Mentoring early childhood professionals.

Abstract. Past research has documented the benefits of mentoring programs to the participants' personal and professional development, yet little is known about the reciprocal nature of the relationships between mentors and proteges. This study examined the mentor-protege relationship through the voices of 12 participants over the nine-month period of a special project. Data collected from the participants through individual interviews and small-group meetings focused on documenting and understanding the benefits of mentoring, the difficulties within the mentor-protege relationship, the factors that influenced the relationship, and the ways that the relationship evolved and changed. Common themes emerged from the analysis of the data, which highlighted the impact of terminology, distance, time constraints, place of employment, and length of the mentoring experience. The findings provide educators with an insider's view of the mentoring experience, and offer information about successful strategies that can be u sed to enhance the professional development of both the beginning and the experienced teacher.

**********

Mentoring programs have been considered as beneficial to the personal and professional development of participants (Ganser, 1997; Gaston & Jackson, 1998; Martin & Trueax, 1997), as well as to the productivity and instructional performance of the schools in which they are implemented (David, 2000). Thus, policymakers and educators now emphasize the inclusion of mentoring programs in school reform initiatives and efforts to enhance the teaching profession (Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, 1986; Furtwengler, 1995; Holmes Group, 1986).

As documented in the literature, teachers of young children experience different stages of professional development (Jones, 1993; Katz, 1977; VanderVen, 1994). Katz (1977) explained that the beginning teacher is focused on day-to-day survival in the classroom, and often experiences anxiety about her ability to meet classroom challenges and realities. Such teachers are said to be in the Survival stage, which may last throughout the whole first year of teaching. During this stage, beginning teachers need "support, understanding, encouragement, comfort, and guidance" (Katz, 1977, p. 8). These needs can be met by connecting a beginning teacher, or protege, with an experienced teacher, or mentor (Bellm, Whitebook, & Hnatiuk, 1997). The experienced teacher, who might be in either the stage of Renewal or the stage of Maturity is more confident in her skills, but is also tiring of doing "the same old things" (Katz, 1977, p. 9). She is becoming more reflective and is interested in widening the scope of her professiona l knowledge and skills. Teachers in these stages benefit from opportunities to network with their peers, and to examine problems and issues in the classroom and the field of early childhood education.

Although mentoring often has often been viewed as a one-way process (i.e., the experienced teacher providing support to the novice), current literature highlights the need for a more reciprocal venture (Black & Puckett, 1996). Hargreaves and Fullan (2000) suggest that both mentors and proteges can share their knowledge and learn from each other. A reciprocal mentoring relationship can enable both mentor and protege to enhance their use of developmentally appropriate practices in early childhood settings.

While much has been written to guide professionals in the development of mentoring programs, limited studies have investigated the implementation and evolution of such efforts. Much can be learned from examining the perceptions and views of those involved in the mentoring process. The study reported here extends the current knowledge and understanding of the experience of mentoring, and can guide practitioners as they strive to support the professional development of early childhood teachers.

The research was conducted in conjunction with a project designed to connect professionals through mentor-protege activities. The intent of this project was to provide a possible framework through which supportive relationships between beginning and experienced teachers would form. Ultimately, the professional work of mentors and proteges would be enhanced, thereby improving early childhood practice.

The study focused on the following research questions:

1. What are the benefits of mentorship for both the mentor and protege?

2. What difficulties emerge within mentor-portege relationships?

3. What factors affect the nature of the mentor-protege relationship?

4. How does the mentor-protege relationship evolve and change over time?

Method

Participants

The goal of this research was to examine the mentor-protege relationship through the voices of the participants. Data were collected from six mentors and six proteges who had met predetermined criteria for participation and had volunteered to participate in a mentoring project. The criteria used to determine eligibility for mentors included: 1) membership in the local early childhood association; 2) attainment of an associate or a bachelor's degree in pre-kindergarten/early childhood; and 3) at least five years' experience as a lead teacher (post-degree) for those with an associate degree, or three years' experience as a lead teacher (post-degree) for those with a bachelor's degree. Proteges must hold either an associate degree or a bachelor's degree in pre-kindergarten/early childhood, and should be in their first or second year as a lead teacher. Participants were recruited through the local early childhood association newsletter. Because of limited response to the newsletter posting, project team members a lso telephoned or sent letters to those association members meeting the project criteria.

All of the participants were female and were employed full-time in classrooms serving children between the ages of 3 and 5. Four of the mentors were employed in private nonprofit early childhood programs, one in Head Start, and one in a public preschool program. Each of these programs was located in an urban setting. Two of these programs were defined as large (serving 100 or more children), two were medium in size (serving 50-99 children), and two were small (serving less than 50 children). The mean age of the mentors was 37.6 years and all were Caucasian. Two of the mentors reported holding master's degrees, two held baccalaureate degrees, and two held associate degrees, all in early childhood education. All of the mentors had worked as teachers in preschool settings for five or more years.

Of the proteges, three were employed in private nonprofit settings, two in private early childhood settings, and one in Head Start. Four of the programs were located in an urban area, while two were in a rural location. One program was defined as large, two were medium, and three were small. The mean age of the proteges was 28.4 years. One protege was African American and the other five were Caucasian. One reported holding a baccalaureate degree, while five held associate degrees. Five had worked in their current role as lead teacher for less than one year, while one had worked in her teaching position for approximately two years.

Project Design

The mandated mentoring program for primary level teachers in the state provided the impetus to design a similar program targeting preprimary practitioners. While mentoring programs for teachers of preschool children have been organized in select situations, most settings do not offer such mentoring support. Given the need for support in a variety of work settings, a mechanism for organizing a mentoring program was sought. The local early childhood organization was identified as the logical vehicle to facilitate the connection of beginning and experienced teachers in mentoring relationships.

A project team, all of whom were members of the local early childhood professional organization, designed the mentoring project. The five members of the project team included two university faculty members, two directors of child care centers, and one early childhood supervisor in a county Head Start program. Four of the team members have Ph.D.s in early childhood education, and one was completing a bachelor's degree in pre-kindergarten administration.

Using the information provided by participants on a demographic questionnaire, the project team paired beginning and experienced teachers primarily according to similarity of age groups served. At an initial orientation meeting attended by all of the participants, the project team explained the mentoring project and disseminated information packets pertinent to the mentor and protege roles. The designated mentor-protege pairs were announced, and time for the dyads to become acquainted was provided. In addition to the initial orientation meeting, the mentoring project involved several planned opportunities for contact between mentor-protege pairs--specifically, four focus group meetings and two meetings of the membership of the local early childhood professional organization and the larger early childhood community Speakers were invited to both membership meetings, as well as to two of the focus group meetings. The project team members determined the agenda and topics for all of the planned meetings. Opportuni ties for mentors and proteges to interact with each other, as well as with their mentor and protege groups, were integral to each of these meetings. In addition, mentor and protege pairs were encouraged to engage in one-on-one contacts with each other throughout the course of this nine-month project.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected at three-month intervals during the project. The relationship building process and the participants' perceptions were documented by audiotaping of the following:

1. There individual interviews of each participant, arranged by a member of the project team.

2. Three small-group meetings of mentors and proteges conducted during focus group meetings (mentors met in a group separate from the proteges).

The project team designed open-ended questions that were used in both the interviews and the small-group meetings to promote comments and discussion about mentoring, as experienced by each of the 12 participants. The questions used in the first individual interview and the first small-group meeting were designed to be different for the mentors and proteges. The questions used to guide the second and third interviews, as well as the remaining small group sessions, were the same for all participants. Project team members conducted all interviews, and facilitated small-group meetings.

Audiotaped interviews and small-group session discussions were transcribed, and then responses to the questions were color coded and grouped to identify their correspondence to one of the four research questions. The data were analyzed to identify themes common to the mentor and protege groups. The common themes within each group were then examined for themes common to both mentors and proteges.

Results

Benefits

Both mentors and proteges identified benefits related to their participation in the mentoring project. Mentors regarded the small-group meetings with other mentors as particularly helpful. A feeling of "professional unity" was engendered through these meetings. "Just the mentors meeting.... I feel good when I meet with just all of us (mentors) and talk." "We're all feeling the same way."

Over the course of the project, mentors indicated that the experience enhanced their perceptions of their own professional identities. Mentors shared, "The mentorship project opened my eyes to my own professional growth." "I was able to examine myself and build a level of confidence." In addition, interactions with others in the field helped them avoid feelings of stagnation in their teaching. "As you're helping other people, you're helping yourself grow." "Being a mentor made me more proud to be a teacher of young children and proud to be in the profession."

Mentors also viewed the contacts with other professionals as providing a forum for an exchange of ideas. Meetings became arenas for praxis discussions: "It (mentoring) causes you to say to yourself, 'Am I being as developmentally appropriate as I should be?'"

The proteges concurred that participating in the small-group meetings provided an opportunity for those with similar levels of work experience to meet and discuss concerns related to working with children. Another perceived benefit was visits to the mentor's classroom. Such visits provided insight into organizing the early childhood environment and developing curriculum. "I got a lot of good ideas and strategies" [from visiting my mentor's classroom]. Proteges also voiced the opinion that by participating in the mentorship project, they learned from other professionals: "I became better at handling situations and people." "I became more open about developmentally appropriate ideas with children."

Difficulties

Mentors also identified several difficulties associated with forming a mentor-protege relationship. When the project began, the mentors expressed an uncertainty about how to proceed since they did not know "what the proteges would need from you." They experienced an initial lack of confidence and a feeling of insecurity. Their worries centered on "giving enough" or "giving the right things." As the school year progressed, some mentors experienced "personality" clashes; some relationships were described as "one-sided." In addition, the mentors expressed several fears and concerns about their roles. They did not want to "act like a know-it-all," "be offensive," or "be a pest by imposing myself or my professional style on the protege. By the end of the project, the need to be cautious and "not step on the protege's toes" led many mentors to express a sense that they were not needed. At this point in the project, some of the mentors shared their disappointment about feeling "worlds apart," personally and professi onally, from their proteges.

Proteges indicated that finding mutually agreeable times to meet or even converse via the telephone proved to be a challenge. Several proteges also indicated feeling pressure due to their participation in the project; to some, it seemed to be just another stressful obligation to fulfill. There was also a perception that they needed to identify a "problem" as a prerequisite to having contact with the mentor. Simply making contact without a specific reason didn't occur within most of the pairings. Furthermore, when a concern in the classroom did occur, a significant delay was typical until the mentor could be contacted. Often, a phone call would be placed later in the day or during the evening; by that time, however, the problem often had been satisfactorily resolved in their minds. "I thought it would be easier to get a hold of each other than it was." As a result, contact with the mentor was perceived to be "too late" to be of real help. Because of the inability to get quick feedback, the proteges often felt that since the problems were resolved there was no need to rehash the situation.

Another issue involved the proteges perception that the mentors were interested in immediately getting down to business and answering questions, while the proteges wanted to slow down and simply get to know each other first. Many indicated feeling that the relationship was forced, rather than naturally evolving. They felt the push to seek advice whenever they did make contact, and they perceived that they needed to "have a problem ready so that (the mentor) can have a solution for you."

Factors Impinging on the Mentor-Protege Relationship

While efforts were made to pair project participants according to the age groups with which they worked, other factors related to the workplace appeared to create the perception that participants had different work experiences. Among these factors were the type of program (private, nonprofit, Head Start, etc.) and the socioeconomic status of families served by the program. Because their daily experiences were perceived to be so different, some protege-mentor pairs found it difficult to relate to each other. Furthermore, interpretations of developmentally appropriate practice seemed to be influenced by the type of setting and populations served, thus further contributing to perceived differences.

Several factors were associated with the difficulties experienced within the relationship-building process. One significant factor appeared to be the physical distance that separated mentors and proteges. Mentors and proteges were employed in different early childhood programs; therefore, they did not have opportunities to connect on a daily basis within the work environment. The travel time needed for most mentor-protege pairs to meet averaged 25 minutes. Often, the teams had difficulty connecting because of these time constraints, conflicting schedules, or outside activities.

The prearranged pairing of mentors and proteges was a factor that seemed to affect the building of relationships. As a result, personal responsibilities, philosophies, personalities, and life stages often contributed to incompatibility. As one mentor stated, "I think our life styles and our schedules are somewhat conflicting." "I have a hard time talking to her about things that I would share with someone that's on the same page as I am."

The terminology used to refer to the participants in the project also may have had an influence on the formation of relationships. Each of the proteges described resentment regarding the term "protege." "Professionally you're equal ... all the people in this program have gone through a college training program ... [mentoring] just needs to be thought of more like a sharing and a supportive kind of role." Proteges' concerns about unequal roles in this program seemed to create a barrier to building relationships with their respective mentors. They felt there was a pervasive perception that the proteges would benefit from, but have little to contribute to, the mentor-protege relationship. "When you're talking about proteges, you're thinking (the mentor) is going to help me. I can't help them." It seemed important to the proteges that they be viewed as peers who could provide support to the mentors, as well as be the recipients of support.

Evolution of the Mentor-Protege Relationship Over Time

During the first meeting, mentors expressed anticipation and hopes for building relationships with their proteges. They displayed enthusiasm for the project. They defined their roles at this point as "being someone to listen to" and "someone who could serve as a support system" to their proteges. The main fear at this point was, "Will I be liked?" One mentor began the project feeling "burned out" and saw this as a chance to "feel fresh again."

By the second interviews, the mentors were reporting that the relationship was "not progressing as much as I had expected." It was "going slowly." They expected to be further along in the relationship building process. Concerns over lack of contact surfaced. Some expressed frustrations that calls were not being returned and when they were, scheduling conflicts emerged.

Generally, mentors did not feel that they were making connections. By the third interview, the mentors were frustrated because "It didn't turn out as I had hoped." Some were disappointed, hoping for a friendship that didn't materialize. They used terms such as "stuck" to describe where they were in the relationship. They had "worked on it all year and didn't get anywhere." It was "a struggle, but a growth process." They were upset by this and even angry for a time.

Each of the proteges also began the project with enthusiasm. They were looking forward to their participation and the development of a relationship with a more experienced teacher. In fact, several expressed a desire for these relationships to continue beyond the project period, hoping for a friendship to develop. As the project progressed, the proteges shared that they "haven't been able to get together. I don't talk to her (the mentor) as much as I would like to." "By the time I get... hold of my mentor, the problem or the concern is over. Two proteges stated that they perceived that the relationship was good, but "we just can't seem to get together."

At the conclusion of the project, the proteges expressed disappointment regarding the status of their relationships with their mentors. Several indicated that the relationships were merely superficial and lacked any depth. Furthermore, they viewed these relationships as "lacking a give-and-take" quality. Many proteges also indicated that their participation in the project had become another "job" and that no meaningful relationships had formed with their respective mentors. Several indicated that they "didn't get anything from this that I couldn't get from my co-workers" (in the same building).

Although some of the mentor-protege relationships were viewed as lacking depth and meaning, at least one of the pairings proved to have evolved to a deeper level. This seemed related to efforts to visit their respective workplaces. "I feel I was able to relate better after I visited her classroom." "I wish we were closer (physical proximity)." "I got a lot of good ideas, strategies.... I shared my ideas, too." The pair would send cards and frequently contact each other by telephone, as well as visit each other's classrooms.

Discussion

Benefits

In this study, participation in the mentoring project provided some benefit for both experienced and beginning teachers. Others also have reported benefits for both mentors and proteges (Martin & Trueax, 1997). Mentoring has the potential to build a foundation for growth and change, promote personal development, and foster professional growth.

David (2000) found that mentors gained professional fulfillment through their involvement in mentoring programs. Gaston and Jackson (1998) indicated that mentors often experience a rejuvenated interest in their work, and engage in a careful evaluation of their views on teaching, children, and learning. In the current study, small-group meetings clearly were considered a meaningful opportunity to come together and discuss experiences as mentors, and thus provided a valuable source of support. Based on the interviews and the small-group discussions, the project provided the mentors an arena m which they could focus on their professionalism. They found they were able to examine, reaffirm, and renew their own teaching beliefs and philosophies. The project provided the mentors with an opportunity to reflect upon their practice, as well as on their identity as professionals and the importance of their work with young children. Keeping developmentally appropriate practice in focus helped to reinforce its value and t heir own role in creating high-quality environments for young children.

Heller and Sindelar (1991) identify the benefits of mentoring for the beginning teacher as improving professional competencies and approaches to teaching. As discussed by Katz (1977), the beginning teacher, in the stage of Survival, is focused on development of specific classroom skills, such as appropriate methods of instruction, and effective arrangement of the physical environment to best meet the needs of children. The interviews of proteges in this study suggested that issues of daily classroom operation were of primary concern. The proteges benefited from the mentoring project by gaining curricular ideas and classroom management strategies that could be immediately applied within their own classroom settings.

Difficulties

While benefits associated with mentoring were identified, difficulties in forming meaningful relationships within the mentor-protege pairings were evident. The pairs found it difficult to meet in person or even communicate via the telephone. Additionally, the perception of incompatibility was common among the participants. A lack of common characteristics was a problem, although the participants all worked with young children between 3 and 5 years of age and had a common knowledge base. As a result of these difficulties, relationships in the majority of pairings failed to form or seemed forced. The available pool of participants, as well as the ways in which they were paired, may have contributed to these difficulties.

Poelle (1993) offers recommendations for recruiting and matching mentors and proteges. Creating compatible pairings is essential if relationships are to flourish, but doing so often can be a challenge. Among the factors that should be considered are the following: personal schedules, personalities, type of child care center, and distance to be traveled. Baptiste and Sheerer (1997) suggest that mentors be on-site and readily available to the protege. Poelle (1993) further emphasizes that due to the complex nature of matching mentors and proteges, the recruitment of an adequate pool of participants is imperative. In the current study, the pool of prospective participants was small. Compatible pairings were difficult to create and thus barriers to relationship formation existed.

In this study, terminology also emerged as a source of difficulty. Whereas experienced teachers generally have been referred to as mentors (Bellm, Whitebook, & Hnatiuk, 1997; Poelle, 1993), the terminology used to refer to beginning teachers varies and has included the following: "intern," "mentee," and "protege" In this project, the term protege was used to refer to beginning teachers. While negative perceptions associated with terminology have been sparsely reported in the literature, this group of beginning teachers had negative perceptions about the term "protege," which may have contributed to difficulties in development of supportive relationships.

The structure and design of a mentoring program have been identified as critical elements in the effectiveness of the program (Poelle, 1993). Opportunities for mutual observation, taking place in both the mentor's and protege's classrooms, have been found to be important in establishing relationships and creating a common experience. The participants in the current mentorship project were encouraged to visit each other's classrooms; for several dyads, however, the factor of distance created an obstacle to arranging such observations. In the pairs in which such visits and observations did take place, relationships were able to move beyond a superficial level and seemed more meaningful to the participants.

Another element important to mentoring effectiveness is goal-setting by the protege; beginning teachers' investment in mentoring seems greatest when they have reflected upon their skills and knowledge and have carefully set goals for their own professional development (Poelle, 1993). Mentors may have an important role in facilitating proteges' reflection and goal-setting. In order to become effective in this role and in the mentoring process, careful preparation of mentors in the "art of mentorship" is important. A regularly scheduled seminar for the purposes of building mentoring skills, and for meeting with other mentors to discuss issues associated with their own mentoring experiences, is critical if mentors are to function effectively in their role. In the mentorship project described herein, only four meetings were organized in which the mentors and the proteges met as a group. Mentors viewed these opportunities to meet in a small group with other mentors as valuable; proteges had similar feelings about these meetings. Mentors frequently expressed uncertainty; however, as to the specific nature of their roles and their ability to meet the needs of their protege partners. While helpful, the meetings were not sufficient in number to address the needs of project participants. Additional opportunities for discussion with project facilitators, as well as with other mentors, may have been helpful in clarifying roles, providing problem-solving support, and building mentoring skills.

The development of a relationship is a highly individualized process that requires time. The participants in this project began with anticipation and excitement. While all of the participants expressed positive sentiments at the project's inception, commitment over the course of the nine-month time frame allotted to the project's implementation was not maintained at a consistent level. The mentors expressed a greater feeling of responsibility and commitment throughout the project than did the proteges. In addition, the mentors expressed greater frustration that the relationships had not strengthened and evolved according to their expectations.

The perceptions of mentors and proteges differed as the project continued; the mentors viewed their participation in the project as important, despite their own busy personal lives, and were persistent in their attempts to fulfill their perceived responsibilities. Despite the frustrations they experienced, they remained positive in their views about the project and its value. According to Katz (1977), the stages of professional development that characterize beginning teachers and experienced teachers differ, influencing both professional priorities and perceptions of skills and needs. The mentors, in an advanced stage of professional development, seemed to view this project as a valuable opportunity for re-examination and reaffirmation of their professional philosophies and values, as well as a means for contributing to the field of early childhood education.

Proteges, on the other hand, often viewed their participation as having low priority in their lives. It seemed that many of the proteges were less willing to put forth the effort required for establishing and nurturing relationships with their respective mentors. Proteges, likely to be in Katz's initial stage of professional development, need readily available, supportive colleagues to whom they can turn in times of need. As expressed by the protege participants, when questions or needs arose during the course of the day, they would turn to those colleagues who were readily available and with whom they had developed trusting relationships; the mentors with whom they had been matched were not able to fulfill their needs as effectively. It may be that less value was attached to the relationship with their assigned mentors; hence, the commitment to these associations was lacking. Failure to see the value of participation is likely to have eroded their dedication and willingness to commit the time needed to becom e fully involved in both the relationship and the project.

Finally, the nine-month time frame for the mentoring project seemed insufficient for the development of strong mentor-protege relationships. Participants noted that it was important to them to get to know each other on a personal level. Developing a sense of trust seemed to be an important precursor to the formation of a professionally supportive relationship. The short time span gave the participants a rushed feeling. There was not enough time to use the training materials as intended, or for the mentors to become comfortable in their roles.

For several participants, the initial sense of enthusiasm waned as the project progressed. Many of their expectations failed to be realized and the level of frustration grew. This disillusionment interfered with the formation of meaningful relationships and the majority of participants did not progress beyond a rudimentary level. Connections are important if relationships are to evolve; communication, a shared vision and goals, and compatibility are essential to achieving these connections. In this project, factors such as time and distance, as well as teaching in different types of settings and holding different educational philosophies, hampered the desire to invest time in the partnership and, to some extent, posed challenges that the participants perceived to be too great to overcome.

Limitations of the Study

Limitations of the study include the selection process of the participants and the time frame of the project. In this study, participants were required to have an early childhood degree and be a member of the local early childhood association. These requirements could have limited the pool of volunteers. The extent to which the results of the study were influenced by the education and professional membership factors remains uncertain.

Minimal response to the newsletter posting for study participants led the project team to actively recruit individuals who met the criteria. This changed the nature of participation from a totally self-selected sample to a targeted sample. In many instances, the participants were previous students of the university professors and/or people who worked in the centers of the project members. How this affected the course of the project needs to be explored in future discussions.

The project team had selected the defined school year (September to June) as the beginning and ending points for the research. This time constraint may have contributed to the difficulty the mentor-protege pairs experienced in establishing beneficial relationships. For several pairs, relationships were just beginning to form by the end of the project. It is difficult to surmise how the relationships would have developed over a longer project period.

Implications

Establishing beneficial and lasting bonds between beginning and experienced teachers in the context of a mentor-protege relationship presents many challenges. Developing a framework for the organization and implementation of mentoring programs is essential. The findings of this research provide professionals with guidance for developing such a framework.

The pairing of individuals in a close relationship such as mentoring requires expertise. Organizers need to devise a mechanism for natural pairings of experienced and beginning teachers. Perhaps beginning group meetings should be planned for at least three months' time, with tasks and discussion topics that encourage exploration of professional goals and allow for the natural pairing of mentors and proteges to evolve in the process. The development of supportive relationships cannot be forced or mandated simply by declaring individuals to be partners in a mentoring program.

In addition, location plays an integral part in successful pairings. Mentoring programs organized within the same geographic area or workplace seem to have greater likelihood of encouraging the development of successful collaborations. Since time also is a factor, early childhood settings need to build in opportunities within the regular workday for mentors and proteges to come together. Funds for staff release time could be set aside to assist in this process. Such support will add value to the mentor-protege relationship and encourage its use as a tool for the professional development of teachers at all levels.

Professionals, whether they are experienced or fairly new to the field, all have knowledge to share with each other. Since terminology tends to define a relationship prior to its development, it is important to be sensitive to the terms used and the perceptions of the participants regarding these words. Further study needs to explore the perceptions of beginning teachers about certain titles assigned to them and how these perceptions influence their willingness to seek advice and develop supportive relationships with colleagues. Program organizers need to provide opportunities for focusing on the contributions that both mentors and proteges bring to the relationship and encourage the voices of all participants to be heard.

At the beginning of the project, participants should articulate both individual and mutual goals. In order to provide direction and purpose, stakeholders in the mentoring program need to be active participants in determining goals and objectives they perceive to be important. Discussions focused on relationship building and sessions designed to develop more effective and supportive communication skills might help all participants, especially mentors, as they prepare for their roles. Mentors, in particular, need training and ongoing support regarding the process of mentoring. Perhaps a trusted, impartial third party might serve as an important addition to the mentoring program. This person could become a vital link between the mentor and protege, facilitating the development of the relationship by assessing the ongoing needs of both and collaborating with mentors to devise strategies for more effective interactions.

The course of relationship development within each mentoring dyad assumes a unique pattern. Consequently, mentoring programs need to be individualized to fit participants' professional development needs, as well as their personal and professional circumstances. Moreover, nine months may be too short a time frame in which to expect a relationship to solidify. Some pairs need more time to get to know each other and build trust, thereby molding a relationship.

Mentoring programs need to include opportunities for professionals to interact and to dialogue with others in small groups. Discussions such as these provide a venue for an exchange of ideas, assist in clarifying beliefs, and neutralize some of the feelings of isolation experienced by both mentors and proteges. Opportunities to meet with those of similar levels of experience provide an important source of support to both mentors and proteges.

Directions for Future Research

This research has provided insight as to both the benefits and challenges associated with mentoring in early childhood settings. It is widely accepted that mentoring offers an important means for supporting the professional development of teachers. However, few investigations of the actual experiences of participants in such programs currently exist. Additional studies that focus on the activities and perceptions of both mentors and proteges are important if professionals are to realize the maximum benefits of mentoring programs.

Strategies for connecting beginning and experienced teachers, as well as ways of building and nurturing meaningful relationships, warrant further examination. Careful study of mechanisms for appropriately guiding and supporting mentors is needed. Furthermore, how the design of mentoring programs is influenced by factors such as educational background of participants, program types, program size and location, and populations served require thoughtful investigation. In sum, better understanding of the processes by which mentoring affects professionals, as well as the intricacies involved in constructing a framework for mentoring, will allow leaders to organize and implement programs that will strengthen the professional skills of teachers and ultimately enhance classroom practice.

References

Baptiste, N., & Sheerer, M. (1997). Negotiating the challenges of the "survival" stage of professional development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 24(4), 265-267.

Bellm, D., Whitebook, M., & Hnatiuk, P (1997). The early childhood mentoring curriculum. Washington, DC: National Center for the Early Childhood Work Force.

Black, J, & Puckett, M. (1996). The young child: Development from prebirth through age eight (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

David, T. (2000). Teacher mentoring-Benefits all around. Kappa Delta PiRecord, 36(3), 134-136.

Furtwengler, C. (1995). Beginning teachers programs: Analysis of state actions during the reform era. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 3(3), 1-20.

Ganser, T. (1997, April). Promises and pitfalls for mentors of beginning teachers. Paper presented at the Conference on Diversity in Mentoring, Tempe, AZ. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 407 379)

Gaston, J., & Jackson, J. (1998). Mentoring and its implications. (ERIC Reproduction Service no. ED 426 990)

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2000). Mentoring in the new millennium. Theory into Practice, 39(1), 50-56.

Heller, M., & Sindelar, N. (1991). Developing an effective teacher mentoring program: Fastback 319. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Jones, E. (Ed.). (1993). Growing teachers: Partnerships in staff development. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Katz, L. G. (1977). Talks with teachers. Washington, DC: NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children.

Martin, A., & Trueax, J. (1997, July). Transformative dimensions of mentoring: Implications for practice in the training of Early Childhood teachers. Paper presented at the Conference on Education, Beijing, People's Republic of China. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 425 405)

Poelle, L. (1993). I'll visit your class, you visit mine: Experienced teachers as mentors. In E. Jones (Ed.), Growing teachers: Partnerships in staff development (pp. 120-134). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

VanderVen, K. (1994). Professional development: A contextual model. In J. Johnson & J. B. McCracken (Eds.), The early childhood career lattice: Perspectives on professional development (pp. 79-88). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.