherman, 2006; Goldhaber & Brewer, 1997). However, the effects of specific
teacher characteristics such as experience, degree level, as well as other teacher characteristics
tend to be inconsistent across studies (Hanushek, 1986; Wayne & Youngs, 2003). Some
researchers have found weak correlations between student performance and any one particular
credential (Aaronson, Barrow, & Sander, 2007; Goldhaber, Gross, & Player, 2007). Still, there is
research to support that some factors, or possibly a combination of factors, do contribute to
producing an effective teacher (Rice, 2003; Clotfelter, Ladd & Vigdor, 2007).
Lack of consistency across studies and lack of consistency in terminology about what
makes for a “high quality” or an “effective” teacher make it difficult to determine which teacher
characteristics are most important for increasing student performance on standardized tests. This
lack of common language essentially muddies the waters for where to focus reform efforts with
regard to teacher support.
Factors Affecting Beginning Teachers’ Perceived Success
There are several factors that affect a beginning teacher’s perceived success. These
factors influence teacher retention and they pertain to working conditions and overall teaching
satisfaction. As Hirsch, Emerick, Church, and Fuller (2007) found, “Teacher working conditions
are student learning conditions” (p. 4). Hirsch et al. (2007) surveyed more than 75,000 school-
based licensed educators across three states at varying degrees of experience and found that
aspects of all five teaching and learning conditions domains—time, empowerment, leadership,
professional development, and facilities and resources—were connected to improved school
5
level performance on state assessments. Similarly, Corbell, Reiman, and Nietfeld (2008)
synthesized the literature on beginning teacher satisfaction, support, attrition, efficacy, and
induction to eight predominant factors that affect a beginning teacher’s success. They defined
success as “the factors that influence a new teacher’s perception of how successful they are in
teaching and how they are addressed in his/her job” (Corbell et al., 2008, p. 1552). Those key
factors are teacher efficacy, resource support, administrative support, mentor support, colleague
support, assignment and workload, commitment, student outcomes, and efficacy and
professionalism.
Of particular interest to this study are the areas of teacher efficacy, colleague support, and
most importantly, mentor support. Efficacy is defined by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) as a
“judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and
learning, even among those students who may be difficult or unmotivated’’ (p. 783). Tschannen-
Moran and Hoy (2001) determined that efficacy is related to how a teacher makes decisions, sets
goals, plans and organizes instruction, and how teachers react in the classroom and relate to
students. They also found that teachers with a greater sense of efficacy tended to stay in teaching
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
Having supportive colleagues seems like a logical factor that contributes to a teacher’s
perception of success. Indeed, Johnson and Birkeland (2003) reported that having colleagues
who shared effective instructional strategies were part of the reason beginning teachers felt
successful and part of the reason they felt supported. They also found that having colleagues who
promoted learning as a continual process was a major contributing factor to the satisfaction the
new teachers felt in their positions. Those teachers who remained in teaching described their
6
supportive colleagues as a reason for their decision to stay at their school (Johnson & Birkeland,
2003).
Mentoring and Induction
So then, what is the best way to retain and then to develop new teachers, specifically
beginning teachers? Nearly every state in the United States has been required to develop a new
teacher induction and support program (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory
[SEDL], 2000). Experts agree that new teacher induction should contain a mentoring component
and should be structured to accomplish two key goals: (a) improving the quality of skills and
knowledge of beginning teachers, thus increasing student achievement and (b) addressing the
teacher shortage by reducing attrition (SEDL, 2000). With regard to the second goal, Ingersoll
(2007) reports that participation in a quality induction and mentoring program has a strong link
to new teacher retention. Ingersoll (2007) states, “After controlling for the background
characteristics of teachers and schools, we found a strong link between participation by
beginning teachers in induction and mentoring programs and their likelihood of moving or
leaving after their first year on the job” (p. 5).
How to improve the quality of skills in teaching is met with some disagreement about
strategies that will make a measurable difference. The dilemma of how to improve the quality of
teaching skills poses a problem as schools of education, staff developers, human resource
administrators, school administrators, and mentor teachers struggle to formulate the best way to
support the growth of beginning teachers. Ingersoll and Kralik (2004) conducted a meta-analysis
of research conducted on mentoring programs and their impact on teacher retention. Ten studies
met the criteria for inclusion in their analysis and all of the studies had limitations such as small
sample sizes and lack of description about the type of support that the new teacher received.
7
However, taken as a whole, mentoring programs had positive effects on the retention of teachers
(Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004).
Mentoring is widely understood as crucially important for new teacher development
(Darling-Hammond, 2003; Marable & Raimondi, 2007) and for teacher retention (Arnold-
Rogers, Arnett, & Harris, 2008; Billingsley, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2003; Kelley, 2004;
McGlamery & Edick, 2004; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Schwille and Dynak (2000) state that,
“The preparation of experienced teachers to assume the mentor role is key to quality mentoring
programs” (p. 67). But developing effective and dedicated mentors is very challenging
(Walkington, 2007).
Statement of the Problem
In terms of money, time, and legislation one could argue that the U.S. has made a valiant
effort towards supporting teacher improvement efforts. However the challenges of frequent
attrition, lack of common language, and lack of a consistent and effective framework for
professional development have impeded those efforts. For novice teachers, mentoring and
induction can be a very successful tool for development (Marable & Raimondi, 2007), but if
mentoring activities are not comprehensive enough then any change in behavior will most likely
be short-lived.
The bottom line is that developing a plan for teacher development is a complex task.
Teachers will not become more effective at improving student learning just because of more
money, more legislation, or more professional development. While all of those things are
important as support mechanisms, there must be a very clear and strategic approach to teacher
development that is comprehensive and that takes into account not only teaching behaviors but
also cognitive functioning (Bullough et al., 2008). Teaching requires problem-solving, decision
8
making, and reflection among other skills. Without a trained leader or mentor who is skilled at
coaching these skills, it is not likely that novices will develop at a high rate.
The problem then rests with creating and implementing a comprehensive developmental
mentoring program that will help mentors to promote higher levels of cognitive complexity in
beginning teachers.
Theoretical Framework
Cognitive Developmental Theory
The overarching theoretical framework that guides this study is adult cognitive
developmental theory. The most well known cognitive developmental theorist was Jean Piaget
(1972), whose study of young children through adolescence revealed a steady progression of
cognitive growth that occurred slowly over time and in stages. Piaget’s findings laid the
groundwork for other theorists who studied the cognitive stage growth of adults such as David
Hunt and Hunt’s Conceptual System’s Theory (Hunt, 1971), Jane Loevinger’s work on Ego
development (Loevinger, 1987), and Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of Moral/Ethical development
(Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977). The research across the three domains of conceptual systems,
ego/self, and moral development is clear and consistent, “Higher stage is more often associated
with more effective performance in complex human interactions” (Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall,
1998, p. 54). According to Reiman and Thies-Sprinthall (1998), there are several key
assumptions that underlie cognitive development.
1. All persons process experiences through cognitive structures.
2. Cognitive structures are organized in a hierarchical sequence of stages or plateaus
from the less complex to the more complex.
9
3. Each shift in stage represents a major transformation in how the person makes
meaning from his or her experience.
4. Development is not automatic.
5. Behaviors can be identified and predicted by a person’s particular stage of
development.
Many developmental models have emerged in the field of education as a result of adult
cognitive developmental theory. Concerns-based stage theory was conceptualized in 1969 by
Frances Fuller, who wanted to bring Maslow’s research on the hierarchy of needs into the realm
of teaching. Fuller (1969) outlined three phases of development observed in student teachers and
beginning teachers: (a) pre-teaching (non-concern), (b) early teaching (concern with self such as
class control and subject matter), and (c) concern with pupils. An important strand of the
literature base is the research that uses concerns inventories based on Fuller’s work. The
Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) was originally developed by Hall, Wallace, and
Dossett (1973). The CBAM is a well researched model which describes how people develop as
they learn about an innovation and the stages of that process. The stages include: 0-Unaware, 1-
Aware, 2-Information, 3-Personal, 4-Management, 5-Consequence, 6-Collaboration, and 7-
Refocusing. The CBAM, as well as the Stages of Concerns Questionnaire, has served as a
framework for monitoring teacher preparedness, staff development, school reform, educational
leadership, and organizational change (Hall, Wallace, & Dossett, 1975; Loucks, 1983;
Shotsberger & Crawford, 1996). Barry Sweeny (2008) suggests a concerns-based approach to
new teacher support. In fact, an integral part of his work relies on the CBAM, which outlines
very distinct stages of concern which can be measured over time. Sweeny (2008) states that the
10
“Stages of Concern from CBAM is the single most powerful and useful staff development model
I know” (p. 12).
Other approaches to new teacher development and support also use a type of stage or
phase theory as a basis for program design. Villani (2002) outlined a model of new teacher
induction and support which is based on the research of Veenman (1984), in which protégé’s
survival needs are matched with a mentor’s intensity of support. Villani also referenced Moir’s
(1999) “Five Phases Experienced by First-Year Teachers,” which refers to the protégé’s
emotional phases including: anticipation, survival, disillusionment, rejuvenation, and reflection.
She also references Bey’s (1995) “Continuum of Mentorships to Support Phases of Teacher
Change,” which uses stages of career development in the order of: prospective teacher, student
teachers, intern teachers, beginning teachers, career teachers, and master teachers.
There are researchers who are known to adhere to a more general adult learning theory
school of thought. Adult learning theory differs from Cognitive Developmental Theory in
multiple ways; however, it is prominent theory in many professional development contexts. A
major contribution to adult learning theory is the concept of andragogy, or learning strategies
focused on adults. Androgogy, termed by Knowles (1980) is based on five assumptions about the
adult learner. Knowles (1980) determined that the adult learner is someone who (a) has an
independent self-concept and who can direct his or her own learning, (b) has accumulated a
reservoir of life experiences that is a rich resource for learning, (c) has learning needs closely
related to changing social roles, (d) is problem centered and interested in the immediate
application of knowledge, and (e) is motivated to learn by internal rather than external factors.
Another major contribution to adult learning theory is the idea of reflective practice. Schon
(1987) introduced the widely accepted concept of reflective practice as a critical process in
11
refining one's artistry or craft in a specific discipline. He defined reflective practice as
thoughtfully considering one's own experiences in applying knowledge to practice while being
coached by professionals in the discipline (Schon, 1987). The concepts of adult learner
characteristics and reflective practice are central to adult learning theory and are used as a basis
for planning professional development and support for adults in the workplace, including the
educational setting. Oja (1980) is a developmentalist who studied adult learning as it applied to
teacher inservice education identified four key ingredients for successful adult learning: use of
concrete experiences, continuously available supervision and advising, encouragement of adults
to take on new and complex roles, and the use of support and feedback when implementing new
techniques. Oja (1980) found that teachers wanted learning experiences that they could
immediately practice in their classrooms. They liked to discuss their practice with others and
problem-solve classroom situations. Through these interactive situations, adults were able to
reflect, grow and adapt throughout their teaching careers. Developmental theorists share the
same views about reflection, that it is central to promote growth.
Reflective Judgment
Reflective Judgment, for developmentalists, is one of the more contemporary concepts
that frames our understanding of adult cognitive development. Cognitive complexity, also known
as reflective judgment, is rarely integrated into program design for new teacher induction. The
lack of attention to reflective judgment may be a vital missing link, especially considering that
Johnson and Reiman (2007) state, “a strong congruence was also found between a teacher’s
judgments and actions” (p. 685). These findings are supported by some in the field of education
who believe that interventions that enhance the development of teachers’ cognitive structures
lead to more desirable teaching behaviors (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall,
12
1993). As Bullough, Young, Hall, Draper, and Smith (2008) point out, the differences in how
individuals reason when problem solving may explain some aspects of the complex nature of
mentor and protégé relationships. They believe that the development of cognitive complexity
needs to become an important part of induction and mentor programs.
Essentially, one of the keys to educational improvement is for teachers to learn strategies
that will help them deal with the uncertain and ill-structured problems that characterize teaching
(Helsing, 2007). The challenge is to find a model of teacher development for beginning teachers
in a complex profession where the work is, as Helsing (2007) states, “centered on human
relationships and involves predicting, interpreting and assessing others’ thoughts, emotions, and
behaviors” (p. 1318).
Reflective Judgment Model
King and Kitchener (1994) have spent nearly 30 years building theory and research on a
model of cognitive development called The Reflective Judgment Model (RJM). They claim that
stage models provide a useful framework for observing human intellectual growth and learning.
They further describe the RJM as a seven-stage model which outlines the development of
reflective judgment, also known as cognitive complexity. Level of cognitive complexity is
determined by how individuals reason—make judgments and use evidence—about ill-structured,
controversial problems (Wood, Kitchener, & Jensen, 2002).
The RJM has not been widely applied in educational research nor has it found a place in
beginning teacher support and induction (Bullough et al., 2008). The supposition for why the
RJM is not used more frequently in education is because of the amount of time that is required to
show measurable growth in cognitive structures and also because development is not automatic.
Cognitive development requires frequent interactions with the environment, reflection, and
13
continuity which in public schools translate to more personnel and more time; both of which are
hot commodities in education.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the use of the Reflective Judgment Model (RJM)
in developmental mentoring and its potential impact on cognitive complexity in beginning
teachers.
Research Questions
The following research questions will be addressed in this study:
1. What is the relationship of different problem-solving rationales of beginning teachers
to different stage levels of cognitive complexity?
2. How can a teacher’s stage level of cognitive complexity be promoted through specific
mentoring strategies?
Significance of the Study
One could assume that teachers at different levels of problem solving (i.e. cognitive
complexity, or reflective judgment) would perceive problems in teaching differently, would
respond differently to their perceived problems, and ultimately would teach in different ways as
a result. If adult cognitive development is not strategically included in the programs that are
designed to support new teachers, then “teacher educators might miss opportunities to nurture
critical reflection” (Friedman & Schoen, 2009, p. 71).
In their daily practice, mentors struggle with exactly what their roles should be (Mertz,
2004). They must be very flexible in their approach with developing teachers. Bullough et al.
(2008) suggest that the knowledge about a beginning teachers’ cognitive complexity, or
reflective judgment, would assist the mentor with adjusting their mentoring strategies to meet the
14
needs of the beginning teacher. Incorporating cognitive complexity into new teacher induction
and support has implications for not only mentors, but for all who work in the field of new
teacher development. Schools of education, policy makers, staff developers, principals, mentors,
and even the new teachers themselves could potentially benefit from this more comprehensive
look at how protégés develop in knowledge and practice.
Definition of Key Terms
The following operational definitions are intended for use throughout this study.
Beginning Teacher (BT)—also referred to as “novice,” is one who is in the induction phase of
teaching (first, second, and third years) (Simmons et al., 1999).
Cognitive Complexity—an individual characteristic that represents the degree to which the
individual uses information to apply multiple perspectives when perceiving and evaluating
stimuli (Lee & Truex, 2000, p. 1).
Developmental Mentoring—involves interventions that promote individual development through
focus on personal and professional growth through cognitive, conceptual, reflective, and moral
domains. This support occurs over a substantial amount of time (Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall,
1998).
Ill-structured problems—Problems that cannot be resolved with a high degree of certainty or a
high degree of completeness. Experts often disagree about the best solution to these problems
(King & Kitchener, 1994).
Induction—period including the first one to three years of teaching after receiving certification
or licensure to teach (Odell & Huling, 2000, p. xv). Induction may include orientation,
professional development, and support and challenge from experienced professionals (Wang,
Odell, & Schwille, 2008).
15
Mentor—experienced teachers who have as part of their professional assignment the mentoring
of beginning teachers as they learn to teach (Odell & Huling, 2000, p. xv).
Mentoring—professional practice that occurs in the context of teaching whenever an experienced
teacher supports, challenges, and guides novice teachers in their teaching practice (Odell &
Huling, 2000, p. xv).
Reasoning About Current Issues Test (RCI)—A measure of reflective judgment that focuses on
the capacity to recognize and endorse statements that reflect the attributes of reflective thinking
as defined by the Reflective Judgment Model (King, n.d).
Reflective Judgment—Ability to evaluate knowledge claims and to explain and defend a point of
view on a controversial issue (King & Kitchener, 1994, p. 13).
Reflective Judgment Model (RJM)—describes the developmental progression that occurs
between childhood and adulthood in the ways that people understand the process of knowing and
in the corresponding ways that they justify their beliefs about ill-structured problems (King &
Kitchener, 1994, p. 13).
Well-Structured Problems—Problems that are described completely and resolved with certainty
(King & Kitchener, 1994, p. 13).
Summary
This introductory chapter included sections on background information, statement of the
problem, theoretical framework, purpose of the study, research questions, significance of the
study, and definition of key terms.
The background information included a discussion of the government regulations and the
enormous amounts of money associated with developing our nation’s largest group in the
workforce, teachers. Attrition, understanding high quality and effectiveness, and factors affecting
16
beginning teachers’ perceptions of success, were listed as challenges to teacher development.
Mentoring and induction have been a widely accepted way to address the challenges to teacher
development.
The overarching theoretical framework presented was Adult Cognitive Developmental
Theory. A more focused strand of this theory deals with reflective judgment. The Reflective
Judgment Model (King & Kitchener, 1994) was presented as the specific framework to guide
this study. The RJM was chosen for its long history of research and effectiveness for the
understanding and development of adult cognition, but also because of its focus on ill-structured
problem solving, which is so characteristic of teaching (Helsing, 2007).
Next, the purpose and research questions were presented to frame the study as one that
will seek to understand the practicality of using the RJM to promote beginning teacher cognitive
development. This study has significance to many stakeholder groups in education since it has
the potential to strengthen the programs related to beginning teacher development in the world of
higher education, mentoring and induction, and staff development as a whole. This study has the
potential to transform the way we approach beginning teacher development by including
reflective judgment as a major goal. This more in-depth focus could provide a missing link in
mentoring and induction that could help educators to accomplish the hard to reach goal of
improving the quality of skills and knowledge of beginning teachers, thus increasing student
achievement.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Chapter II is the review of literature for this study. Current applicable literature important
to this study is included. The purpose of this chapter is to (a) examine the issue of beginning
teacher attrition, (b) examine studies that looked at the effectiveness of mentoring beginning
teachers, (c) review the premise of utilization of Cognitive Developmental Theory in Beginning
Teacher mentoring, and (d) examine studies about how the Reflective Judgment Model could
provide a theoretical framework for mentoring.
This chapter is organized into the following components: factors affecting teacher
attrition, attrition linked to effectiveness, mentoring and induction, mentor program evaluation,
studies on mentor support for beginning teachers, mentoring for cognitive development,
preparation of mentors, overview of Cognitive Development Theory, optimal conditions for
beginning teacher cognitive growth, the Reflective Judgment Model, teacher problem solving,
assessing reflective judgment, and the Sequential Transformative Strategy.
The Problem
The problem of teacher attrition is not a new one. More than 35 years ago, Lortie (1975)
characterized teaching as an occupation with high levels of attrition. As Ingersoll and Kralik
(2004) point out, all occupations experience some level of turnover in staff, but teaching “has
long had an alarmingly high rate of attrition among newcomers” (p. 2). Teacher attrition
continues to plague the field of education with several studies reporting beginning teacher
attrition rates as high as 40% to 50% (Brooks-Young, 2007; Grissmer & Kirby, 1997; Ingersoll
& Smith 2003; Veenman, 1984). Teacher turnover is associated with high monetary costs for
schools, districts, and states. A conservative estimate from the Alliance for Excellence in
18
Education (2008) suggests that American schools spend more than $2.6 billion annually
replacing teachers who have left the profession. However, other analysts believe that the price
tag is even higher. According to one estimate, the recruitment, administrative processing, hiring,
and professional development costs associated with teacher attrition in the United States is over
$7 billion a year (NCTAF, 2007). And, the costs would be considered even higher if you add the
loss in teacher quality and student achievement to the bill.
Factors Affecting Attrition
There are many factors affecting teacher attrition. Vanderslice (2010) documents teacher
attrition causes including: teacher retirement, teacher burnout, increasing numbers of students
with emotional and academic problems, and underprepared teachers. Kukla-Acevedo (2009)
examined three aspects (administrative support, behavioral climate, and classroom control) of
workplace conditions to identify why turnover is so high for new teachers. The most significant
impact for this novice group was behavioral climate. When there were high numbers of students
who misbehaved, beginning teachers were more likely to leave. Guarino, Santibanez, and Daley
(2006) summarize several research studies on teacher attrition which shows that teachers move
away from schools with poor working conditions, such as less autonomy, higher rates of student
behavioral problems and less support from administration. This finding is echoed by Hirsch et al.
(2007) who, using survey data of over 60,000 teachers in North and South Carolina, found that
“evidence throughout the survey indicates that teachers with positive perceptions about their
working conditions are much more likely to stay at their current school than educators who are
more negative about their conditions of work” (p. 14). Borman and Dowling (2008) conducted a
meta-analysis of 34 studies in which they logged odds ratios of attrition based on various
personal characteristics and organizational characteristics. They found that when there was a
19
greater reporting of school-based networks and collaborative work groups among teachers, there
was significantly less attrition (z = -3.33, p < 0.01).
Attrition Linked to Effectiveness
Teacher attrition is related to the quality factor-teacher effectiveness. Regardless of the
reasons why teachers leave or stay in the profession and the costs associated with attrition,
Vanderslice (2010) states “keeping quality teachers should be among the highest priority items
for school leaders” (p. 1). While some turnover is healthy for an organization, too much turnover
causes instability and in education, that can mean less effective instruction and a less conducive
learning environment for students. Ultimately, schools need not only to have the consistency of
teachers in the classroom, but students need a high quality teacher. Furthermore, the factors of
teacher retention and teacher quality are related factors.
In a yearlong study that followed a single beginning teacher during her transition from
college through her first year in the classroom, McNulty and Fox (2010) conducted observations,
interviews, and analysis of written reflections to determine a complete picture of the teacher’s
classroom and work environment. They described their first meeting of the teacher when she was
an undergraduate student that was “distinguished” from many other students. She had great
confidence and ability as she entered teaching. McNulty and Fox (2010) explain that “after only
a few months time, she transformed from a high-achieving preservice candidate into a high-risk
beginning teacher, unsure if she wanted to remain in the profession” (p.1). They further state,
“the degree to which she [the teacher] feels successful and effective as a teacher will determine
whether or not she remains in the field” (p. 1).
Districts need to have a long-term approach to developing teachers that goes beyond the
retention factor. Corbell, Reiman, and Nietfeld (2008) state that “the hope of new teachers that
20
they can make a difference is what can contribute to their decision to continue teaching” (p.
1556). They conducted a study to develop and evaluate psychometric characteristics of an
instrument that would assess novice teachers’ ratings of school support, pedagogy and
continuing education, efficacy, and commitment. Ultimately their goal was “to ascertain
beginning teachers’ sense of success in relation to their reported needs of support,” which they
believed could be helpful in developing support systems for new teachers that would increase
their feelings of success and ultimately would retain good teachers in the teaching profession
(Corbell et al., 2008). They surveyed 166 teachers in their first through third years of teaching
which mirrored the demographics of the overall teaching population of the state. The end result
was an instrument called the Perceptions of Success Inventory for Beginning Teachers (PSI-BT).
The instrument has been assessed in a sample of 439 beginning teachers from across the state of
North Carolina and was found to be both reliable and valid in assessing the following factors: (a)
Administrative Support, (b) Classroom Climate, (c) Mentor Support, (d) Colleague and
Instructional Resource Support, (e) Commitment, and (f) Assignment and Workload. The PSI-
BT is currently being used as a customized inventory allowing school systems to gather data to
inform efforts to induct and retain beginning teachers.
Mentoring and Induction
One predominant way that public schools have attempted to address novice teacher
retention and effectiveness is by developing comprehensive induction programs that include a
mentoring component. According to the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory
(SEDL), nearly every state in the United States is required to have a new teacher induction and
support program (SEDL, 2000). These programs tend to be focused on the important goals of
keeping teachers in the profession and supporting their emotional needs and skill development,
21
but there is little evidence to show that they are designed to support cognitive development of
beginning teachers, which some researchers believe may be a missing link (Bullough et al.,
2008; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Reiman, 1999; Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1993).
While there is very little longitudinal data to show mentoring and induction produce
measurable results for teacher retention, there are a few promising reports. Darling-Hammond
(2003) states that well designed mentoring programs increase retention rates of new teachers by
improving their attitudes, feelings of efficacy, and instructional skills. In one of the largest
statewide mentoring programs the attrition rate of Beginning Teachers in their first five years
dropped to less than 10 percent in California school districts operating the Beginning Teacher
Support and Assessment (BTSA) program (Wood, 1999), compared to a statewide trend of 50
percent. Similarly, in Louisiana results of a three-year implementation of the Framework for
Inducting, Retaining, and Supporting Teachers (FIRST) showed an 88 percent retention rate of
certified new teachers in Thibodaux Parish (Breaux, 1999).
There are differing views about the effectiveness of mentoring for professional growth. A
report from The Alliance for Excellence in Education (2008) states, “The combination of
professional development and exposure to their mentors’ and other teachers’ experiences can
shorten the time it takes for new teachers to perform at the same level as an experienced teacher”
(p. 6). By contrast, in their review of the literature on the effects of new teacher induction on
teaching practices and student achievement, Wang et al. (2008) state “claims that induction
programs directly support teaching reform for novices are empirically premature” (p.146). The
differing views are probably a result of the lack of clarity about the role and expectations for
mentoring. Clearly, there is potential for mentors to be a catalyst for new teacher growth if the
22
conditions are right, but mentoring varies from situation to situation, in part due to the structure
and founding principles that guide the mentoring program itself.
Program Evaluation
One problem with the differing views about the effectiveness of mentoring and induction
is the lack of program evaluation. While nearly every state requires a mentoring program for
beginning teachers, the evaluation of those programs are virtually non-existent. Monitoring and
evaluation is a critical piece of an effective induction program involving mentoring. The
evaluation system should have several key components as outlined by Odell and Huling (2000,
pp. 88-89):
1. Evaluation addresses program purposes, effectiveness of mentoring practices, teacher
retention and certification, and effectiveness of program activities.
2. Evaluation is designed collaboratively by a representative group of program
participants.
3. Data are collected continuously from a wide variety of stakeholders.
4. Formative and summative evaluation data are collected.
The overall evaluation system should be comprised of several forms of data. There should be
perception surveys given to various stakeholders including novices, mentors, principals, and
senior staff. Teacher retention and certification data can be collected by the Human Resources
Department and tracked and monitored by the supervisor of the mentoring program. Teacher
observations, mentor logs, and interview data could also be used to determine the effectiveness
of the program. Regardless of the means of data collection the evaluation should always be tied
back to the goals and purpose of the program. The data collected should then be used in the
planning of future goals and activities of the program.
23
Studies on Mentor Support for Beginning Teachers
The problems associated with mentoring and induction programs seem to stem from two
major underlying issues, mentor roles and preparation. These two issues cause persistent
problems with program design, program implementation, program evaluation, and overall
program effectiveness.
Mentoring is a term which can have many different meanings and interpretations, so it
comes as no surprise that an argument exists regarding the primary purpose of mentoring. While
one can find mentoring support for new teachers in nearly every state in the United States,
Feiman-Nemser (1996) states “Enthusiasm for mentoring has not been matched by clarity about
the purposes of mentoring” (p. 1). Studies on the effectiveness of mentoring have been mainly
case study format and show primarily a relationship where a mentor’s role is to nurture the
beginning teacher (Clarke & Jarvis-Selinger, 2005; Young, Bullough, Draper, Smith, &
Erickson, 2005). In terms of actual professional development, there is little evidence that mentors
give critical feedback even when that feedback is desired (Edwards & Protheroe, 2004). Carter
and Foster (2007) state, “The mentor’s role is currently viewed as a multi-task endeavor
involving different assignments such as leader, teacher, coach, helper, role model, and nurturer”
(p. 38).
In a study of mentoring program participants from a state-mandated program in
Wisconsin, Ganser (1992) indicate that mentor roles are often nebulous. Mentors in this study
saw their role as to provide emotional support to beginning teachers as well as to help them with
logistics as opposed to focusing on critical elements of teaching such as curriculum design,
instructional strategies, or professional development. A follow-up study (Ganser, 1996) of eleven
mentors employed in urban school districts and 13 in nonurban school districts who mentored
24
eight beginning teachers each further examined mentoring roles. Mentors identified 285 mentor
roles, 217 benefits of mentoring, and 185 obstacles to mentoring. During subsequent analysis,
these items were collapsed into 20 roles, 21 benefits, and 14 obstacles which were then ranked
by the mentors in order of importance. The resulting top six roles were:
1. Provide beginning teacher with support and encouragement
2. Meet with beginning teacher regularly
3. Inform beginning teacher about school culture and climate
4. Provide beginning teacher with information about policies and procedures
5. Help beginning teachers with discipline and classroom management
6. Help beginning teacher with teaching skills.
A second study, related to roles of mentor teachers, from Young, Bullough, Draper,
Smith, and Erickson (2008) was designed to shed light on mentor teachers’ perceptions of their
roles and responsibilities and to contrast their understandings with a normative view of
mentoring. Young et al. (2008) surveyed 264 mentor teachers and then randomly selected 34 of
them with whom to conduct follow up interviews. Data collection and analysis for this survey
study occurred in two phases: (a) the administration and analysis of an open-ended survey
designed to gain an understanding of the participating mentors’ perceptions of their roles and
responsibilities; and (b) a follow-up telephone interview with a randomly selected subset of the
mentors who had responded to the survey. Based on the survey feedback, responses were
clustered into four major categories for responsibilities: (a) emotional and professional support,
(b) university assignment to supervise, (c) critical evaluation and reflection, and (d) team
teaching/collaboration. The largest number of responses were related to emotional and
professional support (73%, n = 519). The researchers stated that, “it appears that this is a key part
25
of how mentors view their roles and responsibilities” (Young et al., 2008, p. 335). The next
highest number of responses were related to the university assignment to supervise, which was
17% (n = 121) of the total. This represented the most basic of mentor responsibilities. The last
two categories had very small numbers of responses. Those responses related to critical
evaluation and reflection represented 8% (n = 58) of the total and only 2% of the responses were
related to team teaching and collaboration (n = 10).
Through this study, Young et al. (2008) noted lack of a shared understanding between
university teacher educators and public school teachers about the roles and responsibilities of
mentoring, and they also noticed confusion about the meaning of the terms mentor and
mentoring. The data analysis for this study revealed that what the researchers (Young et al.,
2008) initially took to be “a normative concept for mentoring is, in fact, rarely held by teachers
who often think of mentoring as synonymous with the designation cooperating teacher and
means nothing more than providing a place for the pre-service teacher to practice teaching and
offering a little support” (p. 343).
Feiman-Nemser (1996) suggests that if educators want to have real reform in teaching
and learning, then mentors should assist beginning teachers with “conceptually oriented learner-
centered teaching” where the teacher’s role is to facilitate learning through carefully crafted
experiences and assignments. In a learner-centered environment, students interact with materials
and the environment while the teacher encourages, guides, and supports the learning process.
The teacher’s role in a conceptually oriented learner-centered classroom is not the traditional
presentation or lecture environment so often found in public schools. Feiman-Nemser (1996)
further states that if we expect the role of the mentor to be helping beginning teachers to learn
new ways of teaching, then we have to position them with mentors “who are already reformers in
26
their schools and classrooms (Cochran-Smith, l991), or develop collaborative contexts where
mentors and novices can explore new approaches together” (p. 1).
Mentoring for Cognitive Development
Ballantyne and Hansford (1995) suggest that the role of the mentor should change with
the needs of beginning teachers. Indeed the role of the mentor is complex, regardless of the role
definition. If mentors and beginning teachers are given opportunity for interaction where they
can practice and act in new ways, then the outcome will be “most likely visible in higher
cognitive responses” (Carter & Foster, 2007, p. 44). Furthermore, researchers (Friedman &
Shoen, 2009; Glassberg & Sprinthall,1980; Oja, 1990; Thies-Sprinthall, 1984) have determined
that it is possible to apply direct interventions-such as probative journals and seminar discussions
guided by a protocol-that promote higher stage growth in teacher’s ego, moral, and cognitive
development. By using specifically designed strategies that promote reflection and cognitive
growth, the mentor can become “the catalyst for growth” (Carter & Foster, 2007, p. 44).
There is evidence that ignoring developmental levels of mentors and novices has
potentially negative implications (Reiman & Gardner, 1995; Thies-Sprinthall, 1984). Thies-
Sprinthall (1984) found that teachers functioning at very modest levels of development, based on
Rest’s measure of post-conventional moral thinking and Hunt’s measure of conceptual
complexity, negatively and inaccurately evaluated their student teachers who functioned at
higher levels on both measures. Likewise, Reiman and Gardner (1995) found that mentors
operating at low to moderate levels of post-conventional moral thinking and moderate levels of
conceptual complexity gave significantly fewer opportunities for their mentees to contribute to
dialogue and they tended to describe teaching to their mentees as if there were only one best way
to approach instruction.
27
Preparation for Mentors
Appropriate training for mentors is a crucial design component of any quality mentoring
program, but particularly with regards to developmental mentoring. First and foremost, the
mentors must be trained on the goals and purposes of the overall program (Odell & Huling,
2000). The goals and purpose must be revisited on an ongoing basis, constantly refined, and
adopted in a consensus-building process. Mentors should be trained in the background of
cognitive developmental theory as well as any guiding framework or model such as Cognitive
Coaching (Costa & Garmston, 1997), Conceptual Systems Theory (Hunt, 1971) , or Reflective
Judgment Model (King & Kitchener, 1994) if those are to be utilized. Mentors must also have an
understanding of the conditions that promote growth in adult learners as well as an understanding
of developmental theory to effectively utilize the principles associated with a developmental
domain to effect a change and subsequent growth in that domain.
In order for mentors of a developmental mentoring program to be successful, they need
extensive ongoing training in how to guide novices through the reflection process and how to
provide balance between reflection and experience for the beginning teacher in order to
discourage an over reliance on experience (Thies-Sprinthall, 1984). Mentors also have to be
taught how to provide support while also challenging the novice. This condition, says Thies-
Sprinthall (1984), requires giving up an old thought process that is “less adequate, more
concrete, less empathetic, more stylized system of thought and action” (p. 330). The mentor must
be able to stick with this process for an extended period of time, 6 months to 1 year, in order to
growth to take place. They need time and ample opportunity to practice their newly learned
skills, but mentors also need ongoing support for their own growth and development. They
should be given time to reflect on their own experiences, practice and problem solve in simulated
28
situations, analyze mentor/novice interactions, receive coaching and feedback on their mentoring
practices, share and study with other mentors, and explore strategies to build and strengthen the
mentor/novice relationships (Odell & Huling, 2000, p. 69).
Cognitive Developmental Theory
In order to understand how quality determines the effectiveness of a mentoring program it
is critical to have a theoretical framework to serve as the foundation for the mentoring program
components as well as for the professional development of the mentors. Cognitive
Developmental Theory is the underpinning for the developmental practices on which the current
study is based.
The foundation for Cognitive Developmental Theory began with the work of Jean Piaget as
far back as the 1930’s, where he proposed that there were four distinct, increasingly
sophisticated stages of mental representation that children pass through on their way to
adulthood. Piaget emphasized that children needed sufficient experiences in each stage and that
they moved through the stages sequentially. This model of cognitive growth dealt primarily with
adolescence and Piaget (1972) further proposed that cognitive growth in adult years happened in
a way that was unique to each person. Lev Vygotsky, another prominent developmental
psychologist, had a view similar to that of Piaget, but emphasized the child’s social interactions
and culture as major contributors to their cognitive growth (Slavin, 2003). Scaffolding is another
Vygotskian principle which involves providing the learner with hints or clues for problem
solving in order to allow the student to better approach a seemingly difficult problem. Piaget, by
contrast, would assume that a child did not yet have the mental structures to solve such a
problem. The basis of the Vygotskian philosophy (Vygotsky, 1978) was the “Zone of Proximal
29
Development,” which refers to the level of development immediately above a person's present
level.
The work of Piaget and Vygotsky set the groundwork for subsequent stage theorists in
the field of education who studied other domains of growth including adult conceptual
development (Hunt, 1971), moral/ethical development (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977), ego
development (Loevinger, 1976), epistemological assumptions (King & Kitchener, 1994; Perry,
1969), as well as a developmental supervisory model (Glickman & Gordon, 1987).
Developmental stage theorists, regardless of the domain of focus, have the basic principle in
common that “humans learn and grow based on their significant interactions with people and
their environment” (Carter & Foster, 2007, p. 44). This theoretical framework allows us to better
understand how novice teachers learn and grow. In practice, the zone of proximal development
can be paralleled to the principle of support and challenge outlined in the Teaching/Learning
Framework presented by Reiman and Thies-Sprinthall (1998). The theory of cognitive
development provides a vehicle by which mentoring and support of novices should be structured.
Cognitive Developmental Theory assumes that cognitive structures are composed of
different developmental domains. David Hunt’s work in conceptual development is one of those
domains and is useful for describing how an individual processes information (Hunt, 1971).
Conceptual Development is a combination of cognitive complexity and interpersonal maturity. In
Hunt’s Conceptual System’s Theory, there are 3 Levels, characterized by degree of complexity
on a continuum from low to high. Behavioral characteristics of individuals operating at a Low
conceptual level (CL) are reflected in their abilities to: think in concrete ways, not consider
others’ thoughts, not tolerate ambiguity well, and not question authority. Teachers at this level
tend to teach directly from textbooks, hold strictly to lesson plans without regard for student
30
progress or input, and not question their supervisors such as mentors and administrators.
Individuals who operate at a moderate CL are characterized by their abilities to: begin thinking
in more abstract ways, have an increased tolerance for ambiguity, and begin questioning
authority. Teachers at this level may consider multiple teaching strategies for a single objective,
consider input from their colleagues in lesson planning, and question policies and procedures
presented by their superiors. Behavioral characteristics of individuals who are at a higher level of
CL are reflected in their abilities to: think abstractly, operate with fewer directions, show concern
for others’ ideas, weigh alternatives, and hold to their values, but evaluate information and have
an awareness of others. Teachers at this level are more autonomous in their planning. They are
able to make decisions and act with minimal direction. They think of several alternatives for
lessons and may adjust their teaching based on student data. These teachers also question the
practices, procedures, policies of themselves and others and may offer alternatives. As with other
developmental stage models, the levels outlined in Hunt’s Conceptual System’s Theory do not
evolve in a lock-step, one-stage-at-a-time way. Rather, people typically operate at multiple
levels, but primarily show characteristics of a single level. Hence, development can be pictured
as a series of uneven, overlapping waves.
Along with Hunt’s Conceptual Systems Theory, he created the Matching Model (Hunt,
1971) which explains appropriate environments that are responsive to learners at various levels
of conceptual development. This model proposes that low CL individuals need a high level of
structure in their environment while high CL individuals need a low level of structure. The
concept is similar to the Vygotskian principle of Zone of Proximal Development. The teacher or
mentor gives the needed support for the learner depending on their readiness for learning and
31
then stretches into activities or tasks that are a little higher in complexity for the purpose of
moving the learner from a lower to a higher level of development (Reiman, 1993).
Conceptual Systems Theory and the Matching Model, as part of developmental theory,
have application to mentoring and specifically developmental mentoring. Studies have linked
conceptual levels of teachers to their classroom behaviors (Miller, 1981; Reiman, 1993). In
thinking about teachers operating at low CL, we would expect to see a teacher who blames
students, who uses low levels of questioning, and who does not reflect on his/her own
experiences. A teacher at moderate CL is receptive to other information, uses more than one
method to assess learning, and does engage in some reflective behaviors. A teacher at a high CL
would exhibit more empathy, a reduction in prejudice, and more autonomy (Miller, 1981). It is
helpful to remember that developmental theory assumes that human cognitive growth “occurs
within different domains and moves in upward stages that are qualitatively discrete and
identifiable” (Carter & Foster, 2007, p. 44). If a mentor or supervisor can predict behaviors of a
novice teacher based on the teacher’s CL, then they will be better able to differentiate their
mentoring strategies to meet the needs of the individual.
Optimal Conditions for BT Cognitive Development
Bullough et al. (2008) state, “To teach is to enter a world fraught with ill-structured,
insistent, and emotionally loaded problems” (p. 1848). As support providers, mentors are able to
help spur growth through observation and feedback, through modeling lessons, and through
dialogue. Still, there are conditions that will provide the greatest conditions for beginning teacher
development. Conditions for adult development, which have been applied to beginning teacher
cognitive development, are outlined in the “Teaching/Learning Framework” (Reiman & Thies-
Sprinthall, 1993, 1998). Those conditions include: (a) significant experience/role-taking, (b)
32
reflection on experience, (c) balance between reflection and experience, (d) support and
challenge, and (e) continuity. The training components for skill development which are part of
the Teaching/Learning Framework (TFL) are: describe the model, view the model/demonstrate,
plan and peer teach, adapt and generalize (Joyce & Showers, 2002). The studies of Thies-
Sprinthall (1984) have found that when the conditions of the TLF are present, significant growth
and development occurs.
In relation to the first condition, Thies-Sprinthall (1984) states “Growth towards more
complex levels of cognitive-developmental functioning appears to be most influenced by placing
persons in qualitatively significant role taking experiences” (p. 54). The new roles should equate
to experiences that stretch a person’s functioning somewhat, but do not call for functioning far
beyond a preferred style. New teachers automatically confront a significant new experience upon
becoming a teacher. They must assume new roles as the instructional leaders and managers of
their classrooms.
Regarding the second condition, reflection on their new experience, Reiman and Thies-
Sprinthall (1993) surmise that, “carefully guided reflection may be a crucial key needed to
unlock the potential for developmental growth” (p. 184). They make this determination based on
their own research that used guided reflection to promote the development of mentor teachers.
Reiman and Thies-Sprinthall (1993) designed a quasi-experimental study of 34 experienced
teachers split into a control group (n = 17) and a comparison group (n = 17). The control group
contained mentors in training who received journal feedback based on their conceptual level;
more direct responses for lower Conceptual Level teachers and less direct responses for higher
Conceptual Level teachers. The control group intervention occurred over a 6 month period and
“large positive gains” were realized on both the Hunt Paragraph Completion Test (p < .15) and
33
the Rest Defining Issues Test (p < .10). The researchers (Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1993)
conducted a 1-year follow-up study with a single group of 12 teachers, which showed even more
positive results. More recently, Friedman and Schoen (2009) used a multifaceted intervention to
raise levels of reflective judgment during field experiences and concluded that, “when
participants responded to interventions, they progressed in their capacity to address ambiguity,
recognize complexity of knowledge claims, reason and justify evidence, and make reflective
judgments” (p. 71).
The third condition, balance between experience and reflection, simply means that the
support provider should “provide for cycles of experiential application and intellectual analysis”
(Thies-Sprinthall, 1984). Balance discourages the over reliance on experience or on reflection
(Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1993).
The fourth condition, support and challenge, is described by Thies-Sprinthall (1984) as a
situation where participants take on a new role, the challenge, and then are offered major
personal support as a direct part of the instruction. The literature shows little evidence of
deliberately addressing “issues of uncertainty and dilemma” which are characteristic of teaching
(Helsing, 2007). As Helsing (2007) states, “without any attempt to develop a repertoire of
strategies for addressing their uncertainties, teachers may feel overwhelmed by them” and they
may either minimize their uncertainties or determine that these uncertainties will go away with
“increased expertise and experience” (p. 1330). For mentors, learning a support/challenge
responding process may be difficult, as they must learn how to be more or less direct in their
conferencing style (Arredondo & Rucinski, 1998). As Reiman and Thies-Sprinthall (1998) have
determined, “too much support or support without challenge essentially creates a condition of no
growth” (p. 77).
34
The fifth condition of continuity is important because developmental growth does not
occur as a result of a one-time interaction or one isolated reflection on an event. The process of
developmental growth happens over time. In fact, Thies-Sprinthall (1984) suggests that the time
for significant change “probably should extend over at least a six-month to one-year period with
meetings at regular intervals, usually weekly” (p. 54). The first year of teaching seems to involve
not just an extension or modification of beliefs and practices from teacher education, but also the
development of an entirely new perspective (Kyriacou, 1993). The approach that seems to have
the most merit in helping teachers to gain new perspectives involves assisting them in their
reflective thinking. One is expected to take on “new cognitions at the expense of old cognitions”
(Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1998, p. 74). And, this condition can be supported by a qualified
mentor who works with a beginning teacher over an extended period of time.
Reflective Judgment Model
Reflective judgment is an aspect of critical thinking that is built on the work of Perry
(1969), Broughton (1978), Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder (1961), and Loevinger (1976). Reflective
judgment differs from other domains of development in the “observation that epistemic
assumptions affect the way individuals resolve ill-structured problems and that true reflective
thinking occurs only when people are engaged in thinking about problems that involve real
uncertainty” (King & Kitchener, 1994, p. 41). Another nuance of reflective judgment is that it is
considered a “complex stage theory” which is a radical change in how development is
conceptualized. Rather than discrete stages set forth by earlier theorists, reflective judgment is
characterized by King, Kitchener, and Wood (1994) as
. . . waves across a mixture of stages, where the peak of a wave is the most commonly used set of assumptions. While there is still an observable pattern to the movement between stages, this developmental movement is better described as the changing shape of the wave rather than as a pattern of uniform steps interspersed with plateaus. (p. 140)
35
The Reflective Judgment Model (RJM) is a developmental model of cognitive
development. The RJM has its foundation in the work of Dewey (1933) who argued that
reflective judgments are initiated when one recognizes that a problem cannot be solved with
formal logic alone, but instead must include one’s own beliefs and supporting evidence. It
explains the problem solving or reasoning that occurs when one encounters ill-structured
problems that cannot be solved with certainty. King and Kitchener (2002) developed the RJM as
a conceptual framework consisting of 7 developmental stages of cognitive development that
involve a person’s view of knowledge and justification of their beliefs. Table 1 shows the
assumptions about knowledge at each stage of the Reflective Judgment Model. Individuals at
lower stages (1-3) of the RJM view knowledge as certain or temporarily unavailable. Their
beliefs are a direct reflection of their perceived reality, which is based on observation and what
authorities say is true. Individuals at more moderate levels (Stage 4-5) begin to use evidence to
justify their beliefs, but they use evidence in a biased or idiosyncratic way. They obtain
knowledge through inquiry, personal opinion or opinions of others, bias, and logic. Individuals at
higher levels (Stage 6-7) understand that knowledge is uncertain. They obtain knowledge
through the evaluated opinions of experts, critical inquiry, and synthesis. And they justify their
beliefs through a process of evaluation and are willing to change their beliefs when new
information is gathered.
There are several reasons that the RJM is a useful tool for understanding how novice
teachers grow. The model addresses the reasoning that involves making a judgment about an
issue over which reasonable, well-informed, even expert, people disagree. These type of issues,
called “ill-structured problems” (Kitchener et al., 2006, p. 74) are characteristic of many issues
found in the teaching profession.
36
Table 1
Assumptions about Knowledge: Stages 1-7 of the Reflective Judgment Model
Stage How Certain is Knowledge? How is Knowledge Gained?
How are Beliefs Justified?
1 Absolutely certain. Via direct observation. Beliefs are a direct reflection of reality. No need to justify.
2 Absolutely certain but not immediately available.
Via direct observation and what authorities say is true.
Direct observation or via authorities.
3 Absolutely certain about some things; temporarily uncertain about others.
Via authorities in some areas; via personal biases when knowledge is uncertain.
Via authorities in some areas; what feels right in the moment when knowledge is uncertain.
4 No certainty because of situational variables (data lost over time).
Via personal and others’ biases, data, and logic.
Via idiosyncratic evaluations of evidence and unevaluated beliefs.
5 No certainty except via personal perspectives within a specific context.
Via evidence gathered through rules of inquiry appropriate for the context.
Via rules of inquiry for a particular context.
6 Some personal certainty about beliefs based on evaluations of evidence on different sides of the question.
Via personal assessment of arguments and data; via evaluated opinions of experts.
Via generalized rules of inquiry, personal evaluations that apply across contexts, evaluated views of experts.
7 Certainty that some knowledge claims are better and more reasonable than others although they are open to evaluation.
Via a process of critical inquiry or synthesis.
Via more or less reasonable conjectures about reality or the world based on an integration and evaluation of data, evidence, and/or opinion.
Note: Adapted from King and Kitchener, 1994.
37
Secondly, the RJM is “perhaps the best known and most extensively studied model of adult
cognitive development” (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, p. 123).And also, the RJM ties the
development of epistemological assumptions to the way people justify their beliefs. Based on
many years of longitudinal studies with over 1,700 participants, Reiman and Peace (2004)
suggest that reflective judgment is a gradual evolution of intellectual development and critical
thinking. This model, if used in mentoring, has the potential to help mentors and novices better
understand why a person believes what they do, and gives them the tools to increase their
complexity of understanding. Ultimately, an increase in complexity of thinking may lead to real
and lasting change in teaching behaviors.
There were four studies on reflective judgment related to mentoring and new teacher
support that were found. In one study, Smith and Pape (1991) investigated the relationship
between student teachers’ constructs of how knowledge is generated and organized (their levels
of reflective judgment) and actual teaching practices. Elementary and Secondary student teachers
at one field experience center participated in the study, though no exact number of participants
was reported. Data were collected through field notes, course records, anecdotal notes of clinical
teacher comments and student teacher conferences, final grade point averages, scores on the
Reflective Judgment Interview, and student journals. Data analysis revealed a relationship
between reflective judgment and classroom practice. In this study, teachers with low levels of
reflective judgment showed a heavy reliance on authorities and textbooks and used lecture as a
primary instructional strategy. Teachers with higher levels of reflective judgment were more
flexible and creative with their instructional presentation.
In a second study, Kitchener, Lynch, Fischer, and Wood (1993) interviewed 156
volunteer students from ages 14-28 years old, using the Reflective Judgment Interview (RJI) and
38
the Prototypic Reflective Judgment Interview (PRJI). These two interview protocols were
designed to represent a functional level of reflective judgment and a high support condition of
reflective judgment respectively. For both conditions, two problems were presented along with
summary statements of each reflective judgment stage from Stage 2 to Stage 7 based on the
Reflective Judgment Model. Each summary statement addressed three major rating components
in a stage-appropriate way; (a) the extent to which one can know for sure the viewpoint is
correct; (b) the basis for the point of view; and (c) an explanation of why people have different
points of view about the issue. Support was provided through the interview process itself. In the
high support condition (PRJI), participants were asked to explain statements at each level of the
model rather than to articulate responses independently, which was the task in the RJI. Also, a
memory prompt was provided during the PRJI, which informed the participants of the concepts
about which they would be questioned along with concrete examples. The statements were
presented to participants in developmental stage order to support their understanding of the
increasing complexity of the statements. During the PRJI, the interviewer also provided the
participants with a list of questions to consider as they were making their summary statement.
In the high support condition (PRJI), respondents scored higher than they did in the low
support condition (RJI) and as predicted, scores on the PRJI at time 2 were higher than the mean
scores on the RJI at either time of testing. Individuals in the experimental high support group
scored higher after receiving support intervention and scores on the measure designed to assess
optimal level were higher than the RJI mean score, the measure of functional level. The
researchers found that participants’ reflective judgment scores were higher after practice and
when support for the individual was high. A summary of the results is displayed in Table 2.
39
Table 2 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for the Reflective Judgment Interview (RJI), the Reflective Judgment Highest Stage Hit, and the Prototypic Reflective Judgment Interview (PRJI) by Time of Testing
RJI RJI Highest Stage PRJI
Group/time M SD M SD M SD
Group 1 (ages 14-18) Time 1 Time 2
3.63 3.70
0.54 0.55
4.15 4.12
0.70 0.76
4.04 4.24
0.62 0.72
Group 2 (ages 19-22) Time 1 Time 2
4.42 4.53
0.63 0.72
5.00 5.16
0.68 0.77
4.97 5.38
1.03 0.87
Group 3 (ages 23-28) Time 1 Time 2
5.05 5.47
0.85 0.83
5.75 6.25
0.98 0.80
5.66 6.07
1.07 0.73
Note. Sample sizes are, for Group 1, n = 40; for Group 2, n = 31 at Time 1 for RJI scores and n = 32 for remainder of scores; and for Group 3, n = 32.
In a recent exploratory study by Bullough et al. (2008) seventeen beginning teachers and
nine mentors completed email questionnaires, interviews, and the online Reasoning about
Current Issues (RCI) test, which served as a measure of cognitive complexity. All data sets were
analyzed through constant comparative methods. Beginning teachers were placed into two
groups, High Reasoning about Current Issues (LRCI) scores and Low Reasoning about Current
Issues (LRCI) scores. The two groups were compared on the following factors: (a) factors of
mentee expectations and mentors’ views of mentoring, (b) central issues, (c) problem ownership
and resolution, and (d) use of evidence. The analysis suggested that cognitive complexity does
play a role in the difficulties associated with role expectations of mentors and mentees. Also, the
researchers found that teachers with higher levels of reflective judgment brought to their
40
teaching challenges conceptual tools that facilitated and seemed to accelerate their learning while
teachers at lower levels tended to rely on others for problem solution. And finally, Bullough et
al. (2008) state that while the HRCI teachers began the year fully prepared for systematic
problem solving and reflection, the “LRCI group probably needed but generally did not get
support of a different kind-support coupled with opportunities for continuous and balanced
reflection that they themselves, likely could not have initiated” (p. 1856).
In a final study, Friedman and Schoen (2009) explored the use of the Reflective
Judgment Model (King & Kitchener, 1994) to explain how preservice teachers reason about ill-
structured problems of practice and the possible impact of a multifaceted intervention to raise
levels of reflective judgment during their field experiences. The study was described as a
“complex, instrumental, intrinsic and collective case study that employed elements of
participatory action research” (Friedman & Schoen, 2009, p. 63). The participants were 16
female college juniors enrolled in the third prepracticum experience in an elementary education
certification program from January through April. Interventions included online probative,
practice-based journals and biweekly/triweekly reflective judgment interview protocol. Data
sources included tape-recorded, transcribed, and member-checked discussions, journals, a final
essay, and a self-analysis that evaluated how and why personal ability to make reflective
judgments had regressed, temporized, or progressed. The researchers concluded that when
participants responded to interventions based on the RJM they progressed in their “capacity to
address ambiguity, recognize complexity of knowledge claims, reason and justify evidence, and
make reflective judgments” (p. 71). They also concluded that “timely and systematic probing of
responses can help preservice teachers progress rather than temporize or regress” (p. 71).
41
Teacher Problem Solving
Veenman (1984) reviewed 83 studies that appeared from 1960 to 1984 on the perceived
problems of beginning teachers in their first year(s) of teaching. In that review, the top five
problems of beginning teachers were presented in the following order: classroom discipline,
motivation of students, dealing with individual differences in students, and tied for fourth and
fifth were assessing student work and relations with parents. These problems parallel those found
in a more recent study (Watzke, 2007) where teacher concerns were categorized into impact-,
task-, and self-related concerns. Watzke found, in his study of 79 beginning teachers over a two
year period, “student academic growth” and “student motivation” remained top ranked for the
impact-related concerns. “Student socio-emotional growth” and “individual student differences”
peaked at the end of the first year, and then began to gradually decrease. As with the Veenman
(1984) review, “classroom conduct” was initially among the highest ranked task-related concern
in Watzke’s (2007) study, however, it was not among the top five at the end of the two year
study.
Perhaps more important than the content of the problems experienced by new teachers is
the type of problems that the teachers experience and the process that they use to make decisions
regarding those problems. For example, Manning and Bucher (2007) state that with regards to
the problem of behavior management, “teachers often avoid creative instructional approaches
because they have to deal with increased misbehaviors” (Manning & Bucher, 2007, p. 6). So,
even though a new teacher may be asked by school administration to differentiate instruction,
he/she may revert to a familiar and more traditional whole class, lecture-response format in order
to avoid misbehavior of students. This problem is complex. There are many variables to consider
including student motivation, student academic readiness, student learning preferences, teacher
42
perceived success, instructional strategies, administrative expectation, and many others. One
could surmise that the solution to the problem will dependent on how well prepared for problem
solving that the beginning teacher is, and also the rationales that he/she uses for problem solving.
Well-structured Versus Ill-structured Problems
King and Kitchener (1994) describe well-structured problems as those problems that can
be completely defined and can be settled with certainty. They have one correct answer and can
be answered within a single frame of reference. Well-structured problems do not require
considering an alternative argument, seeking out new evidence, or evaluating the reliability of
data and sources of information. Ill-structured problems, on the other hand, are described as
problems about which even experts reasonably disagree. These problems cannot be solved by
simply applying a formula. They require making judgments based on the power of evidence. Ill-
structured problems are complex problems of society that "cannot be described with a high
degree of completeness or solved with a high degree of certainty" (King & Kitchener, 1994, p.
10).
Assessing Reflective Judgment
Many of the variables that developmental researchers study cannot be observed directly.
Instead, information about these variables must be inferred based on observations of participant
behaviors or by indirect means such as rating scales or tests. Kitchener, King, and DeLuca
(2006) state “Assessing an individual’s epistemic assumptions and ways of making meaning is a
challenging undertaking” (p. 85).
Two major categories of instruments are used to assess cognitive development;
production tasks and recognition tasks. Production tasks demand that participants “spontaneously
produce a response based on his or her existing repertoire of cognitive skills” (King & Kitchener,
43
1994, p. 103). The advantage to this type of task is that it may yield more rich data about how a
person reasons, how they approach a task, how they arrive at solutions, and why they reject other
solutions. A disadvantage to a production task is that it takes a lot of time and potentially costs a
lot of money, which may not be feasible especially with larger sample sizes. In recognition tasks,
individuals are “presented with a series of response options rather than being asked to generate
responses spontaneously at the time of testing” (King, 1990, p. 93). There are 3 major
advantages to using recognition tasks, (a) they allow the researcher to focus respondents'
attention on the specific areas of interest, (b) they are not as difficult as production tasks, and (c)
they are less expensive and easier to administer and score (King, 1990).
One approach to assessing reflective judgment is a production task called the Reflective
Judgment Interview (RJI) (King & Kitchener, 1994). This semi-structured interview presents
four dilemmas and asks the respondent to give his/her opinion about the issue with special
emphasis on the justification for their opinion. The interview is conducted by a trained reviewer
and transcripts of the interviews are scored by trained, certified raters. While this interview
format is a well-calibrated instrument and “yields a more complete and potentially more accurate
description of how individuals reason than other types of formats” (King & Kitchener, 1994), it
is often impractical for many assessment professionals because of the time and expense
associated with interviewing, transcribing, and rating the data (King & Kitchener, 1994; Wood,
1997).
A more recent assessment of reflective judgment, which relates specifically to King and
Kitchener’s (1994) Reflective Judgment Model, is the Reasoning about Current Issues Test
(RCI). The RCI is a recognition task that focuses on “the capacity to recognize and endorse more
epistemically sophisticated statements from among a range of alternatives” (Kitchener et al.,
44
2006, p. 85). The test is similar to Rest’s (1979) Defining Issue Test, but focuses on
epistemological rather than moral or ethical concerns. Due in part to the fact that the RCI is a
recognition task instead of a production task, it is not an objective version of the RJI, but rather
the RCI assesses related skills. The RCI is administered on-line and provides a test of functional
rather than optimal reasoning ability about controversial issues.
Sequential Transformative Strategy
To date, generally, growth in reflective judgment has not been a deliberate goal of
mentoring programs. Furthermore, the Reflective Judgment Model has not been considered
in the design of mentoring programs for beginning teachers. Thus, a study which is founded
on these two principles should be guided by a transformative sequential strategy. Creswell
(2003) describes the sequential transformative strategy as a type of mixed-methods design
having two distinct data collection phases, one following the other where either method can
be used first and priority can be given to either phase or even both. In addition, the results of
the two phases are integrated during the interpretation phase. Most importantly, the
sequential transformative model has a theoretical perspective to guide the study. In this type
of design, “the aim of the theoretical perspective, whether it be a conceptual framework, a
specific ideology, or advocacy is more important in guiding the study than the use of methods
alone” (Creswell, 2003, p. 216).
Creswell (2003) explains that the main purpose of using a sequential transformative
strategy is to utilize the methods that will assist the theoretical perspective of the researcher.
In the case of this study, methods have to be chosen by which cognitive growth can be
measured over time, new mentoring strategies utilized, and a determination if the mentoring
strategies themselves caused a difference. Creswell (2003) also states that the sequential
45
transformative design allows the researcher to give voice to diverse perspectives or better
understand a process that is changing as a result of being studied.
Summary
Teacher quality is an important issue in public education for several reasons; the link
between quality teaching and student achievement, the amount of money spent on teacher
development, and the policies related to teacher quality that shape our program structures for
professional development and mentoring.
There is potential to see real reform in teaching and learning through use of a mentoring
program designed for the purpose of cognitive development. Focusing on cognitive complexity
has the promise of building more productive mentoring relationships (Bullough et al., 2008;
Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1998). Previous research shows that interventions involving
support/challenge journal exchange between mentors and novices can lead to significant change
in levels of moral reasoning (Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1993). Reiman and Thies-Sprinthall
(1993) found evidence from four different studies and meta-analyses that higher levels of
cognitive-developmental reasoning were predictors of behavior. Specifically, novice teachers at
higher stages were more reflective and more stable. Also, cooperating teachers at lower levels
discouraged novices from trying innovative and more flexible approaches to teaching.
The “Teaching/Learning Framework” provides a context for understanding what is
needed for optimal new teacher development. Perhaps the required conditions of reflection,
balance, and support/challenge should be further defined by the theoretical perspective found in
cognitive developmental theory in order to inform the exact sequence of interventions used by
mentors. When speaking of cognitive development “higher is better” (Sprinthall et al., 1996, p.
46
697). Therefore, using a well researched theoretical model to base mentoring strategies on, such
as the Reflective Judgment Model, may yield more pronounced results.
There is a diverse perspective from educators, mentors, and professional developers
who believe that a deliberate approach to cognitive growth should be a part of new teacher
mentoring programs. As Bullough et al. (2008) state, “to maximize the power of mentors to
assist beginning teachers to realize their potential as teachers requires a radical adjustment in
how mentoring is commonly viewed” (p. 1857). The sequential transformative design is an
appropriate research design that would allow for the study of the modification of a current
mentoring program.
This chapter began by outlining the current beliefs regarding the goals of mentoring
beginning teachers. Next, the history and explanation of cognitive developmental theory is
presented, which can be used to argue that merely focusing on skill of teachers will not change
the way the teacher thinks. I include the optimal conditions for teacher cognitive development.
Ultimately, adult behavior is linked to the stage level of cognitive complexity that the adult is
operating under. Therefore, I present a research related to the understanding of teacher problem
solving and well-structured versus ill-structured problems are defined. Next, I detail a well
researched theoretical framework designed to increase cognitive complexity termed the
Reflective Judgment Model and I discuss the various types of assessment for reflective judgment
including the pros and cons of each type.
Sprinthall and Thies-Sprinthall (2001) argued that teacher education should have a dual
focus on behavioral skills as well as cognitive development. They also suggest that there is a
great need in teacher education for theoretical frameworks to generate cumulative research and
practice that guide teacher training programs. They advocate that, “programs be created to test
47
out procedures to deliberately impact or modify one’s current stage” (p. 285). The final section
of this literature review presents a framework for applying the suggestions of researchers
(Bullough et al., 2008; Sprinthall & Thies-Sprinthall, 2001) who have determined that cognitive
complexity deserves a place in beginning teacher support programs. The idea of using cognitive
growth as a focus for new teacher support was the emphasis for the questions driving this
research study: (a) What is the relationship of different problem-solving rationales of beginning
teachers to their different stage levels of cognitive complexity?, and (b) How can a beginning
teacher’s stage level of cognitive complexity be developed through specific mentoring
strategies?
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The purpose of my study was to determine if a specific mentoring strategy, guided by the
Reflective Judgment Model, would promote higher levels of cognitive complexity in beginning
teachers. The goal was to help beginning teachers develop their problem solving skills in
situations that were ill-structured; situations that Helsing (2007) says are characteristic of
teaching in general. In this chapter, I will present details about (a) the method design for the
study, (b) a rationale for the design used, (c) a description of the participants and setting, (d) an
explanation of the instruments and data collection, (e) the analytic procedures, and (f) the
limitations.
Research Questions
The following questions directed this study:
1. What is the relationship of different problem-solving characteristics of beginning
teachers to different stage levels of cognitive complexity?
2. How can a teacher’s stage level of cognitive complexity be promoted through specific
mentoring strategies?
Research Design
The measurements of cognitive complexity and the mentoring strategies employed in this
study were based on the research of King and Kitchener (1994), who developed the Reflective
Judgment Model (RJM). As Bullough et al. (2008) posit, the RJM is the most widely researched
and best supported model used to understand cognitive complexity. Because of the heavy
emphasis on a conceptual development framework known as the Reflective Judgment Model
49
(King & Kitchener, 2004), I used the Sequential Transformative Strategy (Creswell, 2003). “This
[mixed method] design employs the methods that best serve the theoretical perspective of the
researcher” (Creswell, 2003, p. 216). Data included a combination of on-line testing,
observational data, interviews, and field notes.
In this design there were three distinct phases of data collection. The original proposed
process is depicted in Figure 1 below for ease of interpretation.
Phase 1-Quantitative Data
-Baseline RCI scores collected on all BTs
-SPSS 16 is used to run descriptive statistics for TM
group and RM group-RJM mentoring strategies
chosen
Qualitative Data-3 mentors are trained in
RJM-Training is assessed-Field notes collected
-Interviews with mentors
Phase 2-Intervention Strategies and
Qualitative Data Collection
-Mentors use strategies with BTs
-Observe mentors using RJM mentoring strategies
-Mentor focus groups-Collect field notes
Phase 3-Quantitative Data -RCI post-test scores collected on all BTs
-T test of differences to determine the difference in
RCI changes for the TM versus the RM group
Qualitative Data-Final mentor interviews
-Final evaluation of training using Schoollink evaluation
Interpretation -Qualitative data is integrated with the
quantitative data to inform results
Reflective Judgment Model-“The model describes the development of epistemic cognition” (King & Kitchener, 1994, p.13).
Sequential Transformative Strategy-“…has a theoretical framework to guide the study” (Creswell, 2003, p. 216).
Phase 1-Quantitative Data
-Baseline RCI scores collected on all BTs
-SPSS 16 is used to run descriptive statistics for TM
group and RM group-RJM mentoring strategies
chosen
Qualitative Data-3 mentors are trained in
RJM-Training is assessed-Field notes collected
-Interviews with mentors
Phase 2-Intervention Strategies and
Qualitative Data Collection
-Mentors use strategies with BTs
-Observe mentors using RJM mentoring strategies
-Mentor focus groups-Collect field notes
Phase 3-Quantitative Data -RCI post-test scores collected on all BTs
-T test of differences to determine the difference in
RCI changes for the TM versus the RM group
Qualitative Data-Final mentor interviews
-Final evaluation of training using Schoollink evaluation
Interpretation -Qualitative data is integrated with the
quantitative data to inform results
Reflective Judgment Model-“The model describes the development of epistemic cognition” (King & Kitchener, 1994, p.13).
Sequential Transformative Strategy-“…has a theoretical framework to guide the study” (Creswell, 2003, p. 216).
Figure 1. Method and Procedure for this Study
While the plan did call for distinct phases of data collection, the study was conducted using a
naturalistic paradigm (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and as such there were some elements of the
design that emerged over the course of the study.
50
In Phase 1, quantitative data was collected using the Reasoning about Current Issues
(RCI) test for the purpose of establishing a baseline of reflective judgment for both a treatment
group and a non-treatment group of beginning teachers. The RCI levels were also used as a basis
for determining if the two groups were similar enough to compare. While the original plan called
for this comparison at the onset of the study, the facilitators of the RCI were unable to provide
the data until the end of the school year. Mentor RCI scores were collected, but only used to
determine that they were matched with groups of beginning teachers who had generally at or
below the same reflective judgment levels. Three mentors volunteered to participate in training
and implement mentoring strategies based on the Reflective Judgment Model. Qualitative data
was collected on the perceived effectiveness of the training and the beginning operational levels
of reflective judgment of the treatment group of beginning teachers. Qualitative data was also
gathered to document the strategies employed by mentors through field notes, observations, and
logs.
In Phase 2, qualitative data continued to be collect related to beginning teacher reflective
judgment through mentor field notes, observation, and logs. The researcher’s blog was also
maintained along with mentor interview documentation. The data collected during this phase was
used by individual mentors in a formative way to refine the mentoring strategies that they used as
well as to document the cognitive and behavioral development of treatment group teachers who
were receiving reflective judgment mentoring strategies. Mentors were interviewed about the
reflective judgment levels, progress of their focus Beginning Teachers (BTs), and Reflective
Judgment Model (RJM) mentoring strategies used for each beginning teacher with whom they
were matched. During this phase, coaching was continued for the RJM mentors by way of
meeting one on one, meeting in small groups, and observing and providing feedback to them.
51
The researcher collected further qualitative data to document the ongoing training process, the
perceived effectiveness of the training, and barriers to implementation of learned RJM mentoring
strategies.
In Phase 3, quantitative data was collected again using the Reasoning about Current
Issues test as a post measure. I continued to interview the RJM mentors about the RJ levels of the
BTs, mentor perceptions of growth of the beginning teachers, and perceptions of this model of
mentoring. During this phase, the qualitative data was analyzed and was used to help answer the
second research question and to further understand the effectiveness of the RJM in mentoring for
cognitive growth.
Setting
This study took place in a large southeastern district in North Carolina. There are
approximately 1,800 certified employees in the district spread across 42 schools and serving over
24,000 students. The state requires that districts provide a mentor program to support teachers in
their first through third year of teaching. In this district the mentoring program was funded
through a combination of state, local, and federal Title II monies. In this district, mentors
assumed full time positions in the Professional Development Department housed in the central
office. These mentors had additional responsibilities that included: conducting professional
development, conducting formal peer observations, coaching for professional development in
high need schools, and other duties related to teacher professional growth. There were just over
180 beginning teachers in this district who teach in a variety of settings ranging from pre
kindergarten to Early College High schools. Mentors were assigned to schools based primarily
on geographic location in order to maximize the amount of time spent in classrooms and to limit
time spent traveling. As part of the district mentoring program, there was also a Beginning
52
Teacher Supervisor who conducted peer observations and had oversight of matching mentors to
Beginning Teachers. This supervisor maintained professional records related to the Beginning
Teacher Program, organized and conducted informational meetings, and communicated to
Human Resources about licensure questions. There were two Mentor Observer Evaluators
(MOEs) who had the sole responsibility of conducting formal peer observations of any teacher
not tenured. The entire department was led by the Director of Professional Development who set
the vision, managed the budget, supervised the mentors and MOEs, and who had responsibility
for the district staff development.
Participants
Beginning Teachers
Beginning Teachers (BTs) are defined as teachers in their first through third year of
experience. Of the 180 BTs in this district, 90 consented to participate in the study. They agreed
to take a pre and post test of reflective judgment, the Reasoning about Current Issues test, for the
purpose of this study. There were complete pre and post test records for 55 of the Beginning
Teachers. The ethnic makeup of these teachers was 96% white and 4% black which mirrored the
overall ethnic makeup of Beginning Teachers in the district. The majority of these Beginning
Teachers (85%) were female and the rest (15%) were male. The teachers represented a
combination of elementary, middle, and high school levels and a variety of subject areas. While
many of them had a traditional teacher education route to certification, approximately 10% were
lateral entry, which means they had a degree in another field and were taking coursework to
obtain teacher licensure. The teachers ranged in age from 21 to 61 years old. One teacher
reported his highest degree attained was an associate’s degree. Nearly 85% had attained a
bachelor’s degree and another 24% had attained a Master’s degree.
53
During Phase 2 of the study, there was documentation for a wide cross section of
Beginning Teachers that would help to answer the first research question, but there was not a
significant amount of documentation on any individual teacher. Documentation on individual
teachers over time was necessary to answer the second research question, so it became necessary
to focus qualitative data collection on three teachers for each RJM trained mentor. Of those nine
focus Beginning Teachers, one was a black male working in a high school setting. One
Beginning Teacher was a black female also working in a high school setting. One Beginning
Teacher was a white male teaching at a middle school and six were white females working in
elementary or middle schools.
Mentors
There were seven total mentors in this district who were all female. Six of the mentors
were white and one was black. All of them were mid-career level or higher. As recommended by
the North Carolina State Board of Education, each of the mentors had a minimum of 24 hours of
mentor training provided by at least one of the following organizations: North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction, Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development,
and/or University of North Carolina at Wilmington. They had experience teaching in PreK
through 12th grade, community college, and university settings in southeastern North Carolina.
The mentors all had additional certifications and/or Master’s degrees, and/or National Board
Certification. These mentors were hired based on a combination of North Carolina State Board
of Education mentor requirements and their status as accomplished teachers in their county and
surrounding counties. The state’s recommendation for mentors was that they be released full
time to fulfill their mentoring duties. A 1:15 mentor to beginning teacher ratio was suggested. In
this district, full time mentors began the year with an approximately 1:30 ratio and part-time
54
mentors who also had the responsibility of coaching professional development in high need
schools had approximately a 1:15 ratio. All of the mentors gained additional mentees after the
start of the school year except for one who maintained the same number over the course of the
school year.
All seven mentors volunteered to participate in the study and three were chosen to be in
the treatment group. While mentors and Beginning Teachers were already matched by the
director of the Professional Development Department, the treatment and control group
assignments were made based on convenience of equal numbers. The three mentors in the
treatment group received training and ongoing support in cognitive developmental theory, the
Reflective Judgment Model, and using the RJM as a basis for additional mentoring strategies.
They agreed to submit their mentor field notes, to be interviewed about their experiences, and to
be observed as part of this study.
Training Components and Professional Development Model
The mentoring professional development that was delivered to the mentors in the
treatment group was designed to help them understand Cognitive Developmental Theory and
apply their understanding to mentoring beginning teachers. The Reflective Judgment Model was
used a basis for application. The course was developed by the researcher for the mentors. It was
based on a professional development model that was adapted from the work of Joyce and
Showers (2002) who recommend the elements (a) exploration of theory or rationale, (b)
demonstration or modeling, (c) practice of skill in professional development, (d) practice of skill
in the workplace, and (e) peer coaching. The course began with an initial all day training when
participants revisited the concepts learned in their original mentor training, explored the
principles of Cognitive Developmental Theory, and learned the Reflective Judgment Model
55
(RJM) and the application of the RJM to mentoring. During the initial training, participants were
able to explore the theory and rationale, demonstrate their understanding, and engage in practice
with the RJM. For the next three months, mentors continued their practice by working with the
beginning teachers. The plan included researcher observation and feedback on one mentoring
session for each of the trained mentors. Meetings were also held with all of the trained RJM
mentors once every two weeks for a guided discussion of their experiences. Mid-way through the
study, the researcher held another training to do a more in depth study of the RJM. During the
remainder of the study, the researcher was available to meet individually with mentors and to
facilitate group meetings for the purpose of additional ongoing coaching.
Instruments
Quantitative
The Reasoning about Current Issues (RCI) test is a measure of Reflective Judgment.
Specifically, it focuses on the “capacity to recognize and endorse statements that reflect the
attributes of reflective thinking as defined by the Reflective Judgment Model” (Reflective
Judgment, n.d.). The questionnaire is a recognition task that was used because of its low cost,
ease of administration, and because of its strong link to the underlying theoretical framework
used for the basis of this study.
During the first and third phases of this study, the Reasoning about Current Issues test
was used in order to obtain a reflective judgment score for all of the participating beginning
teachers and mentors. The cost of the RCI was only one dollar per test and was delivered online.
It was designed to assess how respondents think about current issues considered ill-structured; no
particular or certain answer. The test focused on the respondents’ reflection of their assumptions
about knowledge and the certainty with which they make knowledge claims.
56
The RCI consisted of three problems about controversial topics. There were ten
statements for each problem that reflected different levels of reasoning in the Reflective
Judgment Model. Respondents were asked to read the statements and to use, a four-point scale to
rate them in terms of how closely they resembled their own thinking about the problem. A fifth
response, “meaningless,” was also an option for which respondents could indicate that they
thought the statement is not interpretable. The meaningless statements are used in order to
control for the possibility that respondents may choose statements based on the high level of
vocabulary or sophistication of the item rather than on the idea being expressed. Respondents
then rank ordered three of the statements that were most closely related to their own thinking.
Scores on the RCI range from two to seven which correspond to the RJM stages.
An example of the type of problems used in the RCI can be obtained from
http://www.umich.edu/~refjudg/rci.pdf; however, the actual instrument is copyrighted and
cannot be reproduced. Access to the instrument is gained via URL. Permission is granted and
then a password is sent through e-mail. This process is made possible by collaboration between
the University of Michigan and the University of Denver. Reliability for the RCI has been in the
low to mid .70’s, depending on the sample (Wood et al., 2002).
Qualitative
During the qualitative phase, mentors, who had volunteered to deliver RJM mentoring
strategies, collected field notes related specifically to the reflective judgment of the teachers that
they mentored. Field notes were in the form of mentor logs and journals. The researcher
developed an additional informal tool, the Field Instrument: Beginning Teacher Ill-Structured
Problem Solving (FI) (see Appendix A), that was required at least three times with each first year
Beginning Teacher and at least twice with each second year Beginning Teacher. The FI was
57
created as a tool to collect data about the specific ill-structured problems that beginning teachers
encountered and to collect data about how the teachers worked through those problems. The FI
was intended to provide a uniform way to document the problem solving characteristics of the
Beginning Teachers and to make for more consistent analysis than unstructured note taking. The
FI was also documentation of the beginning teachers’ cognitive growth and documentation of the
fidelity with which RJM mentoring strategies were chosen.
The first 3 questions of the FI instrument were loosely based on the Reflective Judgment
Interview (King & Kitchener, 1994) in terms of the way the mentor is asked to elicit why the
teacher responded to a problem in a certain way. The final questions required the mentor to
determine, based on the RJM, at what stage the teacher was operating, as well as what task or
conversation could promote a higher level of reflective judgment.
Researcher as Instrument
As the researcher, I collected and analyzed the qualitative data for this study. For that
reason, I have an obligation to provide a description of myself as it relates to the content and
methodology of this research. I am a 35-year-old white female, currently serving in the role of
mentor for beginning teachers. I have been in education for 13 years in the positions of
classroom teacher, district coordinator, and system-wide mentor. I have National Board Teacher
Certification in the area of Middle Childhood Generalist and a Masters Degree in
Curriculum/Instructional Supervision. I am certified in four North Carolina licensure areas
including elementary teacher, curriculum supervisor, school administrator, and academically
gifted. I have done extensive work in planning and delivering professional development,
program planning for beginning teachers, and formal teacher observations.
58
Because of my strong belief in mentoring for cognitive growth, there may be a bias
towards collecting BT behavioral data that only shows “growth.” In order to control for this
bias, I utilized a variety of data collection methods as well as multiple types of instruments in
order to triangulate the data. I did member checks of the interviews and memos that I kept by
sharing them with the mentors to check for accuracy. I maintained a blog that chronicled the
study including logistical information, my reactions, and anecdotal information that I acquired
through ongoing observations and conversations with study participants. The blog was open to
the RJM mentors as a way to maintain transparency and build trust with the mentors. They were
allowed to read the blog and post comments to it.
Procedure
Phase 1
During the beginning of the school year, all first year Beginning Teachers (BT1s) in
North Carolina are required to attend an orientation. As part of orientation, the BTs were invited
to participate in the study and offered a consent form to sign. Each teacher who signed a consent
form was sent an e-mail which provided a link to the RCI test, a password, and unique user
identification. Within the first three weeks of school, the district provided informational meetings
for second year (BT2s) and third year (BT3s) teachers. It was during that time that BT2s and
BT3s were invited to participate in the study. Consenting teachers were sent the same standard e-
mail with a link to the test, password, and unique user identification. For those teachers who did
not attend the informational meetings, the assigned mentors hand delivered an invitation with
consent form. After all of the BTs completed the RCI the pretest data was housed at the
University of Denver. The data was kept securely there until after the posttest.
59
In the original design, I intended to analyze the pretest data to determine if the treatment
group and non-treatment groups were similar enough to compare. I also intended to use the
pretest data to help the mentors make some initial decisions about what mentoring strategies to
use based on the general levels of their assigned BTs. It was not possible to obtain the pretest
results until the end of the study and therefore I was not able to determine the similarity of
groups or general reflective judgment levels of the beginning teachers upfront.
Mentors began collecting field notes and returning them to me during our coaching
sessions that we termed, “Lunch Bunch.”
Phase 2
During Phase 2, I collected field notes from the mentors. I also continued to meet with
mentors at least every other week both individually and as a group. It was during this time that I
decided to begin blogging about the study in order to document the emerging design of this
phase. The blog was a way to capture not only my reactions as a coach/supervisor of the trained
RJM mentors, but also to document when critical decisions were being made about changes in
the design of the study. Initially, the plan called for the mentors to collect field notes related to
the RJM mentoring on all of the BTs who were assigned to them. This became an overwhelming
task for the mentors. Implementation of the strategies, as well as the frequency of data collected,
began to wane. The decision was made to have the RJM mentors choose three focus BTs on
which they would concentrate. I collected field notes for only the nine focus BTs every other
week and on alternating weeks I interviewed the mentors about the progress of each teacher. A
sample schedule of events is depicted it Table 3.
The qualitative data collected during Phase 2 was designed to help answer the second
research question. This data became a focus for analyzing individual ill-structured problems,
60
reasons for the BTs’ reactions to those problems, stage growth analysis, and strategy
implementation and effectiveness. Interview data and observational data was designed to provide
further information about the impacts of the RJM strategies being used, the fidelity of
implementation, and the perceived support needs of both the BTs and the mentors.
Table 3 Sample Schedule of Coaching and Data Collection
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4
-Interview each RJM mentor separately about focus Beginning Teachers
-“Lunch Bunch” group coaching sessions with RJM mentors -Collect field notes from RJM mentors on focus Beginning Teachers
-Interview each RJM mentor separately about focus Beginning Teachers -Write an entry in the Blog
-Collect field notes from the RJM mentors on focus Beginning Teachers -Meet with a mentor about a specific focus Beginning Teacher problem and help mentor to choose appropriate response strategy
Phase 3
The quantitative data collection took place during the months of April and May when
beginning teachers were required to report to central services for mandatory paperwork
submissions. At that time, the Reasoning about Current Issues (RCI) test was administered for
the second time. The original design called for giving the RCI in a computer lab setting, but the
dates for paperwork submissions were moved up, so only the BT1s were able to take the test
during that time. The BT2s and BT3s received an e-mail link to the test just as they had during
the pretesting so that they could complete their test. Once all of the teachers had taken the test,
the University of Denver processed the data and returned the information electronically in
spreadsheet format. I did further analysis of the data including a disaggregation of the data by
61
group and by subtest areas. It was during this phase that the quantitative data was used to ensure
that the treatment and non-treatment groups were similar enough for comparison and to
determine of the RJM mentoring had a significant impact on the overall mean change from pre to
post test. This information was integrated with the qualitative data and analyzed to provide a
comprehensive basis for answering the last research question. While the qualitative data was
used to examine individual progress of the BTs, the quantitative data was strictly used to look at
the differences in growth of the traditionally mentored group versus the intervention group,
mentored with additional RJM strategies.
Data Analysis Quantitative Data Analysis
In phases 3, SPSS 16 was used to analyze the quantitative data from the pretest and
posttest. Descriptive statistics were reported for two groups of beginning teachers; traditional
mentoring strategies group and the RJM mentoring strategies group. The data was displayed in
table format as well as described in narrative. This included: mean scores for the RCI pretest and
posttest, standard deviation, and the minimum and maximum RCI scores for each group.
In phase 3 a dependent samples t-test was utilized to find the extent to which there was
any significant difference in cognitive growth of BTs receiving traditional mentoring strategies
versus BTs receiving RJM mentoring strategies. To determine statistical significance an alpha
level of p = .05 was used.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis in a naturalistic setting such as this is often emergent (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). Initially, the field notes and observational data were collected and were categorized
into the following areas: (a) structure of RJM mentoring, (b) training of mentors, (c) feedback
62
from mentors, and (d) feedback from BTs. The field notes and observational data that I collect
from the mentors were categorized based on the stage levels of BTs. I looked for emerging
themes and was open to the creation of new categories as needed. The resulting information will
be presented in rich descriptions by case.
Limitations
When examining the methods and procedures used for this study, certain limitations were
considered. The most obvious limitation is the fact that I served a dual role as investigator for the
study as well as serving as a mentor in the traditionally mentored group. Since I trained and
supported the mentors as well as collected and analyzed data, there was the potential for cross
contamination of strategy use from one group to the other and a tendency to bias the data. I
planned to combat the limitation and increase credibility through prolonged engagement,
persistent observation, and triangulation of the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
A second limitation was that the study was limited to 6 months which had the potential to
affect the amount of growth as well as the pattern of growth that each BT experienced. The
growth process for cognitive complexity generally takes a significant amount of time and may
not increase in a steady upward trend. Longitudinal studies have shown that cognitive growth
generally takes place in waves (King & Kitchener, 1994, p. 140). Furthermore, lack of
accessibility of the mentors to their assigned beginning teachers as well as scheduling conflicts
could have hindered the ability of mentors to spend the required time and to collect the required
qualitative data on some teachers. Adding to this limitation was the fact that the number of BTs
in each mentor’s case load was well over the suggested number. The North Carolina Department
of Public Instruction recommended a ratio of one mentor for 15 BTs, whereas the ratio for this
study was one mentor for approximately 30 BTs.
63
A final limitation was that the entire department had undergone a restructuring just prior
to the beginning of the school year. Because of that, some mentors were assigned additional
responsibilities of providing more professional development. In addition to these added
responsibilities, there was even greater potential for cross contamination of the groups. Mentors
from the traditionally trained group worked closely with mentors from the RJM trained group.
There could have been a tendency to communicate about the study causing the traditional group
to pick up concepts and strategies from the Reflective Judgment Model.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
For this study, three mentors were trained in Cognitive Developmental Theory and the
Reflective Judgment Model (King & Kitchener, 1994). The Reflective Judgment Model (RJM)
identifies seven distinct stages of epistemological development. The stages are categorized by
three levels summarized below:
Pre-Reflective—This level is categorized by concrete thinking. Individuals at this level
do not acknowledge that there are certain aspects of knowledge that are uncertain. These
individuals look for an exact answer to problems and consequently they need a high level of
structure and they look to authority figures to provide answers.
Quasi-Reflective—Individuals at this level recognize that some problems are ill-
structured and that knowledge contains a certain degree of uncertainty. They are tolerant of
multiple sources for ideas and perspectives and begin to use evidence as a basis for
understanding, although they have limited use of these sources in decision-making. This is the
primary level for most adults.
Reflective—This level of thinking is marked by the assumption that judgments must be
based on relevant data, but conclusions should remain open to reevaluation. Individuals who are
categorized at this stage are able to balance alternative solutions. They have openness to
criticism that stems from the belief that knowledge is actively constructed and must be
understood in relation to the context in which it was generated.
The trained mentors used the RJM as part of a developmental mentoring program for
beginning teachers (BTs). The mentors implemented mentoring strategies with their assigned
beginning teachers over a six month time period from October to March. Mentors maintained
65
structured field notes on each BT in order to document the ill-structured problems faced by BTs
and their problem-solving rationale, to document the BTs’ development in reflective judgment,
and to document the strategies that mentors implemented based on the BT’s level of reflective
judgment. Information was gathered from a variety of other sources: memos, emails and
documents, interview transcripts and notes, observations, field notes, researcher’s blog, and
professional development notes and transcripts as well as quantitative data from the Reasoning
about Current Issues Test (RCI) which is a test of reflective judgment. Interviews, mentor field
notes, and the blog became the richest sources of data. Emails tended to be primarily related to
logistical information regarding the administration of the RCI and, therefore, did not elicit as
much information. Observations were used to determine that mentors were implementing the
RJM mentoring strategies appropriately. Professional development notes and transcripts
documented the support that mentors received as well as their professional growth, but revealed
little about the BTs themselves. The RCI was intended to provide a comparison of reflective
judgment growth between a treatment group of BTs and a non-treatment group of BTs. There
were problems with the study sample size of BTs which included the fact that less than 30 for
each group, treatment and non-treatment, completed the pre and post test. There were additional
problems with logistics of test administration and reporting such as: the test timing out before
respondents completed it, respondents having to “retake” the test multiple times, and the
researcher not receiving the pretest data until the end of the study. Problems with the structure of
the test itself also caused an issue. Consequently, the RCI test did not provide expected
information regarding the comparative change in cognitive growth between the two groups.
The remainder of this chapter contains a summary of the findings in sequential order by
the three phases of the study. The focus will be on the key elements that affect the research
66
questions: training/coaching of mentors, mentor strategies used with BTs, BTs’ problem-solving
rationales and development of cognitive complexity; specifically reflective judgment. The
chapter will conclude with a brief summary of the overall findings.
Questions that guided the study are as follows:
1. What is the relationship of different problem-solving rationales of beginning teachers
to different stage levels of cognitive complexity?
2. How can a teacher’s stage level of cognitive complexity be promoted through specific
mentoring strategies?
Phase 1
Phase 1 began at the end of September and lasted through October. It consisted of
administering the Reasoning about Current Issues (RCI) pretest, collecting and analyzing pretest
scores, training the mentors, implementing RJM mentoring strategies, establishing a plan for
follow-up coaching of mentors, and collecting data about the training itself and the
implementation of RJM mentoring strategies.
Quantitative Data
The original plan for Phase 1 data collection included obtaining a report after the
beginning teachers (BTs) completed the Reasoning about Current Issues (RCI) pretest. Pretest
data and demographic information for both the treatment and non-treatment groups were going
to be used to determine similarity of groups as well as to determine mean scores of reflective
judgment in each group of BTs. While the original research protocol included this use of pretest
scores, they were not released until the final report at the conclusion of both pre and post testing,
so the study proceeded without knowing if the two groups would be similar enough for
comparisons. Further, because of the delayed score report, mentors were not able to use the
67
pretest data to help gauge the accuracy of determining RJ levels of their assigned BTs, nor were
they able to use the data to guide their choices of RJM mentoring strategies as was originally
planned.
In Phase 1, there were some other logistical problems associated with the Reasoning
about Current Issues (RCI) test administration. Researcher memos and e-mail records taken
during this phase showed that, “Glitches with the RCI caused several BTs to have to retake the
test. At least two participants dropped out of the study because of frustration.”
Training
Phase 1 included an initial mentor training component. While training was not a specific
part of the research questions that guided the study, content of the training and the mentors’
implementation of strategies were certainly forces that could have affected the outcomes of
question two in terms of how teachers’ stage levels of cognitive complexity can be developed.
The goals for the training were to:
1. Review background knowledge about traditional mentoring
2. Build knowledge of Cognitive Developmental Theory
3. Learn the Reflective Judgment Model (RJM)
4. Apply RJM to mentoring
5. Clarify mentor expectations of the research study
Content of the initial all day training was organized into six major sections: (a) goals and
structure of the professional development, (b) historical context for mentoring and the current
training components required by the state, (c) cognitive developmental theory, (d) optimal
conditions for BT growth, (e) the Reflective Judgment Model (RJM), and finally (f) the RJM
applied to mentoring. The initial training and follow-up coaching sessions were evaluated in
68
three ways, mentor perceptions, trainer perceptions, and observations of mentor applications of
learned strategies.
The structured framework of the professional development was based on the model
recommended by Joyce and Showers (2002) who described six necessary components. They
state that to actually integrate new skills into practice all six components should be present.
Those necessary components are: (a) presentation of new theory or skill, (b) demonstration or
modeling, (c) practice in a simulated setting, (d) provision of providing structured feedback, (e)
practice in the workplace, and finally (f) coaching.
The professional development delivery included utilization of the first four components
in the initial training which took place in October. The training began with the researcher sharing
the goals for the training and asking what other goals the participants wanted to add (Appendix
B). Setting goals together provided focus for the training and allowed the participants to provide
input which was intended to increase “buy in.” The training framework, which is contained in
Appendix C, was based on the work of Joyce and Showers (2002) was presented graphically to
provide an ease of understanding and to help clarify expectations about what to expect from the
professional development associated with this study. Also, the agenda for the initial training was
displayed in a flow chart (see Appendix D) and discussed with participants to further set the
expectations for the day.
After setting expectations, participants were given copies of the state mentoring program
documents as well as the district mentoring program documents. They were asked to review
these documents and then to use a table (see Appendix E) to record the content, process, and
product related to each. The purpose of this activity was to familiarize the mentors with what
types of information, processes, and outcomes had been emphasized in recent years leading up to
69
the current program. A third row on the chart was to be filled in later with the content, processes,
and products that would be necessary for a mentoring program that included the Reflective
Judgment Model. During this portion of the training the participants were also instructed to look
in the documents provided for the roles and qualifications required for mentors. Afterwards,
participants watched a video clip from the Hollywood movie How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days in
which a mentor/supervisor was working with her employees. Participants recorded on a T chart
(see Appendix F) what they thought were positive and negative characteristics of the
mentor/supervisor. The characteristics were discussed as a group and then the questions were
posed:
1. Is this “leader” focused on both performance skills AND thinking skills?
2. Which does our mentoring program focus on?
This activity was designed to illustrate that being a good leader, supervisor, or mentor means
more than just focusing on behaviors through analysis and feedback. The state and district
programs reviewed emphasized skill development, but focused very little on cognitive
development.
Next, the participants were introduced to Cognitive Developmental Theory. A Power
Point presentation was used to give the principles of Cognitive Developmental Theory and to
provide a historical perspective. The frameworks proposed by Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg,
Erik Erikson, and David Hunt were discussed and a summary of each theorist was provided to
participants. A multi-Venn diagram was used to compare and contrast the theories so that
participants could begin to recognize the nature of stage theory and the interconnectedness, but
independence, of each theory as they contributed to the field of cognitive stage theory. Then the
overall principles of Cognitive Developmental Theory were presented in Power Point format.
70
The next portion of the training focused on the Reflective Judgment Model specifically.
Participants read the first section of a research article by Bullough et al. (2008). The section
assigned for reading introduced an exploratory study involving mentoring and cognitive
complexity of beginning teachers. It also gave a brief review of the literature related to
mentoring, and gave a synopsis of the appropriate conditions for beginning teacher development.
This reading served as a good review of some content previously discussed in the training and
prepared the mentors for the next portion of the workshop related to the Reflective Judgment
Model.
After a lunch break, a Power Point presentation was used to explain the Reflective
Judgment Model. One of the key concepts of the RJM is that it is used in situations that involve
ill-structured problems. After learning about this concept, mentors participated in an activity
where they read a statement of a typical problem encountered by a beginning teacher and then
determined if the problem was ill-structured or well-structured. The following is an example of
each type of problem used for this activity:
Ill-structured—The school administrator believes that direct instruction will help my
struggling students, but I have had success with novel studies. She is not happy that I
don’t want to use the school-wide adopted reading program.
Well-structured—There is a policy in the school that students will have no personal
electronics visible in class but my students keep “texting” on their cell phones during
class.
As Joyce and Showers (2002) suggest, effective professional development requires time for
participants to practice in a simulated setting. Therefore, mentors were shown several scenes
from the Hollywood movie Freedom Writers and asked to use the Reflective Judgment Model to
71
determine at what level certain characters were operating. The characters were all teachers and
all three categories of the RJM were represented. Once the mentors felt confident at identifying
the level and giving a rationale for their choice, we discussed the types of activities that might be
appropriate to help develop the character’s reflective judgment. Discussion about the characters,
the RJM, and the types of problems were so rich that we ran out of time and the group decided a
follow up session would be beneficial.
Follow up coaching was done throughout the remainder of the study. Structured feedback
was also continued throughout the year during coaching sessions. Discussions always started
with the researcher asking the question, “What ill-structured problem is your BT dealing with?”
The first question was followed by, “How did the BT respond to the problem?” Then came the
questions, “Why did he/she respond that way?” Once these questions were answered and
clarified we were able to examine the Reflective Judgment Model to determine at what level of
reflective judgment the BT was operating. Mentors were given print resources such as question
stems and suggested activities to conduct with BTs depending on the level of reflective
judgment. These resources were referred to in an effort to provide consistency with strategy use
and to further ensure fidelity with implementation of the RJM. Once a mentor had worked with a
beginning teacher, using some of the suggested strategies they were able to talk about the
experience during coaching sessions to get feedback about the appropriateness and effectiveness
of chosen strategies.
Coaching was provided through several formats. During Phase 1, a format was structured
as group meetings every other week called “Lunch Bunch” where the trainer facilitated a
conversation between the mentors about the ill-structured problems that BTs were experiencing,
the rationale for BT response to those problems, and appropriate mentoring strategies initiated by
72
the mentors. The group supported each other by offering interpretations, confirmations, and
suggestions. The trainer ensured that the RJM was followed, offered additional feedback, and
helped to clarify any misunderstandings. An example of one of the mentor’s reaction to the
“Lunch Bunch” approach is evident in the following e-mail which read, “You have done an
excellent job of training and supporting us. I loved our discussion about the teachers’ ill-
structured problems.”
Qualitative Data
To assure capturing accurate data on mentor perceptions, data was gathered through an
anonymous survey using the Schoollink Staff Development system, through informal interviews
which were documented in memos taken from a blog maintained by the researcher, through field
notes, and observation reflection. During the two months of Phase 1, from September to October,
a total of 8 memos, 37 emails, 8 mentor field notes, 1 observation reflection, and 1 anonymous
survey for Professional Development evaluation were reviewed. The blog was open to mentors
throughout the study in order to maintain credibility that what was being recorded was indeed
what mentors were experiencing. The anonymous survey showed an overwhelming positive
perception about the training. Three areas, Content, Process, and Context were rated “excellent”
by all three mentors on a Likert-type scale ranging from: poor, fair, good, very good, to
excellent. A statement taken from the blog dated November 11, 2009 states, “. . . feedback from
mentors has been VERY positive. I have had comments like, ‘This is exactly what I was looking
for to help me in my mentoring!’” In an informal interview with mentors, Mary stated, “This has
been beneficial. It’s making me aware of my questioning. Before this, my conversations with the
teachers were limited.” And, a memo for the day after the training states, “Lori did her first
assessment of a beginning teacher and was excited. She thinks her BT is a stage 3 and already
73
has a plan for follow up.” Trainer perception following the initial training for mentors was also
positive. A statement from the blog reads, “I am so EXCITED!!! The initial training for mentors
in RJM mentoring went well.” A memo dated October 23, 2009 states, “. . . follow-up went
GREAT! Mentors are using Field Notes Instrument (FI) forms. We talked through scenarios for
practice.”
During this phase, mentors began to collect field notes on the Field Notes Instrument (FI)
of their interactions with assigned BTs. There were 6 FI forms turned in during this phase. Ill-
structured problems recorded during this early phase included issues such as responding to
parents, scheduling, planning for curriculum integration, student relationships, and behavior
management. Levels of reflective judgment recorded ranged from Level 2 (Pre-Reflective), up to
level 4 (Quasi-Reflective). No BTs were identified as Level 5 or 6 (Reflective). All three
mentors were able to document an ill-structured problem accurately and all were able to describe
how the BT responded to their problem. Further, all three mentors gave a rationale for why the
BT responded to the problem in a certain way, though the language from the RJM was not
consistently used. All were able to identify a stage level of reflective judgment, but follow-up
strategies for support were not consistently in line with the RJM. Notes on the FI forms show
that two of the three mentors added to or changed their planned follow-up mentoring strategy
during the Lunch Bunch session. Mentor Lori added questions for the next interaction with her
BT, “Did your strategy help and how do you know that?” and “What made a difference?” A
conversation the day after she used the revised questions with her BT revealed how Lori reacted
to the assistance, “My questions helped the situation . . . he listened to recommendations and felt
proud of himself for the way he handled the situation.”
74
Phase 2
Phase 2 took place from November through April. This was the longest phase, which
marked the Implementation Stage of implementing RJM strategies, collecting data about
individual BT progress, reflecting, and refining implementation of RJM mentoring strategies.
Implementation and Support
Less than one week after the initial professional development in October, the trainer
conducted observations of each mentor during an interaction with their assigned Beginning
Teachers. The trainer noted, “Mentors are feeling more confident with the process and are
getting better.” E-mails and memos related to the observations noted that all three mentors were
using the RJM with fidelity. Coaching of the mentors continued in Phase 2 through observation
and feedback at least once during the beginning weeks of implementation. The trainer spent two
to three hours following individual mentors as they observed and met with their assigned
Beginning Teachers implementing the RJM. Following each observed interaction between
mentor and BT, the trainer offered feedback to the mentors about their ability to identify the
BT’s ill-structured problem, their ability to identify the BT’s level of RJ, and their mentoring
strategy of support based on the RJM. The trainer was also on call daily through cell phone
contact, e-mail, and face-to-face interactions as needed.
Qualitative Data
The qualitative data collected in Phase 2 from November through April consisted of 14
memos, 3 e-mails, 16 blog entries, 24 mentor Field Notes Instrument forms (FI), 1 observer
notes from a coaching session, 1 transcript from a professional development session, 24
interview transcripts, 13 interview notes, 1 Professional Development anonymous evaluation,
and 1 observation reflection. The variety of data collected was in part because of the emerging
75
nature of this naturalistic study. Some of the structured forms, such as the FI instrument was
planned from the outset of the study, while other data such as the greater number of interviews
happened out of an emerging need.
The number of FI forms that were collected decreased from eleven forms in November to
two forms in January. The decrease in forms was likely a result of the increasingly hectic
schedules of the mentors. During Phase 2, the number of BTs assigned to each mentor increased
as did their professional development responsibilities. Not only did the total number of FI forms
decrease over these months, but the numbers of forms per individual BT were not frequent
enough to document a pattern of development for any one BT over time. For example, in
November a particular mentor turned in five forms for five different BTs, but no forms were
collected for those same BTs in December. It was evident that insufficient data for any one BT
would provide little support for the mentors’ work and would provide insufficient data for
answering the question of how a Beginning Teacher’s reflective judgment is developed over
time. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest persistent observation, or focusing on relevant data, as a
strategy to increase the probability that credible findings will be produced. Therefore, the
decision was made to have the mentors focus on just three Beginning Teachers each for data
collection purposes. While mentors continued to serve all of the BTs assigned to them, the RJM
mentoring strategies, which were more time intensive, were used primarily with the focus BTs.
The decision was also made to add bi-weekly interviews that would provide a more rich
description of the focus BTs’ progress. The first interviews were documented through structured
interview protocol and information gathered during the time of the interview was written into a
structured form (Appendix G) to mirror the information that would normally be captured on the
Field Notes Instrument (FI). To make sure that a full picture of each focus BT was being
76
documented, the next interviews with mentors was guided by a more open-ended interview
protocol (Appendix H) recorded and transcribed. The recorded interviews produced a plethora of
extraneous information and therefore, it was decided to return to the more structured interviews.
The field notes and interview data were coded and categories emerged. There was one
predefined code, the reflective judgment level identified by the mentor. When there were at least
three categories that were very similar, those categories were collapsed into a single category.
For example, for the teachers at the pre-reflective stage, there were five codes related to
“relationships with students” and three codes related to “relationships with coworkers and
administration.” These were collapsed into one category for BT problems at the pre-reflective
stage, called “relationships.” Through this process the data revealed ten themes related to BT
problems, ten themes related to problem-solving response of BTs, and nine themes related to the
BTs’ rationales for problem solving responses. In the case of the reflective stage, there were so
few codes from this level that no collapsing of categories was necessary. Themes varied
depending on the level of reflective judgment. Table 4 provides a visual representation of the
findings.
Reflective Judgment levels of the Beginning Teachers were identified by the mentor.
Following the guidelines of the Reflective Judgment Model, any codes that came from teachers
identified at stages 1-3 were in the Pre-Reflective stage category. Codes that came from
documentation of teachers identified at stages 4-5 were in the Quasi-Reflective stage category.
And codes from teachers identified at stages 6-7 were in the Reflective stage category.
In all, 34 ill-structured issues or problems were documented. Beginning Teachers at the
Pre-reflective stage, as identified by their mentors, in general focused on issues related to
communication with administration and with colleagues, relationships with students and
Table 4
Beginning Teacher (BT) Problem Solving
Reflective Judgment Level Identified by Mentor
BT Ill-structured issues/ Themes Problem Solving Response
Rationale for Problem Solving Response
Pre-Reflective Thinking (Stages 1-3)
Communication Relationships Scheduling
Takes no ownership of problem Emotional or no response at all
Consults another (authority figure)
Perceived authority has the answer
Feelings/Emotion/Opinion
Quasi-Reflective Thinking (Stages 4-5)
Going against the grain Logistics affecting instruction Planning/Instruction/Grading Student behavior/motivation
Collects evidence Consults multiple perspectives
Uses own opinion/bias Thinks of several alternatives
Evidence supports opinion Need data to make decisions Thinks others have answers
Answer is uncertain
Reflective Thinking (Stages 6-7)
Student Learning Scheduling linked to student
learning Instructional
design/effectiveness
Uses data/reflection and follow-up Evaluates possible solutions w/ a
goal in mind Considers multiple perspectives
Knows decisions can change as new information is gathered May have to adjust or change
depending on evaluation Realizes multiple solutions are
possible
77
78
colleagues, and scheduling as a logistical task. This group at the Pre-Reflective stage showed
patterns of problem solving response in which they blamed others, got very emotional, or looked
to an authority figure to give them an answer to their problem. In general, they did not engage in
independent problem solving or decision making. Instead, they sought out a definite answer and
in some cases, if they could not get an answer, they became emotional. Field notes showed that
one of Mentor Lori’s BTs “blamed an unsuccessful lesson on the kids.” Similarly, Mentor Mary
recorded that one of her teachers said she was, “not receiving the needed support from her grade
level team” and that the BT feels that “others don’t like her and are out to get her.” Another
common response from teachers in the Pre-reflective category is to respond emotionally rather
than to engage in problem solving behaviors. Mentor Sandra’s BT was described on the FI form
as “overwhelmed.” On the question of problem-solving response, often the mentors recorded
words such as “threatened,” “full of anxiety,” “argumentative,” to describe the BTs in the Pre-
reflective category. BTs in this category also seek a response from those who they consider to be
an authority. One of Mentor Lori’s BTs stated, “I need help, read this . . . what should I do?”
which was a common question directed at the mentor. Another BT’s problem-solving response
was described as “sharing their problem with me [mentor]” which again shows an example of
dependence on an authority for answers. One of Lori’s BTs, who was an assistant coach, was
documented several times as attending practice for sports versus attending a staff meeting that
was scheduled by the administrative team. Upon deeper probing, Mentor Lori discovered that the
BT saw the head coach as more of an authority figure and as such, would do whatever the head
coach told him to do.
Teachers in the second level, Quasi-reflective stage level tended to focus on a different
set of problems. They had problems related to going against the grain of their other team
79
members, logistics that affected instruction, and student behavior and motivation. The biggest
difference in these teachers was in their problem solving responses. Field notes and interview
transcripts showed that these teachers used evidence such as student work, observational data,
and test scores. They also considered views and opinions other than their own. While teachers in
the Pre-reflective stage also looked to others, there is a distinction. At the Quasi-reflective stage,
the BTs consulted others for the purpose of either brainstorming with them or getting feedback
for the purpose of refining an already formed solution. The use of evidence to help solve their
problem is a key advancement in reflective judgment level. Teachers at the earlier stage were
guided by their emotion or by rules of those they deemed the authorities. While teachers in the
Quasi-reflective stage used evidence to make decisions, they tended to be biased and to use
evidence to support opinions that they had already formed. These BTs also saw that problems
and solutions involved a degree of uncertainty. Notes from an interview with Mentor Mary
document that one of her BTs “rearranged her classroom based on the data she received from
student work and information she got from a workshop.” Likewise, Mentor Lori reported in her
field notes that one of her BTs reflected on the issue himself, consulted his colleagues, and
presented an idea to her for feedback. Mentor Sally reported that one of her BTs “initiated a peer
observation” then “tried the new strategy for a couple of weeks, then moved from instructional
groups of 5 to groups of 3 based on the outcomes.” This process of attempting something,
gathering data, reflecting, and then changing, shows a higher level of reflective judgment. These
Beginning Teachers spoke about their collected evidence in very broad generalizations. An
example can be seen from another of Mentor Sally’s BTs who is documented to have based a
decision to use a certain instructional strategy on the fact that she “observed that her students are
more focused and engaged.” Still another of Mentor Sally’s BTs stated that she wanted to repeat
80
a particular strategy weekly because, “the lesson was a success” and due to “the progress of the
students and their engagement.”
There was very little documentation of BTs who exemplified the Reflective stage of the
RJM. The few examples that were found in the documentation showed that ill-structured
problems experienced by these teachers were related to student growth and development. Even in
cases where the issue was coded as scheduling, the context for the problem was related to how
scheduling affected student learning. Beginning Teachers in this category realized that just
because a decision was made that did not mean they had found a certain “answer.” Rather, they
made decisions based on evidence, continued to collect additional evidence and made further
changes as needed. They realized and anticipated that there were multiple solutions to these ill-
structured problems. In the interview notes with Mentor Mary from February 1, 2010 she
describes a BT who “changes instruction based on a variety of perspectives.” She further states
that this BT “uses data about how her centers are working in order to change instructional
practices.” In another interview with Mentor Mary from March 3, 2010 she describes a different
BT who is brainstorming not only several solutions to his complex problem, but also
brainstorming the barriers that might accompany each solution. Mentor Sally recorded in her
field notes that one of her BTs at the Reflective level “used ideas from her team members and
data analysis from her professional learning team group” to make decisions about her
instructional practices. These BTs were able to use evidence in an ongoing way which was not
separate from the teaching and learning process. As identified in Cognitive Developmental
Theory, subjects can display behaviors at more than one level, but there tends to be a
predominant level of behavior and that preferred mode can be documented as is the case with the
BTs in this study.
81
Multiple Cases
As described earlier, each of the three RJM trained mentors was asked to focus on three
BTs each. There were nine focus BTs who will be referred to individually in this section as
Cases 1-9. Cases 1-3 are those who were assigned to Mentor Lori, cases 4-6 are those who were
assigned to Mentor Sally, and cases 7-9 are those who were assigned to Mentor Mary.
Cases 1-3
Case 1 began the year at a Pre-reflective stage. There were multiple documented
problems primarily related to communication with the administrative team. He was choosing to
attend sporting practices instead of required staff meetings, having difficulty explaining his
grading practices, and was not recognizing that a change in his behavior was required if he
wanted to keep his job. Lori determined that she needed to take a very direct approach with him.
She began to give him very specific feedback and directions and even had a conversation with
him about making sure he recognized that the administrators were his authorities. Field notes
documented that she explained to him that “his job was in jeopardy.” Further documentation
showed that the BT was “in shock” and that he had been completely “misunderstanding the
issue.” She spent the next couple of months, during December and January, using a very direct
approach to mentoring when she would tell him exactly what to do, but then she would tell him
to collect evidence about how the strategy she had given him was working. She talked with him
about noticing student grades, student behaviors, administrative attitudes, etc. in response to
something he had tried. By February, interview transcripts and FI forms showed a marked
difference in Case 1. He had hit a huge milestone. Mentor Lori categorized him as functioning at
the Quasi-reflective stage of reflective judgment. Interview transcripts dated February 22, 2010
state, “. . . he’s gone to his colleagues for questions like, ‘What did you do for this unit?’ and that
82
was not going on before.” He came up with the idea to “change the way he was testing.” And
not only was Mentor Lori seeing tremendous growth during this time, but Case 1’s colleague
stopped Lori in the hallway one day and said, “We know you are working with him and it is
really making a difference.” Mentor Lori said in an interview that “They have seen a change not
only in his instruction but just in the way he collaborates and communicates with them.”
Interview notes from March document that Lori stated, “He has been asking me what I thought
about his lessons. He has never done that before.”
Mentor Lori categorized Case 2 at a Pre-reflective stage in the beginning of the year. The
ill-structured problems that Case 2 had were primarily related to relationships with students and
relationships with colleagues. There was a situation when one student would tell the BT that
another student was talking about her. There was yet another situation when a paraeducator was
upset that the BT did not properly handle one of her students who was “mocking one of the
autistic students.” During one of the researcher observations, Case 2 shared the details of the
situation with Mentor Lori and then asked, “What should I do?” When Lori tried to ask
questions to get her to think about an appropriate response or solution Case 2 stated, “. . . but
what do you think I should do?” In an interview with Mentor Lori, the researcher determined
that this conversation pattern was typical with Case 2. The BT was rarely was able to come up
with solutions to ill-structured problems on her own. In addition, FI forms indicated that Case 2
would often blame the students referring to them as “lazy and undisciplined.” She also blamed
“the teacher who was there before” for the actions of the students. At one of the first “Lunch
Bunch” coaching sessions, the group discussed the fact that BTs who are functioning at a Pre-
reflective level tend to think that their mentor “was an adversary if they felt that the mentor knew
a solution and did not share it with them.” Mentor Lori determined that she should use a similar
83
approach that she had used with Case 1. She began to use very direct mentoring strategies. She
provided logical solutions for Case 2, but then asked her to be on the lookout for what happened
as a result; “collect evidence” about how well the solution worked. Eventually Mentor Lori
began to give several possible solutions for problems that Case 2 was having and the two of them
talked through which solution might be the best based on data and evidence. While this process
required meeting at least weekly, by March Lori had begun to see a pattern of Quasi-reflective
thinking from Case 2. Interview transcripts dated February 22, 2010 show that Lori said, “There
was a situation that came up . . . without really even thinking she automatically made a decision
. . . She didn’t look to me like she has in the past. She just came to that herself.” Mentor Lori
went on to describe a marked increase in Case 2’s confidence level and independence.
In the beginning of the year, Case 3 was identified as functioning at the Quasi-reflective
stage. Mentor Lori documented Case 3’s use of research based programs and evidence to modify
instruction. Then, in late February and early March, Case 3 began to show a pattern of blaming
students. The BT appeared frustrated. FI forms document that she stated that the “students just
don’t want to learn.” Lori stated in an interview that she “did not know why she had thought
[Case 3] was at such a high level before.” Mentor Lori had planned to refocus her mentoring
sessions with Case 3 on documented evidence. Lori even led a professional development
workshop in which Case 3 was in attendance which gave her another opportunity for interaction
and dialogue. FI forms and interviews show that Mentor Lori began to describe Case 3 as
“exhausted” and “falling asleep during workshops.” Lori was concerned that Case 3 “had some
sort of regression.” In our “Lunch Bunch” sessions we brainstormed some ideas about why
Mentor Lori was seeing these reactions from her BT. Lori decided that several explanations
could be true, perhaps she had originally categorized Case 3 incorrectly, or this was just a dip
84
that was part of the natural wave of cognitive growth, or there were outside forces such as
exhaustion and/or family influences that could be causing the different patterns of thinking. In
any case, Mentor Lori did not feel that she was making progress with Case 3 in the same way
that she was with her other two focus BTs.
Cases 4-6
Case 4 began the year at the Quasi-reflective stage on the RJM. Her ill-structured
problems were documented as being mostly about issues regarding teaching and learning. FI
forms show that she was “concerned about kids acting out and not mastering concepts being
taught” and “wanting to move forward with more 21st century instruction.” Mentor Sally took
the approach with Case 4 that was less direct. She allowed the BT to talk through what she was
seeing in the classroom, brainstormed some ideas about how to make changes, and then allowed
Case 4 to make a decision about what course of action to take. While there was no marked
change in Case 4’s level of cognitive growth during this study, Mentor Sally did state in an
interview that last year “she use to be very emotional and get overwhelmed easily.” She went on
to state that the BT is “not afraid to attempt new things.” Sally described Case 4 as much more
objective in her decision-making and using more evidence and input from others to help her
make decisions.
Sally categorized Case 5 at the Pre-reflective stage at the beginning of the year. Case 5
was focused on problems related to scheduling and relationships with her colleagues. FI
documents and interview transcripts showed that the BT was described as “overwhelmed,”
“emotional,” “chaotic,” and “frantic.” Mentor Sally even reported that the principal said that
Case 5 was like “a deer in headlights.” Mentor Sally used a very direct mentoring approach with
Case 5 giving her “explicit directions about what to do next.” She spent much of her mentoring
85
time with helping Case 5 to get systems in place and encouraging her to have evidence to support
why she was choosing certain responses to her problems. While there was no marked changed in
her stage level of reflective judgment during this study, Mentor Sally still felt that they “had
made some gains” and that they were “getting somewhere.” Ultimately, Case 5 was not able to
find any viable solutions for her dilemmas and Mentor Sally continued to bring forth
documentation to examine and to troubleshoot with her.
Of the three focus BTs assigned to Mentor Sally, Case 6 showed the biggest change. In
October, Sally had categorized Case 6 at a Quasi-reflective stage on the RJM. Her problems
centered on student development and instructional design. Sally was able to take a less direct
approach with Case 6 and spent much of their mentoring time just talking through issues. Mentor
Sally became more of a sounding board for Case 6’s ideas. The initial FI forms paint a picture of
a BT who made decisions based on a generalized form of data like, “She was pleased with the
outcomes” or “students made progress.” But by November of that year and through the
remainder of the study there are specific strategies and evidences presented. Sally recorded that,
“We will discuss progress and curriculum design. Additionally we will discuss student and
parent perspectives on the new instructional approach.” Sally capitalized on the BT’s reflective
nature by helping Case 6 to expand her thinking about how to collect evidence from multiple
perspectives. An FI form from November states that after an instructional redesign, “students are
able to make greater connections with material since it is not longer just isolated skills.” Sally
documented how the BT planned to use Paidea seminars and how Sally offered to use video tape
to help students reflect on their learning. By February, Case 6 was showing patterns of thinking
that were consistent with the Reflective stage on the RJM. While there may have been evidence
of behaviors at other levels, the Reflective stage was predominant. Case 6 consistently collected
86
data and evidence from student learning including video, perspectives from her team members in
her professional learning team meetings, and ideas that she had discussed with Sally.
Additionally, the principal of the school had made comments to Sally about this BT and her
students being the “superstars” of the school.
Cases 7-9
Mentor Mary had categorized Case 7 at the highest stage on the RJM, Reflective, even
from the beginning of the year. This is where she remained for the length of the study. Case 7
focused on problems related to student learning and outcomes. Mary wrote on her FI forms that
Case 7 was “reflecting upon the purpose of her math centers as well as their usefulness.” It was
also recorded that Case 7 “used work samples and assessment data.” Mary and the BT came up
with a plan to call in the math lead teacher for the district to sit with students during their center
activities to provide some specific observed data about how students were processing
information during small group activities. Unfortunately, Case 7 went out on maternity leave
early and therefore data collection for this case was suspended in early February.
Case 8 was at the Pre-Reflective stage in November. Her major problems were related to
her relationships with colleagues and the administrative team though her insecurities were
affecting instruction and learning as well. Mentor Mary took a very direct approach to mentoring
Case 8. An FI form from November outlined the strategy that Mary intended to implement
“encouraging her to listen to others and appreciate their value, model examining both sides of an
argument, and asking her what specific things were better-How does she know?” In addition to
direct questioning techniques, Mentor Mary took Case 8 on a guided observation to show her a
model classroom and to talk with another teacher about scheduling. This strategy was not only
for the purpose of helping Case 8 to improve her instructional practice, but also to give the two
87
of them a concrete model that they could talk about in an objective and non-threatening way. An
e-mail follow-up from Case 8 to Mary from November 18, 2009 stated:
. . . thank you for today! I learned so much and feel like I am on the right track now . . . if I am positive about it to others, my experience there will be positive too. One of the best things that changed for me today after our observation was my attitude . . . Having you to bounce ideas off of and brainstorm with really helped . . .
By February, Mary had already documented some changes in Case 8. She was beginning to “use
opinion as well as evidence to support her beliefs” (Mary, interview notes, Feb. 1, 2010). In
addition, the principal of the school had begun to bring test data to share with Case 8’s entire
grade level and the test data showed that Case 8 was making great progress with her students.
Mary commented that the principal focus on this evidence coupled with her conversations with
Case 8 about looking at evidence was a great source of continuity that helped facilitate
conversations in their mentoring sessions. Interview transcripts from February 15, 2010 show
that Mary noticed Case 8 had a “focus on instruction and that was NOT the focus before.” She
also noticed a rise in confidence and a greater use of evidence, though still in an idiosyncratic
way. Case 8 was also relying somewhat on “what feels right” (Mary, interview transcript,
February 15, 2010). At the end of the study, Case 8 showed consistent patterns of the Quasi-
Reflective stage on the RJM. Interview notes from March 3, 2010 document that Mary observed
Case 8 making “instructional choices that are data driven.” Mary reported that she had “seen so
much growth in her! She has a better relationship with the team members and with the
administrative team.” Mary even said that the “principal has said some positive things which is
different from the beginning of the year” (Mary, interview notes, March 3, 2010)
At the beginning of the year, Case 9 was categorized at the Quasi-Reflective stage of the
RJM. In October and November, FI forms provided documentation that his ill-structured
problems centered on student relationships, grading practices, and scheduling. At that time he
88
was using some evidence and data, but he was choosing data “to support opinions that he had
already formed” (Mary, field instrument, November 6, 2009). For example, he proposed a
schedule change to the administrative team based on the belief that the current schedule was not
conducive to learning. He asked his students to turn in written reflections about the effectiveness
of the current scheduling and then he used those reflections as evidence that the schedule needed
to be changed. Mentor Mary used role play with Case 9 in order to show what an opposing view
might look like and to help Case 9 to defend his point of view based on a wider use of evidence.
By February, Mary was already considering that Case 9 had shown growth because he, “justifies
decisions based on data, uses multiple perspectives to form his opinions, and he is able to tell me
why” (Mary, interview, February 1, 2010). During this interview, Mentor Mary also stated that
“the assistant principal had commented on the growth of [Case 9].” In March, Mary had
determined that Case 9 showed evidence of consistently operating at the Reflective stage of the
RJM. She cited the fact that he “comes up with ideas and listens to my ideas too. He comes up
with alternative solutions to problems and even brainstorms the barriers.” The assistant principal
as well as another teacher on staff told Mentor Mary to give accolades to Case 9 about the great
work he was doing. Mary usually became a sounding board for Case 9 for him to vent
frustrations, brain-storm, and problem-solve. Whenever she met with him, he had generally
already framed his problem, come up with alternate solutions, and had thought about the barriers
for each. Case 9 usually looked to Mary as another perspective and he was willing to consider
information to help him modify or change a decision.
Phase 3
Phase 3 took place during the month of April. This phase marked the end of data
collection related to the implementation of RJM mentoring strategies. The RCI posttest was
89
administered and final interviews of mentors were conducted to summarize the overall progress
of the treatment group of BTs.
Quantitative Data
The RCI posttest was administered through email link. The initial response rate was very
low, so follow up email requests were made to individuals who had completed the pretest but
had not completed the posttest. Several of the respondents were sent three or more reminders and
once again some of the respondents reported having to complete the test multiple times in order
for their status to say completed on the report. Descriptive statistics for the sample of teachers
who completed the RCI pre and posttest are displayed in Table 5. Seven Mentors completed the
pre and posttest. Of those seven, there were six (86%) who held a Masters degree and one (14%)
who held a Bachelors degree. In the RJM treatment group of Beginning Teachers, 29 completed
both the pre and post test. Eight of those Beginning Teachers (28%) held a Masters degree, 20
(69%) held a Bachelors degree, and one (3%) reported obtaining an Associates degree. Twenty-
six Beginning Teachers in the Non-treatment group completed both the pre and post test. Five of
these BTs (19%) held a Masters degree and 21 (81%) held a Bachelors degree.
In the Mentor group, all seven mentors (100%) were female, six (86%) were white, and
one (14%) was black. The RJM Treatment group of BTs contained 23 (79%) females and six
(21%) males. In the Treatment group, 27 (93%) were white and two (7%) were black. In the
Non-treatment group 24 (92%) were female and two (8%) were male. All 26 BTs (100%) in the
Non-treatment group were white. The two groups of Beginning Teachers (BTs) were similar in
terms of highest degree earned, gender, and ethnicity. The mean RCI pretest score for the RJM
Treatment group was 4.78 and the Non-treatment group mean RCI pretest score was 4.89. There
90
was no significant difference between the Treatment and Non-treatment groups, which meant
that the groups were similar enough to make comparisons.
Table 5
Reasoning about Current Issues (RCI) Test Completers’ Demographics
Mentors (n = 7)
BTs (Treatment)
(n = 29)
BTs (Non-Treatment)
(n = 26) Highest Degree Earned Masters Bachelors Associates
6 1 0
8 20 1
5 21 0
Gender Female Male
7 0
23 6
24 2
Ethnicity Black White Mean RCI Pretest
1 6
5.50
2 27
4.78
0 26
4.89
Note. BTs=Beginning Teachers
The Mentor group showed a higher percentage of earned Master’s Degrees than both of
the Beginning Teacher groups as well as a significantly higher mean RCI pretest score (M=5.50).
This is important from the perspective that those who are conducting the mentoring should be
operating at a higher level than those being mentored.
After RJM mentoring strategies were delivered for a period of at least 6 months, the RCI
was administered a second time to Beginning Teachers and Mentors for the purpose of
determining a mean change in reflective judgment for each group and to compare the mean
changes of the Treatment and Non-treatment groups. SPSS 16 was used to analyze the data. An
91
independent samples t-test was performed to determine the statistical significance of mean
changes on the Reasoning about Current Issues test. The significance level was set at p < .05.
The results of those changes are summarized in Table 6.
For the Treatment group (n = 29), the pretest to posttest change was from 4.78 (SD = .72) to 4.72
(SD = .98). The Non-treatment group (n = 26) pretest to posttest change was from 4.89 (SD =
1.03) to 5.21 (SD = .77). Even thought the mean change of the Non-treatment group was slightly
positive (M = .32; SD = .81) and the Treatment group was slightly negative (M = -.06; SD = .91),
the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = .11; t (53) = 1.62).
There are several issues that could account for the lack of statistical significance in the
mean changes from pre to posttest for the Treatment and Non-treatment groups. The most
obvious is the sample size of each group. The RCI is designed for use with groups, not
individuals. In fact, the institution that administers and scores the test will not run data analysis
for groups of less than 30. While the total number of test completers was 62, neither the Mentor,
Table 6 RCI Pretest and Posttest Scores Means and Standard Deviations
Group RCI Mean
Pretest SD RCI Mean
Posttest SD Mean
Change SD BTs (Treatment) n = 29
4.78
.72
4.72
.98
-.06
.91
BTs (Non Treatment) n = 26
4.89 1.03 5.21 .77 .32 .81
Mentors n = 7
5.50 .51 5.55 .69 .05 .40
Note. The mean score here reflects stage level of reflective judgment on the Reasoning about Current Issues Test (RCI) where scores range from 1 to 7.
92
the Treatment, nor the Non-treatment groups had at least 30 test completers. Since mentors in the
RJM treatment group were matched with 30 or more Beginning Teachers each, their mentoring
time with each teacher was not equal between teachers, nor was it consistent for each teacher.
Confounding this issue, all of the BTs who were mentored did not complete the pre and posttest.
Therefore, the RCI test completers in the treatment group were not necessarily the BTs who
received the most exposure to the RJM mentoring strategies.
The RCI test itself takes between 20 and 40 minutes to complete. While the convenience
of delivering and taking the test through a link in school e-mail was considered a positive factor
for obtaining a higher number of subjects, the reality is that the test was not conducive to the
naturalistic setting of public schools. Teachers who tried to take the test at school experienced
many interruptions and distractions that could have had a negative effect on the overall
concentration of participants and ultimately on their completion of the test as well as their
satisfaction with the test taking process. Furthermore, the RCI is a recognition task that measures
a construct of reflective judgment, but does not necessarily provide a picture of how Beginning
Teachers handle the ill-structured issues of schooling and their problem-solving rationales for
dealing with such issues. For that reason, the RCI may not have been an accurate measure of the
behaviors and problem-solving rationales being studied.
And finally, cognitive development requires a substantial amount of time, interaction, and
reflection. While the study took place over a period of six months, mentors were spread very thin
and may not have been able to provide support on a consistent enough basis in order to make any
quantifiable difference on this particular test. As Thies-Sprinthall (1984) stated, “generally it is
not possible to show dramatic or huge gains in a short amount of time since measures are
designed to tap relatively stable thought structures that change slowly over time. Further, it is
93
quite common on tests of cognitive development for test scores to decline between pretest and
posttest administration for motivation reasons (Redmore & Waldman, 1975).
Qualitative Data
In April, final interviews were conducted with each mentor. The structure of this
interview was open-ended. The purpose was to capture the perceptions of the mentors about how
their focus BTs had developed throughout the year, what their experience with this model had
been like, and to see if they could pinpoint any specific instances that propelled development in
their BTs.
With Mentor Lori, she felt that two of the three focus BTs that she worked with made real
progress in reflective judgment. She still had concerns about one teacher whom she described as
always seeming “doom and gloom” and “not very passionate about her teaching.” Mentor Lori
described herself as feeling “at a loss” about how to support this teacher. About another BT, Lori
said, “she still has some issues to work through, but I don’t feel that she is so frantic about
them.” She further commented that the BT “doesn’t rely on me to solve all of her problems for
her anymore . . . she already has a plan.” And with her third BT, she points to a very difficult
conversation that she had to have with him early in the year that really “turned things around.”
Mentor Lori did not realize the BT’s real need for her to be so direct and so specific in her
expectations. She describes having had “no relationship with him last year” even though she
“was there a lot.” But Lori describes that this year she took a whole new approach with him and
that he made a lot more progress.
Mentor Sally felt that all three of her focus BTs had shown progress. She cited many
instances of their greater focus on data and making on the spot decisions based on what they are
observing in the classroom. Mentor Sally described one BT who was “making decisions on her
94
own.” While the BT did share ideas with Sally, she “is not dependent on [her].” She stated that
while meeting with another of her BTs she noticed that the BT “was not being so emotional” and
that “there were no tears this time.” This was a marked change from the beginning of the school
year, but Mentor Sally was still concerned for this teacher.
Mentor Mary also felt that her focus BTs had shown progress, though she still had major
concerns about one of her teachers who seemed to have major swings in his pattern of thinking.
She attributed most of this “back and forth” between levels to the BT’s frustration. The BT had a
very difficult time reconciling the disparity between how he thought things should be run at the
school and the way the administration and the school system in general handled things. Mentor
Mary described another of her BTs as moving from “relying on her emotions to make decisions”
to “really analyzing her data to make decisions.” As far as the reason for this success, Mary
pointed to a combination of her own revised questioning techniques from the RJM, the teacher’s
willingness to learn, and the administrator focus on evidence to make decisions. Mentor Mary
said the training she received in the RJM, “has stretched me. I know I have grown because of
this.” She went on to say that the mentoring team in the district, “could use this as a model to
amend things in the program for next year.”
Final interviews with each mentor provided an overall synopsis of how the mentors felt
about the growth of their assigned Beginning Teachers, but analysis of the field notes, earlier
interviews, observations, and the blog give a more specific picture of exactly how each focus BT
developed over the six month study and what mentoring strategies were used to help promote
growth. A summary of each case is displayed in Table 7. Six of the nine focus BTs showed
growth in reflective judgment based on their increasingly complex problem solving behaviors
and rationales.
Table 7
Mentoring Strategies and BT Development
Case #
Study Phase 1
RJM Level/ Stage
RJM Mentoring Strategy
Utilized by Assigned Mentor
Study Phase 3
RJM Level/Stage
BT Developmental Pattern
1
3 Pre-Reflective
Made it clear who the “authority” figures were, asked specific questions related to evidence and data, gave directions, became more specific with expectations, helped BT consider multiple perspectives on an issue
4
Quasi-Reflective
Increased collaboration with colleagues, increased use of data and evidence to support opinions, increasingly recognized legitimate sources of authority, became more open to change teaching techniques
2 3 Pre-Reflective
Gave specific answers to problems and required BT to collect follow-up information/evidence, guided BT in looking at data for decision-making
4 Quasi-Reflective
Increased independence, changed from reliance on mentor for decision making to coming up with own solutions, focused more on evidence
3 *5 Quasi-Reflective
Asked more open ended questions like, “how are your students doing,” waited for BT to produce evidence, kept conversations focused on students and learning versus problems, mentor sometimes “at a loss” for what to do
*5 Quasi-Reflective
Inconsistent pattern of using research and data to make instructional decisions to blaming students, major negative change in attitude and increased exhaustion
4 4 Quasi-Reflective
Used strategies such as +/∆ for reflection, reinforced what BT was already doing, had her to define what her role is, required her to provide evidence for her decisions
5 Quasi-Reflective
Increased control of emotions, became increasingly more independent, volunteered for leadership roles in the school, spoke about specific classroom evidence as a basis for instructional and management decisions
5 3 Pre-Reflective
Helped her analyze existing documentation, ask questions about how the new system was working, gave explicit and concrete directions, encouraged her to collect evidence to make decisions, helped her advocate for herself
3 Pre-Reflective
Showed some increase in control over emotions, showed some evidence of collecting data, remained unsure about how to connect data to decision-making, did not recognize that others were better qualified to make decisions, sought high level of structure, “wanted control”
95
6 5 Quasi-Reflective
Used video for reflection, allowed her to initiate discussion, listened and acknowledge her ideas, provided feedback
6 Reflective
Increased in use of multiple perspectives, sought input from parents, students, and her mentor, helped students move towards more independence, increasingly able to articulate specific evidence that helped her make decisions, became open to new ideas, became willing to change opinions or rationale based on new information
7 6 Reflective
Allowed BT to share the evidence she had collected and what conclusions she had drawn, discussed and reflected with BT on the changes she made in her instruction and the impact that had on student achievement, connected her with content specialists in the district to help with additional instructional ideas and to help her with assessment
6 Reflective
Remained very reflective, collected and used data to make instructional decisions, (left the study early due to maternity leave)
8 3 Pre-Reflective
Helped her with listening to others, gave explicit “next steps” then required her to use evidence to talk about the success or failure of them, kept the BT focused on true evidence versus her perceptions, opinions, and emotions
4 Quasi-Reflective
Increased focus on evidence to make decisions, decreased use of opinion for decision making, increased value for others’ opinions, increased confidence, better relationships with colleagues
9 4 Quasi-Reflective
Role played multiple perspectives, helped BT brainstorm, modeled holding firm points of view without exhibiting intolerance, offered BT leadership opportunities, helped BT put plans into action by connecting him to resources
*6 Reflective
Became very reflective, use of evidence went from idiosyncratic use to taking in multiple perspectives and varied forms of data, difficult to assess because he was very “heated” and passionate about his ideas, increasingly able to anticipate the problems/barriers for his multiple solutions
*Note. Patterns were inconsistent and mentor felt unsure about rating
96
97
In general, mentors were more explicit with those teachers at the Pre-Reflective stage, less direct
with those BTs at the Quasi-Reflective stage, and more collaborative with BTs at the Reflective
stage.
Research Question 1
The first research question that guided this study was, “What is the relationship of
problem-solving rationale of beginning teachers to their different stage levels of cognitive
complexity?” That question can be answered by looking at the themes that emerged from
analysis of the field notes instruments, interviews with mentors, and the blog that was maintained
by the researcher. It appears that as the level of cognitive complexity or reflective judgment (RJ)
increased, the more the teacher used evidence and reflection to solve ill-structured problems.
While beginning teachers at low levels of RJ tended to be uncomfortable with the uncertainty
that comes with ill-structured problems, those who were at higher levels of RJ seemed to expect
the uncertainty. The higher RJ teachers were able to think of multiple solutions for problems,
weigh the pros and cons of each and even anticipate barriers for each solution. Low RJ teachers
tended to look to an authority figure for answers and to get very emotional when there were no
clear answers to their problems, while Higher RJ teachers gathered information from multiple
sources and were more objective when solving problems.
Beginning teachers in the mid range for reflective judgment used evidence to help them
solve problems, but it was usually in an idiosyncratic way. These teachers typically formed
opinions or determined solutions first and then gathered only the evidence that would support
their notions.
Understanding the behaviors, problem solving approaches, and problem solving
rationales of teachers at different levels of reflective judgment is invaluable information for those
98
in the field of supporting Beginning Teachers. If this pattern holds true across studies, then it
seems logical that higher levels of reflective judgment in teachers is in fact a goal that we should
strive for. Furthermore, knowing how to identify the reflective judgment levels of Beginning
Teachers would help mentors and supervisors to be more effective in communication,
relationship building, and professional development involving the teachers they are charged with
supporting. The reflective judgment factor would help to explain why particular teachers at
different levels of cognitive complexity tend to focus on certain categories of ill-structured
problems. If a mentor or supervisor knows an appropriate response for helping teachers at
different levels to address their problems, then it seems likely that the development of teachers
could happen in a faster, more predictable, and more positive manner. Just as teachers seek to
understand the learning levels and characteristics of their students, so should we as school
leaders seek to understand the learning levels and characteristics of the adults that we are trying
to help develop.
Beginning Teachers could also benefit from the knowledge of the Reflective Judgment
Model and the research related to how this applies to the mentoring relationship. If BTs
understood the model and knew that they would be working with their mentors for the purpose of
increasing their own levels of reflective judgment, they may be more likely to adopt this growth
as a personal goal. Hence, they may be willing to engage in more direct conversation about their
thinking, ask questions to help promote their own growth, and try new techniques in order to
reach higher levels of reflective judgment.
Research Question 2
The second research question that guided this study was, “How can a teacher’s stage
level of cognitive complexity be developed through specific mentoring strategies?”
99
Trainer/Researcher Questions and Discussion
Development of mentors was not an initial focus for this study, however the training,
coaching, and subsequent development experienced by mentors may help to explain how it is
that mentors were able to promote growth of the Beginning Teachers through specific mentoring
strategies.
The mentors chosen for the RJM treatment group had all previously been trained in the
state mentor training, which was a total of 30 hours. Examples of the content that was
emphasized in the state training include: (a) understanding the state mentoring standards, (b)
knowing the qualifications and roles of mentors, (c) understanding various types of data
collection techniques, and (d) understanding how to use data in the coaching cycle with
beginning teachers. In addition, all three of these mentors had all been trained in Cognitive
Coaching and had been serving as full time mentors for at least two years prior to this study.
They received their initial training in Cognitive Developmental Theory and the Reflective
Judgment Model in October of the school year and the researcher continued to deliver
professional development on the theory and practice related to this study. Professional
development and coaching took place by way of presentation, reading and discussion,
questioning, scenario discussions, observation and feedback. Documentation from memos,
mentor FI forms, emails, blog entries, and observation notes, show that the mentors were very
excited about the use of the Reflective Judgment Model for mentoring, but that they were not yet
confident with the use of the model. During this month, the mentors requested additional training
and frequent coaching sessions with the researcher. The researcher observed that there was a
heavy reliance on the RJM printed resources provided as support structures, which was evident
during coaching sessions. On the FI forms for October and November there were question marks
100
written as well as multiple levels circled to identify the level of reflective judgment of the
Beginning Teachers. These markings may indicate that the mentors were unsure if they were
correct in their analysis of the Beginning Teachers and that they lacked confidence in their
ability to accurately make decisions regarding the Reflective Judgment Model. Coaching
sessions, after one on one observations of the mentors working with their Beginning Teachers
and group “Lunch Bunch” sessions, gave an opportunity for the researcher to clarify any
misunderstandings, to give encouragement and affirmation, and to answer questions that mentors
had, related to the use of the RJM.
Observer notes from a March 17, 2010 coaching session provide a rich description of the
types of impromptu questioning provided to mentors by the researcher:
1. What stage would you say he is at now?
2. What stage was he at before?
3. How do you know he is showing change?
4. Is this a consistent pattern or just temporary?
5. What do you think will be his tendency if you just give him the information?
6. What if you ask him a more open ended question?
7. Hasn’t he been teetering back and forth between two levels?
8. Why do you think that is?
9. Look at the tool I gave you. Let’s see if his characteristics match this description.
10. How will you start your next conversation with him?
The blog entry dated March 17, 2010, that followed this coaching session, documents the
researcher perspective on the growth of mentors from October to March related to their
understanding and use of the Reflective Judgment Model for mentoring.
101
My sense from the meeting is that the mentors DO feel like they have progressed. I noticed that they were quick to offer each other advice rather than relying on me for answers. I also noticed that they were asking each other probing questions and were making connections between their own experiences and the experiences of other mentor/mentee relationships.
Also contained in this blog entry is documentation about what the mentors said about the
coaching they had received throughout the study. “They stated specifically that I had asked
probing questions, had helped them to understand the RJM, and had offered exactly the amount
of support that they needed all along the way” (blog, March 17, 2010). The observation notes
further confirmed that mentors stated specific support strategies that were beneficial for their
own growth and development. They referred to the structured Field Notes Instrument (FI) which
was analogous to structured lesson plans for teachers. They also referred to the printed tools that
helped them to choose questions and activities for Beginning Teachers at varying levels of
reflective judgment. One mentor stated that she “appreciated that we started out with a more
structured format and then moved into a ‘hybrid’ model of alternating the collection of field
notes and interviews.”
In a discussion about barriers to the use of the RJM, all of the mentors stressed the
importance of time related to mentoring and more specifically to the use of the Reflective
Judgment Model. They would like to have spent more time in their own professional
development related to this model as well as spending more time with individual Beginning
Teachers. They expressed that they felt inadequate to make a difference with teachers based on
the lack of time they were able to spend in focus conversation with the BTs. One mentor also
suggested that the language of the RJM was not specific to teaching and recommended that the
RJM mentor group should work to convert some of the statements, questions, and suggested
activities to be “educator friendly.”
102
Beginning Teacher Development
By looking at the focus BT’s and their pattern of problem-solving rationale over time,
there is evidence through the conversations and actions of the Beginning Teachers that using a
mentoring strategy that is matched to the BT’s stage level of growth, based on the Reflective
Judgment Model, yielded development in level of reflective judgment. Some changes in stage
level of reflective judgment were realized as Beginning Teachers at lower levels of reflective
judgment were mentored with a very direct approach became more complex in their problem
solving behaviors and rationales for knowledge claims. The RJM gave a basis for questioning
and support that mentors did not previously have.
As an example, Mentor Lori became very confident with the use of the Reflective
Judgment Model and in December she realized that she needed to have what she termed, “a
fierce conversation” with one of her Beginning Teachers. Since she had determined that the BT
was operating consistently at a Level 3, Pre-reflective Stage, she gave very direct comments to
the BT about what he needed to do in terms of attending meetings, adhering to administrative
requests, and modifying his grading practices. She followed up those direct instructions with a
request for the BT to take notes-evidence-about what happened as a result of his changes.
Together they discussed the evidence and continued this pattern of direct mentoring, collecting
evidence, discussing the evidence and the mentor providing feedback. Eventually, the FI forms
documented how this Beginning Teacher began to become more independent in his thinking,
how he began to seek multiple perspectives, and how he increasingly used evidence to support
his decision making. As the BT began to show development, Mentor Lori flexed her mentoring
strategies to include more open ended questioning and providing more than one solution to
problems so that the BT could choose responses instead of being told specifically how to
103
respond. Not only was this BTs evolution realized by his mentor, but unprompted comments
from the school administrator and other teachers at the school produced further documentation
that the BT was showing marked change in his thinking and his behavior. The example with
Mentor Lori, illustrate how mentor progress and BT progress happened concurrently over time.
The results were typical for this study. In six of the nine focus Beginning Teachers, marked gains
in reflective judgment were documented.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
Chapter V is the conclusion to the study. Sections presented in this chapter include the
purpose of the study, summary of results, limitations of the study, recommendations for further
research, discussion, and final thoughts.
Purpose of the Study
When I began this study, I knew that improved teacher retention and improved teaching
quality were high priorities for American public schools. This was evidenced by the billions of
dollars allocated (Alliance for Excellence in Education, 2008; NCTAF, 2007; Wayne & Youngs,
2003) and the policies implemented from the federal, state, and district levels (White House,
2009; Race to the Top, 2010) in response to this issue. While comprehensive mentoring and
induction was noted as a prevailing way to address the issue, there does not appear to be
widespread use of developmental approaches to mentoring. More specifically, mentoring
practices often focus on emotional support and skill or strategy support, yet there is little
evidence that promoting higher levels of cognitive complexity or reflective judgment are a focus
for support (Bullough et al., 2008; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Reiman, 1999; Reiman & Thies-
Sprinthall, 1993). It seems logical that beginning teachers who are more reflective, who use data
in decision making, and who constantly examine and revise their practice will be more effective
at creating positive student learning experiences. However, it also seems logical that teachers
will not adopt these dispositions unless they consistently operate at higher levels of complexity
based on the Reflective Judgment Model. So, this study provided an opportunity to create and
implement a developmental mentoring program that would help mentors to promote higher
levels of cognitive complexity in beginning teachers.
105
The purpose of this study was to examine the application of the Reflective Judgment
Model (RJM) in developmental mentoring to examine its impact on promoting cognitive
complexity in beginning teachers. The research questions that guided this study were:
1. What is the relationship of different problem-solving rationales of beginning teachers
to different stage levels of cognitive complexity?
2. How can a teacher’s stage level of cognitive complexity be promoted through specific
mentoring strategies?
Summary of Results
The sequential study was organized into three phases. During Phase 1, a pretest of
reflective judgment, the Reasoning about Current Issues test (RCI), was given to mentors (n = 7),
a treatment group of Beginning Teachers (n = 29) and a non-treatment group of Beginning
Teachers (n = 26). The purpose of the RCI was twofold. First, it was intended to provide a
baseline of reflective judgment for the RJM treatment group, which would help RJM trained
mentors in planning for their mentor sessions with assigned Beginning Teachers (BTs).
Secondly, the RCI was intended to provide a quantitative measure of reflective judgment to be
used in determining a mean change comparison between the RJM treatment group and the non-
treatment group of BTs.
Of the seven total mentors, three were trained to deliver mentoring strategies based on the
Reflective Judgment Model in order to promote higher levels of cognitive complexity in their
assigned Beginning Teachers. The initial training for the treatment group mentors was based on a
professional development model that was adapted from the work of Joyce and Showers (2002)
who recommend the elements (a) exploration of theory or rationale, (b) demonstration or
modeling, (c) practice of skill in professional development, (d) provision of structured feedback,
106
(e) practice of skill in the workplace, and (f) peer coaching. The major topics explored during the
training included: (a) goals and structure of the professional development, (b) historical context
for mentoring and the current training components required by the state, (c) Cognitive
Developmental Theory, (d) optimal conditions for Beginning Teacher growth, (e) the Reflective
Judgment Model (RJM), and finally (f) the RJM applied to mentoring. The training activities
involved readings and Power Point presentation, practice activities such as watching a video
scenario and responding, practice in the field with a trainer who observed and provided feedback,
and ongoing coaching by one-on-one conferencing with a trainer and bi-weekly group support
sessions called “Lunch Bunch.”
During Phase II the mentors delivered RJM mentoring strategies and collected structured
field notes on the BTs related to the ill-structured problems they faced, the problem-solving
behaviors and rationales of the BTs, the level of reflective judgment of the BTs, and their
mentoring strategy for the BTs. During this phase the researcher also conducted observations of
the mentors implementing the RJM strategies, conducted interviews with the mentors about their
assigned BTs, and used a blog to record information about the study and about mentor and BT
development. During Phase III final interviews were conducted of each RJM trained mentor and
the RCI posttest was given to the participating BTs.
While the study was focused on the reflective judgment of beginning teachers, the
findings showed reflective judgment growth in individual BTs as well as growth in those who
delivered mentoring strategies that were based on the RJM. Regarding groups of teachers,
quantitative data from mean pretest and posttest scores of the Reasoning about Current Issues
test (RCI) showed no significant differences between the RJM treatment group and the non-
treatment group. Conditions for adult development, which have been applied to beginning
107
teacher cognitive development, outlined in the “Teaching/Learning Framework” (Reiman &
Thies-Sprinthall, 1993, 1998) include: (a) significant experience/role-taking, (b) reflection on
experience, (c) balance between reflection and experience, (d) support and challenge, and (e)
continuity. It is not surprising that the results from the RCI showed no statistically significant
difference between the two groups considering the context of the study. The necessary condition
of continuity was severely compromised. While this study did last within the recommended time
frame of at least six months to one year, Thies-Sprinthall (1984) further recommends that
meetings between the mentor and the Beginning Teacher should happen at “regular intervals,
usually weekly” (p. 54). Unfortunately, the case load of the mentors in this study was so large
that it prohibited those necessary frequent meetings. The state recommended ratio of mentors to
BTs was 1:15; however, mentors in this study had a ratio of as many as 1:42. The mentors also
had the additional responsibilities of delivering staff development to all teachers in the district.
The heavy case load of Beginning Teachers, coupled with the additional responsibilities, made it
theoretically and practically impossible for mentors to contribute to large scale significant
reflective judgment changes in groups of BTs. The existing mentor program context spurred the
decision to change the original study design in terms of types of data collected as well as
changing the focus of the data collection from all teachers in the RJM group to a few individual
cases for each RJM mentor.
While the Reflective Judgment Model was originally developed for audiences other than
Beginning Teachers specifically, the structure and framework ultimately were reflected in the
findings as congruent between this study and the original RJM. More specifically, Beginning
Teachers at different levels of reflective judgment showed problem solving responses and
problem solving rationales that were congruent to the original structure of the RJM. Nine
108
beginning teachers were the focus of the case study approach. Seven of the nine teachers
advanced in their level of reflective judgment over the course of the study. One of those seven
showing growth advanced two levels from a Level 4 (Quasi-reflective) to Level 6 (Reflective),
which is a very significant change in reflective thinking. The growth realized in the findings of
this study is supported by researchers in the field of mentoring who believe that when mentors
and beginning teachers are provided opportunities to interact, where they can practice and act in
new ways, then the outcome will be higher cognitive responses (Carter & Foster, 2007) and that
applying direct interventions can promote higher stage growth in teacher’s ego, moral, and
cognitive development (Friedman & Shoen, 2009; Glassberg & Sprinthall,1980; Oja, 1990;
Thies-Sprinthall, 1984). The findings are also similar to findings from a previous study that
showed that timely and systematic probing based on the RJM can help teachers progress rather
than temporize or regress in their reflective thinking (Friedman & Shoen, 2009).
The study is considered successful for several reasons. First, data collection and analysis
provided an answer to the research question regarding Beginning Teacher problem solving
rationales. Teachers at lower levels of reflective judgment showed a heavy reliance on authorities
for problem solving. They also relied heavily on their feelings and emotions versus using data or
evidence to make decisions. As Beginning Teachers became more complex in their level of
reflective judgment, they began to show a greater independence in problem-solving, consider
multiple perspectives, and use evidence to make decisions. With regard to the second research
question, How can a teacher’s stage level of cognitive complexity be promoted through specific
mentoring strategies?, the Reflective Judgment Model provided a framework that proved to be
applicable to mentoring for BT cognitive development. In fact, when mentoring strategies based
on the RJM were applied on a consistent basis with Beginning Teachers, growth in reflective
109
judgment was realized in seven out of nine focus BTs. Mentors used very direct mentoring
strategies with teachers at lower levels of the RJM, which included providing the BTs with
solutions to their problems and stating specific evidence that the BT should collect related to the
issue. When the mentor noticed an increase in reflective judgment, a less direct approach to
mentoring was used. For example, when a teacher at the mid range of the RJM (Levels 4-5) had
trouble defending his/her point of view without showing intolerance for another’s points of view,
the mentor engaged in role play and open-ended questioning techniques based on strategies
outlined in the RJM. The nature of the success of the study was not realized in the quantitative
results because the data showed no statistically significant difference between the treatment and
non-treatment groups. However, the RCI test was limiting because of the numerous
shortcomings associated with it. The qualitative findings were more representative of the day to
day patterns of behaviors of the Beginning Teachers. When changes in reflective judgment
occurred, daily analysis was more constructive than a one-time pre and post test.
Limitations of the Study
There were several limitations to the study. The naturalistic setting (Lincoln & Guba,
1985), while necessary for this type of study, is recognized as a limitation. There is little that one
can do to control for contamination of information from the treatment group to the non-treatment
group. The district already had in place a system whereby mentors from both groups met
regularly for staff meetings and collaborated on teams for professional development purposes.
While the mentors from the RJM treatment group were instructed not to share learned
information with the non-treatment group mentors there was still potential for the unintentional
sharing of ideas from one group to the other. Also, related to the setting was the fact that I served
in multiple roles as researcher, trainer, mentor, and evaluator. I designed the professional
110
development for the RJM treatment group mentors and made a conscious effort not to use any of
the proposed strategies, yet it is possible that I inadvertently used the strategies with my assigned
beginning teachers in the non-treatment group. Any time that a researcher is in the study there is
the potential for bias. While this is recognized as a limitation, this could also be considered a
benefit as I was able to discern between relevant and non-relevant information. I was able to
increase credibility through prolonged engagement and persistent observation (Lincoln & Guba,
1985) which may not have been possible if I were not already a member of the professional
development team.
Another limitation was due to the structure of the existing mentoring and induction
program. The program was not designed with a developmental approach in mind. The mentors
were assigned as many as 42 beginning teachers to mentor throughout the course of the year in
addition to their other professional development responsibilities. With this mentor to BT ratio, it
is not likely that mentors would have the time to utilize developmental strategies with every
assigned BT. This is perhaps the biggest limitation; however it is the one that most districts will
find difficult to combat because of limited resources. A developmental approach to mentoring
requires extensive time and interaction between the mentor and the BT in order to be successful.
The use of the RCI, as a quantitative measure of reflective judgment, posed a plethora of
problems. The first problem came in Phase 1 of the study when the test administrators did not
release the pretest data as was anticipated. I was not able to use the pretest data to help guide the
chosen mentoring strategies or to determine that the RJM treatment group and non-treatment
groups were similar enough to make comparisons. In addition, problems with test administration
such as the test timing out, the computer not accepting chosen responses, or the participant’s
information not registering at all, caused frustration with several participants which in turn
111
caused them to drop out of the study altogether. Consequently, the number of test completers
was less than 30 for each group. The test itself took approximately 30 minutes to complete and
may have not have been an appropriate choice to measure the problem solving rationales or
reflective judgment of these beginning teachers. Since this test presented a recognition task
versus a production task, there were multiple statements for the participants to identify with and
rank. Some participants reported being confused about exactly what they were supposed to do on
the test. Some reported the “meaningless statements” that were embedded in the RCI caused
them confusion as well. Perhaps the directions were confusing, perhaps these participants took
the test in a setting or during a time that was distracting, or perhaps they were just frustrated with
the technical glitches associated with the test. There was no significant difference, in the mean
change from pre to post test, between the treatment and non-treatment groups. Speculation about
the lack of significance rests in multiple possibilities. It could be due to problems with the test
administration, low number of test completers, alignment of the test to the characteristics being
measured, or approaches to supervision.
Recommendations for Further Research
This study focused on the development of beginning teacher reflective judgment. While
the research questions that guided this study were specific to beginning teacher development
using the Reflective Judgment Model as a framework, other questions and implications emerged.
Recommendations for further research follow:
1. While it was not a focus of this study, the Reflective Judgment Model clearly had an
impact on the mentors of the RJM treatment group. Future studies should examine the
reflective judgment of mentors as well as the beginning teachers to whom they are
assigned.
112
2. The Reflective Judgment Model was an effective theoretical framework to guide
mentoring in this study. Still, the tools that are currently provided by King and
Kitchener (1994) are designed for a more general model of cognitive development.
Future research should be done to adapt the model, making it more “user-friendly” for
mentors of beginning teachers by refining the language to make it congruent to
typical mentoring terminology and by providing activities and scenarios to help
mentors to better transfer the RJM to their natural setting.
3. There should be more widespread study of developmental mentoring programs using
the RJM as a guide for cognitive development. Longitudinal studies of a well
designed developmental mentoring program could be done to determine if beginning
teacher cognitive complexity increased over time and if that increase made a
difference in teaching strategies, feedback to students, or student learning in
classrooms of teachers at different levels of reflective judgment.
4. Qualitative data showed positive gains in reflective judgment in seven of nine
beginning teachers in a single school district, but quantitative data from the RCI
showed no significant differences in groups of teachers from the same district. The
RCI was chosen for this study because it was seemingly appropriate, inexpensive, and
easily accessible for large groups of teachers. It was also aligned directly to the
Reflective Judgment Model that was used as the basis for mentoring in this study, but
because of the limitations of the test, it may not have yielded an accurate depiction of
the reflective judgment growth of the teachers. It is not hard to speculate that a
different quantitative measure of reflective judgment would have yielded statistically
significant and positive results. There are more reliable quantitative tests of reflective
113
judgment, but they are very expensive and would not be feasible for use in the public
school sector. Future studies should incorporate quantitative findings using or
creating a more reliable instrument which is inexpensive and feasible to use a public
schooling setting and specifically designed for use with Beginning Teachers.
5. A separate study should focus on the mentors who are utilizing the RJM as a
framework for mentoring. Additionally, the implications of mentor growth could be
explored with regards to the Beginning Teachers to whom they are assigned. There is
the potential for BTs to increase in complexity as their assigned mentors increase in
complexity. The significance, if any, of that relationship should be explored.
6. A long range study could be conducted to apply the RJM theoretical framework to
administrators as a way to examine leadership development. It would be of further
interest to examine the problem solving characteristics and the organizational
practices of administrators at different levels of the RJM.
Discussion
Some of the most poignant outcomes of the study came unexpectedly. I did not expect the
mentors to have such a positive reaction to learning about how Cognitive Developmental Theory
and the Reflective Judgment Model could help them become better mentors. I thought it was
significant that they wanted to continue implementing these learned strategies even after the
study had ended. This was further testament to the effectiveness of the model even under
circumstances that were not the most conducive for beginning teacher cognitive growth. As
mentors continued to be assigned higher numbers of BTs throughout the year, they became
frustrated that there was not enough time for providing developmental mentoring strategies, but
even still, the value of the RJM for mentoring was realized. I also thought it was significant that
114
mentors not only found the Reflective Judgment Model as a helpful tool for mentoring BTs, but
they also found it a helpful tool for communicating BT problem solving rationales and
explaining appropriate supports for BTs to administrators. They reported that this was not a
practice that they would normally have engaged in, but one that became a valuable tool for
retaining and developing teachers.
In one example, an administrator was ready to “give up” on a BT because she perceived
that the BT was not responding appropriately to ill-structured issues such as needing to revise his
grading practices. The administrator’s perception was that the BT was ignoring this issue in a
way that was bordering on insubordination. The mentor was able to share RJM strategies that she
had used with this BT which had proven successful and recommended that the administrator use
a similar approach. The mentor explained that since the BT was operating at a lower level of
reflective judgment, he relied heavily on authorities to provide solutions to his problems. She
explained that if the BT believed that the administrator had the answer and was willingly
withholding that answer it could create an adversarial relationship between them. The
administrator was able to see that the BT needed her more direct approach and together the
mentor and administrator were able to offer like minded support. Eventually, the BT began to
show changes in his level of reflective judgment and the administrator and mentor were able to
flex their support strategies together and in the same way. In the end, the administrator
determined that there was value in keeping the BT on staff.
This example speaks directly to the overarching issue on which this study was founded.
The retention and development of beginning teachers are issues that are related to one another
and retention; as well as development, should be goals of a comprehensive mentoring program.
115
Another outcome that was unintended is that the RJM trained mentors have begun to link
their understanding of Cognitive Developmental Theory to other aspects of their job. For
example, one of the mentors recently helped to create a professional development workshop for
all teachers in the district on the new state teacher evaluation instrument. Since the evaluation
process itself is a growth model, she determined that all teachers should have some background
theory on adult cognitive development. She specifically referred to David Hunt’s (1971) work on
conceptual development, which she learned about in her training during this study. She even
used a video clip activity that I had used in the initial training for RJM mentors.
It would be interesting to see how the BTs in this study would have been affected if they
understood that part of the mentor’s role would be to help them grow in reflective judgment.
Since the BTs in this study did not know that cognitive growth was an objective they were not
able to monitor or talk about their own growth. It seems logical that if the BTs had known they
needed to strive towards thinking about knowledge as uncertain and to constantly be reflective of
their decisions and that their growth in these areas were going to be assessed over time, then they
would have been more likely to do so. Just as teachers are trained to teach students about
metacognitive skills—thinking about thinking—so too should mentors talk with BTs about their
metacognitive skills. A caution with this rationale is the idea of “false positives” which may
result from participants trying to fake the behaviors associated with the behaviors they are being
trained to exemplify naturally.
My experience and research leads me to believe that if a district wants to improve
problem-solving and reflective judgment of their Beginning Teachers, the Reflective Judgment
Model can be a solid framework for mentoring. Furthermore, when implemented under optimal
program standards, the results should be similar to, if not better than, what was obtained in this
116
study. Optimal program standards should include a minimum of: (1) ongoing mentor training, (2)
supervision of mentors, (3) development framed around a theoretical model, and (4) consistency
in state and district goals.
The mentors in this study were assigned too many BTs to make a significant group
difference in terms of cognitive growth. At some undefined point the activities of the mentors
could not be considered “mentoring” but rather just “checking in” with their assigned BTs.
Mentoring strategies must be tailored to meet the needs of the BT. Since some teachers may
require a greater amount of time for mentoring, there is no absolute ratio of mentor to BT that
makes the mentoring relationship more or less effective. However, it is likely that as a mentoring
program takes a more developmental approach, the time, commitment, and resources must be
increased and under this type of model there is a greater potential for BT development in a
holistic sense. As time, commitment, and resources are decreased the model begins to look more
like the “check in” model, requiring only infrequent rounds and very little depth in conversation
between the mentor and BT. Under the “check in” model, there would be time for praise,
affirmation, and some emotional support, but little else that would contribute to overall BT
development. Figure 2, “Mentor Services Continuum” is a graphic representation showing how
mentoring services relate to time, commitment, and resources, which in turn relate to potential
outcomes.
Still unresolved is how public school districts can implement a quality mentoring
program considering the costs associated with the large numbers of beginning teachers. My hope
was that this study would show a model of developmental mentoring that would produce only
positive results. Instead, there was quantitative data that did not show positive results.
Figure 2. Mentor Services Continuum
117 Low High Time, Commitment, and Resources per Beginning Teacher
Beginning Teacher builds
a strong relationship with mentor
& some skills are
developed (though
development may be short-
lived)
Beginning Teacher receives
emotional support, praise,
& affirmations
TEACHER DEVELOPMENT Beginning Teacher learns new ways of
thinking & problem-solving
Check in w/Teachers:
1 full time mentor per 21+ beginning teachers
Mentors do infrequent rounds. They check in
with beginning teachers to “put out fires” and offer on-
the-spot assistance. mentor’s primary goal is to fulfill a mandated mentor program and sometime to
retain teachers.
Mentoring: 1 full time mentor per
11-20 beginning teachers.
Mentors build strong relationships with
beginning teachers. They use various
strategies associated with adult learning
theory and coaching. Mentor’s primary goal is to improve teaching.
Developmental Mentoring:
1 full time mentor per 8-10 beginning teachers.
Mentors use a plethora of Strategies associated with Developmental theory and
Tailor their strategies to Meet the individual needs
Of beginning teachers. Mentor’s goal is teacher
Development in a holistic Sense (emotional,
Cognitive, and skill Development)
Potential Outcomes
Model of Teacher Support
118
The program that the study operated within had “faulty” structures in place with relation to
developmental models. The ability to provide support is contingent on time and continuity,
which were severely compromised due to the sheer numbers of Beginning Teachers assigned to
each mentor.
Ideally, each full time mentor should be assigned to approximately eight to ten Beginning
Teachers. This would allow for regular meetings, opportunities for data collection and feedback,
performing model lessons and reflecting, analyzing student data, preparing for and role playing
parent conferences, researching various approaches to instruction, and the many other daily
functions of a mentor. This would also allow time in the week for coaching and professional
development for the mentors.
I cannot underestimate the value of training and ongoing support for mentors as well as
environmental issues that contributed to the success of the RJM focus BTs. A model of
professional development for the mentors which included regular coaching was critical in their
development and for the consistent implementation of strategies related to the Reflective
Judgment Model. Furthermore, in situations where growth in the Beginning Teacher was
experienced, there was an environmental factor where a system of support was in place. In some
instances, the mentor, administrator, BT, and veteran teachers were working systematically to
support the BT in terms of common language and common support strategies. In situations
where support was not consistent at the school level, the mentor was able to bring in lead
teachers from the district, other mentors from the RJM mentor team, and a network of teachers
from other schools to create a “surrogate system” of support for the BT. In any case, these
systems of support were not accidental, but came out of strategic efforts that were usually
formulated during the coaching sessions which were frequent and which were facilitated from
119
the trainer/researcher. Efforts that lead to success in improving teacher quality require significant
time, common goals, and strategic problem solving. If educators are serious about improving
teacher quality, then anything less is not acceptable.
If an ideal situation is not possible due to limited funding and resources, then the system
has two options. The system can either eliminate other programs or initiatives that detract
resources away from teacher development, or they can settle for outcomes in teacher
development which are not lasting and that are not as pronounced.
Superintendents would be wise to adopt a developmental mentoring approach in their
district if they truly want to improve teacher quality. In an ideal situation, central office
administrators, school based administrators, and instructional support staff would all be trained
in developmental theory. Additionally, those leaders would be offered regular coaching and
support themselves, as they work to support teachers. A developmental approach would help the
system to focus on a few key initiatives, spending greater amounts of time and streamlining
resources. In a system that is accustomed to implementing many new initiatives at a surface
level, a developmental approach would be a major cultural shift in professional development.
Administrators would benefit from a developmental approach to mentoring because they
would begin to see real and lasting improvements in teaching. Furthermore, there would be a
common understanding about teacher support that would permeate the system and promote a
“synergy” in central office and school based staff that is often lacking.
Teachers would perhaps be the biggest benefactor of a developmental approach to
mentoring. They would not only experience an appropriate response to their needs by support
providers, but they would experience a feeling of unity among the system leaders who are
focused on lasting improvement. Furthermore, teachers would not be overwhelmed by “training”
120
but rather, they would experience success that comes from overcoming the disequilibrium
associated with real change and development. Ultimately, the development of teachers will lead
to improved student learning.
Final Thoughts
I was myself a skilled teacher and a good communicator. I was trained in cognitive
coaching and how to lead teachers towards more in-depth reflection about their teaching
practices. As a practicing mentor of beginning teachers, I felt well prepared for helping my
assigned BTs with emotional support and with instructional strategies. Still, there always seemed
a void when it came to exactly how to get a teacher, who was not reflective to be able to look at a
problem situation, think of possible solutions, evaluate those solutions, choose the best one and
then evaluate its effectiveness. That void just happened to be in the area in which teachers spend
the majority of their time. The nature of teaching is to be in a state of constant decision-making,
usually of an ill-structured kind. So this personal dilemma became the driving force from which I
developed this dissertation study topic.
As I began to study this topic in depth I found that I was not the only mentor who felt
unqualified to help BTs with this type of problem-solving, which requires a high level of
reflective judgment. By design, our mentor training did not teach us how to assist teachers
through the reflective judgment process. In part because cognitive growth takes time and in part
because cognitive growth is difficult to measure and see. Still, one has to recognize the need for
helping teachers grow in reflective judgment. I hope that this study has laid the groundwork for
showing how the Reflective Judgment Model, which is arguably the “best known and most
extensively studied model of adult cognitive development” (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, p.
123), can be used as part of a comprehensive mentoring and induction program. This study has
121
contributed to the body of research about possible ways of studying the progress of BTs in the
area of reflective judgment. I have also attempted to show how differing levels of reflective
judgment can make a difference in problem solving issues and problem solving rationales of
beginning teachers. This in turn requires a differentiated approach to mentoring on the part of the
mentor if true support and development is to take place. The work in this area is far from over,
but these efforts have the potential to affect teacher retention, teacher effectiveness, and above all
student learning.
REFERENCES
Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago public high schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), 95–135.
Adams, R. D., Hutchinson, S., & Martray, C. (1980). A developmental study of teacher concerns
across time. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Adams, R. D., & Martray, C. (1981). Teacher development: A study of factors related to teacher
concerns for pre, beginning, and experienced teachers. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA.
Alliance for Excellence in Education. (2004, June). Tapping the potential: Retaining and
developing high-quality new teachers. Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/ files/TappingThePotential.pdf
Alliance for Excellence in Education (2008, February). What keeps good teachers in the
classroom? Understanding and reducing teacher turnover. Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/files/TeachTurn.pdf Arnold-Rogers, J., Arnett, S., & Harris, M. B. (2008). Mentoring new teachers in Lenoir City,
Tennessee. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 74(4), 18-23. Arredondo, D., & Rucinski, T. (1998). Using structured interactions in conferences and journals
to promote cognitive development among mentors and mentees. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 13(4), 300-327.
Ballantyne, R., & Hansford, B. (1995). Mentoring beginning teachers: A qualitative analysis of
process and outcomes. Educational Review, 47(3), 297-308. Bey, T. M. (1995). Mentorships: Transferable transactions among teachers. Education & Urban
Society, 28(1), 11-20. Billingsley, B. (2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of the
literature. Journal of Special Education, 38, 39-56. Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and
narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367-409. Borman, G. D., & Kimball, S. M. (2005). Teacher quality and educational quality: Do teachers
with higher standards-based evaluation ratings close student achievement gaps? The Elementary School Journal, 106(1), 3-20.
123
Breaux, A. (1999). First things first: How to set up an induction program. In M. Scherer (Ed.), A better beginning: Supporting and mentoring new teachers, 34-39. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Broughton, M. (1978). Development of concepts of self, mind, reality, and knowledge. In W.
Damon (Ed.). Social cognition. New directions for child development. (Vol. 1, pp. 75-100). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brooks-Young, S. (2007, October). Help wanted. THE Journal, 34(10), 44-50. Bullough, R. V., Young, J. R., Hall, K. M., Draper, R. J., & Smith, L. K. (2008). Cognitive
complexity, the first year of teaching, and mentoring. Teaching and Teacher Education. 24, 1846-1858.
Carter, N. P., & Foster, E. (2007). Developmental mentoring in urban settings: A model of
theory and practice to support retention of novice educators. Journal of Alliance of Black School Educators, 6(1), 37-50.
Clarke, A., & Jarvis-Selinger, S. (2005). What the teaching perspective of cooperating teachers
tell us about their advisory practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(1), 65-78. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2007). How and why do teacher credentials matter for
student achievement? National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Working paper no. 2. Urban Institute.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review,
61(3), 279-310. Conway, P. F., & Clark, C. M. (2003). The journey inward and outward: A reexamination of
Fuller’s concerns-based model of teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5), 465-482.
Corbell, K. A., Reiman, A. J., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2008). The perceptions of success inventory for
beginning teachers: Measuring its psychometric properties. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1551-1563.
Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (1997). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools
(3rd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Creswell, J. W. (2003).Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters what leaders can do.
Educational Leadership, 60(1), 6-13.
124
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Chicago: Henry Regenery.
Edwards, A., & Protheroe, L. (2004). Teaching by proxy: Understanding how mentors are
positioned in partnerships. Oxford Review of Education, 30(2), 183-197. Feiman-Nemser, S. (1996). Teacher mentoring: A critical review. (ED 397 060). Washington,
DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Ferguson, R. (1998). Can schools narrow the Black-White test score gap? In C. Jencks & M.
Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap (pp. 318-374). (ED 423 765).Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Friedman, A., & Schoen, L. (2009). Reflective practice interventions: Raising levels of reflective
judgment. Action in Teacher Education. 31(2), 61-73. Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Education
Research Journal, 6(2), 207-226. Ganser, T. (1992). What are the important mentor roles: Perceptions of participants in a state-
mandated mentoring program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, San Antonio, TX.
Ganser, T. (1996). What do mentors say about mentoring? Journal of Staff Development, 17(3),
36-39. Glassberg, S., & Sprinthall, N. (1980). Student teaching: A developmental approach. Journal of
Teacher Education, 31, 31-38. Glickman, C., & Gordon, S. (1987). Clarifying developmental supervision. Educational
Leadership, 44(8), 64-68. Goldhaber, D. (2002). The mystery of good teaching: Surveying the evidence on student
achievement and teachers’ characteristics. Education Next, 2(1), 50-55. Goldhaber, D., & Brewer, D. (1997). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational
performance. In W. Fowler (Ed.), Developments in school finance, 1996 (pp. 197-210). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Goldhaber, D., Brewer, D., & Anderson, D. (1999). A three-way error components analysis of
educational productivity. Education Economics 7(3), 199-208. Goldhaber, D., Gross, B., & Player D. (2007). Are public schools really losing their “best”?:
Assessing the career transitions of teachers and their implication for the quality of the
125
teacher workforce. Working Paper 12, Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, Urban Institute.
Grissmer, D., & Kirby, S. (1997). Teacher turnover and teacher quality. Teachers College
Record, 99, 45-56. Guarino, C. M., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher Recruitment and Retention: A
Review of the Recent Empirical Literature. Review of Educational Research, 762, 173-208.
Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. C., & Dossett, W. A. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the
adoption process within educational institutions. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas.
Hanushek, E. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools.
Journal of Economic Literature, 24(3), 1141-1178. Harvey, O. J., Hunt, D. E., & Schroder, H. M. (1961). Conceptual systems and personality
organization. New York: Wiley. Helsing, D. (2007). Regarding uncertainty in teachers and teaching. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 23(8), 1317-1333. Hirsch, E., & Emerick, S. (with Church, K., & Fuller, E.). (2007). Teacher working conditions
are student learning conditions: A report on the 2006 North Carolina teacher working conditions survey. Hillsborough, NC: Center for Teaching Quality.
Hunt, D. E. (1971). Matching models in education. Ontario, Canada: The Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education. Implementing NCLB: Key teacher quality provisions. (2003, May). [Online Forum].
Retrieved from http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/Teacher QualityProvisionsOfNCLBsummary_May2003
Ingersoll, R. (2007). Misdiagnosing the teacher quality problem. In S. H. Fuhrman, D. K. Cohen,
& F. Mosher (Eds.), The state of education policy research (pp. 291-306). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
Ingersoll, R., & Kralik, J.M. (2004). The Impact of Mentoring on Teacher Retention: What the
Research Says. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Ingersoll, R., & T. Smith (2003). “The Wrong Solution to the Teacher Shortage.” Educational
Leadership, 60(8), 30-33. Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: New teachers explain
their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581–617.
126
Johnson, L., & Reiman, A. (2007). Beginning teacher disposition: Examining the moral/ethical domain. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 676-687.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Staff development for student achievement. New York:
Longman. Jupp, B. (2009). What states can do to improve teacher effectiveness. Washington, DC: The
Education Trust. Kazelskis, R., & Reeves, C. K. (1987). Concern dimensions of preservice teachers. Educational
Research Quarterly, 11(4), 45–52. Kelley, L. M. (2004). Why induction matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), 438-448. King, P. M. (n.d.). The reasoning about current issues test. Retrieved April 25, 2009, from
University of Michigan, Reflective Judgment Website: http://www.umich.edu/ ~refjudg/reasoningaboutcurrentissuestest.html
King, P. M. (1990). Assessing development from a cognitive developmental perspective. In D.
Creamer and Associates (Eds.), College student development: Theory and practice for the 1990’s. Alexandria, VA: ACPA Media.
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass. King, P. M., Kitchener, K. S., & Wood, P. K. (1994). Research on the reflective judgment
model. Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2002). The reflective judgment model: Twenty years of
research on epistemic cognition. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 37-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the
development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 5-18.
Kitchener, K. S., King, P. M., & Deluca, S. (2006). Development of reflective judgment in
adulthood. In C. Hoare (Ed.), Handbook of adult development and learning (pp. 73-98). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kitchener, K. S., Lynch, C., Fischer, K. W., & Wood, P. (1993). Developmental range of
reflective judgment: The effect of contextual support and practice on developmental stage. Developmental Psychology, 29(5), 893-906.
127
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. (1977). Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory in
Practice, 16(2), 53-59. Kukla-Acevedo, S. (2009). Leavers, movers, and stayers: The role of workplace conditions in
teacher mobility decisions. Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 443-452. Kyriacou, C. (1993). Research on the development of expertise in classroom teaching during
initial training and the first year of teaching. Educational Review, 45(1), 79-87. Lee, J., & Truex, D. (2000). Cognitive complexity and methodical training: Enhancing or
suppressing creativity. Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp.1-9). Maui, HI.
Leithwood, K. (1990). The principal’s role in teacher development. In B. Joyce (Ed.), Changing
school culture through staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc. Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development: Conceptions and theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Loevinger, J. (1987). Paradigms of Personality. New York: Freeman. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press. Loucks, S. F. (1983). Ensuring success: Good news from a study of school improvement.
Educational Leadership, 41, 3-32. Manning, M. L., & Bucher, K. (2007). Classroom management: Models, applications, and cases.
New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Marable, M. A., & Raimondi, S. L. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of what was most (and least)
supportive during their first year of teaching. Mentoring and Tutoring, 15(1), 25-37. McGlamery, S., & Edick, N. (2004). The CADRE project: A retention study. The Delta Kappa
Gamma Bulletin, 71(1), 43-46. McNulty, C. P., & Fox, K. R. (2010, January 1). Teacher drop-outs? Empowering induction-year
teachers to create affable environments to enhance retention The Free Library. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Teacher drop-outs?Empowering induction-year teachers to create...-a0229717487
128
Mertz, N. T. (2004). What’s a mentor, anyway? Educational Administration, 40, 541-560. Miller, A. (1981). Conceptual matching models and interactional research in education. Review
of Educational Research, 51(1), 33-34. Moir, E. (1991). A guide to prepare support providers for work with beginning teachers:
Training module. In S. Garmston & C. Bartell (Eds.), New teacher success: You can make a difference. Riverside, CA: California Department of Education and Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
Moir, E. (1999). The stages of a teacher’s first year. In M. Scherer (Ed.), A better beginning (pp.
19-23). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Mulholland, J. (2003). Crossing borders: Learning and teaching primary science in the pre-
service to in-service transition. International Science Education, 25(7), 879-898. Murnane, R. J., & Phillips, B. R. (1981). What do effective teachers of inner-city children have
in common? Social Science Research, 10(1), 83-100. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (2007). The high cost of teacher
turnover. Washington, DC: Author. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Qualifications for teachers and professionals, 2004 U.S.C. §
6319 (2008). Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237–257. Odell, S., & Huling, L. (Eds.). (2000). Quality mentoring for novice teachers. Indianapolis, IN:
Kappa Delta Pi. Oja, S. N. (1990). Developmental theories and the professional development of teachers.
Research paper presented in the Symposium titled The knowledge base of teaching: Where does it come from and how do teachers learn to use it at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Boston. (ED 352351).
Oji, Sharon N. (1980). Adult development is implicit in staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 1(2), 7-56. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights
from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Perry, W. G. (1969). Forms of intellectual and ethical development during the college years.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
129
Phillips, K. (2010). What does “Highly Qualified” mean for student achievement? Evaluating the relationships between teacher quality indicators and at-risk students’ mathematics and reading achievement gains in first grade. The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 464-493.
Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15,
1-12. A quality teacher in every classroom: Improving teacher quality and enhancing the profession.
(n.d.). Retrieved September 18, 2008, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ education/teachers/quality-teachers.pdf
Race to the Top, 75 Fed. Reg. 19504. (2010). Redmore, C., & Waldman, K. (1975). Reliability of a sentence completion measure of ego
development. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39, 236-243. Reeves, C. K., & Kazelskis, R. (1985). Concerns of preservice and inservice teachers. Journal of
Educational Research, 78(5), 267–271. Reflective Judgment. (n.d.). The reasoning about current issues test. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.umich.edu/~refjudg/reasoningaboutcurrentissues test.html Reiman, A., & Gardner, J. (1995). Promoting and interpreting the developmental trajectories of
mentor teachers: Theory, research programmes, and implications. Technical Paper, 95-06. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.
Reiman, A. J. (1993). Promoting the development of mentor teachers: Theory and research
programs using guided reflection. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26(3), 179-185.
Reiman, A. J. (1999). The evolution of the social roletaking and guided reflection framework in
teacher education; Recent theory and quantitative synthesis of research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 597-612.
Reiman, A. J., & Peace, S. D. (2004). SUCCEED at Mentoring [CD]: North Carolina State
University College of Education. Reiman, A., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1993). Promoting the development of mentor teachers:
Theory and research programmes using guided reflection. Journal of Research and Development, 26, 179-185. Reiman, A., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1998). Mentoring and supervision for teacher development.
New York: Addison-Wesley Longman.
130
Rest, J. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes
[Executive Summary]. Retrieved from http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/ books_teacher_quality_execsum_intro/
Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002).What large-scale, survey research tells us about
teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the prospects study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525-1567.
Scherer, M. (1999) A better beginning: Supporting and mentoring new teachers. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Schwille, S., & Dynak, J. (2000). Mentor preparation and development: Mentoring framework:
Dimension IV. In S. Odell & L. Huling (Ed.), Quality mentoring for novice teachers (pp. 67-76). Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
Shotsberger, P. G., & Crawford, A. R. (1996). An analysis of the reliability of the concerns based
adoption model for teacher concerns in educational reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York, NY. (ED 400 278).
Simmons, P. E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett, D., . . . Labuda, K.
(1999). Beginning teachers: Beliefs and classroom activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 930-954.
Slavin, R. E. (2003). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson
Education. Smith, L. C., & Pape, S. L. (1991, December). The relationship between student teachers’
reading instructional behaviors and reflective judgment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Palm Springs, CA.
Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004). What are the effects of induction on beginning teacher
turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41, 681-714. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (2000, November). Mentoring beginning
teachers: Lessons from the experience in Texas policy research report. Austin, TX. Sprinthall, N. A, Reiman, A. J., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1996). Teacher professional
development. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 666-703). New York: Macmillan.
131
Sprinthall, N. A, & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (2001). Educating for teacher growth: A cognitive developmental perspective. Theory into Practice, 19(4), 278-286.
Steffy, B., Wolfe, M., Preston, P., & Enz, B. (Eds.), (2000). Life cycle of the career teacher.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Sweeny, B. (2008). Leading the teacher induction and mentoring program (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1984). Promoting the developmental growth of supervising teachers:
Theory, research programs, and implications for the novice teacher, student teacher, & beginning teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 31(3), 53-60.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805. Vanderslice, R. (2010). ABC’s of keeping the best: Attrition, burnout, and climate. Childhood
Education. Retrieved September 3, 2010, from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ABC%27s +of+keeping+the+best%3A+attrition,+burnout,+and+climate-a0229717484 Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational
Research, 54, 143-178. Villani, S. (2002). Mentoring programs for new teachers: Models of induction and support.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development: Mind and society (pp. 79- 91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walkington, J. (2007). Improving partnerships between schools and universities: Professional
learning with benefits beyond preservice teacher education. Teacher Development, 11(3), 277-294.
Wang, J., Odell, S., & Schwille, S. (2008, April 1). Effects of teacher induction on beginning
teachers’ teaching: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 132-152. Retrieved October 9, 2010, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0022487107314002
Watzke, J. L. (2003). Longitudinal study of stages of beginning teacher development in a field-
based teacher education program. The Teacher Educator, 38(3), 209-229. Watzke, J. L. (2007). Longitudinal study of stages of beginning teacher development:
Complexity as a challenge to concerns-based stage theory. The Teacher Educator, 23(1), 106-122.
132
Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Education Research, 73(1), 89-122.
The White House. (2009). Issues: Education: Progress. Retrieved from The White House
website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education Wood, P. K. (1997). Assessment measures: Critical thinking assessment at the University of Missouri, Columbia. Assessment Update, 9(6), 11-14. Wood, A. L. (1999) How can new teachers become the best? In M. Scherer (Ed.), A better
beginning: Supporting and mentoring new teachers (pp. 120-123). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wood, P. K., Kitchener, K. S., & Jensen, L. (2002). Considerations in the design and evaluation
of a paper-and-pencil measure of reflective thinking. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on
student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 57-67.
Young, J. R., Bullough, R. V., Jr., Draper, R. J., Smith, L. K., & Erickson, L. B. (2005). Novice
teacher growth and personal models of mentoring: Choosing compassion over inquiry. Mentoring and Tutoring, 13(2), 169-188.
APPENDIX
Appendix A. Field Notes Instrument: Beginning Teacher Ill-Structured Problem-Solving Field Notes Instrument: Beginning Teacher Ill-Structured Problem-Solving
This instrument was created for Mentors to use as a record of their observations of and/or conversations with beginning teachers. This document will be used to analyze the specific problems
beginning teachers encounter and the problem-solving characteristics that those teachers use in response. This instrument is intended to promote and record cognitive growth.
BT ________________________ Mentor____________________Date______________
I. What ill-structured problem did the Beginning Teacher encounter? II. How did the Beginning Teacher respond to the problem? Please record what he/she did or said. III. If you talked to the Beginning Teacher about the situation, what do you think caused this response? In other words, WHY did he/she respond this way? IV. At what stage of the Reflective Judgment Model is the Beginning Teacher operating in this situation? Circle one: Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6 Stage 7 V. What task or conversation will you facilitate with the Beginning Teacher in your next meeting for the purpose of promoting cognitive growth?
134
Appendix B. Training Goals
My Goals:
1. Review background knowledge about traditional mentoring
2. Build knowledge of Cognitive Developmental Theory
3. Learn Reflective Judgment Model 4. Apply RJM to mentoring 5. Clarify Expectations of the Research
Study Your Goals:
135
Appendix C. Training Framework
Professional Development Adult Learning Model Based upon the work of Bruce Joyce and Beverly Showers
Theoretical Framework
Modeling & Demonstration
Practice in Training Session
Practice in Work Place
Peer Coaching in the Work Setting
Firs
t 3 c
ompo
nent
s tak
e pl
ace
durin
g th
e in
itial
trai
ning
. La
st 2
com
pone
nts t
ake
plac
e du
ring
follo
w-u
p se
ssio
ns,
desi
gned
to m
eet t
he n
eeds
of t
he
grou
p an
d ar
e d
iffer
entia
ted.
Appendix D. Initial Training Agenda
AGENDA: 1) Goals for this training/Structure of the PD/Logistics 2) Mentoring 3) Cognitive Developmental Theory/Optimal Conditions for BT 5) RJM 6) RJM Mentoring Strategies/ Expectations
12
Traditional Mentoring: -History (NHCS)/(NCDPI) -General Mentoring goals, roles, mentor qualities -Content/Process/Product Activity -Video +/∆ - Debriefing (NHCS)
25
Intro to Cognitive Developmental Theory: -Compare/Contrast theories -Blurb from Kelly’s research -Principles from Power Point -Make Connections with principles cards
40
-Jigsaw reading of 1st part of research article (sect.1-3) and share out some “AHA!” or things that are cemented in your learning to this point. -Questions to be answered???
15
Reflective Judgment Power Point: -Research -Video clips (Exc.one) -Categorize problems (Exc.two) -Discussion: Purpose of Reflective Judgment
45
(Application) RJM Mentoring: -Video Clips - Jigsaw reading of 2nd part of research article (sect.6) and share out differences in HRCI teachers and LRCI teachers -Respond to problems (Exc.three)
30
Expectations for this study: -Goals -Explain -Discussion -Practice using the FI form with video clips (as many as necessary)
24
Questions/Discussion: -Open floor questions and problem solving -Poor out your cup!!!!
10
Ongoing Support for mentors: Blog, Email, Notebook, weekly meetings, guided practice What is the best way to support YOUR “role-taking, reflection, balance, continuity, and support and challenge”
24
LUNCH ??
136
137
Appendix E. Content, Process, and Product Record Form
Content Process Product
138
Appendix F. Mentor/Supervisor Strengths and Weaknesses Characteristics Form
Strengths and Weaknesses
+ ∆
Is this “leader” focused on both performance skills AND thinking skills? Which does our mentoring program focus on? (pp. 123-124)
139
Appendix G. Structured Interview Form
Structured Interview Form
Questions: 1. Tell me what level of Reflective Judgment you think he/she is operating at. 2. What is your rationale? 3. Does he/she have any problems (rationale and/or other notes)? 4. How does he/she handle those problems (rationale and/or other notes)? 5. Is there anything else that you want to say about him/her (rationale and/or
other notes)? 6. What are you planning to do with him/her next (strategy)?
BT Name RCI level projected
Rationale Strategy Other notes
140
Appendix H. Interview Protocol
Interview Protocol
Say: We are here today to talk about your focus BTs. Tell me about one of them. You can start with whoever you want to. Topics to cover:
Ill-structured problems Problem-solving behaviors Rationale for problem-solving BT level of reflective judgment Mentor strategies used (from RJM) BT responses to mentor strategies
