Professional insights for the successful implementation of peer-mentoring programs for undergraduate teacher candidates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".