Professional insights for the successful implementation of peer-mentoring programs for undergraduate teacher candidates
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose This study provides insight into the nature of peer-mentoring opportunities for teacher candidates, including common challenges and benefits that can be used to inform best practices for implementing peer-mentoring programs by higher education institutions. Design/methodology/approach Qualitative interviews were conducted to glean insights from program coordinators and researchers regarding programs at higher education institutions in Canada, Australia, and Vietnam. Findings Common challenges and benefits of peer mentoring for teacher candidate mentors and mentees are identified. The importance of embedding reflective practice in programs is discussed, highlighting strategies for improving reflection and engagement. Research limitations/implications This exploratory study has limitations. Due to the small sample size, thematic saturation may not have been reached. There is a lack of prior research on the topic of peer mentoring in an undergraduate, pre-service education context. These factors indicate room for further exploration on this topic. This study reveals areas for further research. Research on best practices for the implementation of peer mentoring experiences for teacher candidates should be continued with larger sample sizes, and mixed methodologies. Differences in best practices in online and in-person peer mentoring programs for teacher candidates could be investigated. The value of mentoring as a reflective tool for professional growth should be further explored. The adequacy of structured and reflective peer mentoring as an adjunct or substitute for traditional mentoring by staff advisors may be of interest to provide more professional growth opportunities to teacher candidates at earlier stages and lower costs for institutions. Practical implications To overcome common challenges associated with low engagement from mentees, both the mentor and mentee positions should be framed as active roles in a partnership essential for professional growth. Ideally, facilitators should designate time within the curriculum, such as course or lab time, in which mentors and mentees can meet. To increase mutual engagement, preservice education programs should make both roles mandatory, or offer each role as a credit course with academic incentives for assignments that demonstrate quality self-reflection and engagement. Social implications Rather than viewing themselves as passive recipients of mentoring services, mentees can take ownership through engaging in valued mentee responsibilities, such as identifying needs, and communicating proactively. How mentee and mentor roles are perceived, and enacted, may be influenced by whether programs are presented as supports by mentors for mentees, or reciprocal professional partnerships required for mutual growth. Originality/value The research offers insights into how peer-mentoring programs for teacher candidates can be structured to address pitfalls, enhance professional development, and support undergraduate teacher-learners. Practical recommendations for program coordinators and institutions are offered.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,043 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».