Tensions and Dilemmas in Mentoring
Wolf Neli
Kaye Teachers College, Beer Sheva
wolfn@netvision.net.il
What should mentors do when novices need to teach a lesson which
the mentors feel the novices are not ready to teach? Should the mentors let
novices teach hoping they will learn from the experience, or should they teach
the lesson themselves considering their responsibility toward pupil’s learning?
What should mentors do when they think the novice could have done a much
better job teaching a specific lesson? Should they discuss the lesson with the
novice, perhaps jeopardizing their relationship, or wait and hope that the
novice will improve over time? How should mentors react when, in the middle
of the lesson, they realize that pupils are confused and not paying attention to
the novice anymore? Should they intervene to refocus the pupils’ attention or
should they let the novice continue rather than risk potential damage to
novice’s relationship with the pupils? How might their actions, in either case,
influence both pupils’ and novice’s learning, and the relationship between the
novice and the mentor?
These examples come from a larger cross-national study sponsored by
the National Center for Research on Teacher Learning at Michigan State and
carried out in the U.S., England, and China.
When we asked U.S. mentors what words or images come to mind
when they thought about mentoring, all the mentors in our comparative study
of mentoring mentioned the word “dilemma” and offered these examples of
dilemmas that they face. Originally, we did not collect systematic data about
the dilemmas mentors face and how they manage them. Once we realized
that dilemmas are such an important issue for the American mentors, we went
back to the interview data and to our observations of the interactions with
novices to see whether we could identify dilemmas also in British and Chinese
mentors’ work. Interestingly enough, we found that these mentors also
encounter dilemmas even though they may differ from their American
counterparts. In this paper, I describe dilemmas that mentors face, identifying
their potential sources and analyzing possible courses of action from the point
of view of the mentors. This helps illuminate some of the complexities of
practice as experienced by the practitioners themselves. I also examine how
mentors handle these dilemmas, what strategies they use, and what they
consider in making decisions. Examining how competent practitioners handle
problematic situations for which no ready answers exists and what principles
guide their decision making is important because it contributes to taking us
one step further in becoming more thoughtful practitioners (Schon 1987).
Writing this paper, I invite others to join the conversation and to refine our
understanding of the dilemmas that confront mentors, of the possible ways to
manage these dilemmas, and the different reasons for choosing particular
ways of action.
The Use of the Term Dilemma
The term dilemma refers to a predicament in which: (1) one needs to
choose between at least two courses of action, each of which is problematic,
and (2) the choice of one of the courses of action sacrifices the advantages
that might accrue if the alternative were chosen (Room, 1985). That is,
dilemma is a situation in which a perfect solution is not available, each of the
alternatives involving a mixture of positive and negative factors (Katz & Raths,
1988).
Reflecting on her experience as a mathematics teacher, Lampert
(1985) argues that, in trying to solve pedagogical problems, “practical
dilemmas” arise because teachers hold competing aims:
As the teacher considers alternative solutions to any particular
problem, she cannot hope to arrive at the ‘right’ alternative…because she
brings many contradictory aims to each instance of her work, and the
resolution of their dissonance cannot be neat or simple (p. 181).
Lampert distinguishes two ways to think about a dilemma. One way is
to see it “as a problem forcing a choice between equally undesirable
alternatives” (p.182). In that case, a teacher’s role would be to choose one of
the alternatives, knowing that either choice has some undesirable
consequences. Another way to think of a dilemma is to see it as “an
argument between two opposing tendencies within oneself in which neither
side can come out as a winner” (p.182). From this perspective, a teacher’s
job is not to choose between the alternatives, but to find strategies that allow
her to “manage the dilemma,” to act with integrity without exacerbating the
underlying conflicts. Dilemmas are not solvable, rather teachers or teacher
educators must find ways to manage them in the situation at hand. Lampert’s
definition highlights the teacher’s internal deliberation about alternatives rather
than her choice between them. As mathematics teachers, Lampert (1985)
and Ball (1990) discuss dilemmas that stem from teachers’ conflicting
demands toward subject matter and pupils, such as respecting students’
ideas vs. honoring “mathematical truths”. Featherstone and Feiman-Nemser
(1992), teachers of a university teacher education course, describe dilemmas
that stem from their dual responsibility to content to both “cover” it and explore
it in depth, and to students: encouraging critical thinking vs. wide student
participation in the classroom discussion.
Lampert, Ball, Featherstone and Feiman-Nemser discussed dilemmas
they experienced personally. But mentors also face tensions they might not
be aware of. Discrepancies between mentors’ talk and actions, as well as
apparent contradictions between their actions in similar situations may also
indicate that, in fact, they might be struggling to resolve a tension (Berlak &
Berlak). Thus, in this paper, I will also try to find tensions that mentors
experience perhaps unawarely. This can help uncover tensions and
dilemmas embedded in mentors’ practice and enlighten our understanding of
the types of choices that they make. Looking at dilemmas from this
perspective implies adopting an outsider stance since I am not using the term
“dilemma” as the mentors used it, but as a way to explain inconsistencies in
individual mentors’ practice. This perspective is also taken by Berlak & Berlak
and Maguire who used the term dilemma to represent and explain various
traits in teacher educators’ beliefs and actions.
The study enabled me to look at differences in people’s talk and
actions across settings and cultures. These differences may occur simply
because the practice of mentoring takes different shapes and forms
depending on the context in which mentors work. But they may also occur
because there are some dilemmas at the core of mentoring that people in the
various settings manage in different ways (Berlak & Berlak). By looking at
these differences we might be able to identify some core dilemmas of
mentoring. Becoming aware of the dilemmas of mentoring and understanding
what forces influence mentors’ thinking and actions in particular situations can
help us become more mindful about the choices that mentors make as well as
the relative costs and benefits of these choices.
In this paper, I focus on three related tensions and dilemmas. The first
two grow out of the mentors’ dual responsibility for pupils’ and novice’s
learning. The third dilemma concerns mentor/ novices relationship and it
stems from mentors’ desire to maintain friendly relationship with the novice
while also helping him or her learn. Even though I discuss these dilemmas
separately, as we shall see, they are related in complex ways.
Dilemma 1: Novice’s Learning vs. Pupils’ Learning
“I worry that the intern will screw up in terms of things I want pupils to
learn and be able to do. Sometimes it’s a sacrifice, and the question is whose
learning do I sacrifice at the particular moment”, said Ann, an American
elementary mentor, in a mentor meeting organized for all the American
mentors in the study. Mark, a secondary mentor, immediately provided an
example of a situation in which this conflict plays out. The concept that needs
to be taught next is both central to the unit the class is studying and also
difficult for pupils’ understanding. The mentor thinks the novice is not ready to
teach it. At the same time, he feels the novice could learn from attempting to
teach the lesson. The mentor feels torn: should he let the novice teach the
concept because that will benefit her learning, or should he teach the concept
himself not to sacrifice pupils’ learning? If he does decide to teach the lesson,
how will this move affect the novice’s self-confidence as a teacher?
The dilemma of novices’ learning vs. pupils’ learning faces most
mentors, even though they may experience different aspects of it and have
different alternatives among which to choose depending on the context in
which they work. For instance, several mentors talked about situations in
which they were tempted to “do something” to avoid “disasters” because
disasters do not help pupils’ learn, even though they might help novices learn:
“There is a real temptation to avert disasters with student teachers but I
don’t think it does them any good. I think that they learn a lot more quickly
when it gets out of control and then talk about it: OK, this was awful…so what
would we do in other times so that it won’t happen again? (Ann, American
elementary mentor)”
Even though Bob, a British mentor believes that “learning is better
done by finding out for yourself rather than just being told”, he still struggles to
find the balance between “times when you need to be told, because otherwise
you might do damage [to pupils’ learning]” and times when you need to “find
out and learn for yourself,” or, in other words, times when pupils’ learning will
prevail and times when novices’ learning will take priority in mentors’ thoughts
and actions. When Bob thought his novice did not discuss with the pupils
enough examples of angles to help them understand that an angle is “the
amount of turn rather than distance”, Bob chose not to say anything to the
novice, hoping that in the next lesson the novice would “draw different angles
on the board and ask [pupils] to compare them.” In explaining his reluctance
to suggest this to the novice, Bob said:
“Learning is often better done by finding out for yourself rather than just
being told. There are times when you need to be told because otherwise you
might do damage, but find out and learn for yourself…If he shows absolutely
no sign of doing that, eventually I will tell him, ’Do it, please’ because
ultimately I am responsible for the class and what they learn, but I would hope
he would come up with that, shall we say, without actually telling him this.”
Ann and Bob prefer to let the novice learn from his/her own mistakes;
however, this opportunity may backfire, undermining the very purposes these
mentors want to achieve. Ann’s choice to discuss the lesson with the novice
after the “disaster” has occurred may not only impede pupils’ learning, it may
also create a situation in which the pupils question the novice’s capabilities to
teach. This could lead to management problems which diminish novice’s
opportunities to teach and learn from her teaching. Novice’s relationship with
the mentor may also be jeopardized if the novice’s frustration weakens her
trust of the mentor’s expertise.
Bob’s preference to let the novice learn by himself rather than “telling”
him what to do may, in addition, to also lead to “disasters” since the novice
might not see by himself what needs to be done. A couple of days later, the
novice taught a lesson about the sum of the angles in a triangle. He
presented the mathematical idea to the pupils in an abstract way, without a
concrete representation to help pupils understand why the sum of the angles
in a triangle equals 180 degrees. Bob hoped in vain that the novice would
realize such a representation was needed and that he would come up with
one since he “prodded him in the right direction.” The novice just went over
the rules several times.
Mark handles this dilemma not by choosing either one of the horns.
Rather than teaching the lesson himself or letting the novice teach it, he
chooses to co-plan and co-teach the lesson with the novice, helping her
anticipate pupils’ difficulties and deal with them. In this way, Marks attends to
both his concerns: He supports his novice’s learning, while reducing the
possibility of negative effects of novice’s teaching on pupils’ learning. His
strategy also allows him to foster another one of his concerns: helping his
novice appreciate “collaboration among staff” and see this collaboration as an
important means for future professional development:
“I am also trying to get Tina to understand the value of collaboration
among the staff. So when she is out teaching, she’ll seek that out…We are
going to interchange…I want the kids to be totally confused about who is in
charge, who is going to do what. I want the pupils to know that they are
accountable to both of us, and that Tina and I are interchangeable”.
Instead of resolving the dilemma, Mark manages the tension by
choosing a strategy that keeps the “conflict under the surface” (Lampert). For
the moment, his strategy allows him to address both his responsibilities: for
pupils’ learning and for novice’s learning while attending to other goals such
as helping the novice appreciate collaboration. But his ways of managing the
dilemmas raises questions about the novice’s learning in the long run: Will
she learn to assess pupils’ difficulties and address them on her own? Will she
be able to teach on her own?
Mark, Ann and Bob do not always manage these dilemmas the same
way. Had they done so, these would have not been dilemmas for them
(Berlak & Berlak). Sometimes Mark chooses to teach the lesson himself,
other times to let the novice teach it; sometimes Ann talks with her novice
before the lesson to prevent “disasters”, other times after the lesson, to learn
from the disasters; and sometimes Bob tells the novice what he thinks the
novice should do, while other times he waits and hopes the novice will learn
from his or her mistakes. The ways they manage the dilemmas in the
particular moment, the choices that they make given the complexities of the
situation, and how they alternate their paths of action help them balance
pupils’ and novice’s needs overtime and ultimately make a skillful practice.
Dilemma 2: To Intervene or Not to Intervene in Novice’s Lesson
The dilemma of whether or not to intervene in novice’s lesson is an
extension of the previous dilemma as mentors may consider intervening in
novice’s lesson as a way to attend to both pupils’ and novices’ learning needs.
Yet, it is not as widespread as the previous dilemma since the option of
intervening is not available to all mentors. Cultural, systemic and
programmatic norms and procedures make unlikely for British and Chinese
mentors to intervene in novice’s lessons. American mentors whose novices
have their own classrooms may also feel reluctant to intervene in novices’
lessons even though such move might be acceptable in the setting where
they work. All mentors however, face questions regarding what to do when
novice’s lesson goes awry. Ken’s words explain best what this dilemma is
about:
“I have trouble keeping my nose out of things. If something occurs to
me or I see something or there is something that needs to be thrown out, or
said, or asked, I am liable to do that. And it is not always a situation where I
can ask permission to do that. So it is best that I not be there”. (Ken,
American secondary mentor)
Ken’s difficulty to keep his “nose out of things” arises because his dual
responsibility toward pupils’ learning and toward novice’s learning.
Considering pupils’ learning, he should intervene in novice’s lesson where he
thinks that might help pupils learn. However, since he believes Mickey learns
best on her own, he should let her learn from her own mistakes if he wants to
support her learning. His decision whether to intervene or not is influenced
also by another set of considerations—those that have to do with the
relationship between them. Ideally, he should ask Mickey’s permission to
intervene in her lesson, but, as he says, it is not always a situation where he
can do so. Intervening in her lesson without her permission might jeopardize
their relationship. And, if the relationship is shaky can Mickey continue
learning from him? Asking Mickey’s permission is not unproblematic either.
Does Mickey feel free enough to say she would prefer Ken not to intervene in
her lesson? After all, it is his classroom. What repercussion would her
refusal have on the relationship with her mentor?
To complicate things even more, an intervention from the mentor’s side
may hurt the very purpose for which this intervention was intended, namely
pupils’ learning. Following the mentor’s intervention, pupils might question
novice’s competence to teach, and, as a result, pay less attention to novice’s
teaching, thus diminishing their opportunities to learn. In addition, the way
pupils may react can also lead to less opportunities for the novice to teach
and learn from her teaching.
Ken handles the situation by avoiding the dilemma: not being in the
classroom he can not intervene in Mickey’s lesson. But the price he may pay
is not small: He may deprive the students as well as his novice of
opportunities to learn as his novice could also learn from a move that possibly
was beyond her reach. In addition, in order to assist Mickey in her learning,
Ken will have to rely solely on Mickey’s interpretation of what happened in the
lesson while his own interpretation also could have added to her learning.
Nancy, American secondary mentor, also resists intervening in novice’s
lesson. When solicited by the novice to step in, Nancy is brief, typically
answering the novice’s question from her observation corner in the back of
the room. She prefers to assist the novice before the lesson, by helping her
plan the lesson, and after the lesson, by discussing the notes that she takes
during the lesson. This way, Nancy minimizes the possibility of intervening in
novice’s lesson, while still being able to offer some of her “wisdom of
practice.” What she does not offer to the novice though is an image of a
different course of action—a model of a possible way of acting the specific
situation that might have had a better effect.
Beatrice tries to negotiate her role with the novice either before or
during a lesson:
“Before the class would start, I would say, ‘What role do you want me
to take today? If the discipline seems to be getting out of hand can I jump in?
Would you like that? Would you rather I didn’t?’ That has to be negotiated.”
But her negotiation is problematic. Does the novice feel free enough to
refuse mentor’s intervention in the lesson? And if the novice refuses, what
repercussions would his refusal have on the relationship between the mentor
and the novice? Will they still be able to work together? Will the novice still
be able to learn from the mentor?
Dilemma 3: Friendship Relationship vs. Supporting Novice’s
Learning
“The good relationship between mentor and novice can play a very
important role in improving the novice’s learning to teach”. (Xu, secondary
Chinese mentor)
“The success of mentoring depends strongly on the relationship which
develops between the mentors and the student teacher” (secondary British
mentors).
These mentors see a strong link between having a good relationship
with novices and helping them learn to teach. Though many mentors and
novices would agree about the existence of such link, the nature of the link is
not simple or clear. Good relationships do not necessarily lead to novice’s
learning, at least not in the perspective of the American mentors in the study.
As Sue, a U.S. elementary mentor, said to us:
“It was too early in the year to criticize her directly because I did not
want to jeopardize the relationships. Later in the year, we would have more of
a relationship of equals, so I would be able to say more to her.”
At this point in the year, the mentor felt that building a good relationship
with her novice and helping her learn are goals that are at odds with each
other. The novice planned a lesson that did not fit the mentor’s expectations
and the mentor did not want the novice to teach the lesson. Still she did not
feel it was appropriate to say anything to the novice without “jeopardizing”
their relationship. From the mentor’s perspective, this was a no-win situation.
If the mentor does not tell the novice what she thinks, she will deny the novice
an opportunity to learn. She may also deny pupils an opportunity to learn as
the novice may attempt to teach a lesson that is not in support of pupils’
learning. If the mentor does talk with the novice about the problems involved
in her planning of the lesson, the novice might feel “criticized”. Such a feeling,
especially at the beginning of their relationship, could have a damaging effect
on the “relationship of equals” that the mentor wants to promote.
The tension between building and maintaining a good relationship with
the novice and supporting or fostering novice’s learning seems particularly
palpable for U.S. mentors. Chinese mentors for instance, do not talk about
such tensions. Chen, a secondary Chinese mentor, considers part of his role
to “point out [novice’s] weaknesses directly” so that the novice can improve.
Li, the novice, agrees: “If a teacher could point out the weaknesses of a
student directly, the student will definitely correct it seriously.” Chen does not
seem concerned about building a relationship of equals. On the contrary, he
wants the novice to see him as “a model” and “a source of knowledge and
expertise.”
U.S. mentors have a different point of view. At a mentor meeting
organized in the US, the researchers showed American mentors a videotape
representing a conference between a Chinese mentor and her novice, and
tapes that showed novice’s teaching overtime. Images of a mentor who
points out directly the strengths and weaknesses of novice’s lesson and of a
novice who listen and takes notes of what the mentor is saying, struck
American mentors. They disagreed with what they called hierarchical,
asymmetrical relationship, in spite of the evidence the novice was making
serious progress. These mentors expressed sympathy with an American
mentor, an obviously experienced teacher and mentor, who, at the same
meeting, describing a situation in which, during a conference she was
conducting with her novice, could barely interject some comments because
the novice was continuously talking. The situation of being reluctant to
interrupt the novice or disagree with him for fear to damage the relationship,
was not foreign to them.
It might be that only the American mentors face the dilemma of building
or maintaining good relationship with the novice vs. supporting novice’s
learning. Perhaps being less concerned about building “a relationship of
equals” other mentors are also less worried about jeopardizing the
relationship and therefore could focus more on supporting novice’s learning.
It might also be that other mentors experience different aspects of this
dilemma that we are aware of. As others will join the conversation about the
dilemmas involved in helping a novice learn to teach we could become clearer
about this and other dilemmas. In any case, it seems that the mentors who
do face this dilemma handle it by choosing one of the horns, that of
maintaining good relationship and sacrificing, for the moment, novice’s
learning perhaps in the hope that in the long run their choice will have a
beneficial effect on novice’s learning.
Discussion and Conclusions
In this paper I identified three related dilemmas: responding to pupils’
learning vs. novice’s learning, whether or not to intervene in novice’s lesson,
and how to build and maintain a good relationship with the novice while also
stretching his or her learning. Even though I discussed these dilemmas
separately, in reality they are not separable. As mentors may find ways to
manage both pupils’ and novice’s learning for instance, they also consider
how their moves may influence their own relationship with pupils and with the
novice. As mentors consider whether or not to intervene in novice’s lesson,
they consider what repercussions their move would have on pupils’ and
novice’s learning and how it would affect their own and pupils’ relationship
with the novice.
Not all mentors experience all these dilemmas. It seems to me, that
the first dilemma is faced by most pre-service mentors, as they almost by
definition are responsible for both pupils’ and novice’s learning. The second
dilemma is faced only by a portion of the mentors, those who have the option
of intervening in novice’s lesson. Even in settings where systematic and
cultural norms permit interventions, some mentors would not consider it as an
option. But those who do accept the idea of intervening in novice’s lesson in
principle, have to consider whether or not to do so in the specific situation,
and what are the appropriate ways for this intervention.
The third dilemma seems more relevant for the American mentors than
for other mentors. British and Chinese mentors seem to see less tensions
between maintaining good relationship with the novice and helping the novice
learn to teach. As there was no systematic study of the dilemmas that
mentors in the different settings face, I can not be sure of this dilemma is
faced only by the U.S. mentors, or perhaps there are some aspects of it which
I am unaware of that are more endemic to mentoring in general and not only
specific to mentoring in the U.S. A systematic cross national study of the
dilemmas could help us not only clarify this issue, but also learn about
dilemmas that are endemic to mentoring as well as about those which depend
on the particularities of the setting.
I found three major strategies that mentors use to handle these
dilemmas. The first is choosing one of the horns of the dilemmas. The
second is managing it—find a way to act in the situation without exacerbating
the conflict that underlies it. The third, perhaps a less common way to handle
a problematic situation, is to avoid it.
I also found that three factors influence the most the particular choices
that mentors make: the perceived characteristics of the setting in which
mentors work, the strategies that are available to them, and their beliefs about
how novices learn best. Becoming aware of how they make decisions,
mentors could change their perception of the constraints of the setting or the
constraints themselves, could learn new strategies of managing the dilemmas
or just become more mindful about the decisions that they make. But the
most important finding is, perhaps, that novice’s learning plays such an
important role in mentors’ thinking. Mentors are aware that novices need
opportunities to learn to teach and that it is their job to create such
opportunities. Teacher educators’ job is to help mentors to refine their
theories of novices’ learning to teach. This does not mean that mentors would
not have dilemmas anymore, but that they would have different dilemmas and
perhaps a different repertoire of choices from which to work.
Bibliography
Ball, D. L. (1990). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas
of teaching elementary school mathematics (Craft Paper 90-3). East Lansing:
Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Feiman-Nemser, S. & Featherstone, H. (1992). Exploring Teaching:
Reinventing an Introductory Course. Teachers College Press.
Katz, L. G. & Raths, J. D. (1988). Dilemmas in teacher education:
Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, “Issues in Teacher Education”, New Orleans, April,
1988.
Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives
on problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55, 178-194.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.