Bibliographic record
Abstract
This narrative study explores experiences with formal and informal mentoring through the perspectives of a fifth grade teacher, Lindsey. In her eighth year of teaching, Lindsey has participated in mentoring relationships of all types, both as a mentee and mentor. Through our dialogue, we delve deeply into informal and formal mentoring relationships from the standpoint of the same teacher, a process which has been missing from mentoring research (Desimone, Hochberg, Porter, Polikoff, Schwartz, & Johnson, 2014; JuarezTorres, Hurst, & Hurst, 2007; Klug & Salzman, 1991). As she shares her story, it is evident that she values several mentoring qualities, though trustworthiness is of the utmost importance. From her perspective, trust and mutual respect facilitate the birth of friendships that, in turn, increase the effective ness of mentoring relationships. The following chapter serves as a platform to share her story with the intent of prompting self-reflection from the reader.Mentoring relationships exist in a variety of forms, as any type of relationship can. The environment and culture in which the relationship exists can affect the dynamics and enactment of the traditionally described mentor/ mentee practices. Because of this, we are behooved to explore mentorship on an intimate level, particularly informal mentorship whose presence has been lacking in educational research. To date, very little research has been conducted on informal mentoring, and even fewer studies have been conducted that “allow simultaneous comparisons of formal and informal mentoring of the same teacher (Juarez-Torres, Hurst, & Hurst, 2007; Klug & Salzman, 1991)” (Desimone, Hochberg, Porter, Polikoff, Schwartz, & Johnson, 2014, p. 88). Given the gap in the literature, the research questions we explore in this study are as follows: (a) what are the teacher’s experiences with informal and formal mentoring as she began her teaching career; (b) how does she outline the differences between mentors and colleagues; and (c) how do the teacher’s experiences affect her personal mentoring style? This narrative study uncovers the experiences of an educator, Lindsey, in her eighth year of teaching, as she reflects upon her experiences with formal and informal mentorship, both as a mentee and a mentor. Although the authors of this paper are participant researchers, which we will explain further in the methodology section, we will sometimes refer to each other in third person (“Lindsey” and “Elizabeth”) throughout the chapter, simply to make the storytelling more fluid.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.022 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".