The Importance of Mentoring Novice and Pre-Service Teachers - Findings from a HBCU Student Teaching Program - Action research on mentoring impacts

Oct 15, 2026

The study examines how mentoring is realized within a student teaching program at a Texas institution, prompted by critiques of teacher preparation quality and growing competition with non-traditional pathways. Using an action research approach for continuous improvement, the work evaluates mentoring—distinguishing mentoring from routine supervision and evaluation of pre-service teachers. Assumptions are clarified in context, focusing on stakeholder views and the program dimensions most linked to supporting teachers beyond initial placement.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages14

Reading Time35 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Teacher preparation context

Mentoring as a distinct program dimension

Methodology

Action research for evaluation

Related Research

Teacher turnover and retention

The Importance of Mentoring Novice and Pre-Service Teachers: Findings from a HBCU Student Teaching Program By Lisa D. Hobson, Deborah Harris, Kimberley Buckner-Manley,& Patricia Smith Lisa D. Hobson and Patricia Smith are professors in the Department of Educational Leadership at Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View, Texas. Deborah Harris isan associate professor in the College of Education at Texas A&M University, Texarkana, Texas. Kimberly Buckner-Manley is a doctoral candidate in the Ph. D. Program in Educational Leadership at Prairie View A&M University. Teacher preparation programs across the country have faced criticisms regarding the quality of their programs. Additionally, these programs now compete with non-traditional programs when their graduates seek positions in public schools. As a result of many conversations as well as audits ofthe degree program at institutions in the state of Texas, we were interested in examining dimensions of the student teaching program at one institution. One of the researchers in this study served as the Interim Director of the Office of Clinical and Field Based Studies at this institution. Additionally, two of us (as researchers) worked in the leadership preparation program at the institution. As our conversations evolved, we became very interested in the need for mentoring as articulated by our graduates ofthe teacher education program as well as our graduates in the masters programs who were teachers. Furthermore, we acknowledged that for the leadership preparation program and Ph. D. program, we should prepare future and current candidates to utilize best practices for working with their teachers. Just as other professionals need support to improve and reduce turnover, there are specific forms of support that help keep teachers in their schools after their first year of teaching. Educational leaders must be able to establish expectations or norms of teaching and learning for administrators and teachers alike while building organizational systems to support them while maintaining a climate that encourages practitioners to continue learning (Harris, 2002) . We could ensure program quality at a number of levels that would impact K-12 student learning. To adequately address learning and program outcomes, we utilized an action research methodology for evaluation of the student teacher program for continuous improvement. Ferrance (2000) defined action research as “a process in which participants examine their own educational practice systematically and carefully, using the techniques of research” (p. 1) . Additionally, Ferrance (2000) wrote,“Rather than dealing with the theoretical, action research allows practitioners to address those concerns that are closest to them, ones over which they can exhibit some influence and make change”(Introduction) . The dimension of the program we were most interested in evaluating was mentoring. We were aware of the benefits of mentoring as well as the variety of mentoring programs across the country. Much of the literature on mentoring is on the in-service dimension, i.e., practicing teachers. We were interested in studying the impacts of mentoring with pre-service teachers, i.e., student teachers. Two assumptions undergirded our work: (a) mentoring of pre-service teachers does not automatically occur with the assignment of a student teacher with a cooperating teacher and the university supervisor and (b) supervision and evaluation of student teachers by cooperating teachers in schools does not equate with mentoring. To clarify further, we believe mentoring can occur with student teachers in schools, however, just because a student teacher is assigned a cooperating teacher does not mean the pre-service teacher will be mentored. The ideal program would ensure the student teachers are mentored. Thus, we wanted to determine stakeholders’views of mentoring student teachers. Beyond an expectation of conducting qualitative research, we t

FAQs

What problem does the study address about teacher preparation programs?

Teacher preparation programs have faced criticism about program quality, and they also compete with non-traditional programs when graduates seek public school positions.

How does the study distinguish mentoring from supervision and evaluation?

The study argues that supervision and evaluation of student teachers by cooperating teachers does not automatically equal mentoring, even when a student teacher is assigned a cooperating teacher.

Why does the study use action research for evaluating the student teaching program?

Action research is used to support continuous improvement by having participants systematically examine their own educational practice and address concerns closest to them using data and careful interpretation.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by pixelkiddo