The P–16 Strategic Collaboration Model: A Team Mentoring Approach

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 08 October 2014, At: 10:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Educational ForumPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

The P–16 Strategic Collaboration Model: ATeam Mentoring ApproachMara H Wasburn , Leah Wasburn-Moses & Jay BlackmanPublished online: 07 Dec 2007.

To cite this article: Mara H Wasburn , Leah Wasburn-Moses & Jay Blackman (2007) The P–16 StrategicCollaboration Model: A Team Mentoring Approach, The Educational Forum, 72:1, 32-44, DOI:10.1080/00131720701603602

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131720701603602

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied uponand should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access anduse can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00131720701603602

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131720701603602

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

AbstractTeacher attrition is an enduring national issue. To help address

this problem, formal mentoring programs for new teachers have been implemented by most states. Mentoring, however, is rarely used beyond the induction years. This article presents an adaptation of a business model, the Strategic Collaboration ModelTM, which approaches mentoring as a network activity. This collaborative, peer-oriented strategy was used successfully with female university professors in a pilot program. Appli-cations for teachers across the P–16 spectrum are discussed.

Attrition is a chronic problem in education. Approximately 50 percent of beginning teachers leave the field within the first five years (Ingersoll and Smith 2004). Many solutions have been proposed to address this issue, usually targeting a teacher’s first few years in the field. Examples of induction-period programs in-clude workshops, study groups, demonstrations, and mentoring (Wong 2004).

Formal mentoring is among the most popular of these and is now mandated by the majority of states (McCormick and Brennan 2001). Nearly two-thirds of new teachers report working with a mentor at some time during their first year (Smith and Ingersoll 2004). Teacher mentoring has been shown to be beneficial for both mentors and mentees. For example, mentoring programs have been found to reduce teacher turnover (Ingersoll and Smith 2004) and, in schools where mentor-ing is being effectively implemented, research has shown that new teachers feel more comfortable with the school culture and better supported (Angelle 2002; Andrews and Quinn 2005). In some cases, mentoring programs have led to increased efficacy for both mentors and mentees (Brennan, Thames, and Roberts 1999; Yost

The P–16 Strategic Collaboration Model: A Team Mentoring Approachby Mara H. Wasburn, Leah Wasburn-Moses, and Jay Blackman

The Educational Forum, 72: 32–44, 2008 Copyright © Kappa Delta Pi

32

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:24

08

Oct

ober

201

4

2002). Despite the success in school settings, though, discussions of mentoring are nearly nonexistent in the literature on continuing professional development for teachers.

MentoringA mentor has been defined as anyone who provides guidance, support, knowledge,

and opportunities to another person for whatever period the mentor and mentee deem this help to be necessary (Haring 1999). This assistance generally occurs during a time of transition (Burlew 1991; Haring 1999). Formal definitions of mentoring in the professional literature, however, vary greatly (Zey 1984). In addition to issues surrounding the use of one term across multiple disciplines (e.g., business, psychology, education), mentoring is used to refer to both a formal, mandated program and to an informal relationship between an adult and a youth (Kazdin 2000). Two scales can help clarify what is meant by mentoring within the context of this paper. First, Healy and Welchert (1990) argued that the qualities of reciprocity and identity transformation aid in distinguishing mentoring from other helping relationships with which it might become confused (e.g., teaching or supervising). Second, Clawson (1980, 148) explained that “the more a relationship is characterized by comprehensiveness and mutuality, the more it is a mentor–protégé relationship.” These four factors—reciprocity, identity transformation, comprehensiveness, and mutuality—are used to characterize the mentoring relationships discussed in this article.

More practically, true mentoring is generally understood to be an inherently informal process in which mentors and mentees come together spontaneously. Successful people often point to role models or mentors who helped or influenced their careers positively (Kram 1985). Those who are mentored tend to have greater job satisfaction, obtain promo-tions more quickly, and earn higher salaries than those who are not mentored (French and Bell 1984; Hammel and Prahlad 1994; Barrett 1995). However, both within and outside the field of education, informal mentoring can be inadequate and many new employees often go without such assistance (Wilson and Elman 1990; Feiman-Nemser 2001).

Mentors can fulfill both career and psychosocial functions—the comprehensiveness discussed by Clawson (1980). Their experience and position within an organization en-able mentors to enhance the careers of their mentees by sponsoring them, making them visible within the organization, coaching them, protecting them, and ensuring that they are given challenging assignments where they will be noticed. If the relationship between mentor and mentee develops into one of mutual trust, the mentor also can provide role modeling, acceptance, validation, counseling, and friendship (Kram 1985).

Trubowitz (2004) described mentoring as progressing through three stages: • mentor teaches mentee;• mentor and mentee collaborate; and• mentor learns from mentee.

The last stage embodies the fulfillment of the reciprocity and mutuality functions described by Healy and Welchert (1990) and Clawson (1980). Gallacher (1997) identified a more com-plex relationship and categorized mentoring as occurring in four developmental stages: initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition. Others have identified necessary traits

The Educational Forum • Volume 72 • 2008 • 33

Essays

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:24

08

Oct

ober

201

4

and skills for mentor and mentees (White 2001; Jones and Pauley 2003). For mentors, these include organizational and critical thinking skills, and the ability to balance critique and support (White 2001; Bauder 2005). For mentees, it means good listening skills, a positive attitude, and openness to change (White 2001; Jones and Pauley 2003).

Mentors themselves often benefit from supporting the advancement of their junior colleagues. As senior members of the organization, they have the opportunity to put their knowledge, skills, and abilities to work to help others advance. They can gain from the mentoring process as they learn new skills or perspectives from junior colleagues whose education may be more recent than theirs and whose experiences differ (Kram 1985). Thus, identity transformation can occur for both mentor and protégé (Healy and Welchert 1990).

Successful mentoring relationships involve a combination of common goals, indi-vidual personalities, and luck. Therefore, many organizations have been reluctant to create formal programs (Cawyer, Simonds, and Davis 2002). Relying on spontaneous mentoring, however, can lead to inequities. Those not chosen to be mentored can resent those who are successful at finding mentors. Mentors tend to select younger versions of themselves as mentees, often leaving women and minorities without the mentoring they need. In addition, women with male mentors face the gossip factor when they and their mentors are seen together frequently outside the professional setting (Chao 1997; Kalbfleisch 2000). To address these inequities, many organizations have created formal mentoring programs (Murray 2001).

Formal mentoring is the “deliberate pairing of a more skilled or more experienced person with a less skilled or less experienced one, with the mutually agreed goal of having the less skilled person grow and develop specific competencies” (Murray 2001, xiii). A conceptual shortcoming of this definition is that it limits mentoring to a dyadic relation-ship (Kram 1985; Haring 1993). Nevertheless, within the field of education, this model is reflected in state mandates as well as in the literature on teacher mentoring (Jones and Pauley 2003). The model is not unique to education; it is also the most common form of mentoring used in other organizations (Wasburn and Crispo 2005).

Creating formal programs based on dyadic relationships can be fraught with difficulty. First, personality differences can doom a mentoring relationship. Fail-ure to make the goals of the relationship clear can lead to the mentor advancing an agenda with which the mentee does not agree, leaving the mentee to feel that his or her goals have been marginalized. If the mentor chooses to leave the rela-tionship, the mentee can be left feeling rejected and alone (Haring 1999).

Failure to make the goals of the relationship clear can lead to the mentor advancing an agenda with which the mentee does not agree, leaving the mentee to feel that his or her goals have been marginalized.

34 • The Educational Forum • Volume 72 • 2008

Wasburn, Wasburn-Moses, and Blackman

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:24

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Second, mentoring programs can be time consuming, and sufficient time must be al-located for the relationship between mentor and mentee to grow and mature. Failure to allow this time can lead to disappointment and frustration. Third, mentors and mentees can find that they have different expectations about how accessible the mentor needs to be (Haring 1993; Hammond 1998). All of these issues can lead to a breakdown in one or more of the four components that define mentoring. In education, these concerns can lead to a relationship that exists only on paper (Whitaker 2000).

Mentoring in EducationThe field of education is different from the world of business. Though the need for

a career ladder or career continuum has been discussed for years, a distinctive career trajectory in education remains es-sentially nonexistent (Johnson 2001). Hope remains, however, particularly in the capacity of the system to allow more experienced teachers to become teacher leaders. The idea has been discussed extensively in the literature on teachers’ professional growth and development (Ball and Cohen 1999). However, the only place these roles have been established in a widespread manner is in initial teacher induction. Most states now require mentoring, at least for first-year teachers (McCormick and Brennan 2001).

Applying mentoring beyond the first few years of teaching could have many positive consequences. However, traditional professional development for teachers is limited in scope, often one half to one day, and has little or no follow up. Typically, teachers are not involved in selecting topics, do not engage with the material, and have no incentive or opportunity to apply what they have learned (Feiman-Nemser 2001). Researchers point out that well-planned and carefully implemented professional development has the po-tential to positively impact teacher practices and the educational system as a whole. Some even look to professional development to accomplish the complex and lofty mission of comprehensive educational reform (Ball and Cohen 1999).

Some educational researchers have proposed alternatives to the traditional dyadic mentoring model. These include providing participants with flexible mentoring options such as multiple mentors, developmental networks, social as well as professional sup-port, and online learning communities (Whitaker 2000; Pittinsky 2005; Wasburn-Moses 2006). Others have recommended incorporating teacher learning communities centered on inquiry into the teaching and learning process (Ball and Cohen 1999).

All of these concerns point to a need to rethink the traditional dyadic mentoring model that is utilized most often in the field of education and consider models that have

Though the need for a career ladder or career continuum has been discussed for years, a distinctive career trajectory in education remains essentially nonexistent.


Essays

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:24

08

Oct

ober

201

4

been successful within other types of organizations. Taking into account such outside alternatives could be extremely valuable to the field of education. Reconsidering the way in which mentoring and other forms of continued professional development often take place may serve to reinforce traditional practices, rather than encourage teachers to take a critical stance toward their profession (Feiman-Nemser 2001).

Behind the formal and informal definitions and use of mentoring in education lie theories of mentoring and their specific applications to teachers. Though many theories of mentoring have been proposed, Little (1990) identified four major theories that relate best to education:

• attribution theory; • reactance theory;• mutual benefits theory; and• self-help theory.

Though the model presented in this article draws primarily on reactance and mutual benefits, a brief discussion of each theory is important to place the model in its broader context.

Attribution theory involves a search for explanation of a particular occurrence or series of events (Kazdin 2000). For example, if a novice teacher encounters a particularly difficult situation, he or she may attribute the situation and the subsequent need for assistance to his or her lack of competence (internal attribution) or to the various intricacies of the task that require expert assistance (external attribution) (Little 1990). A formal mentoring program not only encourages external attribution by stating that novice teachers will need additional assistance due to the complexity of teaching, but also offers assistance up front rather than relying on novices to seek it out (Little 1990).

Reactance theory, as applied to teacher mentoring, indicates that novices will be receptive to assistance only insofar as that assistance plays into their positive feelings of self-efficacy and their need to expand their teaching repertoire (Little 1990). When that assistance begins to encroach upon the novice’s autonomy, assistance will be rejected (Hart 1988).

Mutual benefits theory, as the name implies, postulates that the mentoring relationship will benefit both parties. Novice teachers involved in a mentoring relationship receive broad-based support, and more experienced teachers receive special status and recogni-tion (Zey 1984; Little 1990). In a profession that has few opportunities for advancement, such as teaching, this type of system has the potential to create what many believe is a much-needed career ladder (Little 1990; Johnson 2001).

Self-help theory is sometimes seen as relatively synonymous with mutual benefits

theory (Kazdin 2000). However, self-help tends to focus primarily on the novice. This idea is centered on the concept that novices will seek assistance to avoid negative impacts on their self-esteem or social relations. Therefore, the culture of teaching must permit self-help. As is the case in reactance theory, novices must believe that assistance will improve their success as a teacher (Little 1990).



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:24

08

Oct

ober

201

4

As previously stated, the model presented in this paper draws primarily on reactance and mutual benefits. Reciprocity and mutuality are the two main goals of this model, which was designed to help both novice teachers and mentors develop as professionals, as well as establish personal relationships (Clawson 1980; Healy and Welchert 1990).

Strategic Collaboration ModelStrategic Collaboration is a model of mentoring specifically developed for business

application. Its objective is to position new managers or executives to assume increasing levels of responsibility in their organizations. The strength of the model lies in its ability to be customized to suit the needs of a particular organization (Wasburn and Crispo 2005). As described here, the model also can be applied to colleges and universities.

Strategic Collaboration combines features of both grooming and networking mentoring (Haring 1999), with elements of appreciative inquiry. This is an approach to organizational innovation that specifically focuses on those factors that contribute to an organization’s positive culture. Appreciative inquiry uses positive dialogue to foster future success. It responds to the tradition of action research, a deficit model that views orga-nizations as having problems and proposes the development of an action plan to correct them (Cooperrider 1986). Appreciative inquiry refocuses discussions of what does not work within an organization to consideration of ways that are more likely to lead to the achievement of organizational goals (Cooperrider and Srivastva 1987; Hammond 1998).

In Strategic Collaboration (Figure 1), a peer group of three to five new members of an organization is matched with two experienced professionals from the same or related disciplines to create a structure that offers the newcomers guidance and support through their induction period and often beyond.

Implementation of the Strategic Collaboration Model rests on the assumption that the administration of an organization has provided support and resources for the process. The approach is efficient in terms of personnel use. In any organization, finding mentors for all newcomers is difficult. By using a peer group approach, a few mentors can serve many mentees. The Strategic Collaboration teams meet at least once each month for a period of at least a year. Making time spent on mentoring part of the yearly evaluation for senior personnel is an example of the way in which the administration can encourage such a process.

Mentors must be outstanding performers with wide-ranging knowledge about their organizations and their specific disciplines and about what will advance their junior col-leagues’ careers. They also must possess a genuine desire to serve as mentors. The new-comers being mentored must be willing to work intensively with their senior colleagues to develop skills in keeping with the organization’s priorities.

According to Tuckman (1977), teams generally move through five stages: • forming, in which team members become acquainted with one another; • storming, in which some disagreements about roles and procedures, as well as

personality differences, surface;


Essays

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:24

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Figure 1. Strategic Collaboration Model



• norming, in which some sense of ownership and belonging occur; • performing, in which the real work of the team is accomplished; and • adjourning, in which the work of the team has been accomplished and the members

move on to other projects.

To promote a team environment and enable the Strategic Collaboration team to move successfully through the initial stages and begin performing, both mentors and mentees should undergo interpersonal skills training in active listening, communication, feedback,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:24

08

Oct

ober

201

4

and conflict management (Iles and Hayers 1997; Stewart, Manz, and Sims 1999). If the mentors do not feel comfortable providing such training, a session with skilled personnel should be arranged for all participants.

As is the case in a traditional facilitated mentoring environment, a contract that speci-fies the goals and objectives the team is to accomplish, as well as the roles and responsi-bilities of each team member, must be developed. The team also must commit to at least one monthly meeting. A strong, clear contract can prevent many of the problems typically associated with facilitated mentoring (Lacey 1999; Murray 2001).

With the team of mentors and peer group formed, the contract agreed on, and the interpersonal skills training completed, the Strategic Collaboration process can begin. As can be seen from the Strategic Collaboration Model (Figure 1), trust must be built through each phase of the process. Trust is the essential building block on which any mentoring process rests (Kram 1985; Johnsrud 1990; Bierema and Hill 2005). Being part of such a team means, among other things, that members make themselves vulnerable. Junior personnel being mentored must be assured that nothing they say or do during the process can or will be used against them by the senior members of the group (Hunt and Weintraub 2002).

In the discovery, dream, design, and delivery stage, as conceptualized in apprecia-tive inquiry, the real work of the team is accomplished. The discovery stage encourages all participants to compile a list of their strengths—the skills and abilities they bring to the organization. During the dream stage, team members assess the strengths that they identified during the discovery phase and determine how those strengths can be used to build the organization’s future. This stage can be viewed as analogous to a brainstorming session in which creative ideas, regardless of their merit or lack thereof, are considered and then accepted or rejected on a consensual basis. The design stage is an opportunity for the mentors and peer groups to determine how they can leverage the strengths that have emerged in new initiatives that can move the organization or discipline forward. The delivery stage is one in which a career development action plan is created for each newcomer.

In an effort to understand the dynamics and outcomes of Strategic Collaboration when applied to an educational organization, data were collected from an ongoing pilot program at a large state university. This instrumental case study sought to determine:

• the lived experiences of the mentors and mentees in the Strategic Collaboration pilot group, which involved understanding the behaviors and emotional responses of participants from their own perspectives;

• whether the mentees found Strategic Collaboration helpful in advancing their careers; and

• what changes the mentors’ and mentees’ experiences might suggest.

The Strategic Collaboration Pilot ProgramIn 1997, a large Midwestern university developed the Faculty Mentoring Net-

work [FMN] (Wasburn and Lalopa 2003), a campus-wide program designed to pursue


Essays

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:24

08

Oct

ober

201

4

four goals: • to help interested faculty members become better teachers by fostering educational

creativity, innovation, and effectiveness both in and out of the classroom; • to help faculty members cope with the demands of research and service; • to help facilitate faculty members’ work toward promotion and tenure; and• to serve as an advocate for faculty members.

In 2002, a study of the FMN program was conducted to determine its effectiveness. Forty-three faculty members participated in the 2001–2002 FMN program, including 18 mentors and 25 mentees. Out of this group, nine mentors and 15 mentees responded to a survey about the program. Results indicated that all mentors and mentees believed that they derived considerable benefit from their participation in the program. Among their recommendations was to place heavier reliance on the group as mentor, rather than individual mentors. Respondents believed that this would minimize the lack of interac-tion that some mentees reported and ensure that more faculty members were mentored (Wasburn and Lalopa 2003). Based on this input and the fact that there were never enough mentors for assistant and associate professors who indicated a desire to be mentored, the FMN offered Strategic Collaboration as a mentoring option during the 2004–2005 academic year (Wasburn 2007).

Application to TeachersThe Strategic Collaboration Model was developed for application across the P–16

spectrum. The model focuses on positioning teachers as participants in a learning com-munity and can be applied to teachers across content area because one of its strengths is the ability to encompass various organizational cultures (Wasburn and Crispo 2005).

By using a peer group approach, a few mentors can serve many teachers. As such, the approach is resources efficient—a factor that is not unique to education, but one that often constrains any kind of teacher development model. In the model, a peer group of three to five teachers is matched with one senior-level teacher and one school administrator. Includ-ing an administrator is necessary if systemic reform is to occur from the interaction because leadership is crucial to buy-in and implementation (Fullan 1991). Further, where meaningful change in education has occurred, researchers credit specialized guidance, support at all levels, and specificity of goals (Fullan 1991; Denton, Vaughn, and Fletcher 2003). Application of the P–16 Strategic Collaboration Model is directed toward meeting all of these needs.

Mentor selection is crucial to the success of any mentoring model (Kram 1985; Mur-ray 2001). Feiman-Nemser (2001) described the need for mentors who view their role as multifaceted, including encouraging collaboration, arranging classroom visits, and viewing classroom problems as an opportunity for extended conversations about teach-ing and learning. Some of the literature on mentoring has suggested that becoming a mentor should be a reward, in that only those who complete training and meet certain requirements are selected to become a mentor (Little 1990; Ehrich, Hansford, and Tennent 2004) This selection process would help establish the mentor as a leader, as well as avoid potential issues related to lack of training (Little 1990). However, due to limited resources and the expectation of low external rewards for mentor teachers, an expanded training



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:24

08

Oct

ober

201

4

session with the possibility of being denied selection as a mentor was not considered as part of the current model.

The mentors must commit to at least one monthly meeting for a period of at least one school year with their mentees. Compensating teachers for time spent on mentoring, whether in actual salary or in release time, are ways in which administrators can encour-age such a process (Futrell 1988; Bauder 2005). Goals and objectives stated in the contract should center on improving teaching—both individually and school-wide—and should be tailored to the individual school’s or district’s needs.

Being part of such a team means that members must make themselves vulnerable, a particularly salient issue among a teaching–learning community given the perspec-tive that teaching is an intensely personal, and often isolated, endeavor (Lortie 1975). Regardless of the power differential, participants must be assured that nothing they say or do during the process can or will be used against them (Hunt and Weintraub 2002). In addition, the distinction between assistance and assessment in teacher mentoring is ex-tremely important (Feiman-Nemser 2001). The power differential between administrators and teachers needs to be discussed openly. Many school reform efforts barely scratch the surface in terms of changing systemic power relationships (Sarason 1990), which makes this discussion even more crucial.

After participants identify their skills and abilities and determine how those strengths can be used to improve teaching, mentors and their peer group ascertain how they can advance their teaching in the years to come. This may consist of partnering with colleagues throughout the school and district to explore ideas or considering other models of school reform. To complete this stage successfully, some forecast-ing of the future needs of the school must be completed. School administrators and school- and district-wide documentation are a few potential sources of relevant information.

During the delivery stage, an action plan is created for each teacher on the Strategic Collaboration team. The plan should indicate how each person can contribute to the school through improved teaching. The cyclical nature of the Strategic Collaboration Model fits well with the concept of the teacher as lifelong learner. The process, however, need not end with the creation of an action plan. The implementation of each individual’s plan with those of team members and the school can lead to meaningful reform in teaching and learning within the school community.

Discussion and ConclusionThis study argues that the business model of Strategic Collaboration can be extended

to P–16 educators. This application expands traditional school-based mentoring pro-grams to support more experienced educators and to provide the vision and impetus to promote school reform. The model creates a supportive peer group and experienced educators who can realize both the career and psychosocial functions that Kram (1985) identified. The roles included in the model fulfill the four requirements of a valid mentoring relationship: reciprocity, identity transformation, comprehensiveness,


Essays

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:24

08

Oct

ober

201

4

and mutuality (Clawson 1980; Healy and Welchert 1990). The model also sets the stage for the growth of a career ladder in education, a significant goal for the field (Johnson 2001).

Because Strategic Collaboration is focused on leveraging strengths, the mentor-ing team helps colleagues improve their practice, while simultaneously situating that practice within the larger school context. Team members also serve as sponsors and coaches. As trust is built into the model, the Strategic Collaboration team also should be positioned to provide role modeling, acceptance, validation, counseling, and friendship—the type of comprehensiveness and mutuality described by Clawson (1980).

Conversely, by virtue of its reliance on the group rather than the individual, the P–16 Strategic Collaboration Model does not depend on a less experienced teacher being selected by a senior colleague to be mentored. Anyone interested in advancing his or her career and contributing to the development of the school culture can participate. This factor contributes to the development of true reciprocity and identity transformation, as individuals learn from one another (Healy and Welchert 1990).

The proposed model also recognizes and responds to the lack of a career continuum in education. Unlike the world of business and higher education, a P–12 teaching career does not involve formal career stages. Novice and more experienced teachers generally have similar roles and responsibilities (Johnson 2001). This model confers an informal title on the mentor, thereby encouraging development of a career ladder as the system incorporates mentors’ new roles. Thus, although based on a business paradigm, the P–16 Strategic Col-laboration Model is flexible enough to react to the flat career structure of P–12 education and encourage that structure to develop as it incorporates mentors’ new roles.

With two senior members on each team, less experienced members benefit from having more than one perspective on a given topic. Johnsrud (1990) pointed out that if a mentor chooses to leave the relationship, the mentee can be left feeling rejected and alone. Because Strategic Collaboration is team-focused, should one of the senior members of the team leave the school or choose not to participate, that person can be replaced with far fewer negative effects to the team than if a single mentor in a dyadic mentoring relation-ship were to leave. Evaluation of a school’s Strategic Collaboration project over a period of years can provide insights into the model’s potential for expansion to other teachers and schools.

Selecting an appropriate model for mentoring teachers is critical to supporting their professional development. By combining the strengths of mentoring and appreciative inquiry, the resulting P–16 Strategic Collaboration Model described in this article can retain the benefits of mentoring while avoiding many of its problems. Application of the model ensures that all teachers have equal access to mentoring opportunities and promotes in-depth discussion of how to improve their teaching. Future research is needed to determine the extent to which implementation of Strategic Collaboration can be successful in developing teachers’ individual careers and the extent to which



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:24

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Essays

it can facilitate systemic reform. The model can be customized to meet the needs of a particular school district and can position the mentored teachers to provide leadership in initiating and implementing school reform.

ReferencesAndrews, B. D., and R. J. Quinn. 2005. The effects of mentoring on first-year teachers’ perceptions of support received. The

Clearing House 78(3): 110–16.Angelle, P. S. 2002. Mentoring the beginning teacher: Providing assistance in differentially effective middle schools. The High

School Journal 86(1): 15–27.Ball, D. L., and D. K. Cohen. 1999. Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional

education. In Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice, ed. G. Sykes and L. Darling-Hammond, 3–32. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barrett, F. J. 1995. Creating appreciative learning cultures. Organizational Dynamics 24(1): 36–49.Bauder, N. P. 2005. Sharing our skills. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin 71(4): 26–28.Bierema, L. L., and J. R. Hill. 2005. Virtual mentoring and HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources 7(4): 556–68.Brennan, S., W. Thames, and R. Roberts. 1999. Mentoring with a mission. Educational Leadership 56(8): 49–52.Burlew, L. D. 1991. Multiple mentor model: A conceptual framework. Journal of Career Development 17(3): 213–21. Cawyer, C. S., C. Simonds, and S. Davis. 2002. Mentoring to facilitate socialization: The case of the new faculty member. Inter-

national Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 15(2): 225–42.Chao, G. T. 1997. Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior 51(1): 15–28.Clawson, J. G. 1980. Mentoring in managerial careers. In Work, family, and the career, ed. C. B. Derr, 144–65. New York: Praeger.Cooperrider, D. L. 1986. Appreciative inquiry: Toward a methodology for understanding and enhancing organizational innova-

tion. Ph.D. diss., Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.Cooperrider, D. L., and S. Srivastva. 1987. Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In Research in organizational change and

development, vol. 1, ed. R. Woodman and W. Pasmore, 129–69. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Denton, C. A., S. Vaughn, and J. M. Fletcher. 2003. Bringing research-based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning

Disabilities Research and Practice 18(3): 201–11.Ehrich, L. C., B. Hansford, and L. Tennent. 2004. Formal mentoring programs in education and other professions: A review of

the literature. Educational Administration Quarterly 40(4): 518–40.Feiman-Nemser, S. 2001. From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers

College Record 103(6): 1013–55.French, W. L., and C. H. Bell. 1984. Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for organization improvement. Engle-

wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Fullan, M. 1991. The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.Futrell, M. H. 1988. Selecting and compensating mentor teachers: A win–win scenario. Theory Into Practice 27(3): 223–25.Gallacher, K. K. 1997. Supervision, mentoring, and coaching: Methods for supporting personnel development. In Reforming

personnel preparation in early intervention: Issues, models and practical strategies, ed. P. J. Winton, J. A. McCollum, and C. Catlett, 191–214. Baltimore: Brookes.

Hammel, G., and C. K. Prahlad. 1994. Competing for the future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Hammond, S. A. 1998. The thin book of appreciative inquiry, 2nd ed. Bend, OR: Thin Book Publishing.Haring, M. J. 1993. Mentoring for research: Examining alternative models. In Research mentorship and training in communication

sciences and disorders: Proceedings of a national conference, ed. N. Minghetti, J. Cooper, H. Goldstein, L. Olswang, and S. Warren, 117–26. Rockville, MD: American Speech–Language–Hearing Foundation.

Haring, M. J. 1999. The case for a conceptual base for minority mentoring programs. Peabody Journal of Education 74(2): 5–14.Hart, A. W. 1988. Attribution as effect: An outsider principal’s succession. Journal of Educational Administration 26(2): 331–52.Healy, C. C., and A. J. Welchert. 1990. Mentoring relations: A definition to advance research and practice. Educational Researcher 19(9): 17–21.Hunt, J. M., and J. R. Weintraub. 2002. The coaching manager: Developing top talent in business. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Iles, P., and P. K. Hayers. 1997. Managing diversity in transnational project teams: A tentative model and case study. Journal of

Managerial Psychology 12(2): 95–117.Ingersoll, R. M., and T. M. Smith. 2004. Do teacher induction and mentoring matter? NASSP Bulletin 88(638): 28–40.Johnson, S. M. 2001. Can professional certification for teachers reshape teaching as a career? Phi Delta Kappan 82(5): 393–99.Johnsrud, L. K. 1990. Mentoring for administrative staff: Relationships that help and relationships that hinder. In Administrative

careers and the marketplace, ed. K. M. Moore and S. B. Twombley, 57–66. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Jones, M. S., and W. F. Pauley. 2003. Mentoring beginning public school teachers. Adult Learning 14(1): 23–35.Kalbfleisch, P. J. 2000. Similarity and attraction in business and academic environments: Same and cross-sex mentoring relation-

ships. Review of Business 21(2): 58–61.Kazdin, A. E., ed. 2000. Encyclopedia of psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Kram, K. E. 1985. Mentoring at work. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Lacey, K. 1999. Making mentoring happen: A simple and effective guide to implementing a successful mentoring program. Warriewood,

New South Wales: Business and Professional Publishing.Little, J. W. 1990. The mentor phenomenon and the social organization of teaching. Review of Research in Education 16: 297–351.Lortie, D. C. 1975. Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.McCormick, K. M., and S. Brennan. 2001. Mentoring the new professional in interdisciplinary early childhood education: The

Kentucky teacher internship program. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 21(3): 131–49.Murray, M. 2001. Beyond the myths and magic of mentoring: How to facilitate an effective mentoring process, rev. ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:24

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Pittinsky, M. 2005. No teacher left behind. T. H. E. Journal 32(11): 32–34.Sarason, S. B. 1990. The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before it’s too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Smith, T. M., and R. M. Ingersoll. 2004. What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American

Educational Research Journal 41(3): 681–714.Stewart, G. L., C. C. Manz, and H. P. Sims. 1999. Team work and group dynamics. New York: Wiley.Trubowitz, S. 2004. The why, how, and what of mentoring. Phi Delta Kappan 86(1): 59–62.Tuckman, B. W. 1977. Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organization Manaagement 2(4): 419–27.Wasburn, M. H. 2007. Mentoring women faculty: An instrumental case study of strategic collaboration. Mentoring and Tutoring 15(1): 57–72.Wasburn, M. H., and A. W. Crispo. 2005. Strategic collaboration: A more effective mentoring model. Review of Business

27(1): 18–25.Wasburn, M. H., and J. Lalopa. 2003. Mentoring faculty for success: Recommendations based on evaluations of a program.

Planning and Changing 34(3&4): 250–64.Wasburn-Moses, L. 2006. A practical proposal for special education teacher induction. Midwestern Educational Researcher 19(4): 20–23.Whitaker, S. D. 2000. Mentoring beginning special education teachers and the relationship to attrition. Exceptional Children

66(4): 546–66.White, M. 2001. The mentoring induction project: What new teachers need from mentors. Teaching Exceptional Children 33(6): 81.Wilson, J. A., and N. S. Elman. 1990. Organizational benefits of mentoring. Academy of Management Executive 4(4): 88–94.Wong, H. K. 2004. Producing educational leaders through induction programs. Kappa Delta Pi Record 40(3): 106–11.Yost, R. 2002. “I think I can”: Mentoring as a means of enhancing teacher efficacy. The Clearing House 75(4): 195–97.Zey, M. G. 1984. The mentor connection. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

Mara H. Wasburn is an Associate Professor of Organizational Leadership at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. Her scholarship focuses on mentor-ing, especially mentoring women in technology-rich disciplines. Her research has appeared in Mentoring & Tutoring, Review of Business, and Advancing Women in Leadership.

Leah Wasburn-Moses is an Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. Her scholarship focuses on teacher education, special education, and policy. Her research has appeared in Action in Teacher Education, Remedial and Special Education, and Preventing School Failure.

Jay Blackman is a Technology Coordinator for Brookwood School District 167 in Glenwood, Illinois. He is involved with K–8 classroom technology integra-tion, educational leadership support, interactive multimedia development, and problem-based learning initiatives.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:24

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

The P–16 Strategic Collaboration Model: A Team Mentoring Approach